[address-policy-wg] Re: [policy-announce] 2006-02 New Policy Proposal (IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy)

> Oh I could do that. But then... What the hell are policies for 
> anyway! That's the scope of this thread really. 

Policies are there to guide RIPE members and RIPE
NCC employees. If you read RIPE-267 it says:

   d) have a plan for making at least 200 /48 
      assignments to other organisations within 
      two years.

It doesn't say that you follow the plan exactly
or the addresses will be taken away. It does not
say that you forever give up your rights to change
your plans. It does not say that the plan must
be accomplished without setting up new business
units. It does not require you to spend a specific
amount of money implementing your plan. It does not
tell you that you must have assigned 100 of those
/48s by the end of the next year.

This policy seems to have triggered something in
our human psychology because many people in many 
countries have reacted to this wording like you
have. For some reason, almost everyone who reads
this policy believes that it contains requirements
which are not written there.

For that reason alone, it should be changed. Criteria
a), b), and c) really are good enough reason to give
an IPv6 /32 to an LIR.

But, we are talking about 2006-2 which also changes
the text of b) and  c):

a) be an LIR 
b) plan to provide IPv6 connectivity to other organisations 
   or to its own/related departments/entities/sites to 
   which it will assign /48s by advertising that 
   connectivity through a single aggregated address allocation 

and 

c) have a plan for making a reasonable number of /48 
   assignments within two years 

It seems like a reasonable change to me.

--Michael Dillon