[address-policy-wg] 2013-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and Clean up)

* Filiz Yilmaz

> Scarcity (remember the switch from classful delegations to CIDR…) had
> been a (maybe perceived) issue in the past too. Basically we dealt
> with it by putting our trust on the RIRs that they would ensure that
> through policies which bared "justification of the need".
> 
> In other words, this was always the case, RIRs had been made the
> judge of this "fairness" through their community built policies.
> 
> Now the real problem here 2013-03 is suggesting to remove this
> judgement of fairness role from the RIPE NCC in the RIPE region, by
> removing the justification of need from the policy, without coming up
> with a real alternative, while obviously sense of fairness is still
> important to various members.

The relevant community built policy that defines "fairness" at this
point in time is the "last /8 policy", with its strict "one /22 per
applicant" rationing. This does not go away with 2013-03, so in
pragmatical terms, the implementation of "fairness" would remain.

The stated philosophical goal of fairness does go away with the current
version of 2013-03 though, as Malcom identified. While I think this
makes little *practical* difference as long as the "last /8 policy"
remains, I concede that on a philosophical level it could be considered
problematic to remove the explicit fairness objective from the policy.

This is why I have suggested to roll a new version of the proposal that
would leave the fairness goal intact. This way we can maintain both the
philosophical objective of fairness and the actual implementation of it,
without conflicting with 2013-03's main goals which is to remove the
LIRs' bureaucratic overhead and to clean up old and out of date policy text.

Would such an amendment make the proposal more appealing or at least
acceptable to you? If not, what else is needed? As Gert mentioned
earlier, changing the proposal text at this stage of the PDP isn't a
trivial thing to do, but if it turns out to be unavoidable, I would at
the very least want to avoid having to do it more than once.

Best regards,
Tore Anderson