[address-policy-wg] 2013-03 New Policy Proposal (No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and Cleanup)

Hello Sylvain,

* Sylvain Vallerot

> I think Ripe NCC has quite constantly refused to consider IP shoud
> be considerated as a product one could sell, and rather followed the
> conversation goal as a way to protect the public ressource. This is
> what I expect from a non-commercial structure actually, and from a
> regulator.

Two comments on this:

1) The «public resource» is gone, so there is no longer anything to
protect. This happened when the RIPE NCC reached the «last /8» on the
14th of September last year. While the RIPE NCC strictly speaking still
do have space left, it is exclusively governed by the «last /8 policy»,
which 2013-03 does not modify.

2) While the RIPE NCC itself does not consider themselves to be in the
business of "selling" IP addresses, the current IPv4 address policy
*does* allow for paid LIR-to-LIR transfers of IPv4 allocations. That's
the status quo, and 2013-03 does not change it one way or the other.

> First because the fact that some companies have enough money to buy
> high price ressource does not mean that other companies that have
> equally legitimate need but less ressources should be less served.

See response #2 above. The status quo today is that, if two LIRs have
equally legitimate need for IPv4 addresses, regular market mechanics
will be the deciding factor (so in the general case: highest bidder
wins). 2013-03 does not change this one way or the other.

> Second, because letting this happen would authorize a market of 
> abusively bought addresses develop in the hands of LIRs that so doing
> would significantly deviate from the Ripe goals that include to avoid
> waste, and not commercial abuse of a public ressource. Some examples
> have show already that resellers could buy an IP for 5€ and re-sell
> it for 10 €. That is 10,000 a /22 i.e. the space one can get buy
> simply becoming a LIR.

Again, see response #2 above. This is already possible with current
address policy, and 2013-03 does not change it one way or the other.

> Nonetheless I feel like the conversation goal should not be
> completely erased from this policy, and remain. This makes sense also
> regarding the actual /22 max allocation rule, that *does* obey the
> conversation goal and should be backed by this principle.

See response #1, 2013-03 does not change the actual /22 max allocation
rule. This part of the policy is left intact, the only changes relating
to it is of the editorial kind (moving the text from one section to
another and rewriting it slightly to improve clarity).

> I also think the IPv4 policy should not be thought without a global 
> vision of allocations movements and banish financial deals over
> public ressource. In particular, I think direct LIR to LIR reselling
> of empty space shoud be forbidden, and of partially occupied space
> sould be allowed under certain conditions aiming to garantee a
> business or a service is actually sold (not public ressource).

Again, see response #2 above. Current address policy already allows for
"direct LIR to LIR reselling of empty space", and 2013-03 does not
change this one way or the other. You are of course free to submit a
separate policy proposal that would change this, but when it comes to
2013-03, this particular consideration seems to me to be out of scope.

Best regards,
Tore Anderson