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

On 25 Aug 2009, at 10:48, <michael.dillon at bt.com> wrote:
> You missed the bit about gathering some data which could be
> used to make the decision.

I've re-read your message and still can't find the bit where you  
clearly say when this data gathering and analysis would be done or  
when informed policy making based on that analysis would take place.  
The last paragraph in your email left me to conclude you suggested  
doing this later. I quote:
>
>> Let's not try to decide exactly what to do today, when we lack
>> information. Instead, let's push this EXTRAORDINARY decision making  
>> into the future where it belongs, at the time when the  
>> EXTRAORDINARY event takes place.

Oh well...

> 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?

My personal opinion, for what it's worth, is we continue with the  
current policies for IPv4 until the NCC has no more left. There  
doesn't seem much point or benefit from tinkering at the margins. I  
can't see policy changes resulting in a fairer or improved allocation  
of the remaining space: for some definitions of fair and improve. And  
as my previous message pointed out, I think there are a number of  
risks in deviating from those policies when the crunch points are just  
around the corner.

> 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.

No, it's not a fair or open way to do that. [What about those who  
can't physically get to the meeting? Web/phone participation doesn't  
count. Who gets to vote?] It's also incompatible with the current  
Policy Development Process which is based on list-driven, bottom-up  
consensus.

>> 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
>> 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.

True. However human nature tells us we can expect an "every man for  
themself" attitude in such scenarios. IIUC game theory and behavioural  
economics indicate that approach works best for the individual but  
worst for the group in these scenarios.

> 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.

IMO this is another reason for not even trying to make a decision. The  
current policy isn't broken and doesn't need fixing. And any tinkering  
to accommodate scenarios just before or after run-out are not going to  
make a significant difference. Even if they could take account of all  
the other imponderables like the then state of IPv6 penetration that  
you rightly point out can't be predicted. So why bother?

>> 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.

I'm glad we agree about something Michael. :-)

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

IMO it's going to be impossible to come up with a definition of  
efficient for this scenario that (a) gets consensus; (b) is meaningful  
for the last days of v4.