[address-policy-wg] 2013-03: Good enough?

Hi Malcolm,

On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 11:54 AM, Malcolm Hutty <malcolm at linx.net> wrote:
<snip>
> Much of what McTim wrote I also agree with, especially this:
>> Needs based distribution has been a cornerstone of the RIR system
>> for the last 2 decades or more.  It has worked remarkably well, and I
>> see no need to jettison it now just because there are fewer resources
>> to distribute.  In fact, I see a greater need for it now!  I expect
>> we will have to agree to disagree on this.
>
> However he also said:
>> The primary issue there is incompatibility with other regional
>> transfer policies.


Just to be precise "there" in that sentence referred to the impact analysis.

My main objection to the proposal is the removal of documented need.

I agree with Filiz that some text like:

"3. LIR must demonstrate its need for the IPv4 address space and must
confirm it will make assignment(s) from the allocation."

is essential, because, as she said previously:

"- 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.]"

My rational for this is that the RIRs have always "rationed"
resources. the wikipedia definition of rationing is here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationing

This "controlled distribution of scarce resources" has always used the
demonstration of need as a prerequisite for allocation.  In the last
/8 phase, we are using a different rationing method.  I don't see the
logic whereby demonstrating need can be eliminated, as it stands to
reason (to me at least) that in a situation of dwindling resources,
distribution requirements should be tighter, not looser.

This is not traditionalism for the sake of it, it is just my instinct
to be more conservative in the face of dwindling resources.

For the record, I do not have a policy role, paid or unpaid in any RIR
region. I am however serving out my last term on the AFRINIC
Nominations Committee this year.  I have zero financial interest in
any IP block.  I think however that having folk from other regions
giving input to the PDP is a feature, not a bug.

<snip>

>
>
> So I propose the following compromise:
>
> 1. 2013-03 be retitled to remove "no need" from the title. Those words
> are highly detrimental to the NCC's External Relations work, and add
> nothing useful.


+1

>
> 2. No other changes are made to the proposal itself.
>

see #3 above for the change I would like to see.

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel