Hello McTim,

I don't think shifting to a market based allocation/assignment system is good stewardship.

As I've mentioned in my reply to Sylvain Vallerot already, 2013-03 does not cause the founding of an IPv4 market. The IPv4 market is already in place and its existence is sanctioned by the RIPE NCC: http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/resource-management/listing http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/resource-management/ipv4-transfers/brokers http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/resource-management/ipv4-transfers/table-of...

In addition there are multiple issues listed in the Impact Analysis that cause me great concern. The primary issue there is incompatibility with other regional transfer policies.

2013-03's proposed policy is no more or less compatible with other regional transfer policies than our current policy is. They are both one hundred percent incompatible, because there is no inter-regional transfer policy in place in the RIPE region to begin with, and this situation does not seem likely to change anytime soon. If we in the RIPE community decide one day that we do want an inter-regional transfer policy after all, we could very well create it so that it ensures perfect compatibility with all other regions' policies. Even if that in the extreme case would mean reverting 2013-03 word by word. Best regards, Tore Anderson

Hi, On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 10:22:07AM -0400, McTim wrote:

I think this is not wise public policy making. You surely know that APNIC has already reversed their rejection of needs based allocation. I don't think it smart for us to do something that we will perhaps need to undo shortly.

We're neither APNIC nor ARIN here, so not everything that these RIRs do or like to do applies to us. The RIPE community needs to find their own way, without shying away from something other regions didn't dare go go to. If *we* do not want to go there, fine, but not for "the other ones don't do that either" reasons - and from what I see so far regarding feedback from people from the RIPE region, we seem to want to go there. Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

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

Hello, On 20 Sep 2013, at 18:46, Tore Anderson <tore@fud.no> wrote:

* McTim

...

On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 10:53 AM, Tore Anderson <tore@fud.no> wrote:

...

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.

Perhaps it is, but for all practical purposes, it's the status quo: To get hold of a /22 with our current policy, you'll have to sign up as an LIR and pay the membership fee, and then be able to say with a straight face that you need it for making an assignment of one (1) IPv4 address (singular). Most of us carry around the hardware needed to truthfully justify such an assignment at all times.

...

So the proposal retains "need", but is title "No need"?

The proposal is not about corner cases such as the "last /8" austerity pool and the NCC's distribution of it; it is about the LIRs and their day to day operations. This is where pretty much all the remaining IPv4 activity is at today, and it is where all the "need bureaucracy" this proposal is aiming to remove at is still mandated to take place.

