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

Tore,

Your message does not answer my concerns, unfortunately. I am not
talking about my case because my particular case is of interest,
but only to illustrate how LIRs have to face with some demanding
customer who do not really care about fairness, but rather about
survival in a situation of scarcity.


On 24/09/2013 14:09, Tore Anderson wrote:
> However, you can also point to the address policy when declining the
> request, by telling your client something along the lines of: «Giving
> you a /22 you do not need would be unfair to my future would-be
> customers, as I would have then have nothing to assign to them. The RIPE
> address policy mandates that the assignments I make are done fairly,
> thus I am not at liberty to assign you the /22 you are asking for».
>
> While the fairness requirement in question is a subjective value
> judgement you will have to make for yourself,

Subjective is the word. And conservation goal being removed, and the
requirement of justificating assignments being removed also, the LIR
becomes in the very incomfortable situation of having to oppose "fair
subjective" criteria to a client's request, without being able to
back on a RIR's policy anymore.

But besides that, I feel this would be a regretable abdication of its
regulator role for the Ripe NCC, to authorize any LIR to make whatever
they want with the remaining ressource.

And because of the consequences this abdication may have on many
companies or organisations that will have to face de-regulated behaviors
despite we are in a situation of scarcity, I cannot help but consider
such a decision will make us (the Ripe community) responsible for some
tragic situations.

I remember the question of Ripe's responsability had been raised some
time ago, maybe it was at Ripe's 65 meeting, last year. I was about the
role Ripe had to play, not only as a a private association with its LIR
members voting for their interest, but as the owner of a monopolistic
power to distribute a vital ressource. And I regret today, that such
questions arises again, and so many easy +1 supports go to a proposal
for even more deregulation in a crisis situation. I think we have a
legitimacy problem for doing this.

Best regards,
Sylvain