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

On 8/1/13 12:27 , Tore Anderson wrote:
> * Nick Hilliard
>
>> On 01/08/2013 07:38, Tore Anderson wrote:
>>> «Fair use: Public IPv4 address space must be fairly distributed to the
>>> End Users operating networks.»
>>
>> can you define "fair"?

I believe the primary definition of fairness the RIR communities have 
been using is, "only those that have *verified operational need* get 
Internet number resources".

> Well *that* is the million dollar question, isn't it. In a state of
> scarcity, what is "fair"?

Furthermore, I believe that now that everyone's operational need can no 
longer be meet, a state of scarcity, that fairness is doubly important. 
  How does verified operational need provide fairness in a state of 
scarcity?  If someone without verified operational need were to receive 
Internet number resources, presumably through a transfer, and you have 
verifiable operational need that can no longer be meet; it would add 
insult to injury that someone without that verifiable operational need 
receives Internet number resources when you can't.  Therefore, verifying 
operational need for transfers, still provides some minimal amount of 
fairness to those that are not going to receive Internet number 
resources.

> This is a question that neither I, Malcom, 2013-03, nor ripe-592,
> presume to have an answer for.

This is where you create a problem for me.  If you propose to remove the 
current mechanism of fairness, verified operational need, then it is 
incumbent on you to propose a replacement.  You are saying that 
"verified operational need" doesn't work in a state of a state of 
scarcity, I disagree, it may not be perfect, but it will do something. 
And, that it is no longer necessary because the free pool is gone, again 
I disagree.  But, the crux of my issue isn't that you are removing 
verified operational need, it is that you seem to claim it isn't your 
problem to find a replacement for the fairness it provides, even if it 
isn't perfect fairness.

> However, I understood the crux of Malcom's objection to be that if we
> remove this stated objective of "fairness", then we lose our principles
> in the process, and it becomes hard to add it back later (presumably
> along with a precise definition of "fair").
>
> Therefore I was hoping that retaining this sentence (which is there in
> today's policy as well) would help move the discussion forward in the
> direction of consensus.

While this is a start, just saying fairness is necessary, is a hollow 
jester, without verified operational need or some other replacement 
mechanism to provides the fairness you are saying is necessary.

> Tore

-- 
================================================
David Farmer               Email: farmer at umn.edu
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE     Phone: 1-612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029  Cell: 1-612-812-9952
================================================