[address-policy-wg] 2014-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Number Assignments)

On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 05:56:25PM +0000, Nick Hilliard wrote:
>As a community, we managed to arrive at a practical workaround, namely that
>you can apply for an ASN if you have a plan to multihome and can state a
>name for a potential peering partner.
>We all quietly acknowledge that it might not match the spirit of the
>policy, but it works and has worked for as long as the RIPE NCC has
>existed.
>  It needs to work because often an organisation needs an ASN even
>when they're not yet ready to multihome.

So, you admit that the policy, as it stands, is ineffective and
is honoured in breach more than in observance. The proposed
policy does not much more than put in writing the current
practice anyway. 

>to what we want for the next 19, rather than put in place a temporary
>stopgap with the aim of plugging a leak.  If this means being patient for
>another couple of months until RIPE71, then that's fine by me.

I'm not in favour of making policy at the meetings, not least
because I rarely have the opportunity to attend and I consider
this an attempt at disenfranchisement. Remember 2007-01!

>Then you misread my email: I have no more information than anyone else
>about how people might vote.

Well I will vote against charging for ASNs, for one. Charging for
something one effectively *needs* to operate smells of
Ryanair-ish practice to me.
What is your plan in case the members vote against this charge?

rgds,
Sascha Luck