I had read the two paragraphs above again and again, and I cannot see how they work hand in hand in support of the proposal: So the proposal is to remove some heavy "bureaucracy" (because if it was not heavy, we would not need a change, right?) which at the same time is (according to the 2nd paragraph) as easy as basically "keeping a straight face while justifying the assignment of 1 single IP"? I cannot parse these two in one support argument for the proposal. So what is the goal of this proposal really? I went through the new Rationale of this version and here is what I have to say: ------ proposal says: 1. Reduced bureaucracy: Under the proposed policy, End Users, sub-allocation holders, and LIRs will no longer be required to document their need for IPv4 addresses in order to receive PA assignments, sub-allocations, or (transferred) PA allocations. ------- I agree it can be seen as bureaucracy to ask people to justify PA assignments and sub-allocations now. However, I am not convinced that asking justifying 1 IP from a /22 as a new LIR at this very interesting times is a big deal. And removing a long-standing principle like "need based" should require a better argument than reducing bureaucracy. This is what I think, I do not expect everyone to agree. But this was my main (almost the sole) objection in the 2nd version of this proposal too and so it remains in the 3rd version too. Accordingly, I cannot support removing need justification from "allocation" requesters. I am fine, I repeat I am fine, removing it from assignments and sub-allocations (consensus hint???) ---- proposal says: 2. Allows for long-term business planning. Under the proposed policy, the need-based time period will be raised from the current one/two years (allocation/assignments) to essentially infinity. ----- I do not see this as a supporting argument to the proposal itself. I think it is just irrelevant. No one has any idea what their network will be like in 100 years. Anything that can be rational will be based in the next one/two years which the current text is reflecting already. ------ proposal says: 3. Makes the policy easier to read and understand. ------ This is nothing to do with the content of the proposal. Obviously any adequate policy document (resulting out of this proposal or not) should be easy to read, I agree, still sticking to my main objection stated above. ------ proposal says: 4. Removes conflict between "conservation" and "aggregation". ------ This is just wording. The proposal can obviously not remove the conflict between conservation and aggregation, if any network admin is there to feel it. But the proposal removes the text about these from the policy, yes, but it is not a Rationale to me. ------ proposal says: 5/6. LIR Audits becomes less time-consuming and Reduction of RIPE NCC workload. ------ These are procedural NCC issues, I've already commented regarding reducing bureaucracy with the NCC, without doing a main curriery in the policy before. These two are not real address policy management related, they are "consequences" of the proposal, rather than positive or negative Rationales ------ proposal says: 7. Elimination of incentive to "game the system". ... By removing the need-based requirements, the playing field becomes level and fair for everyone involved, and will become impossible to get ahead by cheating. ------ I do not agree with the content of this statement. By removing the need-based requirements, the playing field becomes level for everyone, but this does not bring "fairness" at all. It only makes it less painful for those who dare or wishes to play unfair, in my opinion. I cannot support any proposal suggesting this in principle. ----- proposal says: 8. Makes IPv4 and IPv6 policies more similar in practise …. By removing the need principle from the IPv4 policy, it will become more similar to the IPv6 policy in practise, in the sense that need justification will not be mandated for the vast majority of delegations. ----- I am having trouble parsing this sentence, but the question stands; Why is this a good thing to stand as a Rationale, especially that currently IPv4 and IPv6 are separate pool of resources with separate set of problems? I do hope I have my points clearly stated (this time around too). Finally I would like to say ideal policy should, in my opinion, reflect what is the good practice while it is a safe net for all the good practice, it is not so safe for the bad practice, so that such bad practice can be highlighted instead of getting lost and unnoticed among the good ones. In that sense, I believe "need-based" policies did a good job so far for such filtering and I support keeping them in our system as long as there is some pool that the RIPE NCC can allocate from to the new entrants of the system. Kind regards Filiz

Best regards, Tore Anderson

Hello Tore, On 20 Sep 2013, at 22:42, Tore Anderson <tore@fud.no> wrote:

Hi again Filiz,

...

So the proposal is to remove some heavy "bureaucracy" (because if it was not heavy, we would not need a change, right?) which at the same time is (according to the 2nd paragraph) as easy as basically "keeping a straight face while justifying the assignment of 1 single IP"?

You are comparing apples to oranges here (allocations to assignments).

I do not think I am doing that. I just took your own exact words and put them in a form of a question. But lets move on to the topic and to the point, even if you think I am doing that.

The "easy" part is to document "need" enough to get an *allocation* from the NCC. "Need" for allocations comes from one thing only: Intent to make assignments. If you can document an intent to make a valid assignment for one (1) IPv4 address, you have a valid need for an allocation. Following the implementation of the last /8 policy, there is only one size allocation the NCC can delegate to its members (/22). Thus, by submitting a ripe-583 form documenting an intended assignment of 1 IPv4 address (or a /32 if you prefer), you have also automatically qualified for your initial and final /22 allocation. Anyone can do that, it is not heavy bureaucracy at all.

Good, then there is no need to change this in the policy for allocations. And to better address the need based concerns objecting your proposal, I think you could consider taking the "intent" you mentioned above one step further and have it explained to the RIPE NCC. Accordingly, I think following will be a more appropriate wording: 3. LIR must demonstrate its need for the IPv4 address space and must confirm it will make assignment(s) from the allocation. replacing what you proposed: 3. The LIR must confirm it will make assignment(s) from the allocation

As described above, this is not being removed. Since an assignment must be sized at least 1 address (or larger), a check-box requiring the requesting LIR to confirm assignments will be made from the allocation is functionally identical to today's current practise.

