[address-policy-wg] relevant panel discussion from INET Denver

* Milton L Mueller

> Also, I'd like address this claim of Tore's:
> 
>> That said: I don't really consider 2013-03 a "transfer policy
>> proposal". My motivation for making the proposal is to reduce the
>> bureaucracy and paperwork required to operate my LIR and make
>> assignments to my customers. I would still have made the proposal
>> even if the current address policy didn't have any provisions
>> allowing for transfers to begin with.
> 
> Really? Post-depletion, all IPv4 allocations will be through
> transfers. While eliminating needs assessments will reduce
> bureaucracy, if there are no transfers under what conditions would
> RIPE-NCC be doing IPv4 needs assessments?

My motivation is primarily to reduce the LIRs' amount of paperwork and
bureaucracy - not the RIPE NCC's.

Currently, all LIRs are required by policy to perform need evaluation
for every single assignment they make from their allocations. The RIPE
NCC doesn't get involved, unless 1) the LIR willingly asks the NCC to
help out with the evaluation, 2) the assignment exceeds the LIR's
Assignment Window, or 3) the LIR is later subjected to an LIR Audit.

Filling out, evaluating, and archiving all this paperwork takes up a lot
of my time, time I'd much rather spend on deploying IPv6, for example. I
want to be a technocrat, not a bureaucrat. Hence the proposal.

Don't get me wrong, though. That 2013-03 reduces the NCC's workload and
the LIRs' bureaucratic hurdles wrt transfers, are also positive effects.
But they are not my main motivation for making the proposal.

Thanks for the update from the ARIN meeting!

Tore