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

* Nick Hilliard

>> «4. In order to qualify for receiving the allocation, the LIR must 
>> state an intent to use it for making assignments to one or more
>> End Users.»
> 
> I may be wrong, but this seems to be quite a substantial shift away 
> from v1 and v2.  The previous two versions completely removed any 
> requirement for stated intent, but this change would partially bring 
> it back.  This isn't a complaint, btw - just an observation.

If you "zoom in" on the last /8 policy, I suppose you could say that.

On the other hand, changing the last /8 policy isn't an objective of
2013-03. v1 and v2 only did so via a layer of indirection; the "need"
requirement isn't part of the last /8 policy, but the "pre-depletion"
policy, which the last /8 policy in turn partially "imports". So when
2013-03 cleaned away the "pre-depletion" policy, this had some
ramifications on the last /8 policy too.

(When writing the proposal I didn't see these ramifications as
problematic because, from a practical point of view, the remaining "need
requirement" is just a formality that anyone could satisfy.)

The main objectives of 2013-03 is to reduce LIR/EU bureaucracy and clean
away obsoleted policy, and the above statement doesn't run counter to
this. So when looking at the proposal as a whole, the change wouldn't be
a "significant shift", IMHO.

> As an aside, I don't think it will make too much practical difference
> whether this statement is included or not, at least from the point of
> view of speculation.  The language is vague enough that any
> respectable lawyer could easily side-step it.

Fully agreed, it would be trivial for an LIR to side-step the
requirement if it runs counter to their ulterior motives for obtaining
the /22. But then again, the same is true for today's policy.

As I understood Filiz and Malcom, it would be more about "sending a
message" than anything else. Not only to the applicant LIR, but also
something the NCC could use to counter hostile arguments from the
ITU/governments. Both of which is fine by me.

> If the intent is to ensure that the LIR transferee makes the
> assignments, then the language could be tightened up.

Definitively not the intention. Anyone wanting to transform the NCC into
an enforcing "IPv4 Police" will have to make their own proposal to that
effect.

Tore