Confirming to make assignments on its own is not enough in my belief. But I would support a more explicit need-justification requirement as above. Filiz

Hello, On 21 Sep 2013, at 00:03, "Sander Steffann" <sander@steffann.nl> wrote:

Hi Filiz,

One question for clarification:

...

And to better address the need based concerns objecting your proposal, I think you could consider taking the "intent" you mentioned above one step further and have it explained to the RIPE NCC.

Accordingly, I think following will be a more appropriate wording:

3. LIR must demonstrate its need for the IPv4 address space and must confirm it will make assignment(s) from the allocation.

replacing what you proposed: 3. The LIR must confirm it will make assignment(s) from the allocation

What is your motivation for adding the 'LIR must demonstrate its need for the IPv4 address space' part?

- Demonstration brings accountability to any claim and makes the claim (of confirming the intent of making assignments) believable and supported. [This demonstration can be as simple as a couple of sentences describing the network and business of the new LIR and does not need to come in any specific form or shape.] - Those who intend to lie to the RIPE NCC will be forced to be a bit more creative and work on their case harder than just clicking a combo box. Those who really have a need can explain this briefly very easily and pass the criteria without any hassle. So policy will still have some substance for some differentiation between bad and good practice. - RIPE NCC may be able to demonstrate and defend their position why they allocated space rightfully way better if they have to one day to some I* organisation, having received some demonstration from LIRs. The LIR may have chosen to lie and fake their demonstration but the RIR will be still have had asked the right questions to consider "need" as their justification of who gets the space. - Adding this may help getting agreement of those who currently object the proposal because of the complete removal of justification of need from the policy, as it is kept for allocations to new LIRs, while it is removed from assignments, which is the real bureaucracy on the LIR side. So this looks to me like a compromise between two conflicting interests/wishes. Filiz

As the RIPE NCC can currently only allocate /22's the demonstrated need will have no impact on the allocation. Those that demonstrate a need of 1 address will get the same /22 as those that demonstrate a need of a million addresses.

Your suggested text doesn't seem to have an impact on _what_ the NCC will allocate. It does have an impact on _when_ the NCC will allocate though. LIRs with existing allocations won't need the new /22 allocation until they used most of their existing ones. This only seems to affect the runout speed of the remaining /22's.

Looking at that: the RIPE NCC currently (http://www.ripe.net/internet-coordination/ipv4-exhaustion/ipv4-available-poo...) has more then 14000 /22's left (not including quarantine and reserved). There are less than 9000 LIRs that can have allocations from before the runout. Some of them already have their /22. The remaining ones might be able to get their /22 sooner with the current policy text. More than 5000 /22's will remain even if they do.

With my chair hat on: I have no opinion on your suggested change, I'm just interested in what effect you want to achieve with it.

