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

On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 09:37:51PM +0200, Filiz Yilmaz wrote:
>I agree it can be seen as bureaucracy to ask people to justify PA
>assignments and sub-allocations now.  However, I am not convinced that
>asking justifying 1 IP from a /22 as a new LIR at this very interesting
>times is a big deal.  And removing a long-standing principle like "need
>based" should require a better argument than reducing bureaucracy. This

There is a better argument: We are in "Last /8", there is one more /22
per LIR, regardless of what "need" they may have or could demonstrate.
Very soon now, IPv4 will be gone altogether and all the need in the
world will get you exactly 0 IP addresses.

Keeping "must demonstrate need" around in the absence of the premises it
was based on is traditionalism for traditionalism's sake.

>
>These are procedural NCC issues, I've already commented regarding
>reducing bureaucracy with the NCC, without doing a main curriery in the
>policy before.  These two are not real address policy management
>related, they are "consequences" of the proposal, rather than positive
>or negative Rationales

We have no formal way of forcing the NCC to change the way a policy is
implemented except by changing the policy. 

rgds,
Sascha Luck