[address-policy-wg] Fwd: Re: 2013-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and Cleanup)

Sorry this should have went to the list.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2013-03 New Draft Document and Impact 
Analysis Published (No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and Cleanup)
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 15:21:31 -0500
From: David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu>
Reply-To: David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu>
Organization: University of Minnesota
To: Tore Anderson <tore at fud.no>
CC: David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu>

On 9/20/13 07:27 , Tore Anderson wrote:
> Hi Sylvain,
...
>> 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.
>
> The transfer policy is in place already. If you oppose a commercial
> transfer market, 2013-03 is the wrong policy proposal to attack, it is
> really 2007-08 you should be going after.

You are obfuscating and trivializing Sylvain's objection.  He didn't say 
that he doesn't support the transfer market.  He said he doesn't support 
your "deregulation" of the transfer market, which I interpret as removal 
of justification of need for transfers.  And, yes the transfer market is 
a reality as of 2007-08, but this proposal does very much change the 
status quo, that is deregulating the transfer market by removing 
justification of need for transfers.

> On your second point, I would like to stress that 2013-03 version 3 does
> ensure that the NCC's distribution of IPv4 address space stays the same
> as right now: If you want your last /22, you'll have to use it for
> making assignments; and if you're an IXP and want something larger than
> a /24, you'll have to demonstrate the operational need for it.
>
> Also, I think it is worth noting that "giving public resources away" is
> and has always been one of the (perhaps "the") primary functions of the
> NCC. This is true even when the recipient is a private sector LIR who
> might at a later time choose to sell the resource on the IPv4 market.
> This is how things are today. 2013-03 does not change it one way or the
> other.
>
> If you want to prohibit private sector entities from being eligible from
> receiving resources from the NCC, you are free to submit a proposal that
> does just that. If you want to undo 2007-08 and thus retire the IPv4
> market, you are free to submit a proposal that does just that too. But
> please leave those topics out of the 2013-03 thread.

Again you are obfuscating and trivializing his objection.  The RIPE NCC 
doesn't just "giving public resources away", the primary cost is the 
justification of those resources.  Or, the cost of dealing with the 
"bureaucracy" that you want to eliminate, that is not free, which is why 
you want to eliminate it.

Please stop obfuscating and trivializing people's objections, you either 
have sufficient support to ignore their objections or you should address 
them properly.

Thank you.

-- 
================================================
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
================================================