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

On Tue, May 17, 2016, at 14:46, Remco van Mook wrote:
> > So this includes LIR's who already have (through acquisition of other companies) multiple /22 from the last /8
> 
> It doesn't apply retroactively - so if you have already merged LIRs and
> are currently holding multiple /22s form the final /8 you're fine. It
> does stop future cases though.

This is not exactly my reading of the new 5.1.5.
If a LIR already holds several /22 and stays the way it is, OK, it stays
the same.
However, if a LIR, holding several "last /22" *today* acquires another
LIR having a "last /22" and proceeds to a merger, in my reading it is
supposed to loose the equivalent of "last /8 space" it already has.

And I this cannot stop me thinking about the incitation of keeping as
many LIRs as possible alive. You can always buy another company and keep
the LIR, and this will be exactly what will happen if this policy gets
implemented.
This is basically a first (err, or is it a second) step to transforming
RIPE NCC to a profitable "for profit" company. And if it will not be
RIPE NCC getting the profits, it will be the "old LIRs" getting all the
benefits (one single membership fee instead of several). I can see a hat
there....

Otherwise:
 - still no incitation to deploy IPv6. Zero. Nada. a.k.a. "IPv4 is good,
 please go to the market; IPv6 really is irrelevant".
 - I don't get the point for the "reverse delegation restriction". BTW,
 how do you define "another party" ?
 - see the arguments for 2015-05 (I suppose this proposal is just the
 counter-reaction to that one), what you say is just dust in new
 entrants' eyes : "you have a /22 to start, but nothing more to live".
 It also misses the point of what is a "new entrant" today : i.e. not
 always someone prepared to do the "registry" job - "registry" like the
 "R" in LIR.

Circumvention : keep up with multiple LIRs, for NCC's profit.

But after all, I can also understand the very high possibility that this
proposal is only a bad joke (even it we're May 15th, not April 1st).

Just in case it's not clear, I'm completely against.
--
Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
fr.ccs