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

On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 4:18 PM, Sylvain Vallerot <
sylvain.vallerot at opdop.net> wrote:

>
> 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.


To put it bluntly:

If a LIR's *survival* now depends on how the specific bureaucratic
justification of "need" is formulated for a remaining 1024 IPv4 addresses,
then that LIR has lost its way, and has no viable business prospects
regardless of what policy we set forth in this WG.

Any LIR with a sound business plan has already taken the steps necessary to
focus on IPv6.

You are probably right in one thing, though: end customers and end users
don't care about other's resource problems, they only care about their own.
As a group, they have an insatiable sense of need.

However, the RIRs are not directly in touch with these end customers and
end users, and have no way of judging what is fair, what is (real) need, or
what is even justifiable. The LIRs have direct contact, and have a better
sense of these things.

I don't think your deregulation argument makes much sense. Leaving more
responsibility with the LIR is not deregulation, it's a different kind of
organisation, but it's still regulated, and in a way that makes practical
sense.

The LIR model is, in many ways, similar to the registrar model – in domain
name registrations, the registries (the RIRs of domain names) don't meddle
with day to day registrations, they leave that to the registrars, and
rightly so. As opposed to IPv4 registrations, domain name registrations are
in a perpetual state of scarcity, so the similarity to IPv4 depletion
proper is more than skin deep.


>
> 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.
>

I'm sorry, I don't see how this proposal grants a LIR the power "to make
whatever they want".



> 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.
>
>
On what possible grounds do you assume that our "+1" supports are EASY?

You imply that only you have thought this through, and that those who just
state that they agree have not.

I find this unnecessarly offensive, that you cannot state your arguments
without making such implication.

We are, as far as I know, professionals with a particular *interest* in the
policies, that is why we subscribe to this group.

I wouldn't dare to assume that anyone here have not read and thought
through the implications and consequences.

I think you just have to face the fact that most people have thought this
through, and that we simply disagree with your assessment.

I also think you're over-dramatising, and are far too much concerned with
selecting the preferred arrangement of deck chairs on the Titanic instead
of figuring out how to best use the life boats.
-- 
Jan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20130924/1a0f27d1/attachment.html>