[address-policy-wg] 2009-02 New Policy Proposal (Allocating Resources to the RIPE NCC)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2009-02 New Policy Proposal (Allocating Resources to the RIPE NCC)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2008-05 New Draft Documents Published (Anycasting Assignments for TLDs and Tier 0/1 ENUM)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
David Monosov
davidm at futureinquestion.net
Tue Mar 31 15:05:40 CEST 2009
Dear Nick, Remco, address-policy-wg, The suggested changes Nick put forward appear sensible, and should result in a lasting framework with a less irregular process. By keeping the hostmasters in the loop, the requirement "For the purpose of evaluating, the request will be treated as if it were filed by a regular LIR." is met by the most competent authority. This, in turn, allows the Pool of Arbiters to concentrate on the merit of a request rather than policy technicalities. Therefore, I support these changes. -- Respectfully yours, David Monosov Nick Hilliard wrote: > On 25/03/2009 08:41, Remco van Mook wrote: >> There won't be a contract because it's an impossibility - that's one of >> the main rationales behind the proposal. We could have the NCC sign >> twice but that's a bit ridiculous and won't be a legal contract anyway. > > A couple of comments here: > > 1. It may be a good idea to explicitly note in the proposal that the > RIPE NCC is formally exempted from signing any of the normal contracts > required for number resource assignment / allocation. > > 2. I don't want to sound like the language fascist here, but as the > proposal deals with both assignment and allocation of resources (to use > the RIPE NCC terminology), it might be a good idea to use the two terms > in the policy proposal. Currently the word "allocation" is used, but if > the NCC is going to apply for a PI ipv6 /48, then that's an assignment. > Similarly for ASNs. > > 3. I have a slight preference for using the Pool of Arbiters instead of > the WG Chairs for the approval mechanism, purely on the grounds that > smaller committees are better than bigger ones. I don't have a problem > with Remco being proposer of this policy change and also being on the > pool of arbiters. Just out of interest, the pool of arbiters is > described here: > > http://www.ripe.net/membership/arbitration.html > > 4. Regarding the function of the approval group, there are two important > requirements for RIPE NCC number resource assignment / allocation process: > > a. consistency with the assignment / allocation guidelines > b. process transparency > > As it stands, the proposed process delegates the entire process of > number resource approval to the approval group, with no obligation to > explain or publicise their decision. I just wonder if it wouldn't be > better to have a process like this: > > 4.1: assignment / allocation request received and processed by RIPE > NCC hostmasters who will give a formal written opinion on whether the > request is consistent with current assignment / allocation guidelines > 4.2: this opinion is evaluated by [pool of arbiters / WG chairs] who > are entitled to approve the request only if the hostmaster team find > that the request is consistent with current rules. > 4.3: either way, the request, the hostmaster recommendation and the > reasoning of [pool of arbiters / WG chairs] is published. > 4.4: if both hostmasters and [pool of arbiters / WG chairs] decline > request, then petition can be made to RIPE Plenary. > > There are a couple of reasons for this alternative proposal. First, > it's the purpose of the RIPE NCC hostmaster team to evaluate whether > number requests are consistent with the rules. The [pool of arbiters / > WG chairs] are not hostmasters. Secondly, the [pool of arbiters / WG > chairs] should not necessarily be given sole authority to decide whether > a number request is consistent with current RIPE rules; 4.2 above > implies that if the RIPE NCC hostmaster team believes that a request is > not justified, the [pool of arbiters / WG chairs] have no authority to > override that decision. Thirdly, the reasoning and decision of the [pool > of arbiters / WG chairs] should be published so that this mystical ideal > of transparency is achieved. > > Nick >
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2009-02 New Policy Proposal (Allocating Resources to the RIPE NCC)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2008-05 New Draft Documents Published (Anycasting Assignments for TLDs and Tier 0/1 ENUM)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]