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

On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 11:04 AM, Sylvain Vallerot <
sylvain.vallerot at opdop.net> wrote:
>
> These would be correct if applied to End Users, unfortunately your
> proposition is applying to LIRs.
>
> So as I understand it, 2016-03 results in making a LIR's dimension
> void, e.g. to assimilate a LIR to an End User.
>

Several (and I would say many) LIRs _are_ end users, and the distinction
between LIR and end users is not, as far as I have understood past and
current policy, not intended to be watertight.

In other words, it's fine for a LIR to be an end user, and in principle, it
seems sensible that policy acknowledges that, but avoids making unnecessary
limitations that interfere with that.



>
> So I oppose this proposal.
>
> As I already explained some time ago, a fair "last /8" policy
> evolution should tend to apply abuse control on End Users and let
> LIRs make an independant job correctly : there is no point in
> having LIRs limited in distributing IP ressources to new born ops,
> and the new born ops shall not be forced to become LIRs to exists.
>

This has already happened. There has been a huge amount of new LIRs
registered in order to acquire a share of the remaining pool.

Your arguments do not seem to be arguments against 2016-03, but against
current policy.

If you want to change current policy, you should do as the authors of
2015-05 and 2016-03: gather support, make a proposal yourself.


Please note that I'm not flagging any preference for or against the policy
proposal. I think it's a bit too much like deck chair rearrangement, and my
feelings for it are more "meh" than anything else, at least for now. :)
-- 
Jan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20160609/d3e0a605/attachment.html>