Well, allow me to step back a couple of <whatever is your favourite choice for measuring distance> and look back what happened... First of all, imho there has been a fundamental flaw in this proposal, from the very beginning (and this has only become apparent in retrospct, so no criticism here! If I would have noticed in time I would be much happier now): this proposal tried to combine a global policy - which by def. is meant to direct IANA'S operation! - with a "humanitarian" or "political" resource-re-distributio aspect for recovered address space (if any) to apply equally in all regions. So, actually, it combined a global policicy with regional policies. The latter aspect failed. I don't want to get into details, or what my personal opinion is, just stick to the facts and the process.
From what has happened already, wearing my hat as a member of the Address Council, I consider the current approach as doomed. Which is a Goog Thing, imho, because it makes the reasoning of "backing up" the position of *one* region or of *three* regions, by having RIPE accept a) or b), irrelevant.
Because whatever the "result" is, either 4:1 or 3:2, it does not help in solving the basic problem: Give IANA a (global) policy how to re-distribute address space which happens to be returned. For whatever reason... So, my proposal would be to withdraw 2009-01 unconditionally, as being o.b.e. At the same time we c|should explore the possibility to start the process for a re-distribution policy for IANA. Taking off my AC hat now... Everything else should be left where I think it belongs: within the regions, to decide how to manage recovered/returned *legacy* resources, that have been "tagged" as being managed in one of the five regions by the ERX process. Wilfried Nigel Titley wrote:
On Wed, 2010-04-14 at 11:26 +0100, Jim Reid wrote:
It's tempting to consider tweaking our policy for the IPv4 dregs to show our displeasure at the path ARIN has adopted. However I hope we can rise above that.
We would not be tweaking the policy to show displeasure. Option 1 (which "shows displeasure with ARIN") is actually the original proposal. Option 2 which doesn't, tweaks the policy. Sorry to be pedantic.
I'm also beginning to wonder if policy-making is being unconsciously shaped by the Linux/emacs/X-windows approach to software design. If that can be called "design". [The only thing wrong with these bits of code is they don't have enough options or configuration variables to tweak. :-)] I would like to see fewer options on what to do about 2009-01. Ideally it should be reduced to a binary choice.
I'm happy with that.
With that in mind and Nigel's comments that the proposal is dead and starting to have a bad smell, I suggest we reduce the discussion of 2009-01 to a simple choice of whether to withdraw it or not.
In my original terms we decide either to adopt option #1 (go with the existing proposal) or option #4. I'm very happy with offering just these choices.
IMO, withdrawing this proposal makes the most sense. Continuing with it would only be worthwhile if the same approach to recovered space was being followed by the other RIRs. Since that's no longer possible, I think we should just stop flogging this dead horse.
This is a fair point... and I'm happy to accept it if the community decides this is the consensus position.
If there's support for keeping 2009-01 alive, I'd like to suggest we focus the discussion to a choice between two mutually exclusive positions:
1) recovered space goes back to IANA for it to redistribute somehow
This is 2009-01 in essence.
2) recovered space stays with the NCC for redistribution according to RIPE policy
This is a new policy and outside scope for the present discussion.
Nigel