<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=windows-1252"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">Tore,<div><br></div><div><div><div>On 21 Sep 2013, at 15:10, Tore Anderson <<a href="mailto:tore@fud.no">tore@fud.no</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><br>Agreed. As I've said repeatedly, changing the way initial /22s for new<br>LIRs are issued is not and has never been a goal of this proposal.<br><br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>But your proposal is changing it, regardless if it is the goal or the unintentional end result. </div><div>Otherwise, really, what are we discussing here? That your proposal is changing the First allocation part of the policy is a fact.</div><div><br></div><div>This is what I find so hard with your argumentative strategy to follow. </div><div>You keep responding with "it was not the intention" or "it is not within the scope of this proposal" to these oppositions to a change that your proposal is actually bringing to the current policy.</div><div><br></div><div>And I think this adds to the confusion and results in lengthy discussions where people get lost. </div><div>This is an other factor in not reaching consensus as timely as you desire in my opinion in this case. </div><div>I refrained from pointing these so far because I believe everyone is entitled to their own style, but I must say it is a 2-way street. </div><div>I wish you were more careful before making judgements about other people's styles, questions, comments and etc before considering all these too. </div><div><br></div><br><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">And since this is so easy to do, why such simple demonstration cannot<br>be kept there in the policy, so this proposal can finally reach<br>consensus? Of course this just a suggestion, I do not know if others<br>who opposed so far will be OK with this small alteration...<br></blockquote><br>It could. Again, changing the way initial /22s for new LIRs are issued<br>is not something the proposal is aiming at. That's why the 2nd amendment<br>was added. And I would quite possible have been OK with this small<br>alteration or something like it, except for one ting: Timing.<br><br>So why not, you ask? Because it means another Impact Analysis, and<br>another review phase. </blockquote><div><br></div><div>Sure, but we (opposers) cannot be held responsible of this situation. </div><div>And maybe RIPE NCC can provide a faster answer in this if they also think in fact it is a small amendment. </div><div><br></div><div><br></div><blockquote type="cite">In the last review phase, one of solutions you<br>advocated was �some kind of commitment from the requester that the space<br>is to be used on a network shortly and not to be sold to a 3rd party�.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>You keep referring to this, and "my" timing and all. </div><div>Fine, but then I suggest if you are going to quote me, quote me correctly and under the light of "your" communication in this list too.</div><div><br></div><div>Exact interaction between us was as follows in that mail you referred to:</div><div>(<a href="http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/2013-August/008104.html">http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/2013-August/008104.html</a>)</div><div><br></div><div>---</div><div><pre>><i> The relevant community built policy that defines "fairness" at this </i>><i> point in time is the "last /8 policy", with its strict "one /22 per </i>><i> applicant" rationing. This does not go away with 2013-03, so in </i>><i> pragmatical terms, the implementation of "fairness" would remain. </i>><i> </i> Tore, i do not see how it remains. I gave the example of two new members getting each a /22 if your proposal gets accepted before: One is requesting it to use it on a network soon. The other is requesting it to sell it in 24 months because they cannot sell it before - your proposal leaves this requirement. I dont think this is fair and this will happen if NCC does not ask for justification for need or some word on that a network exists for the IPs to be used on. </pre><div><br></div><div>---</div></div><div><br></div><div>and then the mail continues with:</div><div><br></div><div>---</div><div><pre>I agree with the parts of your proposal that are removing the overhead on LIR level. But I do not see it is much of an overhead to be able to say "i need a last /22 because of this network here.." ><i> Would such an amendment make the proposal more appealing or at least </i>><i> acceptable to you? If not, what else is needed? </i> Pls see above and few previous mails. Before NCC really runs out and still providing "allocations" I advocate for keeping the justification for need or some kind of commitment from the requester that the space is to be used on a network shortly and not to be sold to a 3rd party. </pre><div>--</div></div><div><br></div><div>So I obviously provided extra context to your question with further suggestions. </div><div><br></div><div>I think it is clear from the statements of mine before or after your question as "<i>Would such an amendment make the proposal more appealing or at least a</i><i>cceptable to you? If not, what else is needed?" </i>that I am not totally content with the sole combo-box (Yes/NO) suggestion. Otherwise I would have simply answered your question with a "yes'".