[address-policy-wg] The final /8 policy proposals, part 3

> > Instead, let's push this EXTRAORDINARY decision making into 
> the future 
> > where it belongs, at the time when the EXTRAORDINARY event takes 
> > place.
> 
> I STRONGLY disgaree with this.
> 
> It will be very unwise -- I'm being charitable here -- to 
> postpone this fundamentally crucial policy discussion until 
> the extraordinary event occurs.

You missed the bit about gathering some data which could be
used to make the decision. Do you think it is wise to decide
now, without knowing what the RIPE monthly run-rate is or when
RIPE's address supply is projected to runout?

> First of all, there is the potential for all sorts of trouble 
> if RIPE tries to invent and then introduce new policies at 
> that critical point. 

If RIPE makes new policy NOW that delays decisionmaking until
a future event occurs, then there will be no need to invent and
introduce new policies in the future. In particular, if we all
agree now that it is most fair for the last /8 to be allocated
in a way that the recipients of it all run out at roughly the
same time, and that agreement sticks over the next couple of
years until the event happens, then there is no invention
happening in the future, just execution of the plan.

In addition, I suggest that the allocation of RIPE's IPv4 inventory
after IANA runout, should be confirmed by a general meeting
which seems to me to be a very fair and open way to do this.

> Obvious examples of this trouble include 
> regulatory interventions, lawsuits, investigations by 
> competition authorities and so on. At the point where IANA v4 
> runs out, expect everyone, particularly lawyers and 
> governments, to take a much, much closer interest in IP 
> addressing and how it's co-ordinated.] 

Precisely. This scrutiny will happen regardless of what RIPE
policies are in place. It is for this reason that I am suggesting
that the policy for IPv4 allocation after IANA runout, should be
done in an even more transparent way than normally. For instance
all LIRs lay their cards on the table for all to see by submitting
IPv4 requests which are published before a general meeting decides
how much to give everyone. IPv4 runout is not business as usual
and I believe that it makes sense to handle it as the extraordinary
event that it is.

> Secondly, it's extremely unlikely a consensus on how to 
> manage those dwindling v4 addresses could emerge at that 
> point. 

I believe that RIPE meetings do not make decisions by 
consensus which is why I proposed this route.

> When the SS IPv4 starts to sink, the prospect of a 
> reasoned discussion reaching an agreed conclusion about who 
> does and doesn't get space on the lifeboats which can't 
> accommodate everyone don't look good. 

How do you know? We have no crystal balls to predict the future.
Why do we need to decide this today, when there is little motivation
to reach a decision and not enough information available to make
a decision. For instance we do not know what will be the market 
penetration of IPv6 at the point of IANA runout. 

> Finally, and perhaps most importantly, if policy making about 
> the last /8 is to be postponed until that event, it's 
> doubtful that a consensus could be reached in time to make a 
> difference.

You missed the part where I said that we change RIPE policy so
that when IANA allocates the final /8, RIPE ceases all IPv4 
allocation activity under the old rules, and invokes the new
ones. No consensus is needed, just execution of the plan and
a decision at the EXTRAORDINARY general meeting.

> Carving up the remaining IPv4 space is already controversial. 
> After this extraordinary event occurs, will the controversy 
> level be lower, about the same or higher?

Higher. Which is why we need to change policy today so that
after IANA runout, a decision will be made by a more efficient
method.

--Michael Dillon