[address-policy-wg] 2014-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Number Assignments)

Hi Gert, 

> So your suggestion would be to stall this proposal until we know what 
> comes out of the next AGM, and then see if we need the clause in question
> at all, anymore?

I would not recommend stalling the proposal based on what will be decided.
My strong suggestion would be to move forward regardless.  

The current policy text provides a fix for possible abuse of requesting AS
numbers. And if there will be a charge in the future for an AS number via
the charging scheme, that number would be easy removed to replace it by the
charge for the AS. 

> What if the AGM decides to bring back a yearly recurring charge for ASNs,
> we loosen up our policy, the AGM decides to remove the charge once again,
> and Nick No Hats decides to send in 4 billion ASN requests to the NCC
> (I recall that it was you initially who was worried about the potential 
> for abuse here, so I'm slightly confused what to make out of this now)?

Let's not try to fix every potential issue here I would say. 
We can always address that if we see someone sign-up as Mr. No Hats at a
RIPE meeting and take him aside ... cluebats are great for providing some
insight into a specific direction ..  ;-) 

> Given that we only have indirect influence on the AGM decisions, I can 
> see why the proposers wanted to have a safety net in the parts we get
> to control...

The proposers didn't wanted this safety net if I recall initially .. that
came to the discussion after someone decided he wanted to request the
complete number pool ... 
And he didn't even wanted to do so.. he just played with the idea that it
would be possible ... 

This complete theoretic possible abuse for this specific policy has been
entertained long enough I would say .. time to move forward. 

Regards,
Erik Bais