Interesting. Since this policy seems to be saying that it will be legitimate for LIRs to trade addresse blocks, has anyone investigated whether or not restrictions, such as those above, would be considered illegal restraint of trade?
Ultimate acceptance of any policy rests with the RIPE NCC board, who would be consulting counsel on this one, I suspect. Since no one on this list is a lawyer, could we avoid uninformed legal speculation?
In order to make policy we need to know the limits within which we operate. Sometimes that means that we need to consult lawyers before we do things, rather than leaving it all to the RIPE NCC board to clean up later. Please do not make personal attacks on people that you do not know. My question was based on INFORMED legal speculation. I've done a considerable amount of research and thinking about these issues. The policy proposal that we are discussing, wants to make a fundamental change to the character of IP addresses. I think it is a good idea for the whole community, not just the board, to get some expert legal input into the decision making process. As long as IP addresses are not property, we can regulate them strictly and arbitrarily. But if the character of the addresses becomes more property-like, by allowing them to be traded, does this create more limits on what RIPE can do in its policy? As far as I can see, we need expert legal advice to find out the answers to such questions. --Michael Dillon