Re: [address-policy-wg] address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 47, Issue 9
Hi
I would be happy to support returning this proposal to the discussion phase, but only if there are compelling reasons to do so. To date nobody has made the case for taking that action. Although some have asked for this, nobody has put forward anything to justify these requests. The case has not been made yet. It?s up to you and your fellow travellers to make that case.
The problem is: The person who should justify the criticisms, never does! And he is supporting the proposal so that he will never return it to the discussion phase... -- Shahin Gharghi
On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 2:48 PM, Shahin Gharghi <shahin@gharghi.ir> wrote:
Hi
I would be happy to support returning this proposal to the discussion phase, but only if there are compelling reasons to do so. To date nobody has made the case for taking that action. Although some have asked for this, nobody has put forward anything to justify these requests. The case has not been made yet. It?s up to you and your fellow travellers to make that case.
The problem is: The person who should justify the criticisms, never does! And he is supporting the proposal so that he will never return it to the discussion phase...
I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say here. I completely agree that the person(s) who should justify the criticisms, never do(es). One of those persons is *you*. There are no other persons, than the ones who voice the criticism itself, who need to justify that criticism. I, or any other WG member, or WG chair, are in no way obliged to write your justification for you. -- Jan
Hello, WG. I understand you will approve this proposal in any case, you have made a decision in January and should comply with formalities. However I see many companies began to open multi LIR accounts and receive additional allocations. E.g. netname: NL-PCXCOP-20150707 netname: NL-PCXMAD-20150707 netname: DK-BORNFIBER5-20150709 netname: DK-BORNFIBER9-20150709 netname: ES-RULZ2-20150710 netname: ES-RULZ3-20150710 netname: ES-SUNNY2-20150710 netname: ES-SUNNY3-20150710 Traders don't want to lose their profit and will begin to provide services to help open new accounts for the same company and companies will be do it by themselves. Thus IPv4 pool will be exhausted during 1-2 years. I understand the RIPE NCC dislike someone makes profit using RIPE's resources but we should not make emotional decisions. 06.07.2015, 15:49, "Shahin Gharghi" <shahin@gharghi.ir>:
Hi
I would be happy to support returning this proposal to the discussion phase, but only if there are compelling reasons to do so. To date nobody has made the case for taking that action. Although some have asked for this, nobody has put forward anything to justify these requests. The case has not been made yet. It?s up to you and your fellow travellers to make that case.
The problem is: The person who should justify the criticisms, never does! And he is supporting the proposal so that he will never return it to the discussion phase...
-- Shahin Gharghi
-- Kind regards, Petr Umelov
Excuse me. Don't this subject 11.07.2015, 20:28, "Petr Umelov" <petr@fast-telecom.net>:
Hello, WG.
I understand you will approve this proposal in any case, you have made a decision in January and should comply with formalities.
However I see many companies began to open multi LIR accounts and receive additional allocations.
E.g. netname: NL-PCXCOP-20150707 netname: NL-PCXMAD-20150707
netname: DK-BORNFIBER5-20150709 netname: DK-BORNFIBER9-20150709
netname: ES-RULZ2-20150710 netname: ES-RULZ3-20150710
netname: ES-SUNNY2-20150710 netname: ES-SUNNY3-20150710
Traders don't want to lose their profit and will begin to provide services to help open new accounts for the same company and companies will be do it by themselves.
Thus IPv4 pool will be exhausted during 1-2 years.
I understand the RIPE NCC dislike someone makes profit using RIPE's resources but we should not make emotional decisions.
06.07.2015, 15:49, "Shahin Gharghi" <shahin@gharghi.ir>:
Hi
I would be happy to support returning this proposal to the discussion phase, but only if there are compelling reasons to do so. To date nobody has made the case for taking that action. Although some have asked for this, nobody has put forward anything to justify these requests. The case has not been made yet. It?s up to you and your fellow travellers to make that case.
The problem is: The person who should justify the criticisms, never does! And he is supporting the proposal so that he will never return it to the discussion phase...
-- Shahin Gharghi
-- Kind regards, Petr Umelov
-- Kind regards, Petr Umelov
participants (3)
-
Jan Ingvoldstad -
Petr Umelov -
Shahin Gharghi