On 23/09/2013 17:54, Malcolm Hutty wrote:
Is that good enough? I think it should be, if we are willing to work together.
So beautiful :-) I was (sincerely) quite "touched" by what Malcolm wrote and proposed, and also his ability to reach the expected rought consensus inside his own head. Please read this at first degree : I am not sarcastic and I do not want my bad english be miss-interpreted, I am sincere. I wish I could too, but unfortunately "supporting arguments" still miss, whereas deregulation obsesses me a little bit. * Malcoms makes some good points however, by proposing the solution of removing the upfront documentation while maintaining the capacity of control of the NCC, thus making fair (still to be defined) use of the ressources a necessity for LIRs, and also ensure they can provide proper documentation when requested to do so. before, after, on-demand ... Who knows anyway how it is made today, with AW ? But what is the difference, actually, between gathering the information and making the proper documentation when you do things, or trying to make it late and under pressure months or years later ? It seems quite obvious to me that, if proper documentation has to be produced on day, the only way is to make it on time. But, OK, whatever suspicious I can be regarding this, why not let each one deal with its paperwork organisation. This also leads me to request a bit more precision : what is the documentation one would expect ? This question also concerns the proposal Filiz made recently, and McTim just recalled : "3. LIR must demonstrate its need for the IPv4 address space and must confirm it will make assignment(s) from the allocation." What demonstration, what documentation ? Note : this is about needs for IP addresse space (not for "an allocation"), and this is about needs for addresses not yet granted by the RIR to the LIR, so we are in a very different context here, from Malcom's post documentation which is about already assigned IP space. And to finish on this point I would personnaly be reassured by knowing that this "past need" on-demand documentation would *quite probably* be requested to justify that past allocations where properly used, and before a new allocation or transfer can be granted. Which might have some encouraging effect. But this would need to be written somewhere. Which brings me to my second point. * My other concern is that point 4. does not modifiy the proposal, but calls for another PDP and another proposal, while agreeing for this one that remain, by definition, not satisfying. Well, I do not see the point of having a separate PDP, if it has to go though the same process anyway. I think they should be merged, so that both give a consensus, or none of them. I would +1 Richard on this, since "promisses only tie those who believe them" (litterally translated from French, sorry), we know what 2013-03 removes, we don't have a clue about what a new PDP will bring. * I feel sorry about exposing more problems that proposing solutions for the proposal. But from my view it is difficult to have a fondamentally wrong idea changed into something acceptable, even by many corrections. Unfortunately Malcoms very constructive contribution and proposition does not solve the problems inside 2013-03, and 2013-03 remains what it is, whatever the PDPs we could imagine to amend it : if we want to amend it so much, then maybe we should not pass it. Best regards, Sylvain