[address-policy-wg] 2009-02 New Policy Proposal (Allocating Resources to the RIPE NCC)

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
>