[address-policy-wg] Policy proposal 2009-01

On 13 apr 2010, at 15.31, Nigel Titley wrote:

> Folks,
> 
> As one of the authors of this proposal I'd like to get some sort of
> consensus together in the RIPE region so that we can move forward.
> 
> All other regions have reached consensus and we are the last to do so.
> 
> All other regions with the exception of Arin have adopted the policy in
> it's original form. Arin has modified the policy to remove the mandatory
> return of recovered address space to IANA, which effectively makes it a
> different policy. 2009-01 is a global policy which means that the same
> policy has to be agreed in all regions, so to all practical purposes it
> is doomed already. However, we still need to decide what to do with it
> in the RIPE region. To my mind there are four possibilities:
> 
> 1. We adopt it in its original form thus demonstrating solidarity with
> the other regions, apart from Arin.
> 
> 2. We adopt the Arin form of the proposal, thus demonstrating solidarity
> with Arin, but with no one else
> 
> 3. We reject the proposal outright, thus demonstrating that we can't
> make up our minds or that we think it will never work, or something...
> 
> 4. We ask the regional authors (in this case myself and Axel) to
> withdraw the proposal in this region.
> 
> Some background may be helpful here. No one seriously expected that any
> address space would actually be returned as a result of this policy. It
> was intended as a statement that should IPv4 address space become
> available then it would be used for the greater good of all the
> registries rather than those who had already had the majority of the
> space already. I realise that this was a rather pious hope, but we felt
> that it was worth making a statement about. 
> 
> The Arin region's position has made it impossible to make this statement
> globally, but we still have the opportunity to make it here. I would
> like to solicit the opinions of this working group in order to try and
> put the matter to bed once and for all.
> 
> I realise I'm making rather contentious statements here, but I'm hoping
> to provoke a bit of discussion. Please can the working group indicate
> how they would like to move this forward.

My highly personal opinion is that the proposal has merit so should therefor go forward. That said, as long as there is not global acceptation the policy will not apply - which is a shame but protect the rest of us from potentially returning space to IANA just to see it reallocated to ARIN...

Best regards,

- kurtis -




-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 194 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20100414/7d915ba4/attachment.sig>