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

* Michele Neylon - Blacknight

> As previously stated, I do NOT support the "no need" policy and
> cannot support this document.
> 
> IP addresses are a finite resource, as we all know, and obliging
> people to provide some level of justification makes sense.
> 
> The argument for "conservation" may no longer be valid, but there
> will always be a compelling argument in favour of good resource
> management, which I believe the policy covers.
> 
> RIPE should not remove the requirement to provide justification.

Hi Michele,

I doubt you'll find anyone in the working group who is against good
resource management. I am convinced that the proposed policy is not in
conflict with good resource management, otherwise I would never have
proposed it. While I can obviously only speak with certainty for myself,
I assume that the people who support the proposal feel the same way.

While it appears you believe that the proposal will bring about poor
resource management, your message neglected to explain why or how. This
makes it rather difficult for me to try to alleviate your concerns.

As Gert also pointed out recently, the main reason I believe that IPv4
would continue to be consumed responsibly under the proposed policy, is
that the LIRs in the region are painfully aware that there is no more
IPv4 to be had from the RIPE NCC. Should an LIR anyway decide to go on a
"spending spree" with its remaining inventory, it would only end up
hurting itself by expediting its own depletion date. The community will
not be impacted - without a Common, there can be no Tragedy.

Best regards,
Tore Anderson