[address-policy-wg] Suggested updates to 2010-05 (Global Policy for IPv4 Allocation by the IANA post exhaustion)

On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 16:26, Nick Hilliard <nick at inex.ie> wrote:

> On 19/09/2010 19:12, Chris Grundemann wrote:
> > Problem #1: The allocation method was unfair.
>
> "Fairness" is a remarkably mercurial concept which has little or no meaning
> in an environment of plenty.  It's much easier to talk about "unfairness":
> which is the state of mind of candidate A, when candidate B receives
> preferential treatment.  Just look at squabbling children and their
> exquisitely honed sense of personal injustice.
>

Understood. As a parent I definitely see that the term can be used
subjectively as well as objectively. Letting one child eat all of the food
in the house while the other starves falls clearly into the latter case,
imo. This is very similar to the problem we believe that we have corrected
in the new text; as described in the OP:

The intent was never for a single RIR to be able to be allocated all
available address space in mass quantities. We do however want any
available address space to be utilized if there is need. We've
addressed what we would characterize as a mechanical issue.

>
> I would suggest that - regardless of the rules set up now - there will be a
> lot of "unfairness" and "injustice" of this sort once address space
> exhaustion hits.
>

I agree in that there will be "pain" felt by everyone and thus very likely
calls of "unfairness" and "injustice." I believe that our goal as stewards
of the Internet (or at the very least policy makers) should be to try to
spread the pain as proportionally as possible - so that such inevitable
cries are much more of the subjective type than the objective.

>
> Nick
>
> Best,
~Chris
(speaking for myself - I did not clear this response with other authors,
etc)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20100920/be89bdc7/attachment.html>