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

Hi,

On 02 Aug 2013, at 11:56, Tore Anderson <tore at fud.no> wrote:

> * 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.
> 

Tore, i do not see how it remains.

I gave the example of two new members getting each a /22 if your proposal gets accepted before:

One is requesting it to use it on a network soon.

The other is requesting it to sell it in 24 months because they cannot sell it before - your proposal leaves this requirement.

I dont think this is fair and this will happen if NCC does not ask for justification for need or some word on that a network exists for the IPs to be used on. 

> 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 LIRs' bureaucratic overhead and to clean up old and out of date policy text.
> 

I agree with the parts of your proposal that are removing the overhead on LIR level. 

But I do not see it is much of an overhead to be able to say "i need a last /22 because of this network here.."

> Would such an amendment make the proposal more appealing or at least
> acceptable to you? If not, what else is needed?

Pls see above and few previous mails. Before NCC really runs out and still providing "allocations" I advocate for keeping the justification for need or some kind of commitment from the requester that the space is to be used on a network shortly and not to be sold to a 3rd party. 

I am happy if the secondary market brings already allocated space to those who need it. But the space that NCC still holds should goto those in need, not to an organisation to sell it to the one in need.

Again, I am fine with the other cleanup your proposal is doing: removal of txt on AWs, further allocations etc..

> As Gert mentioned
> earlier, changing the proposal text at this stage of the PDP isn't a
> trivial thing to do,

I should have missed this but as far as i know a review phase can be repeated or extended with an updated text. 

Happy to see the new text. 

And for those who find some of the feedback frustrating - as the word keeps coming up and being used here and there... 

Well, welcome to a bottom-up process. Ideas and perspectives vary, we have the process in place to hear all those ideas so nobody here is to be hushed or discouraged to speak.

From my point of view, there had been views here that I do not fully agree but I encourage them too, because an open discussion for these issues is the right tool and this is what PDP is for.


Filiz


> 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