[address-policy-wg] Litigation for fun and profit
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Litigation for fun and profit
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
ripe-wgs at radu-adrian.feurdean.net
Sat Apr 16 21:16:34 CEST 2016
On Sat, Apr 16, 2016, at 17:10, Jim Reid wrote: > > > On 16 Apr 2016, at 14:53, Dominik Nowacki <dominik at clouvider.co.uk> wrote: > > > > And such LIR would sue who? Himself? RIPE NCC is not a government body, nor a private company. It's an organisation of members, and such a LIR would have to be a member with set voting rights. You can't really sue for policy changes because you don't like how other, equal members voted. > > They’d start by suing the NCC for implementing a policy which has done > harm to the LIR’s business. If they were vindictive, they’d also go after Here we are in the FUD domain. I think we should not go that way. > the authors of the policy change, the individuals who supported that > policy proposal and those who had a hand in making the consensus > judgement. I, as a proposer would not fear about that. Justice is complex in its own, international justice (neither of the proposers live in UK or NL) is even more complex. > action(s) would get the attention of governments and regulators. That would be Bad. Regulators may end up acting in either direction (for or against). > decisions are made by consensus. NCC members get to vote for board > candidates, the charging scheme and the organisation’s activity plan. And in certain circumstances, on other things....
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Litigation for fun and profit
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]