​​Dropping it might be the best thing:

The document does not clearly state what the procedure is (binding arbitrage? (the decision leads to a conclusion that might 
have an effect on the status of the LIR involved? (with anonymous 'experts' who act as 'judges' ? (a legal no-no))). 

The proposal does not rule out the "hijacker" going to civil court if they might lose their LIR status (and IP space), if not RIPE 
will just incur extra costs. (going to civil court is impossible to rule out, anyways). Do the contacts the LIR has with RIPE need 
to be  amended for this to function ?  (What if the LIRs refuse to sign the new contract, due to this introduced risk)

​-- 
IDGARA | Alex de Joode | +31651108221

On Thu, 05-09-2019 21h 46min, Alex de Joode <adejoode@idgara.nl> wrote:
​Dropping it might be the best thing:

The document does not clearly state what the procedure is (binding arbitrage? (the decision leads to a conclusion that might 
have an effect on the status of the LIR involved? (with anonymous 'experts' who act as 'judges' ? (a legal no-no))). 

The proposal does not rule out the "hijacker" going to civil court if they might lose their LIR status (and IP space), if not RIPE 
will just incur extra costs. (going to civil court is impossible to rule out, anyways). Do the contacts the LIR has with RIPE need 
to be  amended for this to function ?  (What if the LIRs refuse to sign the new contract, due to this introduced risk)

​-- 
IDGARA | Alex de Joode | +31651108221

On Thu, 05-09-2019 20h 56min, Erik Bais <erik@bais.name> wrote:
I fully agree with Nick.

Drop it like its hot ...

Erik Bais

> Op 5 sep. 2019 om 18:15 heeft Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> het volgende geschreven:
>
> I'd like to suggest to the chairs that this proposal be formally dropped.