[address-policy-wg] Re: RIPE Access Policy Change Request to allow allocations to critical infrastructure

>The policy needs to balance everyones needs 

Yes.

>(among that: "little extra routes in the DFZ").

DFZ (default free zone) = global routing table.
If someone can implement a solution by announcing a 
shorter prefix from an existing netblock then there is
nothing that RIPE can do to change the number of routes
in the global routing table.

>The policy does also need very clear-cut criteria to *decide* whether
>something meets the policy or not.  Applying technical criteria is easy
>(easier, at least) than a fuzzy term like "critical infrastructure"
>that mean something different to whoever reads it.

Yes. And a good policy would start by defining the fuzzy term so
that everyone understands the scope of the term when it is used
in the policy.

>Commenting on your first example: for the USA, something might very
>well be a "critical infrastructure", like the US power grid, and *still*
>the rest of the world might not care much if it breaks down... - so
>the definition of "criticial infrastructure" is very much localized and
>fuzzy.

Yes. The word "critical" is a value judgement. Critical Internet 
Infrastructure
is different from Critical National Infrastructure. In the USA they are
focusing on infrastructure that is critical to their nation. We should
look at infrastructure that is critical to the Internet, both globally
and in the RIPE region.

--Michael Dillon