As I have mentioned before, getting a /22 only to sell it after a couple weeks shows that it was only requested in order to make some money and not for a real need. It's a small glitch that many took advantage of. Also the merger & acquisition policy at that time suited your interests very well but that's neither important.

What raises a question is the fact that you say you treat opinions based on the person that issues that opinion and not just the idea and that you induce the idea that a minority's voice should be ignored because it's obvious a minority would just oppose the majority. These are the problems that need to be dealt with. I will never support discrimination based on appartenance to a minority or personal feelings based on previous experience.

Yes, start praising people if that's the purpose of this list. Hitler was also a very praised man. Let's stop with the personal feelings between us and discuss the ideas which are the important ones. I will not bring into discussion the "petty crime" that you did by taking advantage of the policies and putting aside a /22 from the last /8. It was wrong of me to mention it and it really is not important at all.

Ciprian


On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 2:59 PM, Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:
Hi,

On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 02:34:40PM +0300, Ciprian Nica wrote:
> It's a simple question from a member of the community to one of the WG
> Chairs: did you abuse the last /8 or not ? Do you consider yourself a
> neutral arbitrer or not ? Do you consider yourself the one that should be
> judging others ? Or is it your "job" to shut the voices that are not
> according to your interests ?

Since you insist on riding that horse, I can no longer ignore it - so
you'll have your answer.  On record.

Yes, one of the LIRs that I represent in RIPE member issues (de.space)
is holding two /22s out of 185/8.  The second /22 came into this LIR
together with two /19s, some equipment, an extra employee, and a number
of customers when we acquired a smaller regional ISP in 2014.

As per community policy, this is well within letter and *spirit* of the
policy - the LIR acquired was not "set up to get a /22 and be bought"
(it existed for some 15 years), it was providing ISP services, and
there were reasons that do not need to be disclosed that the owners wanted
to sell it, which had nothing to do with IP addresses.  The acquisition
went through the regular M&A process with the RIPE NCC, and all documents
were properly scrutinized (and I can tell stories how much detail the
NCC will check, and how much paperwork is involved).


Does the number of IP addresses one of the LIRs I can represent hold
have any relevance on my serving as WG chair?  No.


Am I neutral regarding address policy?  Well, I do my best.

Sometimes this is not easy, as I do have strong concerns for the well-being
of the Internet globally and in the RIPE region - but this is why there
is two chairs here: Sander will double-check every decision made, and
everything is public anyway.  Summaries are written for a reason, and
decisions are based *on posts on the list*, so it does not really matter
how neutral I am, as everything is public, and you can double-check the
conclusions (and possible call up the arbitration procedure).


So, yes, I consider myself still suitable as a WG chair for the address
policy WG.

Gert Doering
        -- APWG chair
--
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444           USt-IdNr.: DE813185279