[address-policy-wg] 2013-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and Cleanup)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2013-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and Cleanup)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2013-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and Cleanup)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
David Farmer
farmer at umn.edu
Fri Sep 20 22:21:39 CEST 2013
+1 to every thing Sylvain said, and -1 to proposal. On 9/20/13 06:19 , Sylvain Vallerot wrote: > > Hi all, > > Unfortunately we do not support this new proposal, because conservation > still is a goal to us, as IPv4 public ressource keeps being vital for > many structures. > > Deregulation + commercial transfer make the ressources governed by sole > market, which we do not agree with. We consider Ripe NCC should stay in > its regulation role and not give public ressources away to the private > sector and market. > > > Moreover, the rationale "supporting arguments" list doesn't convince us > at all, let me be more explicit : > > 1. reduced bureaucracy : > > I do not consider proper use of ressources and justification as > just "bureaucracy" but as a necessity to take good care > > 2. for long-term business planning: from 2 year to infinity ? > > is this serious, we are talking about IPv4 here ? > > 3. Makes the policy easier to read and understand > > are we stupid or something ? > > 4. Removes conflict between "conservation" and "aggregation" > > this cannot be a supporting argument, one does not just suppress > a criteria to ease the problem > > 5. LIR Audits becomes less time-consuming > > properly made documentation should not take time to show for LIRs, > and Ripe does not expect time spared for itself on the other side > > 6. Reduction of RIPE NCC workload > > or not : see impact analysis part C, that says no workload nor > financial benefit is to be expected in the Ripe NCC. > > 7. Elimination of incentive to "game the system". > > supress rules so no ones will cheat them ? this is nonsense. > > 8. Makes IPv4 and IPv6 policies more similar in practise > > IPv4 and IPv6 are not similar, why should policies be ? > > Unfortunately counter-arguments have been provided for each "con" > arguments. I deeply regret it was not done for "pro" arguments > because many (above) do not resist a tiny bit of attention. > > Eventually, it was not mentionned (despite this was discussed > previously) that the disappearance of the conservation goal could > stop the unused space collection, thus artificially accelerating > the depletion and its disastrous effects for some little structures. > > Best regards, > Sylvain Vallerot > > -- ================================================ David Farmer Email: farmer at umn.edu Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 1-612-626-0815 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 1-612-812-9952 ================================================
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2013-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and Cleanup)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2013-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and Cleanup)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]