[address-policy-wg] 2013-03: Good enough?

Hello Malcolm,

> The TL;DR is that I am now willing to withdraw my objection, but would
> ask that you change the title to remove the words "No need", agree to
> changes as to how this is presented externally, and to support further
> work as part of a new PDP.

I'm very happy to hear that! I think you will find that I am willing to
work constructively with you on finding solutions to your requests. I'll
respond in more detail below.

> The latest version of the Impact Analysis says
> 
>> External Relations
>>
>> Adoption of this policy would have a major impact on RIPE NCC
>> External Relations, and would require the investment of considerable
>> resources in messaging and defending/explaining this policy shift to
>> stakeholders both inside and outside the technical community.
>> Additionally, these activities would need to target not only
>> stakeholders within the RIPE NCC service region, but also those in
>> other RIR communities.
> 
> That's a pretty serious warning, and I think it corroborates everything
> I have said on this subject.

I don't really see this as a warning, but more a statement of fact.
2013-03 is undeniably a large policy change, and as such it is only to
be expected that it will require a correspondingly large effort in
external messaging. That does not necessarily mean that it is a *bad*
policy change, or that delivering this message would make the RIPE NCC
and/or Community "look bad".

Put it another way, I think the above paragraph could just as well have
been written about 2010-02 (the "last /8" policy).

For what it's worth, I have it on good authority that the RIPE NCC Board
is much happier about version 3 then they were about version 2. It is
worth noting that the Board section in the Impact Analysis went from
being full of warnings in the previous version, to being almost absent
from the current version.

> So I propose the following compromise:
> 
> 1. 2013-03 be retitled to remove "no need" from the title. Those words
> are highly detrimental to the NCC's External Relations work, and add
> nothing useful.

Assuming this does not trigger the need for the NCC to do yet another
Impact Analysis, and the Working Group from running another review
period (I agree 100% with what you wrote about not having the appetite
for that), I have no problems with this at all. The "No Need" moniker
was just meant as a nickname for the proposal anyway. From my point of
view ("the coalface of assignment requests"), it's descriptive, but I
can accept that from other points of view it may appear glib.

So then we're left with the title «Post-depletion reality adjustment and
cleanup», then?

> 2. No other changes are made to the proposal itself.

NO WAY! UNACCEPTABLE!

...oh, okay then. I suppose can let you have that one. ;-D

> 3. The accompanying notes, which are not part of the proposal itself but
> which are a part of the external messaging, should be re-written.
> The current version of these notes unhelpfully emphasises the removal of
> the requirement to demonstrate need, as if need were becoming
> irrelevant. They should describe the effect of 2013-03, which is to
> remove the *upfront documentation* of need (a form of ex ante
> regulation), while retaining the concept of fairness, as defined by the
> community, as a goal of allocation policy. It should be emphasised that
> the community retains the right to introduce new policies in the future,
> if deemed necessary, to ensure that this deregulatory initiative does
> not bring about unfairness.

Same condition as for #1, as long as it doesn't require another IA, I
have problem with this.

For what it's worth, I've always considered the rationale text of a
proposal more a starting point for the ensuing WG discussion, one that's
necessarily biased by the proposer's reasons for submitting
the proposal in the first place. There are certainly those who have both
opposed and supported proposal for other reasons than those I thought to
mention in the accompanying notes. For this reason I wouldn't expect the
NCC's External Relations team to feel limited to echoing my specific
points made in the proposal notes when creating their slide decks, but
also take the WG's deliberations into account, messages such as yours in
particular.

In any case, I'd need your help with this. You clearly have a pretty
good idea of what parts of the notes stand out as "offensive", and what
messages are missing. Are you coming to Athens? If so, maybe we could
book a meeting room and sit down with the Chairs, someone from the
External Relations team, and any other WG members who might be
interested in participating here - collaborate on an improved text right
there on the projector, and have a version 4 that could be published
when going into the final PDP phase.

> 4. AP-WG should (later, but soon) consider a new policy, as part of a
> new PDP, that asserts that the fairness goal makes it an objective to
> maximise the availability of IP addresses for use, and asserts as a
> community view that it is not fair to artificially restrict supply by
> hoarding for speculative purposes.

I have absolutely no problem with this - 2013-03 was never intended as
an RIPE equivalent of APNIC's prop-103. I can promise you that I would
contribute constructively to such an effort, but I cannot promise that I
will spearhead it - simply because I have no good ideas on how the
mechanisms that enforces this fairness would look like in a
post-depletion world. The "all you can eat buffet" mechanism we had
before, obviously doesn't work today when there's no longer enough food
around to satiate everyone:

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151520241646002&set=t.754215401&type=3&theater

Also, I think I'll need to recuperate for a while before spearheading
another RIPE policy proposal. :-)

I'm not sure we do need to assert that "hoarding is unfair" in the
policy, though. The EU Competition Law analysis that was prepared for
the previous version of the proposal suggest that this practise is not
only "unfair", but illegal as well. While I have no principal objection
to this being stated in the policy too, it does feel a bit redundant to
repeat what's the law anyway, especially considering that the police and
the courts has much more efficient tools at their disposal to actually
enforce the law than the RIPE NCC has. As an added bonus, keep in mind
that this community does not foot the bill for the EU prosecutor's
attorneys, while we do for the RIPE NCC's.

Best regards,
Tore Anderson