[address-policy-wg] Policy proposal 2009-01
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal 2009-01
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal 2009-01
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Carlos Friacas
cfriacas at fccn.pt
Wed Apr 14 09:18:33 CEST 2010
Hello, Going forward with (1.) means that potentially recovered space within RIPE-land can end up in the hands of someone inside ARIN-land ??? Imho, those who wish not to contribute should not have access to the recovered resources. Solidarity (even if it's about a legacy resource...) sounds like a positive thing, however, if it's possible for non-contributors to benefit, another word comes to mind. And in that case i would be in favour of (3.) or (4.). Regards, Carlos On Tue, 13 Apr 2010, Nigel Titley wrote: > Folks, > > As one of the authors of this proposal I'd like to get some sort of > consensus together in the RIPE region so that we can move forward. > > All other regions have reached consensus and we are the last to do so. > > All other regions with the exception of Arin have adopted the policy in > it's original form. Arin has modified the policy to remove the mandatory > return of recovered address space to IANA, which effectively makes it a > different policy. 2009-01 is a global policy which means that the same > policy has to be agreed in all regions, so to all practical purposes it > is doomed already. However, we still need to decide what to do with it > in the RIPE region. To my mind there are four possibilities: > > 1. We adopt it in its original form thus demonstrating solidarity with > the other regions, apart from Arin. > > 2. We adopt the Arin form of the proposal, thus demonstrating solidarity > with Arin, but with no one else > > 3. We reject the proposal outright, thus demonstrating that we can't > make up our minds or that we think it will never work, or something... > > 4. We ask the regional authors (in this case myself and Axel) to > withdraw the proposal in this region. > > Some background may be helpful here. No one seriously expected that any > address space would actually be returned as a result of this policy. It > was intended as a statement that should IPv4 address space become > available then it would be used for the greater good of all the > registries rather than those who had already had the majority of the > space already. I realise that this was a rather pious hope, but we felt > that it was worth making a statement about. > > The Arin region's position has made it impossible to make this statement > globally, but we still have the opportunity to make it here. I would > like to solicit the opinions of this working group in order to try and > put the matter to bed once and for all. > > I realise I'm making rather contentious statements here, but I'm hoping > to provoke a bit of discussion. Please can the working group indicate > how they would like to move this forward. > > All the best > > Nigel > >
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal 2009-01
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal 2009-01
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]