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

Tore,

On 21 Sep 2013, at 15:10, Tore Anderson <tore at fud.no> wrote:

> 
> Agreed. As I've said repeatedly, changing the way initial /22s for new
> LIRs are issued is not and has never been a goal of this proposal.
> 

But your proposal is changing it, regardless if it is the goal or the unintentional end result. 
Otherwise, really, what are we discussing here? That your proposal is changing the First allocation part of the policy is a fact.

This is what I find so hard with your argumentative strategy to follow. 
You keep responding with "it was not the intention" or "it is not within the scope of this proposal" to these oppositions to a change that your proposal is actually bringing to the current policy.

And I think this adds to the confusion and results in lengthy discussions where people get lost. 
This is an other factor in not reaching consensus as timely as you desire in my opinion in this case. 
I refrained from pointing these so far because I believe everyone is entitled to their own style, but I must say it is a 2-way street. 
I wish you were more careful before making judgements about other people's styles, questions, comments and etc before considering all these too.  


>> And since this is so easy to do, why such simple demonstration cannot
>> be kept there in the policy, so this proposal can finally reach
>> consensus? Of course this just a suggestion, I do not know if others
>> who opposed so far will be OK with this small alteration...
> 
> It could. Again, changing the way initial /22s for new LIRs are issued
> is not something the proposal is aiming at. That's why the 2nd amendment
> was added. And I would quite possible have been OK with this small
> alteration or something like it, except for one ting: Timing.
> 
> So why not, you ask? Because it means another Impact Analysis, and
> another review phase.

Sure, but we (opposers) cannot be held responsible of this situation. 
And maybe RIPE NCC can provide a faster answer in this if they also think in fact it is a small amendment. 


> In the last review phase, one of solutions you
> advocated was «some kind of commitment from the requester that the space
> is to be used on a network shortly and not to be sold to a 3rd party».

You keep referring to this, and "my" timing and all. 
Fine, but then I suggest if you are going to quote me, quote me correctly and under the light of "your" communication in this list too.

Exact interaction between us was as follows in that mail you referred to:
(http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/2013-August/008104.html)

---
> The relevant community built policy that defines "fairness" at this
> point in time is the "last /8 policy", with its strict "one /22 per
> applicant" rationing. This does not go away with 2013-03, so in
> pragmatical terms, the implementation of "fairness" would remain.
> 

Tore, i do not see how it remains.

I gave the example of two new members getting each a /22 if your proposal gets accepted before:

One is requesting it to use it on a network soon.

The other is requesting it to sell it in 24 months because they cannot sell it before - your proposal leaves this requirement.

I dont think this is fair and this will happen if NCC does not ask for justification for need or some word on that a network exists for the IPs to be used on. 

---

and then the mail continues with:

---
I agree with the parts of your proposal that are removing the overhead on LIR level. 

But I do not see it is much of an overhead to be able to say "i need a last /22 because of this network here.."

> Would such an amendment make the proposal more appealing or at least
> acceptable to you? If not, what else is needed?

Pls see above and few previous mails. Before NCC really runs out and still providing "allocations" I advocate for keeping the justification for need or some kind of commitment from the requester that the space is to be used on a network shortly and not to be sold to a 3rd party. 
--

So I obviously provided extra context to your question with further suggestions. 

I think it is clear from the statements of mine before or after your question as "Would such an amendment make the proposal more appealing or at least acceptable to you? If not, what else is needed?" that I am not totally content with the sole combo-box (Yes/NO) suggestion. Otherwise I would have simply answered your question with a "yes'".

Now, you chose to take only a certain part of this answer; "or some kind of commitment from the requester", ignoring the rest which was "that the space is to be used on a network shortly and not to be sold to a 3rd party. ".

So I think it is quiet unfair on you to tell me that I have not raised this *before*, considering that this was my point in all of the mails I have sent to the list beginning from 25th July, in various forms and with various examples indeed to get my message across.

Furthermore and more importantly, after this correspondence, which was on 2nd August, on 6th August, you have sent a mail to the list as follows (as a response to Hans Petter's mail):
-----
* Hans Petter Holen
> since this is going to be replaced we should probably make sure we are
> in line with [goal #1 in section #2 of RFC 2050-bis].

As I explained in my reply to David Conrad, I believe the amendment I'll
be proposing in version 3.0 of the proposal will ensure that we are. (In
a nutshell: Keep "Need" around in its current form for the final /22
allocations issued by the NCC to its members.)
----

Seeing this, I thought you would keep "the need justification" in the policy.
You also were saying in "its current form" . [Current policy says: "Members can receive an initial IPv4 allocation when they have demonstrated a need for IPv4 address space."].
Voila, I thought, we seem to be agreeing, finally! 

Anyway, so note that at this point (on 6 August) I am thinking that you would keep the "need" in the new version as it is already in the current policy document. 
And I took some days off (did I mention the summer holidays??), during which you seem to have sent another mail on 7th August.

In that mail the details are quite different than what you have said on 6th August though. 

I am now re-raising it and I think I am entitled to, especially given that I have belief this may be the consensus point for this proposal.

Once again I have suggested the following:

> 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


This amendment is right from the current policy which I thought you agreed to keep based on your mail on 6th August. 

So please stop accusing me as if I am re-inventing a new suggestion here, just to stall the process.
To my best knowledge, we had discussed these and agreed on them. 

I may have misunderstood what you really meant to say on 6th August mail, but surely all this does not mean that I waited on purpose, just to give you grief and I am now re-raising the issue. 

In fact, it means that I trusted you and what you have said on 6th August and I simply did not see the need to double check this against your mail on 7th August when I got back from my days off. Since I got back I have been waiting to see the new text (v3) and here we are today, now.

I hope this now address all the comments below and that there is no conspiracy here. 
I am finding this insinuation very disturbing to the process and to the proposal's progress too, by the way. 

> Why you chose to say *nothing* when asked in the last review phase if
> the currently proposed text was okay, why you chose to say *nothing*
> when the WG was asked if there were remaining objections that was not
> dealt with by the proposed amendments, why you chose to wait in silence
> for well over a month when the NCC was hard at work making a new Impact
> Analysis, only to bring up your misgivings about the new text *now*...it
> is truly beyond my comprehension.



My best wishes to all for a great weekend!

Filiz Yilmaz
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20130921/af074cac/attachment.html>