On 25 Aug 2009, at 09:31, <michael.dillon@bt.com> wrote:
Instead, let's push this EXTRAORDINARY decision making into the future where it belongs, at the time when the EXTRAORDINARY event takes place.
I STRONGLY disgaree with this. It will be very unwise -- I'm being charitable here -- to postpone this fundamentally crucial policy discussion until the extraordinary event occurs. First of all, there is the potential for all sorts of trouble if RIPE tries to invent and then introduce new policies at that critical point. Obvious examples of this trouble include regulatory interventions, lawsuits, investigations by competition authorities and so on. At the point where IANA v4 runs out, expect everyone, particularly lawyers and governments, to take a much, much closer interest in IP addressing and how it's co-ordinated.] Then there's the likely bickering between LIRs. Or between the RIRs. Or some combination of those. Secondly, it's extremely unlikely a consensus on how to manage those dwindling v4 addresses could emerge at that point. When the SS IPv4 starts to sink, the prospect of a reasoned discussion reaching an agreed conclusion about who does and doesn't get space on the lifeboats which can't accommodate everyone don't look good. There's a Titanic analogy in here somewhere. Hopefully it won't involve that wretched Celine Dion song. :-) Finally, and perhaps most importantly, if policy making about the last /8 is to be postponed until that event, it's doubtful that a consensus could be reached in time to make a difference. Assuming there is a difference to be made which is worth it at that point. At the moment it takes the WG and the PDP some months to agree somewhat non-controversial policies: like anycast assignments for TLD DNS. Carving up the remaining IPv4 space is already controversial. After this extraordinary event occurs, will the controversy level be lower, about the same or higher?