It is not only address policy they can veto. Correct me if I am mistaken, but
I understood they can veto any policy they don't like. The internet is critical
infrastructure that impacts the lives of almost every human on the planet (and
non human lives). It is an essential tool but cyberspace is also a dangerous
world. We should not have a group of untouchables in a system based on
cooperation and consensus.
"Either way it's irrelevant because it's not really possible to back out of
this sort of policy arrangement.
The most sensible approach in the circumstances is leave it and move on."
This attitude will not work indefinitely. At some point legislators will step
in. When you have the power to impose rules you don't need a time machine.
cheersdenis
On Wednesday, 21 October 2020, 13:16:35 CEST, Nick Hilliard
<[email protected]> wrote:
Jim Reid wrote on 21/10/2020 09:32:
> Fair enough Shane. [Though I don’t agree legacy space is/was a
> mistake.] However nobody can rewind history. So until someone invents
> time travel, we just have to live with what you think was a mistake.
more to the point, the legacy policy resources document says that if
RIPE community policy is created or updated, it only applies to legacy
address space if the policy says so explicitly.
The consequence of this is that legacy address holders can easily veto
any future changes to legacy address policy that they don't like.
Some people think this is a great idea; other don't and feel this was a
mistake. Either way it's irrelevant because it's not really possible to
back out of this sort of policy arrangement.
The most sensible approach in the circumstances is leave it and move on.
Nick
