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

Hi,

On 20/09/2013 14:27, Tore Anderson wrote:
> Conservation is the natural behaviour in an environment of scarcity.

In such an environment the natural behaviour could also be that companies
willing to protect their interest are ready to put money on the table to
get as much ressource as they can afford. And LIRs could be tempted by
selling these ressources without a need being properly justifying it.

2013-03 allows this. Yes it could look stupid if the game was over once
the next /22 is filled. But...

The transfer market allowing LIRs to transfer allocations, LIRs having
such lucrative approach of ressource distribution could also expect to
buy more ressources for clients having enough money.

It looks quite obvious to me that in such conditions, small companies
or non for profit organisations would have severe disadvantages, since
the available stock would quite quickly disappear.


> The transfer policy is in place already. If you oppose a commercial
> transfer market, 2013-03 is the wrong policy proposal to attack, it is
> really 2007-08 you should be going after.

OK, let me reword our position then.

We do not oppose to the principle of allocation transfers despite we
might not be in full accordance with its current terms. But we are not
welcoming deregulation.

The hurt being to be expected from the conjonction of the two. Here the
discussion is about 2013-03, however we consider it in the global
environment and allocation transfers is part of it.

We believe that in this environment, 2013-03 is nocive.

We do not want public IP ressources to become deluxe products.


> Also, I think it is worth noting that "giving public resources away" is
> and has always been one of the (perhaps "the") primary functions of the
> NCC. This is true even when the recipient is a private sector LIR who
> might at a later time choose to sell the resource on the IPv4 market.

There we probably have a big point of divergence. But maybe I'm wrong.
However I am quite conviced that I read somewhere that IP ressources
did not belong to anybody, and one was not entitled to prevail of any
possession rights over it. Wich means they cannot be sold, of course.

So this always made me think that the idea of an IPv4 market in itself
was in violation with Ripe's rules and policies.

If I am wrong and this is not the case, I will deeply reconsider the
legitimacy of a private structure, in which participate only private
structures, to deal with public vital ressources.
  

> This is how things are today. 2013-03 does not change it one way or the
> other.

Yes it does, because it says "ok guys, we're finished with controlling
the use that is made with this public ressource, just take it and let
the market play".

And this will impact on transfer conditions also, since these were
subject to article 5.3 about additional allocation validation, that
disappears with 2013-03.

Ripe NCC wouldn't have allocate a new space to a LIR which had wasted
the previous one or could not properly explain of ressources we used. And
this still is a requirement today for the Ripe to accept a transfer if I
am not mistaking myself.

This would be over with 2013-03, and this would allow transfers to be
asked for tomorrow, that would not be asked for today.


> If you want to prohibit private sector entities from being eligible from
> receiving resources from the NCC,

Of course not. Please.


> Furthermore, depletion is a past event in the RIPE region. It cannot be
> "accelerated" (or "stopped"). The only thing that remains is the
> so-called "last /8" austerity pool, and as I've pointed out above,
> 2013-03 upholds the conservation policies covering this pool intact (1
> /22 per LIR; 1 /24-/22 per IXP).

Depletion is a word. It is a fake.

IPv4 needs proper regulation until we all live in an IPv6 world. This time
has not come and in the meanwhile, /22s from last /8 *and transfers* will be
the vital ressource for many.

I believe free pricing of transfers is a shame, and I believe that 2013-03
drops control of allocation usage worsens its considerably.

This is why I still oppose this resolution.

Regards,
Sylvain