On 19.03 18:03, Nigel Titley wrote:
michael.dillon@bt.com wrote:
One thing I'm not sure about is this:
LIRs that receive a re-allocation from another LIR cannot re-allocate complete or partial blocks of the same address space to another LIR within 24 months of receiving the re-allocation.
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?
[speaking as a private citizen and not as RIPE NCC staffer] In my reality that is not quite right and it is important to be clear: The policies we re discussing are made by RIPE using its PDP which is described in http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-428.html . There is no direct involvement of the RIPE NCC other than providing support. There is no involvement of the RIPE NCC board other than its members ability to participate in a personal capacity. Once a policy is made which involves implementation by the RIPE NCC, the RIPE NCC and its board have the reponsibility for the implementation and the responsibility to review whether he policy can be implemented in terms of operational resources or other significant concerns such as a policiy's legality or the possibiliy of successful litigation against the RIPE NCC etc. pp. Some recent examples have shown that we may want to amend the PDP to eplicitly include legal and operational reviews by the RIPE NCC at appropriate stages in order to check these things early on rather than after the fact. Personally I am in favour of that. Let us learn the useful things from ARIN's PDP. ;-) However we should be clear that the purview of the RIPE NCC board is the RIPE NCC and that does not include policy development wihtin RIPE. Daniel