[address-policy-wg] Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations

Hi,

On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 12:11:56PM +0300, Petr Umelov wrote:
> As we see some people decided to ignore others who want to tell their opposition opinion and welcome those, who agree. I thought the RIPE NCC is community, expressing all people position. But I was wrong.

In general, we don't ignore voices opposing a proposal.

In this particular case, when we aim to make particular behaviour more
uninteresting, it is expected that people that make a profit from this 
particular behaviour will not like the change - we do hear the arguments,
but "I want to keep doing what the rest of the community considers 
abusive, because I make a profit from it!" is not a very strong argument 
here.

If everyone else would just shrug their shoulders and say "well, we don't
care", such opposition would be sufficient - but if there are strong voices
in favour of going ahead, the WG chairs needs to make a judgement - and we
will, at the end of the review phase, and explain to the group why we 
decided.

Gert Doering
        -- APWG chair
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444           USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 811 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20150427/4a2ff889/attachment.sig>