[address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)

Hi,

All LIRs should be treated equally, regardless of what size they are or how old they are. That is why the current charging scheme taxes all LIRs equally now. If you hold more resources, it doesn't mean you have more money (to purchase from the free market). 
Just as the last /8 states now, ALL LIRs are allowed to request a one time allocation of a /22. This should be kept in the new proposal as well. So in my opinion, the condition regarding the size of the LIR should be taken out completely.

The condition regarding transfering resources out of the LIR is ok, but there should be a limit there as well - for example "in the last two years preceeding the new request", just like transfer is prohibited for two years after they receive resources (transfers or allocations from RIPE).

We have to consider the fact that RIPE servers a very large comunity with A LOT of countries that are unstable economically and politically. So if for example, during a crisis (war, hostile takeover of territories, international sanctions, economy falling, etc), a company decides to cut down it's activity to a minimum, they transfer the freed resources. But if in two years the economic/politic situation changes and they've grown since then, they should be able to request additional resources (as per the proposed policy).

IPv6 deployment and usage must be a firm criteria for the additional allocation, just like it was in the begining for the /22 request from 185/8 range. Maybe even a more strict documentation of this usage should be enforced (not simply announcing for example,  for example a 5 star rating ... Something definite that can show continuos actual usage of IPv6).

Regards,
Matei Storch
Profisol Telecom
0728.555.004

> On 14 apr. 2016, at 18:02, Dominik Nowacki <dominik at clouvider.co.uk> wrote:
> 
> And why is that Ian ?
> 
> Dominik
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Dickinson, Ian
> Sent: 14 April 2016 16:01
> To: Marco Schmidt <mschmidt at ripe.net>; address-policy-wg at ripe.net
> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
> 
> I object to this proposal as written.
> 
> I do not believe there should be any distinction in policy based on a notional arbitrary "size" of LIR.
> 
> Ian
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Marco Schmidt
> Sent: 14 April 2016 13:42
> To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net
> Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
> 
> Dear colleagues,
> 
> The Discussion Period for the policy proposal 2015-05, "Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision" has been extended until 13 May 2016.
> 
> The goal of this proposal is to allow LIRs to request an additional /22
> IPv4 allocation from the RIPE NCC every 18 months.
> 
> The text of the proposal has been revised based on mailing list feedback and we have published a new version (2.0) today. As a result, a new Discussion Phase has started for the proposal.
> 
> Some of the differences from version 1.0 include:
> - Additional /22 IPv4 allocations can be only provided from address space outside 185/8
> - Only LIRs with less than a /20 in total are eligible to receive additional allocations
> - LIRs must document their IPv6 deployment as part of the request
> 
> You can find the full proposal at:
> 
> https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-05
> 
> We encourage you to review this policy proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg at ripe.net>.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Marco Schmidt
> Policy Development Officer
> RIPE NCC
> 
> Information in this email including any attachments may be privileged, confidential and is intended exclusively for the addressee. The views expressed may not be official policy, but the personal views of the originator. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender by return e-mail and delete it from your system. You should not reproduce, distribute, store, retransmit, use or disclose its contents to anyone. Please note we reserve the right to monitor all e-mail communication through our internal and external networks. SKY and the SKY marks are trademarks of Sky plc and Sky International AG and are used under licence. Sky UK Limited (Registration No. 2906991), Sky-In-Home Service Limited (Registration No. 2067075) and Sky Subscribers Services Limited (Registration No. 2340150) are direct or indirect subsidiaries of Sky plc (Registration No. 2247735). All of the companies mentioned in this paragraph are incorporated in England and Wales and share the same registered office at Grant Way, Isleworth, Middlesex TW7 5QD.