Thanks, Sander

Tore, Your discussion style preference does not suit me too well, I find the divide-concur-corner strategy tiring because simply my preferred style is to keep a more helicopter perspective in such fora. We just differ there. I also find this 1-1 interaction tiring for others to follow, so I will stick to "views" and "thoughts" and so I will outline my views briefly as an attempt to respond to your last post. However I responded in regards to my intentions in the final part below, as you seem to have questions about it too: 1. You seem to be making a joke out of what I have said about demonstration. In my opinion the RIR system is a lot more credible than what you seem to be portraying in your iMac/PC man example. RIRs did a very good job so far on a daily basis getting their guidance from somewhat not so black and white policies that their communities put in place. I think they still do a very good job. Again, just my views... Joke or not, I agree that what you put there is a lot more transparent and has more substance than just a combo box. Clearly any legitimate need is very easy to demonstrate (as you demonstrated in your iMac/PC man example) and new LIRs will only have to do this ONCE, when they request their initial /22, so it is not a huge bureaucratic burden. And since this is so easy to do, why such simple demonstration cannot be kept there in the policy, so this proposal can finally reach consensus? Of course this just a suggestion, I do not know if others who opposed so far will be OK with this small alteration... 2. With some "I* organisation" I meant any organisation that puts Internet in their mission statement and that would be happy to find all kinds of flaws in the RIR practices in accordance for their agenda. So far ITU had seemed to have criticism against RIRs, and RIRs defended their ground having solid practices. I think there might be more than just one, so I did not want to use a specific org name but used an umbrella term as "I* organisation". This concept was covered by Malcomn before so I did not see the need to elaborate in my previous mail. I hope it is clear now. My point was that if the RIPE NCC has a bit more information in regards to need with substance, this may help the RIR system better overall. 3. Agreed, RIPE NCC's job is to implement the Community's bottom-up policies in a neutral and transparent manner. But I also believe (and I have expressed these before too) that the RIPE Community also has a responsibility to develop good policy and provide the RIPE NCC a good policy ground to base their procedures and implementations on. At the end of the day, RIPE NCC is a legal entity, can be sued, can go bust etc etc, and RIPE Community has a huge impact on what they can and cannot do on a daily basis. 4. I am lost too, welcome to the club! Let me explain where I am coming from: Now you have the 3rd version out there and there seems to be still opposition to the removal of justification from what I can tell seeing McTim's and Sylvain's posts. So I thought this could be an easy remedy, adding a supporting sentence in front of the combo-box suggestion to have them agreed on your proposal too, and so I made the wording suggestion. You are free to ignore this suggestion if you still feel too strong about not having it. In the meanwhile I will continue expressing my views and thoughts as I see fit on this list. Note that you made a proposal and the rest of us are discussing it. I have sent more than 10 mails to this thread, trying to explain what I agree with and what I do not and why in great length and to the best of my effort. I've made quotes from previous policy text as well as from your proposal too to explain clearly my views. It was difficult following so many lengthy mails in this thread, also considering that most of it happened during summer vacation time for a lot of people, which was also mentioned by another member on the list. So lets assume everyone is doing their best and lets not target people individually and stick to what is being said and look at the content of the arguments. Otherwise this has the risk of being perceived as really getting out of proportion and beyond the scope of the proposal discussion. Regards Filiz On 21 Sep 2013, at 10:33, Tore Anderson <tore@fud.no> wrote:

* Filiz Yilmaz

...

On 21 Sep 2013, at 00:03, "Sander Steffann" <sander@steffann.nl> wrote:

...

What is your motivation for adding the 'LIR must demonstrate its need for the IPv4 address space' part?

- Demonstration brings accountability to any claim and makes the claim (of confirming the intent of making assignments) believable and supported. [This demonstration can be as simple as a couple of sentences describing the network and business of the new LIR and does not need to come in any specific form or shape.]

Ok, so let's see how this works:

«I have an iMac. I intend to assign it an IPv4 address.»

There. This is the essence of a 100% believable and justified assignment request, and is all that it takes for a new LIR to in turn justify receiving the last /22 allocation.

...

- Those who intend to lie to the RIPE NCC will be forced to be a bit more creative and work on their case harder than just clicking a combo box.

Well, I actually have an admission to make - I lied. I don't have an iMac. I'm more of a PC man, truth to be told. I don't consider myself a particularly creative man, yet this particular lie came easy.

...

Those who really have a need can explain this briefly very easily and pass the criteria without any hassle.

«I have a PC. I intend to assign it an IPv4 address.» «I have a server. I intend to assign it an IPv4 address.»

There. Those would be the God's honest truth.

The point I'm trying to make here is that justifying the single-address assignment necessary to obtain a last /22 is so trivial that anyone can do it. Especially anyone who is motivated enough to fork out €3800 in the pursuit of said /22.

...

- RIPE NCC may be able to demonstrate and defend their position why they allocated space rightfully way better if they have to one day to some I* organisation, having received some demonstration from LIRs.

I do not know what an "I* organisation" is, but this sounds to me to be the same argument as the Dutch Tax Office point that was brought up by the NCC, which was been removed from the last IA due to the addition of the requirement that LIRs confirm their intent to make assignments from any last /8 allocation.

Keep in mind that the NCC's job is to implement the Community's bottom-up policies in a neutral and transparent manner. If the Community says "make a checkbox", and the NCC adds this checkbox, the NCC has no reason to "defend their position" for doing so and for allocating space to the members who tick the checkbox.

...

