<html><head><style id="axi-htmleditor-style" type="text/css">p { margin: 0px; }</style></head><body dir="" style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: "Source Sans Pro", sans-serif; background-image: none; background-repeat: repeat; background-attachment: fixed;"><span style="font-size: 13.3333px;">Dropping it might be the best thing:</span><div style="font-size: 13.3333px;"><br></div><div style="font-size: 13.3333px;">The document does not clearly state what the procedure is (binding arbitrage? (the decision leads to a conclusion that might </div><div style="font-size: 13.3333px;">have an effect on the status <span style="font-size: 10pt;">of the LIR involved? (with anonymous 'experts' who act as 'judges' ? (a legal no-no))). </span></div><div style="font-size: 13.3333px;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;"><br></span></div><div style="font-size: 13.3333px;">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 </div><div style="font-size: 13.3333px;">will just incur extra costs. <span style="font-size: 10pt;">(going to civil court is impossible to rule out, anyways). Do the contacts the LIR has with RIPE need </span></div><div style="font-size: 13.3333px;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">to be </span><span style="font-size: 10pt;">amended for this to function ? </span><span style="font-size: 10pt;">(What if the LIRs refuse to sign the new contract, due to this introduced risk)</span></div><div class="x-axi-signature"><br><div class="x-axi-signature" style="; font-size: 10pt; font-family: " source="" sans="" pro",="" sans-serif;"="">-- <div>IDGARA | Alex de Joode | +31651108221</div></div></div><br>On Thu, 05-09-2019 21h 46min, Alex de Joode <adejoode@idgara.nl> wrote:<br><blockquote style="margin-left: 10px; padding-left: 10px; border-left: 1px solid #ccc;"><div style="font-family: 'Source Sans Pro', sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;"><style id="axi-htmleditor-style" type="text/css">p { margin: 0px; }</style>Dropping it might be the best thing:<div><br></div><div>The document does not clearly state what the procedure is (binding arbitrage? (the decision leads to a conclusion that might </div><div>have an effect on the status <span style="font-size: 10pt;">of the LIR involved? (with anonymous 'experts' who act as 'judges' ? (a legal no-no))). </span></div><div><span style="font-size: 10pt;"><br></span></div><div>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 </div><div>will just incur extra costs. <span style="font-size: 10pt;">(going to civil court is impossible to rule out, anyways). Do the contacts the LIR has with RIPE need </span></div><div><span style="font-size: 10pt;">to be </span><span style="font-size: 10pt;">amended for this to function ? </span><span style="font-size: 10pt;">(What if the LIRs refuse to sign the new contract, due to this introduced risk)</span></div><div><br></div><div><div class="x-axi-signature"><div class="x-axi-signature" style="; font-size: 10pt; font-family: " source="" sans="" pro="" serif="">-- <div>IDGARA | Alex de Joode | +31651108221</div></div></div><br>On Thu, 05-09-2019 20h 56min, Erik Bais <erik@bais.name> wrote:<br><blockquote style="margin-left: 10px; padding-left: 10px; border-left: 1px solid #ccc;"><div style="font-family: " source="" sans="" pro="" serif="" font="font" size="" pt="">I fully agree with Nick. <br><br>Drop it like its hot ... <br><br>Erik Bais <br><br>> Op 5 sep. 2019 om 18:15 heeft Nick Hilliard <a href="mailto:<nick@foobar.org>"><nick@foobar.org></a> het volgende geschreven:<br>> <br>> I'd like to suggest to the chairs that this proposal be formally dropped.<br><br></div></blockquote></div></div></blockquote></body></html>