[address-policy-wg] 2015-01 New Policy Proposal (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)

Hi Elvis!

On Fri, 2015-02-20 at 15:10 +0100, Elvis Daniel Velea wrote:
> hi Martin,
> 
> I will try to answer some of the points you have raised in the e-mails
> sent to this list in the past couple of days.

Thank you.

<snip>
> This means that new entrants will have a method to at least receive
> a /22 from the RIPE NCC for the foreseeable future. 

At the current burn-rate, 8 years.

> When the last /22 policy was discussed and approved, the members of
> this community [...] I see there is enough space for even more than
> 10k new entrants.

I have no argument against that this is what the community has decided.

> > Increasing the RIPE NCC IPv4 price is counter-productive to that goal. 
> This policy proposal does not intend to increase the IPv4 price. It
> only wants to close a loophole where someone could just open an LIR
> only for the reason to request and sell the /22 allocation
> immediately. 

Nod.  On your website, http://v4escrow.net/policy-development/ , I
learned that your organisation was asked by some in the room to produce
this (and other?) policy proposals, referring to slide 10 of
https://ripe69.ripe.net/presentations/72-APWG_RS_Feedback_Final.pdf . I
wasn't there, but on your website you're talking about that there is
"speculation" going on with this address space and that it is the
speculation that you want to stop with this policy proposal.

Could you elaborate or provide evidence for that? The slide referenced
doesn't support the claim.
  Buying and selling address space isn't at all necessarily
"speculation". It's just reselling, right? Just like your business.

(I also learned on your website that your organisation is involved with
making policies -- transfer policies I assume -- better.  I approve of
that work!)

> I will not try to comment on your conspiracy theories about the
> 'Internet world order' and how the community is trying to buy RIPE NCC
> time to adjust to this 'world order'.

It is not a conspiracy - it is a fact that you are even living proof of,
by the business that you now have, that it is insufficient for the
Registry to be handing out IP space from its available free pools, now
after the point of depletion.

> I will also not comment on your idea of 'anti-competitive'
> limitations. I think you should have had this discussion when the
> 'last /22 from the last /8' policy proposal was discussed.

> I will also not comment on your ideas that the RIPE NCC implements
> 'policies without any deliberation at all in the community'. Firstly,
> because I know it's not true as all policy changes have been going
> through this PDP process.
> Secondly, because I think it's the RIPE NCC and the WG chairs who
> should respond to this 'accusation'.

It's an observation of the fact that there are a couple of quite
significant internet architecture pieces put into production by RIPE
NCC, that are not to be found at
https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals whatsoever. (And there's
been no consensus elsewhere.)
It is no accusation of any sort. I fully accept that this is how the
internet is governed today.

>  Thirdly, because this has nothing to do with this policy proposal.

A good reason to leave it out of the discussion indeed.

> Finally, If you think that the last /8 policy is bad and that the RIPE
> NCC should implement a policy where all the free pool is depleted as
> soon as possible, feel free to come up with a new policy proposal.

I'll retreat and think a bit about it. :)

/M
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20150220/92f9115e/attachment.sig>