[address-policy-wg] 2013-05 New Policy Proposal (No Restrictions on End User Assignments in Intra-RIR Transfers)

On 17/08/2013 09:45, Tore Anderson wrote:
> The proposal does not remove any social rules of conduct as far as
> I can tell.

Social rules are bullshit when commercial contracts prevail on
everything else. This is certainly not something I appreciate but
it is the reality, and if on one hand we cannot do much about it,
maybe on the other hand we could propose something more explicitely
transparent and obvious for end users.

Didn't Ripe "IPv4 alloc & assign" policy, for example, insist on
making it super-clear for PI requesters, about the risks they are
taking when requesting such ressources (and even ask for LIRs to
confirm they made it clear in the request form) ?

Is the risk smaller if End Users can be kicked from assigned IPs
and they are not correctly informed about their (quite often really
mistaken, as far as I can see) "owning" of the adresses they have
base they business on ? So was it just a disclaimer or was it a
warning to End Users saying "hey guys, watch it carefully".

This is a point where I'm very glad to David for his remark, because
maybe whe have a lack (but a responsability) in making things more
transparent to End Users, beyond just delegating Ripes' workload
on LIRs (which are not non-for-profit nor democratic structures).

However, despite 2013-05 could look like an occasion to restore a
bit of the missing protection, by allowing not empty allocs to be
transferred *if* and *only if* some protection conditions are met, I
am still not convinced this is dangerous in the general case (do
operators want to sell their clients when they have another choice ?)
Simply, sometimes suppleness is best for survival.

So, still supporting 2013-05.

Which doesn't mean we would'nt amend it another time with a more
End User protecting general proposal. Definitely need more input for
this, if someone has ideas about this (in another thread probably).

Best regards,
Sylvain