On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 4:18 PM, Sylvain Vallerot <sylvain.vallerot@opdop.net> wrote:

Tore,

Your message does not answer my concerns, unfortunately. I am not
talking about my case because my particular case is of interest,
but only to illustrate how LIRs have to face with some demanding
customer who do not really care about fairness, but rather about
survival in a situation of scarcity.

To put it bluntly:

If a LIR's *survival* now depends on how the specific bureaucratic justification of "need" is formulated for a remaining 1024 IPv4 addresses, then that LIR has lost its way, and has no viable business prospects regardless of what policy we set forth in this WG.

Any LIR with a sound business plan has already taken the steps necessary to focus on IPv6.

You are probably right in one thing, though: end customers and end users don't care about other's resource problems, they only care about their own. As a group, they have an insatiable sense of need.

However, the RIRs are not directly in touch with these end customers and end users, and have no way of judging what is fair, what is (real) need, or what is even justifiable. The LIRs have direct contact, and have a better sense of these things.

I don't think your deregulation argument makes much sense. Leaving more responsibility with the LIR is not deregulation, it's a different kind of organisation, but it's still regulated, and in a way that makes practical sense.

The LIR model is, in many ways, similar to the registrar model – in domain name registrations, the registries (the RIRs of domain names) don't meddle with day to day registrations, they leave that to the registrars, and rightly so. As opposed to IPv4 registrations, domain name registrations are in a perpetual state of scarcity, so the similarity to IPv4 depletion proper is more than skin deep.
 

But besides that, I feel this would be a regretable abdication of its
regulator role for the Ripe NCC, to authorize any LIR to make whatever
they want with the remaining ressource.

I'm sorry, I don't see how this proposal grants a LIR the power "to make whatever they want".

 
And because of the consequences this abdication may have on many
companies or organisations that will have to face de-regulated behaviors
despite we are in a situation of scarcity, I cannot help but consider
such a decision will make us (the Ripe community) responsible for some
tragic situations.

I remember the question of Ripe's responsability had been raised some
time ago, maybe it was at Ripe's 65 meeting, last year. I was about the
role Ripe had to play, not only as a a private association with its LIR
members voting for their interest, but as the owner of a monopolistic
power to distribute a vital ressource. And I regret today, that such
questions arises again, and so many easy +1 supports go to a proposal
for even more deregulation in a crisis situation. I think we have a
legitimacy problem for doing this.


On what possible grounds do you assume that our "+1" supports are EASY?

You imply that only you have thought this through, and that those who just state that they agree have not.

I find this unnecessarly offensive, that you cannot state your arguments without making such implication.

We are, as far as I know, professionals with a particular *interest* in the policies, that is why we subscribe to this group.

I wouldn't dare to assume that anyone here have not read and thought through the implications and consequences.

I think you just have to face the fact that most people have thought this through, and that we simply disagree with your assessment.

I also think you're over-dramatising, and are far too much concerned with selecting the preferred arrangement of deck chairs on the Titanic instead of figuring out how to best use the life boats.
--
Jan