[address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Policy Proposal (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

Hi,

On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 12:54:04AM +0300, Aleksey Bulgakov wrote:
> E.g. If the LIR has the allocation 31./12 (this is for example only, I
> didn't check what RIR has 31./8 network) and didn't use it during 5 years
> (or other period) he should return it to the NCC pool or a part of it.

That would certainly be welcome, but there are no contractual or policy
requirements that could *force* the LIR to return the space (or would allow
the RIPE NCC to take it back).

Allocation policy has always been geared to "here's a block, you fill it,
then you come back and ask for the next block" - the situation "here's a 
block, and if you do *not* fill it, give back the unused part in <x> years 
time" just did not happen during the growth years of the IPv4 Internet,
so the policy does not have any clauses for it.

Changing the policy to apply to old blocks would be retroactively applying
policy to *holders*, which is generally a no-go area  (and I disagree with
some members of the community here on what is "retroactive" - I think that
affecting future(!) *actions* regarding a block is ok, but changing the
de-facto *status* of something people rely on is highly problematic)

Gert Doering
        -- APWG chair
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444           USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20160607/168a559a/attachment.sig>