[address-policy-wg] Next steps for new LIRs

On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 07:09:24PM +0200, Roger Jrgensen wrote:
>I'm okay with letting RIPE NCC use some judgment. I am unsure if
>they are (RIPE NCC).  And sooner or later someone will complain.
>How, and who should deal with that? I think the current complain
>system can handle it with some minor tuning.

Perhaps the system that was in use for >/16 allocation requests
could be used for "questionable"requests. 
(IPRA -> IPRA managers -> Board)

>way here we go (oh, and I don't think APGW is the right place
>for this discussion).

Perhaps not, but APWG is what we have - and I prefer this to
backroom chats resulting in policy proposals that their
supporters don't even have to make any effort to defend.

>We could turn the table around, show that you got IPv6 deployed
>as a requirement.

hardly possible these days except in limited circumstances. Try
an MPLS design when all you have is ipv6.

>Or we could request that new LIR show that
>they actual are doing business as in showing an approved
>accounting from last year (not sure if I use the right words
>here...), point is that they should show they actual are doing
>business before they can get IPv4.

Not every LIR is a business and not every LIR is a company. It is
still "legal" for individuals to become a LIR and get resources
for private use and long may it be possible.

> This will however actual
>exclude them from interacting with any IPv4 marked for a while,
>but, really, I don't care much about that problem.

Thereby killing whatever startup culture exists in the RIPE
Service Region?
Excellent vindication of my point about some randomers on a
mailing list determining the fate of Internet business on two
continents...

>term problem.... another way around that problem is to buy/lease
>IPv4 until they can get their from RIPE NCC.

Thus giving the exact same people (resource speculators) a
captive market and losing the NCC some potential members in the
process.

rgds,
Sascha Luck