* Sascha Luck [ml] <apwg@c4inet.net> [2015-06-09 13:18]:
Also, if this policy will be adopted, it is my opinion that it should be enforced on the /22s allocated after the adoption of this policy. Otherwise, from my point of view, it would be a "change of the rules during the game" and it would have retroactive effects - which is not ok.
This is also the (only) reason why I oppose this proposal. It sets a precedent for ex post facto rule changes which is, IMO, dangerous, especially in light of other appetites for stricter IPv4 rationing that have been voiced in this discussion.
This policy does not change anything in regarding to the IP objects. It changes the transfer requirements. A transfer that has *not yet happend* can not be affected "ex post facto". What you're postulating is something like "I should not have to go to jail for theft because theft was legal when I was born." No, you will go to jail if you steal something after theft was made illegal. So stop doing it and you're fine. Regards Sebastian -- GPG Key: 0x93A0B9CE (F4F6 B1A3 866B 26E9 450A 9D82 58A2 D94A 93A0 B9CE) 'Are you Death?' ... IT'S THE SCYTHE, ISN'T IT? PEOPLE ALWAYS NOTICE THE SCYTHE. -- Terry Pratchett, The Fifth Elephant