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

+1 to every thing Sylvain said, and -1 to proposal.

On 9/20/13 06:19 , Sylvain Vallerot wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Unfortunately we do not support this new proposal, because conservation
> still is a goal to us, as IPv4 public ressource keeps being vital for
> many structures.
>
> Deregulation + commercial transfer make the ressources governed by sole
> market, which we do not agree with. We consider Ripe NCC should stay in
> its regulation role and not give public ressources away to the private
> sector and market.
>
>
> Moreover, the rationale "supporting arguments" list doesn't convince us
> at all, let me be more explicit :
>
> 1. reduced bureaucracy :
>
>    I do not consider proper use of ressources and justification as
>    just "bureaucracy" but as a necessity to take good care
>
> 2. for long-term business planning: from 2 year to infinity ?
>
>    is this serious, we are talking about IPv4 here ?
>
> 3. Makes the policy easier to read and understand
>
>    are we stupid or something ?
>
> 4. Removes conflict between "conservation" and "aggregation"
>
>    this cannot be a supporting argument, one does not just suppress
>    a criteria to ease the problem
>
> 5. LIR Audits becomes less time-consuming
>
>    properly made documentation should not take time to show for LIRs,
>    and Ripe does not expect time spared for itself on the other side
>
> 6. Reduction of RIPE NCC workload
>
>    or not : see impact analysis part C, that says no workload nor
>    financial benefit is to be expected in the Ripe NCC.
>
> 7. Elimination of incentive to "game the system".
>
>    supress rules so no ones will cheat them ? this is nonsense.
>
> 8. Makes IPv4 and IPv6 policies more similar in practise
>
>    IPv4 and IPv6 are not similar, why should policies be ?
>
> Unfortunately counter-arguments have been provided for each "con"
> arguments. I deeply regret it was not done for "pro" arguments
> because many (above) do not resist a tiny bit of attention.
>
> Eventually, it was not mentionned (despite this was discussed
> previously) that the disappearance of the conservation goal could
> stop the unused space collection, thus artificially accelerating
> the depletion and its disastrous effects for some little structures.
>
> Best regards,
> Sylvain Vallerot
>
>


-- 
================================================
David Farmer               Email: farmer at umn.edu
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE     Phone: 1-612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029  Cell: 1-612-812-9952
================================================