</div><div><br></div><div>Now, you chose to take only a certain part of this answer; "or some kind of commitment from the requester", ignoring the rest which was "that the space is to be used on a network shortly and not to be sold to a 3rd party. ".</div><div><br></div><div>So I think it is quiet unfair on you to tell me that I have not raised this *before*, considering that this was my point in all of the mails I have sent to the list beginning from 25th July, in various forms and with various examples indeed to get my message across.</div><div><br></div><div>Furthermore and more importantly, after this correspondence, which was on 2nd August, on 6th August, you have sent a mail to the list as follows (as a response to Hans Petter's mail):</div><div><pre>-----</pre><pre>* Hans Petter Holen ><i> since this is going to be replaced we should probably make sure we are </i>><i> in line with [goal #1 in section #2 of RFC 2050-bis]. </i> As I explained in my reply to David Conrad, I believe the amendment I'll be proposing in version 3.0 of the proposal will ensure that we are. (In a nutshell: Keep "Need" around in its current form for the final /22 allocations issued by the NCC to its members.)</pre><div>----</div><div><br></div><div>Seeing this, I thought you would keep "the need justification" in the policy.</div><div>You also were saying in "its current form" . [Current policy says: "Members can receive an initial IPv4 allocation when they have demonstrated a need for IPv4 address space."].</div><div>Voila, I thought, we seem to be agreeing, finally! </div><div><div><br></div><div>Anyway, so note that at this point (on 6 August) I am thinking that you would keep the "need" in the new version as it is already in the current policy document. </div><div>And I took some days off (did I mention the summer holidays??), during which you seem to have sent another mail on 7th August.</div><div><br></div><div>In that mail the details are quite different than what you have said on 6th August though. </div><div><br></div></div><div>I am now re-raising it and I think I am entitled to, especially given that I have belief this may be the consensus point for this proposal.</div><div><br></div><div>Once again I have suggested the following:</div><div><div><br></div><div><blockquote type="cite">Accordingly, I think following will be a more appropriate wording:<br><br>3. LIR must demonstrate its need for the IPv4 address space and must<br>confirm it will make assignment(s) from the allocation.<br><br>replacing what you proposed:<br>3. The LIR must confirm it will make assignment(s) from the allocation</blockquote></div></div><div><br></div><div>This amendment is right from the current policy which I thought you agreed to keep based on your mail on 6th August. </div><div><br></div><div>So please stop accusing me as if I am re-inventing a new suggestion here, just to stall the process.</div><div>To my best knowledge, we had discussed these and agreed on them. </div><div><br></div><div>I may have misunderstood what you really meant to say on 6th August mail, but surely all this does not mean that I waited on purpose, just to give you grief and I am now re-raising the issue. </div><div><br></div><div>In fact, it means that I trusted you and what you have said on 6th August and I simply did not see the need to double check this against your mail on 7th August when I got back from my days off. Since I got back I have been waiting to see the new text (v3) and here we are today, now.</div><div><br></div><div>I hope this now address all the comments below and that there is no conspiracy here. </div><div>I am finding this insinuation very disturbing to the process and to the proposal's progress too, by the way. </div><div><br></div><div><blockquote type="cite">Why you chose to say *nothing* when asked in the last review phase if<br>the currently proposed text was okay, why you chose to say *nothing*<br>when the WG was asked if there were remaining objections that was not<br>dealt with by the proposed amendments, why you chose to wait in silence<br>for well over a month when the NCC was hard at work making a new Impact<br>Analysis, only to bring up your misgivings about the new text *now*...it<br>is truly beyond my comprehension.<br></blockquote></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>My best wishes to all for a great weekend!</div><div><br></div><div>Filiz Yilmaz</div></div></div></div></body></html>