[address-policy-wg] 2007-08 New Draft Document Published (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources)

Michael and all,

  AgainI fully agree with Michael here....

michael.dillon at bt.com wrote:

> > >    It is contrary to the goals of this document
> > >    and is not in the interests of the Internet
> > >    community as a whole for address space to be
> > >    considered freehold property.
> >
> > Why should an IPv4 policy document take IPv6 policy documents
> > into account?  "Different circumstances".
>
> Same stakeholders. Same organization. And the statement does not
> make any distinction between the two versions of IP.
>
> > > 2007-08 should be rejected because no consensus has been formed and
> >
> > This is exactly the point of a "v3" of this document: take
> > into account previous discussions and comments, and try
> > finding a consensus on the reworked document.
> >
> > The argument "I reject this version because no consensus was
> > formed on a previous version" is not a very useful
> > contribution, in itself - if you have specific issues with
> > *v3* (or your concerns about v1 and v2 are still
> > un-addressed), please voice them.
>
> When there is a huge lack of consensus in favour of a policy
> proposal, that proposal should be abandoned. It goes against
> consensus to continually make small changes to the proposal
> and extend the whole process by months or years. This does not
> help the stakeholders in RIPE and I do not believe that this
> is what people expect from the WG chairs.
>
> But you asked for specific issues. Let's start with ETNO's
> concerns that a transfer system cannot ensure a process that
> is open, transparent and equitable. By opening the door to
> private negotiations and agreements between LIR's, you will
> have destroyed the very foundation of RIPE, which is openness,
> transparency and fairness.
>
> Eric Schmidt feels that transfers open up more possibilities
> for abuse. This is what happens when you allow for secret
> agreements.
>
> Jay Daley says that reclaim/reuse could be more efficient than
> transfers. This is quite likely when you consider that the entire
> free pool must be in RIPE's hands, therefore there is the greatest
> possibility of aggregation of blocks, by rejecting 2007-08 and
> keeping the current system.
>
> Per Heldal mentions legal implications for RIPE. Clearly one of
> those is the conflict between the statement of principle in the
> IPv6 policy, and the enabling of transfers for IPv4. How will the
> courts react to numbers which are freehold property, and others
> which are not?
>
> Edited versions of the policy proposal cannot fix these issues.
>
> --Michael Dillon
>

Regards,

Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
   Abraham Lincoln

"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is
very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS.
div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail
jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com
My Phone: 214-244-4827