From my perspective it does add "red tape" How do you determine whether v4 numbers are "fairly distributed to end users operating networks" unless you do a needs assessment? I like Malcolm's idea better: Add a disclaimer at the end that says if it doesn't work or causes unforeseen problems, we will change it.
From: address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Jan Ingvoldstad Sent: Thursday, August 1, 2013 3:48 AM To: RIPE Address Policy WG Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2013-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and Clean up) On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 8:38 AM, Tore Anderson <tore@fud.no<mailto:tore@fud.no>> wrote: Having slept on it, I have a suggestion that hopefully will make us reach common ground. How about, instead of removing the old Conservation goal completely, we rewrite it as follows: <Fair use: Public IPv4 address space must be fairly distributed to the End Users operating networks.> That looks sensible enough to me, it doesn't appear to add red tape. :) -- Jan