[address-policy-wg] 2015-04 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (RIPE Resource Transfer Policies)

> What would be the point in selling AS numbers? Just return it to the NCC.
>
> What is the point in selling IPs. Just return them to the NCC. It's the
same with AS numbers. There is a market for them too.


> > Getting back to the fundaments, I will never support any policy that
> says "it's better to put everybody in jail even if some are innocent
> instead of letting everybody free even some might be criminals". This is
> wrong and should be debated properly.
>
> Again, these kind of extreme analogies are out of place here. Debate is
> indeed what we need, but based on facts and accurate details.


I'm trying to bring out the fundaments behind the ideas. Even if the
situations are different the is the same principle behind and it's a wrong
one.



> > The policy's goal has nothing to do with bringing changes to the rules.
>
> Huh? First, all policy proposals are about changing the rules. Second,
> don't make assumptions about what the authors goals are, stick to the facts.


I'm reading the policy text, not assuming anything. This one particulary
had a different scope (as it states). It was supposed to be just a
"cosmetic" change.


> > NCC says the changes do not have a notable impact. Then don't make the
> changes !
>
> Stop extrapolating what others write to support your own arguments. The
> proposal doesn't have a notable impact besides the impact it's designed to
> have.
>

Again, anyone can read the first lines in the proposal. The goal is a
cosmetic one. At the impact section B, NCC says there is no significant
impact on registry and addressing system. The only impact expressed by NCC
is on their operations which would have some (important) work to do as well
as on the legal side. From your wording I would understand that actually
there is an impact but it is hidden ? NCC didn't mention it so either it's
not important or it's hidden. Which would it be ?

What I propose is for the author to stick to the proposal's goal which
would then get "unanimous" acceptance and start a new policy for the
supposed loophole that would properly address it, considering all the
situations. Address one thing at a time, this way the good ideas can pass
quickly while the  controversed ones will be properly debated.

Ciprian
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20161021/ae83b49f/attachment.html>