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

Hello Tore,

On 20 Sep 2013, at 22:42, Tore Anderson <tore at fud.no> wrote:

> Hi again Filiz,
> 
>> So the proposal is to remove some heavy "bureaucracy" (because if it
>> was not heavy, we would not need a change, right?) which at the same
>> time is (according to the 2nd paragraph) as easy as basically
>> "keeping a straight face while justifying the assignment of 1 single
>> IP"?
> 
> You are comparing apples to oranges here (allocations to assignments).

I do not think I am doing that. 
I just took your own exact words and put them in a form of a question.
But lets move on to the topic and to the point, even if you think I am doing that.

> The "easy" part is to document "need" enough to get an *allocation* from
> the NCC. "Need" for allocations comes from one thing only: Intent to
> make assignments. If you can document an intent to make a valid
> assignment for one (1) IPv4 address, you have a valid need for an
> allocation. Following the implementation of the last /8 policy, there is
> only one size allocation the NCC can delegate to its members (/22).
> Thus, by submitting a ripe-583 form documenting an intended assignment
> of 1 IPv4 address (or a /32 if you prefer), you have also automatically
> qualified for your initial and final /22 allocation. Anyone can do that,
> it is not heavy bureaucracy at all.

Good, then there is no need to change this in the policy for allocations.

And to better address the need based concerns objecting your proposal, I think you could consider taking the "intent" you mentioned above one step further and have it explained to the RIPE NCC.

Accordingly, I think following will be a more appropriate wording:

3. LIR must demonstrate its need for the IPv4 address space and must confirm it will make assignment(s) from the allocation.

replacing what you proposed:
3. The LIR must confirm it will make assignment(s) from the allocation


> 
> As described above, this is not being removed. Since an assignment must
> be sized at least 1 address (or larger), a check-box requiring the
> requesting LIR to confirm assignments will be made from the allocation
> is functionally identical to today's current practise.

Confirming to make assignments on its own is not enough in my belief.
But I would support a more explicit need-justification requirement as above.

Filiz


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20130920/bc55cc64/attachment.html>