[address-policy-wg] 2013-03: Review Phase - New Proposal Description and Impact Analysis Published

Hi Gert,

I see that the Last Call has ended on the 6th of January 2014.

Have the WG Chairs reached a decision with 2013-03 ?

cheers,
elvis

On 05/12/13 19:31, Gert Doering wrote:
> Dear AP WG,
>
> On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 11:01:24AM +0100, Marco Schmidt wrote:
> [..]
>> We encourage you to read the proposal and the impact analysis and send any
>> comments to <address-policy-wg at ripe.net> before 5 December 2013.
> the review phase for 2013-03 has ended today.  No comments were received,
> thus I consider all opinions expressed in the previous review phase to be
> unchanged (as announced, given that the policy *text* has not changed
> at all) - that is, 32 persons expressing support of the proposal, 3 persons
> opposing it.
>
> Given the amount of support, and the nature of the opposition, the WG
> chairs have decided that we have reached rough consensus.  We think that
> all counterarguments brought up by the opposers have been fully answered -
> this might not be sufficient to convince the opposers to change their mind,
> but given sufficient support otherwise, it's good enough to move forward.
>
> This is what we'll do now -> move 2013-03 to Last Call.  Marco will send
> the formal announcement for that later today or tomorrow.
>
> For reference, a list of people that voiced support or opposition (or
> something else) in the previous review phase is appended below.  This is
> what the chairs based their decision on.
>
> If you disagree with our interpretation of what has been said, and the
> conclusion we have drawn from it, please let us know.
>
> Gert Doering,
>          Address Policy WG Chair
>
>
> support:
>      Mikael Abrahamsson
>      Randy Bush
>      Daniel Stolpe
>      Dimitri I Sidelnikov
>      Andy Davidson
>      Sascha Luck
>      Jan Zorz
>      Bengt Gördén
>      Raluca Andreea Gogiou
>      Roger Jørgensen
>      Richard Hartmann  (strong sentiments that this is the last round)
>      Andreas Larsen
>      Jan Ingvoldstad   (strong sentiments that this is the last round)
>      Elvis Daniel Velea
>      Nigel Titley      (seconding Richard's sentiments)
>      Gerry Demaret
>      Sebastian Wiesinger
>      Lu Heng
>      Sonderegger Olaf
>      Ian Johannesen
>      Fredrik Widell
>      Alexey Ivanov
>      Sandra Brown
>      Donal Cunningham
>      Tassos Chatzithomaoglou
>      Mike Burns
>      George Giannousopoulos
>      Ragnar Anfinsen
>      Milton L Mueller
>      Ronny Boesger
>      Dominik Bay
>      Lutz Donnerhacke
>
> support, based on changes to the external PR regarding 2013-03, and
>           some future PDP tasks for the chairs and the community
>      Malcolm Hutty  (see <52406426.8080405 at linx.net> for details)
>      
> neutral (mailing to the thread, but not expressing support/opposition):
>      CJ Aronson
>      Nick Hilliard
>      Hans Petter Holen
>      John Curran
>     
>
> opposing:
>      McTim
>         "I don't think shifting to a market based allocation/assignment system
>         is good stewardship.  In addition there are multiple issues listed in
>         the Impact Analysis that cause me great concern.  The primary issue
>         there is incompatibility with other regional transfer policies."
>
>         considered to be completely answered by the chairs, on the basis
>         that 2013-03 does not introduce a transfer market, documenting the
>         goal to assign to end users was introduced in v3 of the proposal,
>         and incompatibilities with other regions' transfer policies can be
>         amended by adding appropriate checks to our cross-RIR-policy-to-be,
>         if the community ever expresses enough interest to make one (which
>         currently does not seem to be the case).
>
>         Also, most other issues raised in the IA have been addressed by v4
>         of the proposal, which changed the title and rationale to send a
>         less controversial message to external parties.  So we consider this
>         to be addressed as well.
>         
>      Filiz Yilmaz
>         would support if criteria for allocation would be amended to include
>         "LIR must demonstrate its need for the IPv4 address space"
>
>         This was carefully listened to, and discussed with NCC RS to see
>         what the impact would be.  NCC RS stated that the addition of this
>         sentence would not change their interpretation of the policy, given
>         that all the LIR can do to demonstrate it's need is the willingness
>         to make an assignment from it - and that is already there.
>
>         Based on this and based on the significant number of people asking for
>         the proposal to go forward and not do another round of textual change
>         and impact analysis, the chairs decided to consider this point
>         answered, and go forward.
>
>      Sylvain Vallerot
>         main issue seems to be that this proposal would bring LIR admins
>         under pressure from unreasonable customer demands and that could
>         create very problematic situations inside the LIR, without being
>         able to point to RIR policies to back not giving out addresses.
>
>         considered to be answered by the proposer, as there is pressure
>         inside all LIRs anyway, and even with the old formalism in place,
>         a LIR might very well run into the same situation of having to deny
>         addresses to some of it's customer as there are just not enough left
>         anymore to give all of them what they ask for.
>
>      David Farmer
>         initially "-1"'ing, then clarifying this to be more on the discussion
>         between Sylvain and Tore, and explicitely stating neutrality on the
>         proposal itself