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

Hi Tore,

On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 8:47 AM, Tore Anderson <tore at fud.no> wrote:
> Hello McTim,
>
>> I don't think shifting to a market based allocation/assignment system
>> is good stewardship.
>
> As I've mentioned in my reply to Sylvain Vallerot already, 2013-03 does
> not cause the founding of an IPv4 market.

I understand this, however that was not my point.

Apologies if I was unclear.  What I was trying to get across is that
this proposal would go from a system of "pay your membership fees and
show you actually need the resources" to just "pay".

Needs based distribution has been a cornerstone of the RIR system for
the last 2 decades or more.  It has worked remarkably well, and I see
no need to jettison it now just because there are fewer resources to
distribute.  In fact, I see a greater need for it now!  I expect we
will have to agree to disagree on this.

<snip>

>
>> In addition there are multiple issues listed in the Impact Analysis
>> that cause me great concern.  The primary issue there is
>> incompatibility with other regional transfer policies.
>
> 2013-03's proposed policy is no more or less compatible with other
> regional transfer policies than our current policy is.

While from a certain POV, this may be true, this proposal precludes
the RIPE region from compatibility in future (unless one does
something like Gert proposes downthread.

I think this is not wise public policy making.  You surely know that
APNIC has already reversed their rejection of needs based allocation.
I don't think it smart for us to do something that we will perhaps
need to undo shortly.

Now I am NOT anti-market in general, nor do I seek to rollback the
current state of the v4 market.  however, I think a true
free-marketeer would be opposed to this policy because it precludes
future inter-regional transfers.

I don't understand why the brokers aren't opposing this, I guess they
hate needs based allocation more than they want to make money on
transfers down the road?

--
Cheers,

McTim

"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel