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

Hello,

On 22 Sep 2013, at 23:12, Richard Hartmann <richih.mailinglist at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Sep 22, 2013 at 10:45 PM, Gert Doering <gert at space.net> wrote:
> 
>> ok, this has been going on for quite a while, and I'm not sure if anyone
>> else is following.
> 
> There are; not happily, though.
> 
> 
>> but it would be very helpful to have a
>> crystal clear statement here.
> 
> I had a draft which asked pretty much the same.
> 
> Personally, I feel as if a lot of prose is produced, but that if there
> are any precise and atomic points, they are lost in a sea of words.
> 
> 
> Filiz, can you try to write a proposed change which covers your
> concerns and give a short list of supporting arguments, please?

I have given my arguments for demonstration of need in general within all the mails I have sent to this thread, since July 2013. I do not have time to write up an exec summary unfortunately.

I have already made the last wording suggestion a couple of days ago, re-mentioned/quoted in other mails in response to Tore, explained my motivation for it in a separate mail upon Sander's request and just re-confirmed the suggested text upon Gert's request. Below you can find my response to Sander's question, which already contains again the suggested text.

Hope this helps now.

Kind regards,
Filiz

------------
On 21 Sep 2013, at 01:41, Filiz Yilmaz <koalafil at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> On 21 Sep 2013, at 00:03, "Sander Steffann" <sander at steffann.nl> wrote:
> 
>> Hi Filiz,
>> 
>> One question for clarification:
>> 
>>> 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
>> 
>> What is your motivation for adding the 'LIR must demonstrate its need for
>> the IPv4 address space' part?
> 
> - Demonstration brings accountability to any claim and makes the claim (of confirming the intent of making assignments) believable and supported. 
> [This demonstration can be as simple as a couple of sentences describing the network and business of the new LIR and does not need to come in any specific form or shape.]
> 
> - Those who intend to lie to the RIPE NCC will be forced to be a bit more creative and work on their case harder than just clicking a combo box. Those who really have a need can explain this briefly very easily and pass the criteria without any hassle. So policy will still have some substance for some differentiation between bad and good practice. 
> 
> - RIPE NCC may be able to demonstrate and defend their position why they allocated space rightfully way better if they have to one day to some I* organisation, having received some demonstration from LIRs. The LIR may have chosen to lie and fake their demonstration but the RIR will be still have had asked the right questions to consider "need" as their justification of who gets the space. 
> 
> - Adding this may help getting agreement of those who currently object the proposal because of the complete removal of justification of need from the policy, as it is kept for allocations to new LIRs, while it is removed from assignments, which is the real bureaucracy on the LIR side. So this looks to me like a compromise between two conflicting interests/wishes. 
> 
> Filiz


------------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20130923/c130806d/attachment.html>