* Elvis Daniel Velea <[email protected]> > Additionally, it would still apply retroactively and people which since > 2012 until 'yesterday' were allocated PA/transferable IPs (2 years after > the moment of the allocation) will end up with an allocation that is no > longer transferable.
Elvis, while there are valid arguments against this proposal, this is not one of them. If it was, then we could essentially just disband the AP-GW as pretty much every single policy proposal ever made would "apply retroactively". Including the ones that made various forms of transfers possible in the first place; suddenly, many old non-transferable blocks were "retroactively" changed to become transferable. Note that the RIPE NCC SSA says: > Article 6 – Compliance > > 6.1 The Member acknowledges applicability of, and adheres to, the RIPE > Policies and RIPE NCC procedural documents. The RIPE Policies and the > RIPE NCC procedural documents are publicly available from the RIPE NCC > Document Store. These documents, which may be revised and updated from > time to time, form an integral part of and apply fully to the RIPE NCC > Standard Service Agreement. A member who believes that transferability is an immutable and everlasting property of address space has not read what they've signed. If this proposal truly "applied retroactively" with regards to transfers, it would have had to annul all the transfers *made prior to its adoption* and stated the previously transferred address space was to be forcibly returned to its original holder or the NCC. > I do not like policy proposals that apply retroactively Uhm, so what about your 2015-01 proposal then? That one "applied retroactively" no less than this one. Anyway. I withdraw my earlier objection to 2016-03. I'm not at all convinced it's a good idea or worth the trouble, but if the community really wants to go down this road I won't try to block the path. Consider me neutral/abstaining. Tore