The LIR may have chosen to lie and fake their demonstration but the RIR will be still have had asked the right questions to consider "need" as their justification of who gets the space.

As above, *truthfully* justifying a single IPv4 address is so trivial that it is not necessary for anyone to lie. But if someone who spends €3800 on getting a /22 truly has no equipment which could be used to truthfully justify a single IPv4 address, they could even turn to the NCC for help:

«I have just ordered free RIPE Atlas probe from https://atlas.ripe.net/apply (see ticket #1234). I intend to assign it an IPv4 address.»

In spite of this, if the requesting LIR for whatever reason still chooses to lie, this is something the NCC can trivially verify - even in a fully automated fashion. All they need to do is to see whether or not an inetnum object with status ASSIGNED PA has been registered in the database some reasonable time after the covering ALLOCATED PA one was. (The potential for such a check was actually pointed out to me by the NCC during the preparation of the amendment, it is not my idea.)

...

- Adding this may help getting agreement of those who currently object the proposal because of the complete removal of justification of need from the policy, as it is kept for allocations to new LIRs, while it is removed from assignments, which is the real bureaucracy on the LIR side. So this looks to me like a compromise between two conflicting interests/wishes.

Sorry. This is where you lose me. The 2nd amendment that went into version 3 of the proposal was added *specifically* to reach a compromise and an acceptable middle ground for the objections made by yourself and Malcolm Hutty:

http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/2013-August/008105....

Note that the check-box in question was actually Malcolm's idea, not mine. I was really trying to give you (as in you the objectors) exactly what you wanted here! Also, I took care to CC-ed explicitly on the above message, because I felt the issue was pretty much the same as the one you raised in this message:

http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/2013-August/008104....

In this message, you wrote, and I quote: «I advocate for keeping the justification for need ***or some kind of commitment from the requester that the space is to be used on a network shortly and not to be sold to a 3rd party.***» (emphasis mine)

This kind of "commitment" you proposed here is *exactly* what the amendment in question implements!

In any case, neither you nor Malcolm chose not to respond to the first linked-to message containing an initial draft of what became the 2nd amendment, even though it ended in the explicit question «Would this be sufficient to remove your concerns?».

So I took it back to the NCC and did some wordsmithing with them to ensure we ended up with a text that accomplished precisely what I honestly believed was what you were after. After the completion of this work, I posted the exact text of the draft amendments to the list, while the review phase was still open and there was still a window for further adjustments:

http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/2013-August/008155....

...accompanied by an introduction that 1) highlights that your objection is one of the points attempted to be addressed by the amendment, and 2) that anyone who would have remaining objections after the amendment please "speak now or forever hold your peace" so as to avoid not asking the NCC to spend lots of time and effort on making another useless IA.

You held your peace, Filiz.

I am nonplussed as to why.

If you still objected to the amended proposal, why did you choose to wait until now with sharing it with the WG? Why didn't you share your views when they were asked for, when we had a perfect window of opportunity to further polish the amendments *before* the previous review period ended?

Best regards, Tore Anderson

* Filiz Yilmaz

Your discussion style preference does not suit me too well

The feeling is mutual.

1. You seem to be making a joke out of what I have said about demonstration.

In my opinion the RIR system is a lot more credible than what you seem to be portraying in your iMac/PC man example. RIRs did a very good job so far on a daily basis getting their guidance from somewhat not so black and white policies that their communities put in place. I think they still do a very good job. Again, just my views...

I think the NCC is doing a good job too. I cannot speak for the the other four RIRs, as I have no experience working with those.

Clearly any legitimate need is very easy to demonstrate (as you demonstrated in your iMac/PC man example) and new LIRs will only have to do this ONCE, when they request their initial /22, so it is not a huge bureaucratic burden.

Agreed. As I've said repeatedly, changing the way initial /22s for new LIRs are issued is not and has never been a goal of this proposal.

And since this is so easy to do, why such simple demonstration cannot be kept there in the policy, so this proposal can finally reach consensus? Of course this just a suggestion, I do not know if others who opposed so far will be OK with this small alteration...

