Tore, On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 10:53 AM, Tore Anderson <tore@fud.no> wrote:
* McTim
Apologies if I was unclear. What I was trying to get across is that this proposal would go from a system of "pay your membership fees and show you actually need the resources" to just "pay".
Needs based distribution has been a cornerstone of the RIR system for the last 2 decades or more. It has worked remarkably well, and I see no need to jettison it now just because there are fewer resources to distribute. In fact, I see a greater need for it now! I expect we will have to agree to disagree on this.
This exact point was brought up by a few other people as well as the NCC itself in the first review period, and in order to meet those concerns the proposal was amended so that it does not longer make it possible to simply pay the membership fee and receive an allocation from the RIR without "need".
I consider the check box yes/no "I will be making assignments.." a fig leaf at best. You can see my reasoning on the topic of need here: http://www.circleid.com/posts/the_invisible_hand_vs_the_public_interest_in_i... So the proposal retains "need", but is title "No need"?
I'd like to make it crystal clear that the proposal has no ambition whatsoever to change how the RIR distributes its last remaining scraps of address space, and the 2nd and 3rd amendments was developed in collaboration with the NCC precisely in order to prevent that from happening as an accidental side-effect, see:
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/2013-August/008155....
I note that you neglected to respond to this message even
I had thought I had, maybe not. though I
clearly asked for any remaining material objections to be raised *before* the amended proposal was returned to the NCC. Waiting until now with voicing your objections is quite frankly wasting everyone's time,
That is not my intent. My intent was to respond to Marco's message asking for comments.
most of all the good folks at the NCC's time, who have been working on the new IA for more than a month now.
Best regards, Tore Anderson
(BTW: Since the Chair closed the inter-region transfer topic, I'll not continue that discussion on the list. If you wish I'll be happy to continue off-list, though, just shoot me a direct message and I'll respond as best as I can.)
I don't think the chair has the prerogative to close a topic. If the intent of your proposal is to retain need, then the inter-RIR transfer issue is moot. However, I am not sure the IPRAs from another region may see the check box as "compatible". In other words, I still think it is a flaw, even thought the chair might think it "fully addressed" (pun intended?). -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel