> On 16 Apr 2016, at 14:53, Dominik Nowacki <[email protected]> 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 the authors of the policy change, the individuals who supported that policy proposal and those who had a hand in making the consensus judgement. Whether these hypothetical actions might be ultimately successful or not is irrelevant. [FWIW there’s no point debating here how many lawyers can dance on the head of this pin. It’s also a side issue compared to the main problems raised by 2015-05.] However the stink arising from such action(s) would get the attention of governments and regulators. That would be Bad. Defending these lawsuits would not be cheap either. BTW, nobody “votes” on address policy. That’s decided by the RIPE community. Which is not the same thing as the RIPE NCC membership. RIPE’s decisions are made by consensus. NCC members get to vote for board candidates, the charging scheme and the organisation’s activity plan. Anyone can take part in RIPE policy-making. They don’t have to be a RIPE NCC member.