It could. Again, changing the way initial /22s for new LIRs are issued is not something the proposal is aiming at. That's why the 2nd amendment was added. And I would quite possible have been OK with this small alteration or something like it, except for one ting: Timing. So why not, you ask? Because it means another Impact Analysis, and another review phase. In the last review phase, one of solutions you advocated was «some kind of commitment from the requester that the space is to be used on a network shortly and not to be sold to a 3rd party». Lo and behold - now we have just that, confirmed by the NCC itself. But all of a sudden that is not good enough for you any longer. So I'm wondering, what will be the thing that is not good enough for you in the 3rd review phase? In the 4th? In the 5th? Why you chose to say *nothing* when asked in the last review phase if the currently proposed text was okay, why you chose to say *nothing* when the WG was asked if there were remaining objections that was not dealt with by the proposed amendments, why you chose to wait in silence for well over a month when the NCC was hard at work making a new Impact Analysis, only to bring up your misgivings about the new text *now*...it is truly beyond my comprehension.

2. With some "I* organisation" I meant any organisation that puts Internet in their mission statement and that would be happy to find all kinds of flaws in the RIR practices in accordance for their agenda. So far ITU had seemed to have criticism against RIRs, and RIRs defended their ground having solid practices. I think there might be more than just one, so I did not want to use a specific org name but used an umbrella term as "I* organisation". This concept was covered by Malcomn before so I did not see the need to elaborate in my previous mail. I hope it is clear now. My point was that if the RIPE NCC has a bit more information in regards to need with substance, this may help the RIR system better overall.

Indeed. The Impact Analysis for the previous version of the amendment contained the following concern: «The RIPE NCC has been under increased scrutiny from multiple parties outside the technical community. In many cases, the RIPE NCC has referred to the needs-based principle as evidence of the fairness and transparency of allocations under the RIR system. If this principle were to be eliminated, one of the main argumentative mainstays to defend bottom-up industry self regulation would be gone. The RIPE NCC, as well as the technical community, would have to prepare for increased outreach and education efforts with participants in the Internet Governance debate.» As I described in the summary mail I sent to the WG, alleviating this concern was amongst of the goals of the amendments, and this was being discussed with the NCC folks that helped work on them and confirmed by other NCC reps as having this beneficial effect. The result? The updated Impact Analysis no longer contains the above.

3. Agreed, RIPE NCC's job is to implement the Community's bottom-up policies in a neutral and transparent manner.

But I also believe (and I have expressed these before too) that the RIPE Community also has a responsibility to develop good policy and provide the RIPE NCC a good policy ground to base their procedures and implementations on.

Yes indeed. Ensuring that the resulting policy was crystal clear and that there would be no confusions as to how it would be implemented into the NCC's operational procedures is the exact reason why the amendments' exact wording is the result of a *collaborative effort* between myself and the RIPE NCC.

4. I am lost too, welcome to the club!

Let me explain where I am coming from:

Now you have the 3rd version out there and there seems to be still opposition to the removal of justification from what I can tell seeing McTim's and Sylvain's posts. So I thought this could be an easy remedy, adding a supporting sentence in front of the combo-box suggestion to have them agreed on your proposal too, and so I made the wording suggestion.

You are free to ignore this suggestion if you still feel too strong about not having it. In the meanwhile I will continue expressing my views and thoughts as I see fit on this list.

Your suggestion is not ignored, I've noted it well. But when it comes to McTim's and Sylvain's posts, I have attempted to address the points they've made in my responses to *their* posts. Time will tell if the WG's consensus is that they have been adequately addressed or not.

So lets assume everyone is doing their best and lets not target people individually and stick to what is being said and look at the content of the arguments. Otherwise this has the risk of being perceived as really getting out of proportion and beyond the scope of the proposal discussion.

Limiting the scope of the various sub-threads in the discussion of this proposal, and keeping them on-topic, has been one of the hardest things for me to accomplish. For example, keeping McTim and Sylvain's misgivings about the proposal out of this one. Best regards, Tore Anderson

Hi, ok, this has been going on for quite a while, and I'm not sure if anyone else is following. Filiz, if I could ask you one thing: is the only reason why you're opposing 2013-03 this particular wording: On Sat, Sep 21, 2013 at 06:56:24PM +0200, Filiz Yilmaz wrote:

...

