[address-policy-wg] 2013-03: Review Phase - New Proposal Description and Impact Analysis Published

Dear AP WG,

On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 11:01:24AM +0100, Marco Schmidt wrote:
[..]
> We encourage you to read the proposal and the impact analysis and send any 
> comments to <address-policy-wg at ripe.net> before 5 December 2013. 

the review phase for 2013-03 has ended today.  No comments were received, 
thus I consider all opinions expressed in the previous review phase to be 
unchanged (as announced, given that the policy *text* has not changed
at all) - that is, 32 persons expressing support of the proposal, 3 persons 
opposing it.

Given the amount of support, and the nature of the opposition, the WG
chairs have decided that we have reached rough consensus.  We think that
all counterarguments brought up by the opposers have been fully answered -
this might not be sufficient to convince the opposers to change their mind, 
but given sufficient support otherwise, it's good enough to move forward.

This is what we'll do now -> move 2013-03 to Last Call.  Marco will send 
the formal announcement for that later today or tomorrow.

For reference, a list of people that voiced support or opposition (or 
something else) in the previous review phase is appended below.  This is
what the chairs based their decision on.

If you disagree with our interpretation of what has been said, and the
conclusion we have drawn from it, please let us know.

Gert Doering,
        Address Policy WG Chair


support:
    Mikael Abrahamsson
    Randy Bush
    Daniel Stolpe
    Dimitri I Sidelnikov
    Andy Davidson
    Sascha Luck
    Jan Zorz
    Bengt Gördén
    Raluca Andreea Gogiou
    Roger Jørgensen
    Richard Hartmann  (strong sentiments that this is the last round)
    Andreas Larsen
    Jan Ingvoldstad   (strong sentiments that this is the last round)
    Elvis Daniel Velea
    Nigel Titley      (seconding Richard's sentiments)
    Gerry Demaret
    Sebastian Wiesinger
    Lu Heng
    Sonderegger Olaf
    Ian Johannesen
    Fredrik Widell
    Alexey Ivanov
    Sandra Brown
    Donal Cunningham
    Tassos Chatzithomaoglou
    Mike Burns
    George Giannousopoulos
    Ragnar Anfinsen
    Milton L Mueller
    Ronny Boesger
    Dominik Bay
    Lutz Donnerhacke

support, based on changes to the external PR regarding 2013-03, and
         some future PDP tasks for the chairs and the community
    Malcolm Hutty  (see <52406426.8080405 at linx.net> for details)
    
neutral (mailing to the thread, but not expressing support/opposition):
    CJ Aronson
    Nick Hilliard
    Hans Petter Holen
    John Curran
   

opposing:
    McTim
       "I don't think shifting to a market based allocation/assignment system
       is good stewardship.  In addition there are multiple issues listed in 
       the Impact Analysis that cause me great concern.  The primary issue 
       there is incompatibility with other regional transfer policies."

       considered to be completely answered by the chairs, on the basis
       that 2013-03 does not introduce a transfer market, documenting the
       goal to assign to end users was introduced in v3 of the proposal,
       and incompatibilities with other regions' transfer policies can be 
       amended by adding appropriate checks to our cross-RIR-policy-to-be, 
       if the community ever expresses enough interest to make one (which 
       currently does not seem to be the case).

       Also, most other issues raised in the IA have been addressed by v4 
       of the proposal, which changed the title and rationale to send a 
       less controversial message to external parties.  So we consider this 
       to be addressed as well.
       
    Filiz Yilmaz
       would support if criteria for allocation would be amended to include
       "LIR must demonstrate its need for the IPv4 address space"

       This was carefully listened to, and discussed with NCC RS to see 
       what the impact would be.  NCC RS stated that the addition of this 
       sentence would not change their interpretation of the policy, given
       that all the LIR can do to demonstrate it's need is the willingness
       to make an assignment from it - and that is already there.

       Based on this and based on the significant number of people asking for
       the proposal to go forward and not do another round of textual change
       and impact analysis, the chairs decided to consider this point
       answered, and go forward.

    Sylvain Vallerot
       main issue seems to be that this proposal would bring LIR admins
       under pressure from unreasonable customer demands and that could
       create very problematic situations inside the LIR, without being
       able to point to RIR policies to back not giving out addresses.

       considered to be answered by the proposer, as there is pressure
       inside all LIRs anyway, and even with the old formalism in place,
       a LIR might very well run into the same situation of having to deny
       addresses to some of it's customer as there are just not enough left 
       anymore to give all of them what they ask for.

    David Farmer
       initially "-1"'ing, then clarifying this to be more on the discussion
       between Sylvain and Tore, and explicitely stating neutrality on the
       proposal itself
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444           USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 826 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20131205/c9364fea/attachment.sig>