This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/address-policy-wg@ripe.net/
[address-policy-wg] 2015-04 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (RIPE Resource Transfer Policies)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-04 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (RIPE Resource Transfer Policies)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-04 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (RIPE Resource Transfer Policies)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Ciprian Nica
office at ip-broker.uk
Fri Oct 21 14:24:20 CEST 2016
On Friday, October 21, 2016, Havard Eidnes <he at uninett.no> wrote: > >> You conveniently side-stepped answering the case I described. Note > >> that I wrote "*solely* for the purpose of of getting a /22...". In > >> that case there would be no customers to move or networks to merge. I > >> would say it is incumbent upon you to justify that we should keep this > >> loophole as wide as a truck in the policy. > >> > >> The 24-month holding period puts a damper on this avenue of abuse > >> against the intention of the last /8 policy, and would put a little > >> bit more longevity into the availability of the resources under that > >> policy. It may be that this diminishes your company's prospects of > >> near-future income, to which I would say that basing your buisness on > >> the abuse of something which is perceived as a common resource is > >> perhaps not worthy of so much sympathy? > > > > Again, unfounded personal attacks. > > Please read that again. > > I said "It may be..." (last paragraph above). > > That means inducing ideas and it's an accusation. > > Why do you have to analyze the person and not the idea. > > The idea I beleive is section 2.2 in the 2015-04 proposal. > I beleive I have argued for its presence, by describing the abuse > against the last /8 policy we'd otherwise be widely open to. > > > Who gives you the right to accuse make such allegations and > > what is the purpose of this? Have I taken advantage of a > > loophole? > > I beleive that if you read what I wrote earlier more carefully, > you would come to the conclusion that I have not made such a > claim. > > However, you're strongly defending the continued presence of a > loophole in the policy as wide as a truck, permitting behaviour > such as described earlier. I'd say it falls upon you to justify > why we should let status quo continue, where the stated intention > of the last /8 policy is widely open for ... circumvention. > > You made remarks specifically to me and my company. I have explained why I don't support this policy. If you notice a problem and want to fix it the process is to make a proposal and we debate it. But using a policy that is intended to do something and "fix" something else doesn't seem at least appropriate. And if I don't like Hillary it doesn't mean I support Trump. It's not always black and white, therefore please don't reach conclusions regarding me and my company only based on my opinions. I'm sure that I'm not always right but I'm sure that I express exactly what I think all the time. Ciprian -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20161021/35c36848/attachment.html>
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-04 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (RIPE Resource Transfer Policies)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-04 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (RIPE Resource Transfer Policies)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]