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

On Thursday, July 25, 2013, Jan Ingvoldstad wrote:

> Here it is my main point:
>>
>> "Justification for need" and "evaluation of justification for need" are
>> two different things.
>>
>> First one,  "Justification for need", is perfectly a policy matter and I
>> believe IPv4 policy should still mention this, as long as RIPE NCC
>> continues allocating space to its members and the last /8 is totally
>> exhausted. Say something along the lines, "LIRs requesting address space
>> from the RIPE NCC should have a need for the requested space for a network
>> of their own or their customer".
>>
>> So that we at least put a barrier in front of those who would just ask
>> for an allocation to immediately turn it into an asset.
>>
>
> That barrier is a paper tiger, unfortunately.
>

and has been so since the beginning.The amount of paper have changed over
times.

If the policy states "need" then NCC feels obliged to figure out how to
determine "need"


>
>
>> But those who really are in need are primarily highlighted by the policy.
>>
>> Current policy has the following text:
>> "Members can receive an initial IPv4 allocation when they have
>> demonstrated a need for IPv4 address space."
>>
>> Tore's proposal is removing this totally and I do not agree with it.
>> (...)
>
>
> So, in essence, what you state is that:
>
> a) There is no need to change or remove the "need" statement in the policy.
> b) The RIPE NCC should decide how "need" is determined as a matter of
> procedure.
>
> Given what appears to be the majority view here, the NCC may just as well
> decide to interpret the community's view on "need" as something that does
> not need to be documented in itself, other than placing a request for a
> network block.
>

Be careful here - we are not operating by majority but by consensus - so we
need to get everybody - or at least most - to understand and not object.



>
> Altering this particular part of the policy document as Tore suggests will
> change very little in practice and procedure.
>

That is still not clear to me.


Hans Petter


-- 
Hans Petter Holen
Mobile +47 45 06 60 54 | hph at oslo.net | http://hph.oslo.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20130726/3c2a63c3/attachment.html>