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

* David Farmer
> You are obfuscating and trivializing Sylvain's objection.  He didn't say
> that he doesn't support the transfer market.  He said he doesn't support
> your "deregulation" of the transfer market, which I interpret as removal
> of justification of need for transfers.  And, yes the transfer market is
> a reality as of 2007-08, but this proposal does very much change the
> status quo, that is deregulating the transfer market by removing
> justification of need for transfers.

The market appears to be supplying only about 3% of the demand, assuming
the demand for IPv4 in the region is as high as before the NCC ran out.
There is no reason to believe that I can see reason to assume that the
buyers and the would-be buyers do not have "need". More likely, I think,
is that many by now have a quite desperate need.

So for a "buyer without need" to even come into the picture, they must
be willing to outspend those needy 97% in order to get at the available
resource. If these "buyers without need" truly exist and are that
determined and resourceful, I have no doubt they are also capable of
synthesising whatever "need" required to stay within the constraints of
today's need-based policy. It's not at all difficult, they could simply
offer to lease (or even loan) back the addresses to the "needy" LIRs
they have just outbid.

> Again you are obfuscating and trivializing his objection.  The RIPE NCC
> doesn't just "giving public resources away", the primary cost is the
> justification of those resources.  Or, the cost of dealing with the
> "bureaucracy" that you want to eliminate, that is not free, which is why
> you want to eliminate it.

The cost of obtaining public IPv4 resources from the RIPE NCC is an
one-time fee of €2000 plus a yearly fee of €1800 (which may be adjusted
annually). Plus the cost of sending an e-mail requesting the /22. This
e-mail is *not* the bureaucracy I want to eliminate. Indeed, the changes
going into version 3 is there precisely to keep this the way it is today.

The bureaucracy 2013-03 do want to eliminate* is that of the interaction
between the LIRs and their End Users. In other words, the *assignment*
bureaucracy. The RIPE NCC is not involved in this at all, apart from a
few exceptions, for example when assignment size > AW and during LIR Audits.

* Actually, "make optional" is more describing. If an LIR wants to keep
its current operational practises, by all means, it's free to do so.

> Please stop obfuscating and trivializing people's objections, you either
> have sufficient support to ignore their objections or you should address
> them properly.

My aim is always to address any objections properly. I hope this message
contributed to that.

> From: David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu>
> Organization: University of Minnesota

Which reminds me, as you stated earlier on this list «I neither support
or oppose [2013-03], as I do not represent any resources used within the
RIPE region»: I am truly perplexed with the intensity at which ARIN
community members seem to take an interest in RIPE policy making, and
perhaps especially in 2013-03. Do you have any clue as to the reason for
this? 2013-03 is not intended as a global policy proposal, has someone
claimed that it is?

Best regards,
Tore Anderson