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

Hello Milton,

I hear what you are saying but I think you are comparing apples and pears.

In regards to Michele's office space, try think of that analysis when Michele and say whole of RIPE community are to share a finite, i repeat finite, possibility of office spaces. 

In real economics of today you have more options to create your own alternative if something is not suiting your needs. IP address space is finite though, we wont be able to create all sorts of alternatives other than one kind; IPv6 which still has its issues.

I would agree with you in the domain name space but not in IP.

Filiz

Apologies for the brevity of this mail, it was sent from my iphone

On 25 Jul 2013, at 16:40, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:

> Filiz, Michele
> When number blocks are traded by companies in a market, the price of number blocks reflects their scarcity - i.e., the relationship between supply and demand - and thus companies have very strong incentives to allocate and conserve. These incentives are at once both more effectively enforced and more flexible than a regime in which a central bureaucratic authority looks at some technical indicators submitted to them on pieces of paper (or digital forms) and tries to assess "need."
>  
> So there are still strong incentives for responsible management without needs assessment. And since v4 is depleting, the idea that the price would rise and people would over time be discouraged from using it, ought to be seen as a good thing. Administrative needs assessment is not the ONLY method that could EVER be used to allocate resources. There are a variety of tools and mechanisms and the authors of 2013-3 are correct that the conditions that led to traditional needs assessments for numbers are gone, and not applicable to the current situation.
>  
> I've always asked the religious believers in needs assessment whether they think their rental of office space should be subject to a needs assessment. It's not meant to be a challenge, just something to make you think. The economic characteristics of the resources are not that different (space, like number blocks, are occupied but not consumed, and there is a short-term fixity in supply). So let me volunteer to do a needs assessment on Michele's offices, and his home, and perhaps a few other belongings. I just want to see if he is wasting any resources. ;-) Or would Michele prefer to just pay for what he thinks he needs?
>  
> From: address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Filiz Yilmaz
> Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2013 6:53 AM
> To: Tore Anderson
> Cc: address-policy-wg at ripe.net
> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2013-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and Clean up)
>  
> Hello Tore,
>  
> While I am curious for Michele's response to your mail too, here is my bit, as I feel I agree with him in terms of principles.
>  
> First of all, I am not totally against your proposal; it cleans up the policy text reflecting today's circumstances to some extent and it makes a long document way more readable. 
> This is also why I am writing back because I've read the draft policy document from the beginning to the end.  
>  
> My observation is that the new document proposed is not exactly a "registration" policy document.
> It more looked to me like a description of how address space management is done within RIPE NCC region "by the RIPE NCC". 
>  
> If I am not missing anything crucial, the main points described are:
>  
> - The language is English, 
> - How big an allocation can be, 
> - That there is no PI anymore to be assigned directly from the NCC pools to End users (except for the IXPs) so all resources will only goto LIRs 
> - And these blocks can be transferred between LIRs.
>  
> The only bit about registration I see in the new text is section 4.0 Registration Requirements and it does not go more than saying details should be recorded in the database. 
>  
> So it does not contain any substantial information for registration or address management on the LIR's side. 
>  
> This is interesting as now with this proposed policy any End user's chance to get any IPv4 address space will be through an LIR and hope that these LIRs are responsible and know what they are doing. I would like to see some guidelines or at least principles mentioned in this document so the LIRs know their responsibility in terms of fair address management as well as the End Users so they know what to expect from these LIRs. This is what I would be expecting from a transparent documentation of a set of policies and principles that are still in place. 
>  
> We may not have too many specific policies to set for the few left-over resources but I would like to believe we still have "principles" towards the responsible management of these resources. 
>  
> In that sense Michele has a point and I argue that LIRs need to be guided for "good address management" even without the "conservation" principle as the top priority in the new IP world. This is missing in the proposed policy text for it to be considered as a helpful "registration" policy in my opinion.  
>  
> In practice, I can set up a new LIR now and ask for a new allocation and I may be someone who does not have any previous RIPE or RIPE NCC experience. 
> If all I have is this document, I am not sure if it tells me enough about my responsibilities, while I will be a critical token in the EU address management and registration system by just becoming an LIR. 
>  
>  
> My other concern is in regards to the transfers. As neatly put by the NCC Board in the Impact Analysis:
>  
> ---
> As mentioned in previous sections, the policy proposal would negatively affect the ability of LIRs to engage in inter-RIR transfers, as the RIPE NCC’s service region would be the only one without a needs-based requirement for transfers.
> Implementation of the policy could expose LIRs to legal challenges under EU competition law.
> ---
>  
>  
> I think singling out the RIPE NCC region in the world of transfers may not be the best idea at this stage.
>  
> Kind regards
> Filiz Yilmaz
>  
>  
>  
>  
> On 24 Jul 2013, at 10:52, Tore Anderson <tore at fud.no> wrote:
> 
> 
> * 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
> 
>  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20130725/8bcb3f4d/attachment.html>