[address-policy-wg] Policy proposal 2007-08 will go to Last Call
-
From: Sander Steffann sander@localhost
-
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 16:40:42 +0100
-
Organization: SJM Steffann Automatisering
The RIPE Address Policy Working Group chairs have decided to move policy
proposal 2007-08 to Last Call. This policy proposal has been discussed
on the mailing list since 23 October 2007. Version 2 of this proposal
was published on 18 March 2008, and version 3 has been published on 18
September 2008. In the last review phase version 3 of this proposal was
discussed. Each version used the feedback on the previous version from
the community. Most of the objections to version 2 of the proposal have
been handled in version 3. There were three remaining objections after
version 3 was published:
1) This policy will give IPv4 addresses financial value
This subject has been discussed on the mailing list. The feeling was
that IPv4 addresses already have financial value, but there was no proof
for this. Remco van Mook has demonstrated that there are organizations
that will pay money for IPv4 addresses, which proves that the financial
value already exists.
2) There will be no market for IPv4 address
In the same presentation Remco van Mook has shown that there are
currently both sellers and buyers for IPv4 addresses, which proves the
existence of such a market.
3) Reclaim/reuse is more efficient than transfering
Alex Le Heux from RIPE NCC has provided statistics on the amount of IPv4
addresses that have been reclaimed. These statistics show that the
amount of addresses that are effectively reclaimed (instead of returned
to the NCC in exchange for a bigger allocation) is negligible.
The current version of this proposal is version 4, which only has a
minor change to close a potential loophole in version 3: "An LIR may
only receive a transferred allocation after their need is evaluated by
the RIPE NCC" is changed to "An LIR may only receive a transferred
allocation after their need is evaluated and approved by the RIPE NCC".
Because the change is so small, we have chosen not to go to the Review
phase again.
Because all objections to this proposal have been handled and because of
the strong support that has been shown we feel confident that we can
declare consensus and move this proposal to Last Call.
Sander Steffann
Address Policy Working Group co-chair
|