Re: [address-policy-wg] 2013-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and Cleanup)
* Marco Schmidt <mschmidt@ripe.net> [2013-09-19 16:48]:
Dear Colleagues,
Following the feedback received, the draft documents for the proposal described in 2013-03 (No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and Cleanup) are edited and published.
I support this proposal. Regards Sebastian -- GPG Key: 0x93A0B9CE (F4F6 B1A3 866B 26E9 450A 9D82 58A2 D94A 93A0 B9CE) 'Are you Death?' ... IT'S THE SCYTHE, ISN'T IT? PEOPLE ALWAYS NOTICE THE SCYTHE. -- Terry Pratchett, The Fifth Elephant
Dear all, Gert has prompted me to reply to the proposal on the table, to confirm whether it meets my earlier objections. Firstly, I'd like to apologise again for not paying closer attention sooner. My thanks again to the co-chairs and to Tore for their hard work and diligence in trying to achieve a consensus. This proposal has gone through three drafts, and I doubt anyone has much appetite for another. Since it seems there is not going to be unanimity, the co-chairs have the unenviable job of determining whether all the reasoned objections have been fully addressed, or whether consensus is simply not available on this issue at the current time. So as someone (Randy?) said weeks ago, the question isn't whether I like this proposal, the question is whether it's good enough, that is, not so seriously flawed as to justify standing in the way of a clear majority so as to prevent a rough consensus? The TL;DR is that I am now willing to withdraw my objection, but would ask that you change the title to remove the words "No need", agree to changes as to how this is presented externally, and to support further work as part of a new PDP. If that is agreeable (and I hope it can be done without going to Version 4, as I am not suggesting any change to the policy itself from Version 3), I would agree my points have been fully addressed and need not stand in the way of announcing a finding of consensus. In case others should be interested, I shall set out more fully my reasons for changing my position before elaborating what I hope will be a compromise everyone could support. It is true that I have never been persuaded by the arguments advanced for this proposal. Sylvain did a demolition job on them (2013-09-20 13:19 UTC+2), and I share many of the same views. However, I don't work at the coalface of allocation requests, as many here who support this policy do. I don't think my being un-persuaded on this is good enough reason to block the policy. Much of what McTim wrote I also agree with, especially this:
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.
However he also said:
The primary issue there is incompatibility with other regional transfer policies.
Gert replied that inter-regional compatibility was a closed issue:
I do have the prerogative to ignore certain topics voiced as reason for opposition to a proposal if I consider them suitably addressed, and there is sufficient support for a proposal otherwise.
This is what I did: I consider this point to be suitably addressed, given the very specific fact that we do not have a cross-RIR transfer policy today, and this community has not shown interest in working on one.
I am in agreement with Gert on this aspect. Given that we do not have a cross-RIR transfer policy, are not going to get one imminently, and that reverting 2013-03 would be possible as part of the process of creating one, I don't think incompatibility with ARIN is sufficient reason to say No. That leaves the issues that were always the heart of my objection, the political (and possibly legal) impact. My reading of the original NCC Impact Assessment was that the competition law issues were a concern, but not a grave risk: much more serious was the political impact on the credibility of the RIR system of throwing away all basis for a claim that the way the RIRs operate is in the public interest. The latest version of the Impact Analysis says
External Relations
Adoption of this policy would have a major impact on RIPE NCC External Relations, and would require the investment of considerable resources in messaging and defending/explaining this policy shift to stakeholders both inside and outside the technical community. Additionally, these activities would need to target not only stakeholders within the RIPE NCC service region, but also those in other RIR communities.
