[address-policy-wg] 2007-01 review phase comments

Hi,

this discussion is starting a bit premature...

On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 08:00:56PM +0000, Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet wrote:
> Niall O'Reilly wrote:
> > On 15 May 2008, at 10:02, Gert Doering wrote:
> > 
> >> This means that the proposal needs to re-enter review phase, and we'll
> >> ask you to closely look at it, and confirm that you're expressing
> >> support for the *latest revision* of the proposal.

Maybe my wording wasn't clear enough here.  We are working on a new version
of the proposal right now, and when it's done, "we'll ask you to closely
look at it <and so on>".


[..]
> - the headline of this draft is
> 
> "IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment
>  Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region"
> 
> which for me implies that it is supposed to apply to address space
> distributed as a service by the RIPE NCC to its Service Region.
> 
> This seems to be confirmed (in Section 9.0) by the paragraph headline of
> 
> "End Users requesting PI space should be given this or a similar warning:"
> 
> Looking at the (1st block of) NEW TEXT talking about PI and routability
> seems pretty reasonable and consistent.
> 
> However, looking at the next block of text labelled ADDITION TO DOCUMENT
> which starts to - out of context - talk about ERX (to me) seems grossly
> illogical and structurally misplaced.

This block has nothing to do whatsoever with the warning message - which
is why it's in a *separate* text box, and not included in the "changed text
for the warning message" box.

Since this seems to be easy to misunderstand, we're currently reworking
the structure of the change to make it more obvious that the "ADDITION
TO DOCUMENT" block is *not* part of the "warning message to PI requestors",
but of the general PI section.


Independent of this, the ERX part will be moved to a separate policy
proposal (see below).


> - trying to sneak in a retro-active requirement into a policy which would
>   require the NCC to impose usage limitations, contractual work or new fees
>   onto *legitimate* holders of legacy resources without, at the same time,
>   offering some reasonable incentive for the resource holders to agree and
>   comply, poses the risk of damaging the perception of the RIPE NCC as a
>   professional, impartial and "reasonable" organisation trying to support
>   the community.

We've discussed this on RIPE55, and got *very* explicit support from the
room that "yes, this needs to apply for existing assignments as well"
(that was the part about the "old farts", remember?).  Please read it up
in the minutes.  There is absolutely nothing "sneaky" here.

The RIPE NCC management has voiced support for this as well, and not 
expressed any concerns about this part of the proposal.

The "missing" incentive for the resource holders could be, among others,
better quality of the data in the RIPE database, and thus less hijacking, 
less troubles with upstream routing, etc. - and in the long run, resource
certificates, of course.

I agree that we cannot do that for ERX space, because this is space that
was never handed out by the NCC, and no ties to the NCC exist.  So the 
plan is to put up a separate policy proposal for ERX ("if you want 
service from the NCC, like a resource certificate, the ERX space needs 
to be changed to normal PI space, with all accompanying obligations").

Gert Doering
        -- APWG chair
-- 
Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations:  110584

SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444            USt-IdNr.: DE813185279