On 8/16/13 17:32 , Tore Anderson wrote:
* David Farmer
I support the intent of the proposal, there are situations where it seems reasonable to allow transfers of blocks with end users in them, and the current blanket exclusion prevents this.
+1
However, I also support the original intent of the language that would be removed. I believe the intent of the original language was to prevent an LIR selling off a block that has active End Users in it, at least without notice or consent, etc...
For the example case given in the proposal, it seems that consent should be readily obtainable. So, would a better solution be to add "without consent of the End User(s)" to the current text. This provides flexibility without abandoning the protection the current text provides to End Users.
I don't see how this "protection" works in practise?
If an LIR wants to get out of the internet registry business and sell off its allocations, it can always just purge them of assignments first (even with your requirement in place). The End Users probably won't be very pleased about being kicked out on the street so to speak, but c'est la vie...
If you really think it is OK for an LIR to drop an End User's assignments when every they want to, then why isn't it OK for RIPE to drop an LIR's allocations and auction them off to the highest bidders? C'est la vie and what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander too. Societal rules of conduct don't usually prevent anyone from breaking them, and many times people aren't directly punished for breaking these rules, but that doesn't mean society is a better place without such rules. Thank you, -- ================================================ David Farmer Email: farmer@umn.edu Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 1-612-626-0815 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 1-612-812-9952 ================================================