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

Hello APWG,

I would like to stress that version 2.0 of the proposal brings no
substantial changes. The effective proposed policy remains the exact
same. The changes since version 1.0 are all either editorial (language
improvements, etc.), further removal of "dead"/obsolete policy text that
was overlooked in version 1.0, and ensuring that the proposal does not
accidentally create ambiguities. I elaborate on some of those individual
changes below. I'd like to thank (in alphabetical order) the following
people for providing the feedback that lead to these changes: Alex Le
Heux, Marco Schmidt, and Richard Hartmann.

I'd also like to remind the working group that the start of the Review
Phase means that any feedback given during the Discussion Phase is
voided. In other words: If you voiced an opinion on the proposal during
the Discussion Phase, you will need to repeat your opinion again during
the Review Phase in order for your voice to be counted.

> - Additional wording has been added to explicitly state that PI space
>   cannot be reassigned or further assigned to other parties (see
>   section 7.0 for ASSIGNED PI).

The wording that prohibits PI space from being reassigned of or further
assigned is already present in the current policy. However it is
"buried" within a larger block text that discusses whether an operator
should choose PA or PI space. Following the implementation of the last
/8 policy, this choice does no longer exist, and 2013-03 therefore
removed the entire block of text. It was pointed out to me that this
caused the "reassignability" of PI space to be undefined, which was
never an intended consequence of the proposal. Therefore version 2.0
adds back this particular wording.

> - The third point from the last /8 policy (section 5.1) has been
>   removed, as this is considered a meaningless circular reference by
>   the author.

Actually it was Marco Schmidt from the RIPE NCC's Policy Development
Office that made this observation. I concur, though. The last /8 policy
is currently a weird "odd man out" policy, located all by itself in
section 5.6 and partially superseding the "normal" allocation policy
(sections 5.0 through 5.5). The third bullet point of the last /8 policy
essentially made sure that the (non-superseded) provisions from the
"normal" allocation policy were imported into the last /8 policy.

2013-03 merges the last /8 policy into the "normal" allocation policy,
ensuring there is only one unified allocation policy. Therefore there is
no need for such an "import provisions from the normal policy"
statement, as this would essentially be a circular, and thus
meaningless, reference. 

Best regards,
-- 
Tore Anderson