[address-policy-wg] [policy-announce] 2012-04 New Draft Document Published (PI Assignments from the last /8)

Gert Doering wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 05:40:47PM +0200, Erik Bais wrote:
[...]
>>In the current form I do not agree with the proposal.

Let me chime in here with the same statement, but emphasising the *in the
current form* and let me add *in the current IPv4 policy framework/environment*

> Noted, and we might want your input in wording this accordingly, if
> this is the compromise we can eventually agree on :-)

Here's _my_ reasoning:

- in priciple I do see the arguments in favour and I tend to sympathise with
  them, because this would - potentially - remove an "unfair" imbalance, and
  there were substantial discussions already towards removing the distinction
  between PA and PI.

but

- as the proposal is worded right now, we would add more "special cases" and,
  as it was pointed out already, financial uncertainties or new and creative,
  business incentives.

- if my information is correct, then addresses from the L/8 would *not* be
  restricted when it comes to transfers! This may just add inentives to grab
  addresses from the L/8 and sell^Wtansfer others from one's pool.
  [ Btw. this issue is already there, without 2012-04 passing. ]

> The whole wording surrounding the "last /8" policy in the current documents
> has caused quite a bit of confusion in the past - but indeed it was agreed
> by the WG that as soon as this policy goes into effect, it's lasting, and 
> "the last /8" will be "all of it, after the threshold has been crossed
> once"...

- exactly, and as I was already chastised for pointing out some of the omissions,
  imbalances and weirdnesses of the already existing policies (in a different
  discussion thread), while the substrate and the interpretation or validity of
  the "original intents" is not stable,

> Gert Doering
>         -- APWG chair

I do not see any other option for me than stating my *non-support* for this proposal.

Going forward with this one, without amending some others at the same time, would
just make the patchwork system approach worse and put us deeper into the ditch.

I would be more than happy to change my position, as soon as there is a holistic
attempt to improve the overall consitency of the different (existing) policies
and the concurrently active proposals.

Wilfried