[address-policy-wg] 2007-08 Review Period extended until 9 July 2008 (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources)

On Thu, 2008-07-10 at 16:26 +0200, Remco van Mook wrote:

> Per Heldal:
> http://www.ripe.net/ripe/maillists/archives/address-policy-wg/2008/msg00
> 354.html
> - Keep demonstrated need criteria for address space by receiving LIR
> 
> Fundamentally - what is more important? Keeping an accurate and usable
> database or setting limits to what people can and can not do without
> enforcement options? (One of the very few sticks the NCC currently has
> is denying people more allocations - if there's none more to be handed
> out, what do you expect to happen ?) I'm not averse to extra limitations
> in transferring space, what I DO disagree with is adding them to this
> current proposal. Time is not on our side.

Current policies only work because there's a carrot associated with good
behaviour (allocations). When there is no more carrots there's no point
trying to make any kind of rules unless we're prepared (technically and
legally) to enforce them. Thus 2007-08 is pointless. We could just as
well turn RIPE's IPv4 WHOIS registry into some kind of best-effort-run
self-service-robot. All that remains is a requirement to be able to
identify the user of any address-resources that IANA has allocated to
RIPE.


> 
> - Legal implications for RIPE NCC
> 
> Anything we do, including doing nothing, has potential legal
> implications.
> 
> - Viable plans for reclaiming space to continue with current policies
> for a
>   significant time?
> 
> The one viable plan I can come up with is to have ICANN buy back a lot
> of space using the money they got from opening the DNS root :) No
> transfer, reclaim or other policy can replace the global free pool as a
> sufficient resource for new allocations.
> 

What I meant was to obtain reasonably reliable numbers which show how
much address-space might become available for re-use given various
schemes and/or pricing. I.e. for the RIRs to perform surveys towards
existing LIRs and known legacy-allocation-holders as businesses analyse
their markets. Policies and work to deal with a transfer-market is a
waste of time and resources unless numbers are significant. Growth is
king, and if v4 can't provide for growth it'll go elsewhere.


> - Possiblity of setting up LIRs for hoarding
> 
> Is possible and viable today. Everyone can set up an LIR and get an
> initial allocation at the very least. RIPE NCC has very interesting
> presentations every meeting about the growth in membership.
> 

Except the suggested policy explicitly removes any regulation on the
receiving LIR. Now you can't just get an initial allocation, but have
the blessing to acquire 1000s with no questions asked until the existing
requirements to document continued need of current blocks kicks in. Do
you expect the NCC to go after those in retrospect, and that it will
easier to enforce than a requirement to document need-for-space prior to
the acquisition?


Finally; if there's no penalty for breaking the rules, nor a significant
reward for good behaviour, why bother to make rules at all? 


//per