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

* McTim

> On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 10:53 AM, Tore Anderson <tore at fud.no> wrote:
>> This exact point was brought up by a few other people as well as the NCC
>> itself in the first review period, and in order to meet those concerns
>> the proposal was amended so that it does not longer make it possible to
>> simply pay the membership fee and receive an allocation from the RIR
>> without "need".
> 
> I consider the check box yes/no "I will be making assignments.." a fig
> leaf at best.

Perhaps it is, but for all practical purposes, it's the status quo: To
get hold of a /22 with our current policy, you'll have to sign up as an
LIR and pay the membership fee, and then be able to say with a straight
face that you need it for making an assignment of one (1) IPv4 address
(singular). Most of us carry around the hardware needed to truthfully
justify such an assignment at all times.

> So the proposal retains "need", but is title "No need"?

The proposal is not about corner cases such as the "last /8" austerity
pool and the NCC's distribution of it; it is about the LIRs and their
day to day operations. This is where pretty much all the remaining IPv4
activity is at today, and it is where all the "need bureaucracy" this
proposal is aiming to remove at is still mandated to take place.

Best regards,
Tore Anderson