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(a)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(a)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
--
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
