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

* Filiz Yilmaz

> I am aware of all the practical examples you have provided.
> 
> You keep saying that everything but one thing is the status quo
> already but that one thing bares a whole notion and a principle
> (beyond maths) that I have been trying to express in my previous
> posts because I simply do care about it.

When I say that 2013-03 merely upholds the status quo with regards to a
specific concern you have brought up, I truly believe that this is the case.

So when we discuss the individual issues you raise, I would truly
appreciate it very much if you would quote the relevant phrases or
sections in the current policy, and that are removed or modified by
2013-03, that is responsible for causing an actual change from what we
have today. This would make it much easier for me to understand exactly
what it is that you are referring to in each case, and we can discuss
those points specifically, and hopefully be able to find some common
ground or agreement on them, one at a time.

With that in mind:

> I am not against transfers but I am against the practice of getting
> space now from the NCC just to be able to transfer it later.

Agreed in principle, but I don't see that the current policy prevents
this. As has been pointed out by myself and others several times
already, under the current policy each new LIR gets a /22, and the
associated need evaluation ("1 address to assign to someone within a
year") is merely a formality that is highly unlikely to prevent any new
LIR who wants to do this from succeeding in doing so.

> I do not call this a best practice and I would not like RIPE Policies
> encourage it.

Please quote the text in the proposed policy which encourages this kind
of behaviour.

> - But I find transfers extremely useful if they are to bring out some
> already allocated space out of some drawer.

Please quote the text in the proposed policy that would discourage LIRs
from bringing out already allocated space out of some drawer.

> While the current system is based on trust, there is definitely
> enough of wording for what that trust is to be in the current text. 
> It is my belief that your proposal is taking them out all together
> and leaving the resulting document a mere description of a system
> that is an IP market, removing the core essential that IPs are for
> networks in the first place. This is where my concern lies, not about
> removing the bureaucracy.

To the best of my knowledge, all the text in the proposed policy that
"describes a system that is an IP market" is also present in today's
policy, and was by and large added by proposal 2007-08. Could you please
point out to me the specific passages added by 2013-03 that you are
thinking of?

> ripe-583 may be an overkill today, agreed. It is just a form
> and a practice NCC applies though as a result of their interpretation
> of the policy. If it is a problem ask the NCC folks to come up with a
> more efficient form or a new scheme or totally have it removed even.

As it happens, you'll be delighted to learn I've recently submitted a
policy proposal that does exactly this! ;-)

> Policy document does not talk about ripe-583 specifically anyway. 
> But your proposal is removing way too many important principles from
> the policy text in order to fix an operational problem.

Please cite the specific sentences or sections in the current policy,
removed by 2013-03, that defined these important principles.

> I may be just one person who thinks we should still mention in the
> resulting document that RIPE Community cares about networks, that we
> do realise that IPs are for networks and that these are expected to
> be used with care and responsibility.

I can tell you with absolute certainty that you are not the only one.
This statement describes me, too, and for the record I operate both a
network and an LIR.

Best regards,
Tore Anderson