<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><br class=""><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Dec 7, 2021, at 11:53 AM, denis walker <<a href="mailto:ripedenis@gmail.com" class="">ripedenis@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><div class=""><div class=""><br class="">I am going to go one step further than Gert's proposal. Let's suspend<br class="">the current policy pending a review. In other words, freeze the<br class="">allocation of /24s. I am sure there is nothing in the PDP or anywhere<br class="">else that allows for this. But there probably is nothing that<br class="">disallows it either. Again let's have a legal review and take bold<br class="">action.<br class=""><br class=""></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div><br class=""></div><div>I’m not going to speculate on whether or not this is warranted in this particular case - I won’t claim to have the deep understanding necessary - I will note that there is precedent for this; this course of action is functionally identical to the emergency policy that the ARIN Board Of Trustees put into place in February 2019 that suspended waiting list allocations in the region, as a direct result of the waiting list abuse discovered which seems very similar to the abuse being alleged in this thread. <a href="https://www.arin.net/vault/announcements/2019/20190207_waitlist.html" class="">https://www.arin.net/vault/announcements/2019/20190207_waitlist.html</a></div><div><br class=""></div><div>That said, the current RIPE waiting list policy seems very similar to the policy that ARIN put into place when reverting the suspension, except for a shorter transfer suspension window (24 months as opposed to ARIN’s 5 year restriction on waiting list resources). So it’s not clear if further policy restrictions would solve this problem, as opposed to active investigation of request patterns that appear suspicious when held up to scrutiny. </div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class="">I am probably going to get hammered for saying all this, but sometimes<br class="">we need to make bold moves and set new precedences...<br class=""><br class=""></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div>Ideally, sufficient scrutinization of waiting list requests could result in the exposure of abusive patterns and bad actors, similar to the scrutiny that led to the discovery of the Micfo fraud. But that’s like saying that that we should have zero crime in a city because we have a police department.</div><div><br class=""></div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class="">cheers<br class="">denis<br class="">co-chair DB-WG<br class=""><br class=""></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div>Thanks,</div><div><br class=""></div><div>-Chris</div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class="">-- <br class=""><br class="">To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: <a href="https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/address-policy-wg" class="">https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/address-policy-wg</a><br class=""></div></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></body></html>