[address-policy-wg] A comment on 2008-03 & 2007-09

David.

You didn't answer my question.
My point is that not having a policy of this kind 
would be very problematic at the time of 
allocating the last part of the pool. It is not 
necessarily a question of fairness but certainty 
in how much space the RIR will have since a 
certain moment to the end of IPv4 space. Is this 
the right policy, I don't know, the community has 
to say that. In ARIN and LACNIC the policy has 
received enough support and it is in the end of the process.

I would not like to make more opinions about the 
policy itself until the process is finished in 
LACNIC region, but let me say that the rest of 
your arguments are based in assumptions that are 
not proven and are questionable.

Raúl


At 05:43 p.m. 30/05/2008, David Conrad wrote:
>Raul,
>
>On May 30, 2008, at 12:25 PM, Raul Echeberria wrote:
>>My comment was in the sense of comparing the scenario with the
>>policy approved vs. the scenario without this policy.
>
>The situations aren't analogous.  There is only one IANA from which
>the RIRs obtain addresses.  There are 5 RIRs and there are many
>organizations which obtain addresses from more than one RIR.  For
>example, if a service provider in Europe were to establish a legal
>presence in (say) Namibia and request address space, what restrictions
>would be placed upon the announcement of that address space and how
>would AfriNIC enforce those restrictions (or even determine they were
>being violated)?
>
>The point is that I view Tony's proposal as an attempt to
>pragmatically deal with the reality that businesses are likely going
>to do what they can to ensure they meet customer requirements,
>regardless of the arbitrary geographical monopolies put in place when
>there was more address space than people could count.  Questions of
>"fairness" get extremely complex when you get into resource scarcity
>(e.g., fair to whom?  Will it be fair that a charity NGO based in
>Geneva will be unable to get any address space whereas DeBeers will be
>able to get as much as they desire?) and I personally think it naive
>to assume that the folks with money aren't going to be able to get
>what they want, regardless of "set asides"...
>
>Regards,
>-drc
>
>
>--
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.524 / Virus 
>Database: 269.24.4/1474 - Release Date: 30/05/2008 07:44 a.m.