[address-policy-wg] 2016-03 Discussion Period extended until 15 July 2016 (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

Hi Riccardo,

> I am strongly against to every proposal that higher the disvlaantage to already disvantaged new and future pyers (LIRs after 09/2012)

You keep bringing that up, but how is preventing those newer LIRs from selling their addresses in any way disadvantaging them? On one hand you keep saying new LIRs don't get enough address space, and on the other hand you're saying that it is bad that they can't sell their space. Which one is it?

This proposal doesn't prevent new LIRs from buying address space. And if they want to buy /22s from other newer LIRs they can as easily (and cheaper) open their own second LIR. The RIPE NCC membership explicitly allowed that during the last AGM.

Two scenarios:

One
- Someone opens up an LIR
- They get their /22 (free)
- They sell it off to another LIR for a profit

Two
- That other LIR opens up a second LIR
- They get their /22 (free)
- They merge that new LIR with their old LIR using M&A

This policy proposal is stopping scenario One but not scenario Two. The previous version of the proposal did, but as that didn't get any support this version removed that restriction.

So what is this proposal blocking for new LIRs? Not buying space, not opening up a second LIR and getting that /22 from RIPE NCC. It only limits those LIRs from *selling* their /22 for profit.

I'm sorry, but if that is your business model then you are exactly the kind of business that this proposal is trying to stop. The IPv4 allocation policy has very few requirements, and one of them is that the LIR has to use it for assign addresses from. If the intention is to sell those addresses then you are already in violation of the current policy. That is *NOT* why you were given that /22 in the first place.

And as far as judging consensus goes, arguments that boil down to "I am currently violating the policy by requesting my /22 for the wrong reasons, and this proposal is stopping me from doing that" will not be taken into account. There are plenty of other arguments that need to be discussed, like the potential impact on the accuracy of the registry that Nick brought up. But there is too much FUD and noise in this discussion.

I don't mind if you send opposing arguments, but as I have said before I do care about the quality of the discussion. If you respond this policy in its current form then I'd like to see good argumentation with concrete examples of issues, not some hand-waving like "this is disadvantaging new LIRs" without any explanation of how that exactly would work. Then we have something to discuss that people can respond to. Consensus building works by explaining the issues and people trying to address them. Pretend I'm stupid and spell it out for me :)

Cheers,
Sander

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 455 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20160617/d949cc37/attachment.sig>