Accordingly, I think following will be a more appropriate wording:

3. LIR must demonstrate its need for the IPv4 address space and must confirm it will make assignment(s) from the allocation.

replacing what you proposed: 3. The LIR must confirm it will make assignment(s) from the allocation

That is, if that particular sentence were changed in this specific way, you would support the policy change? As it has been a long discussion with *long* mails going back and forth, I'm fairly sure most readers have lost track what it's about, and who missed what deadline for which reason - but it would be very helpful to have a crystal clear statement here. It helps Sander and me to decide how to go forward at the end of the review phase, and it helps people that want to evaluate whether the PDP has been followed properly (as in: the WG chairs collective). thanks, Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

Hello, On 22 Sep 2013, at 23:12, Richard Hartmann <richih.mailinglist@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sun, Sep 22, 2013 at 10:45 PM, Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:

...

ok, this has been going on for quite a while, and I'm not sure if anyone else is following.

There are; not happily, though.

...

but it would be very helpful to have a crystal clear statement here.

I had a draft which asked pretty much the same.

Personally, I feel as if a lot of prose is produced, but that if there are any precise and atomic points, they are lost in a sea of words.

Filiz, can you try to write a proposed change which covers your concerns and give a short list of supporting arguments, please?

I have given my arguments for demonstration of need in general within all the mails I have sent to this thread, since July 2013. I do not have time to write up an exec summary unfortunately. I have already made the last wording suggestion a couple of days ago, re-mentioned/quoted in other mails in response to Tore, explained my motivation for it in a separate mail upon Sander's request and just re-confirmed the suggested text upon Gert's request. Below you can find my response to Sander's question, which already contains again the suggested text. Hope this helps now. Kind regards, Filiz ------------ On 21 Sep 2013, at 01:41, Filiz Yilmaz <koalafil@gmail.com> wrote:

Hello,

On 21 Sep 2013, at 00:03, "Sander Steffann" <sander@steffann.nl> wrote:

...

Hi Filiz,

One question for clarification:

...

And to better address the need based concerns objecting your proposal, I think you could consider taking the "intent" you mentioned above one step further and have it explained to the RIPE NCC.

Accordingly, I think following will be a more appropriate wording:

3. LIR must demonstrate its need for the IPv4 address space and must confirm it will make assignment(s) from the allocation.

replacing what you proposed: 3. The LIR must confirm it will make assignment(s) from the allocation

What is your motivation for adding the 'LIR must demonstrate its need for the IPv4 address space' part?

- Demonstration brings accountability to any claim and makes the claim (of confirming the intent of making assignments) believable and supported. [This demonstration can be as simple as a couple of sentences describing the network and business of the new LIR and does not need to come in any specific form or shape.]

- Those who intend to lie to the RIPE NCC will be forced to be a bit more creative and work on their case harder than just clicking a combo box. Those who really have a need can explain this briefly very easily and pass the criteria without any hassle. So policy will still have some substance for some differentiation between bad and good practice.

- RIPE NCC may be able to demonstrate and defend their position why they allocated space rightfully way better if they have to one day to some I* organisation, having received some demonstration from LIRs. The LIR may have chosen to lie and fake their demonstration but the RIR will be still have had asked the right questions to consider "need" as their justification of who gets the space.

- Adding this may help getting agreement of those who currently object the proposal because of the complete removal of justification of need from the policy, as it is kept for allocations to new LIRs, while it is removed from assignments, which is the real bureaucracy on the LIR side. So this looks to me like a compromise between two conflicting interests/wishes.

Filiz

------------

On Sun, Sep 22, 2013 at 11:31 PM, Fil <koalafil@gmail.com> wrote:

Hello,

On 22 Sep 2013, at 22:45, Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:

...

Filiz, if I could ask you one thing: is the only reason why you're

opposing

...

2013-03 this particular wording:

Yes.

...

