[address-policy-wg] The final /8 policy proposals, part 3.1

On 27 Aug 2009, at 13:12, <michael.dillon at bt.com> wrote:

> The danger lies in inaction, not in making sensible policy.

But what if the sensible policy is to do nothing?

I really can't see why anyone could have reason to intervene in the  
dying days of IPv4 if RIPE is sticking by the long-established  
policies that have served it so well.

IMO the danger lies from inventing new policies -- for the sake of  
being seen to do something it appears -- that may well distort LIR  
behaviour or introduce artificial barriers for new/late entrants.

It's not clear to me what will be gained by having a revised policy  
for allocations once the NCC gets its last /8. So I think it's  
reasonable to ask the proponents of these changes to explain why the  
alterations are better than leaving things as they are. To an extent,  
I'm playing Devil's Advocate. Even so, I would like to be sure we've  
fully considered the implications of whatever policy changes (or none)  
are in front of us.