[address-policy-wg] [policy-announce] 2013-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and Clean up)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2013-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and Clean up)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] [policy-announce] 2013-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and Clean up)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Hans Petter Holen
hph at oslo.net
Fri Jul 26 18:31:47 CEST 2013
On Thursday, July 25, 2013, Jan Ingvoldstad wrote: > Here it is my main point: >> >> "Justification for need" and "evaluation of justification for need" are >> two different things. >> >> First one, "Justification for need", is perfectly a policy matter and I >> believe IPv4 policy should still mention this, as long as RIPE NCC >> continues allocating space to its members and the last /8 is totally >> exhausted. Say something along the lines, "LIRs requesting address space >> from the RIPE NCC should have a need for the requested space for a network >> of their own or their customer". >> >> So that we at least put a barrier in front of those who would just ask >> for an allocation to immediately turn it into an asset. >> > > That barrier is a paper tiger, unfortunately. > and has been so since the beginning.The amount of paper have changed over times. If the policy states "need" then NCC feels obliged to figure out how to determine "need" > > >> But those who really are in need are primarily highlighted by the policy. >> >> Current policy has the following text: >> "Members can receive an initial IPv4 allocation when they have >> demonstrated a need for IPv4 address space." >> >> Tore's proposal is removing this totally and I do not agree with it. >> (...) > > > So, in essence, what you state is that: > > a) There is no need to change or remove the "need" statement in the policy. > b) The RIPE NCC should decide how "need" is determined as a matter of > procedure. > > Given what appears to be the majority view here, the NCC may just as well > decide to interpret the community's view on "need" as something that does > not need to be documented in itself, other than placing a request for a > network block. > Be careful here - we are not operating by majority but by consensus - so we need to get everybody - or at least most - to understand and not object. > > Altering this particular part of the policy document as Tore suggests will > change very little in practice and procedure. > That is still not clear to me. Hans Petter -- Hans Petter Holen Mobile +47 45 06 60 54 | hph at oslo.net | http://hph.oslo.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20130726/3c2a63c3/attachment.html>
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2013-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and Clean up)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] [policy-announce] 2013-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and Clean up)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]