On Sat, Sep 21, 2013 at 06:56:24PM +0200, Filiz Yilmaz wrote:

...

...

Accordingly, I think following will be a more appropriate wording:

3. LIR must demonstrate its need for the IPv4 address space and must confirm it will make assignment(s) from the allocation.

replacing what you proposed: 3. The LIR must confirm it will make assignment(s) from the allocation

That is, if that particular sentence were changed in this specific way, you would support the policy change?

Yes.

Thank you, Gert, for asking the penetrating question, and thank you, Filiz, for the succinct response. Before this, I had read through the proposal and a whole bunch of emails again in order to try to understand what Filiz was on about, and had I just waited a day, this would have been a huge time saver. :) -- Jan

On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 09:37:51PM +0200, Filiz Yilmaz wrote:

I agree it can be seen as bureaucracy to ask people to justify PA assignments and sub-allocations now. However, I am not convinced that asking justifying 1 IP from a /22 as a new LIR at this very interesting times is a big deal. And removing a long-standing principle like "need based" should require a better argument than reducing bureaucracy. This

There is a better argument: We are in "Last /8", there is one more /22 per LIR, regardless of what "need" they may have or could demonstrate. Very soon now, IPv4 will be gone altogether and all the need in the world will get you exactly 0 IP addresses. Keeping "must demonstrate need" around in the absence of the premises it was based on is traditionalism for traditionalism's sake.

These are procedural NCC issues, I've already commented regarding reducing bureaucracy with the NCC, without doing a main curriery in the policy before. These two are not real address policy management related, they are "consequences" of the proposal, rather than positive or negative Rationales

We have no formal way of forcing the NCC to change the way a policy is implemented except by changing the policy. rgds, Sascha Luck

On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 6:10 PM, McTim <dogwallah@gmail.com> wrote:

...

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.

No offense, but I see a certain recurring pattern in the discussion about 2013-03.

I don't think the chair has the prerogative to close a topic.

http://ripe61.ripe.net/presentations/183-apwg-r61-steering-slides.pdf http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rough_consensus http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-resnick-on-consensus-00 - section 3 Quite frankly, from my POV, the chairs have been extremely accommodating up to now. If anything, this shows how much they value these principles above and beyond what would be required of them. As per Tore's suggestion, please take this off-list. Richard

On Sep 20, 2013, at 2:17 PM, Gert Doering <gert@Space.Net> wrote:

If we start working on a cross-RIR transfer policy, I am very sure our friends from ARIN will help us in determining what they consider a suitable documentation of need to permit a transfer.

Correct - ARIN follows the RIPE address policy working group mailing list and will respond to any question directed to us regarding transfers to/from ARIN and the applicable policy. Best wishes on your policy discussions! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN

Hi, On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 07:32:10AM -0400, McTim wrote:

In addition there are multiple issues listed in the Impact Analysis that cause me great concern. The primary issue there is incompatibility with other regional transfer policies.

Yeah, that statement filled my heart with lots of joy as well. </sigh> As Tore pointed out, as we do not have a cross-region transfer policy yet, we are 100 per cent incompatible with all other regions *right now*, and 2013-03 is not changing this. If this working group shold ever start having an interest in a cross-region transfer policy (there is an open policy proposal for that, 2012-02, which is hanging in limbo because of massive disinterest(!) from this community) it would not be hard to add provisions to *that* proposal to ensure the necessary compatibility. For example, if one wants to permit transfers from the ARIN region and ARIN at that time still insists on having a needs-based policy on the receiving end, it would be possible to have a policy on our side that gives receiving parties the option to undergo a needs assessment by the RIPE NCC to have documented need where needed. For the record, I'm going to consider the objection "2013-03 is incompatible with cross-region transfers" as fully addressed when judging consensus. Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

On Friday, September 20, 2013, Randy Bush wrote:

if homogenous policy was a goal, why do we need separate RIRs?

Very interesting question. Especialy since all the policy foras are open to partocipation - even from other regions - there tends to be inter-region influence between the regional policies. -hph -- Hans Petter Holen Mobile +47 45 06 60 54 | hph@oslo.net | http://hph.oslo.net