[address-policy-wg] Re: The emacs, X windows and Linux approach to policy making
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: The emacs, X windows and Linux approach to policy making
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: The emacs, X windows and Linux approach to policy making
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet
Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at
Wed Apr 14 14:52:48 CEST 2010
Well, allow me to step back a couple of <whatever is your favourite choice for measuring distance> and look back what happened... First of all, imho there has been a fundamental flaw in this proposal, from the very beginning (and this has only become apparent in retrospct, so no criticism here! If I would have noticed in time I would be much happier now): this proposal tried to combine a global policy - which by def. is meant to direct IANA'S operation! - with a "humanitarian" or "political" resource-re-distributio aspect for recovered address space (if any) to apply equally in all regions. So, actually, it combined a global policicy with regional policies. The latter aspect failed. I don't want to get into details, or what my personal opinion is, just stick to the facts and the process. >From what has happened already, wearing my hat as a member of the Address Council, I consider the current approach as doomed. Which is a Goog Thing, imho, because it makes the reasoning of "backing up" the position of *one* region or of *three* regions, by having RIPE accept a) or b), irrelevant. Because whatever the "result" is, either 4:1 or 3:2, it does not help in solving the basic problem: Give IANA a (global) policy how to re-distribute address space which happens to be returned. For whatever reason... So, my proposal would be to withdraw 2009-01 unconditionally, as being o.b.e. At the same time we c|should explore the possibility to start the process for a re-distribution policy for IANA. Taking off my AC hat now... Everything else should be left where I think it belongs: within the regions, to decide how to manage recovered/returned *legacy* resources, that have been "tagged" as being managed in one of the five regions by the ERX process. Wilfried Nigel Titley wrote: > On Wed, 2010-04-14 at 11:26 +0100, Jim Reid wrote: > >>It's tempting to consider tweaking our policy for the IPv4 dregs to >>show our displeasure at the path ARIN has adopted. However I hope we >>can rise above that. > > > We would not be tweaking the policy to show displeasure. Option 1 (which > "shows displeasure with ARIN") is actually the original proposal. Option > 2 which doesn't, tweaks the policy. Sorry to be pedantic. > > >>I'm also beginning to wonder if policy-making is being unconsciously >>shaped by the Linux/emacs/X-windows approach to software design. If >>that can be called "design". [The only thing wrong with these bits of >>code is they don't have enough options or configuration variables to >>tweak. :-)] I would like to see fewer options on what to do about >>2009-01. Ideally it should be reduced to a binary choice. > > > I'm happy with that. > > >>With that in mind and Nigel's comments that the proposal is dead and >>starting to have a bad smell, I suggest we reduce the discussion of >>2009-01 to a simple choice of whether to withdraw it or not. > > > In my original terms we decide either to adopt option #1 (go with the > existing proposal) or option #4. I'm very happy with offering just these > choices. > > >>IMO, withdrawing this proposal makes the most sense. Continuing with >>it would only be worthwhile if the same approach to recovered space >>was being followed by the other RIRs. Since that's no longer possible, >>I think we should just stop flogging this dead horse. > > > This is a fair point... and I'm happy to accept it if the community > decides this is the consensus position. > > >>If there's support for keeping 2009-01 alive, I'd like to suggest we >>focus the discussion to a choice between two mutually exclusive >>positions: >> >>1) recovered space goes back to IANA for it to redistribute somehow > > > This is 2009-01 in essence. > > >>2) recovered space stays with the NCC for redistribution according to >>RIPE policy > > > This is a new policy and outside scope for the present discussion. > > Nigel
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: The emacs, X windows and Linux approach to policy making
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: The emacs, X windows and Linux approach to policy making
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]