[address-policy-wg] [policy-announce] 2013-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and Cleanup)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] [policy-announce] 2013-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and Cleanup)
- 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 Cleanup)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
McTim
dogwallah at gmail.com
Fri Sep 20 18:10:15 CEST 2013
Tore, On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 10:53 AM, Tore Anderson <tore at fud.no> wrote: > * McTim > >> Apologies if I was unclear. What I was trying to get across is that >> this proposal would go from a system of "pay your membership fees >> and show you actually need the resources" to just "pay". >> >> Needs based distribution has been a cornerstone of the RIR system >> for the last 2 decades or more. It has worked remarkably well, and I >> see no need to jettison it now just because there are fewer resources >> to distribute. In fact, I see a greater need for it now! I expect >> we will have to agree to disagree on this. > > This exact point was brought up by a few other people as well as the NCC > itself in the first review period, and in order to meet those concerns > the proposal was amended so that it does not longer make it possible to > simply pay the membership fee and receive an allocation from the RIR > without "need". I consider the check box yes/no "I will be making assignments.." a fig leaf at best. You can see my reasoning on the topic of need here: http://www.circleid.com/posts/the_invisible_hand_vs_the_public_interest_in_ipv4_address_distribution/ So the proposal retains "need", but is title "No need"? > > I'd like to make it crystal clear that the proposal has no ambition > whatsoever to change how the RIR distributes its last remaining scraps > of address space, and the 2nd and 3rd amendments was developed in > collaboration with the NCC precisely in order to prevent that from > happening as an accidental side-effect, see: > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/2013-August/008155.html > > I note that you neglected to respond to this message even I had thought I had, maybe not. though I > clearly asked for any remaining material objections to be raised > *before* the amended proposal was returned to the NCC. Waiting until now > with voicing your objections is quite frankly wasting everyone's time, That is not my intent. My intent was to respond to Marco's message asking for comments. > most of all the good folks at the NCC's time, who have been working on > the new IA for more than a month now. > > Best regards, > Tore Anderson > > (BTW: Since the Chair closed the inter-region transfer topic, I'll not > continue that discussion on the list. If you wish I'll be happy to > continue off-list, though, just shoot me a direct message and I'll > respond as best as I can.) I don't think the chair has the prerogative to close a topic. If the intent of your proposal is to retain need, then the inter-RIR transfer issue is moot. However, I am not sure the IPRAs from another region may see the check box as "compatible". In other words, I still think it is a flaw, even thought the chair might think it "fully addressed" (pun intended?). -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] [policy-announce] 2013-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and Cleanup)
- 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 Cleanup)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]