That's a pretty serious warning, and I think it corroborates everything I have said on this subject. On the previous draft, what concerned me most was the appearance of the RIPE Community abandoning all claim to regulate allocation on the basis of need. This would be tantamount to giving up the RIPE Community's right to create new policies in future on the basis that market effects are causing severe operational problems. Not being able to create new policies to address new problems would be politically unacceptable: if the RIPE Community would not do it, then governments would have to step in. Version 3 provides the compromise Tore offered me: make dealing with those future issues a problem for another day; "kick the can down the road". Do not let those future problems stand in the way of this proposal which is (by assertion) needed now - but retain a placeholder so that we do not close the door on revisiting this issue in the future, if we need to do so. That placeholder is the new assertion in the policy of "fairness", an undefined term. At the moment this either stands in as a loose and probably unenforceable token for the current normative standards, or it has no practical effect on everyday operations at all. But it does have one key virtue: it asserts the community's right to adjust the current policy on the basis of protecting what the community, by consensus, agrees to be fair. That may turn out to be crucial, if we need to respond to problems that may arise in the future. Is that good enough? I think it should be, if we are willing to work together. So I propose the following compromise: 1. 2013-03 be retitled to remove "no need" from the title. Those words are highly detrimental to the NCC's External Relations work, and add nothing useful. 2. No other changes are made to the proposal itself. 3. The accompanying notes, which are not part of the proposal itself but which are a part of the external messaging, should be re-written. The current version of these notes unhelpfully emphasises the removal of the requirement to demonstrate need, as if need were becoming irrelevant. They should describe the effect of 2013-03, which is to remove the *upfront documentation* of need (a form of ex ante regulation), while retaining the concept of fairness, as defined by the community, as a goal of allocation policy. It should be emphasised that the community retains the right to introduce new policies in the future, if deemed necessary, to ensure that this deregulatory initiative does not bring about unfairness. 4. AP-WG should (later, but soon) consider a new policy, as part of a new PDP, that asserts that the fairness goal makes it an objective to maximise the availability of IP addresses for use, and asserts as a community view that it is not fair to artificially restrict supply by hoarding for speculative purposes. The proposal might stop at that, and we could wait until there was evidence of hoarding to create any enforcement mechanism. Alternatively, we could consider introducing an ex post rather than ex ante enforcement. i.e. where someone would have to complain that a given LIR was hoarding before anything could be done, and the NCC could investigate and if necessary that LIR (and only that LIR) would have to justify their need. This would be quite different to the current situation, where every LIR must prove their need up front. Having in place a policy like that outlined in (4) would in my view substantially mitigate the serious political risk referred to in the Impact Analysis, while at the same time achieving the aim of reducing mostly-unnecessary bureaucracy that is the goal of 2013-03. Doing (4) as a new PDP would take it off the critical path for 2013-03, and would also allow the principles expressed therein to be expressed as an interpretive guide to other policies e.g. 2007-08, if thought appropriate. Of course, it is always open to any member of the community to draft a new proposal for a new PDP. What I am asking is that the proposers of 2013-03 support that process, as being an appropriate way of ensuring the reduction in application bureaucracy in 2013-03 does not have the effect of undermining the core values the RIPE community has upheld for decades, rather than criticising such a proposal as being a reversal of "no need". Version 3 of 2013-03 would allow us to move in that direction, if the presentation of how it is introduced is cleaned up. So if these steps are taken, I am willing to accept that my objection has been fully answered and need not stand in the way of a finding of rough consensus. Malcolm. -- Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523 Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/ London Internet Exchange Ltd 21-27 St Thomas Street, London SE1 9RY Company Registered in England No. 3137929 Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA
On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 5:54 PM, Malcolm Hutty <malcolm@linx.net> wrote: … (I did read it all) …
The TL;DR is that I am now willing to withdraw my objection, but would ask that you change the title to remove the words "No need", agree to changes as to how this is presented externally, and to support further work as part of a new PDP.
I think your point of view is very well expressed, and even sensible. I think your suggestion for going forward is constructive, and will probably mitigate the risk you highlighted from the impact analysis. I don't know what the proper procedure would be for handling this, but you've got my support. -- Jan
On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 7:48 PM, Jan Ingvoldstad <frettled@gmail.com> wrote:
I think your suggestion for going forward is constructive, and will probably mitigate the risk you highlighted from the impact analysis.
Personally, I feel that point 3) smells a bit like fluff. It's well-known that changes can be proposed and implemented given community support. Stating that in the notes on the process of such a change seems superfluous. Along similar lines, ensuring overall fairness is an oft-stated, and obvious, goal. Pointing it out again in the spirit of consensus can't hurt, either.
I don't know what the proper procedure would be for handling this, but you've got my support.
Ideally, Malcolm or you would start a new PDP to implement the changes you want to see. -- Richard
Hello Malcolm,
The TL;DR is that I am now willing to withdraw my objection, but would ask that you change the title to remove the words "No need", agree to changes as to how this is presented externally, and to support further work as part of a new PDP.
I'm very happy to hear that! I think you will find that I am willing to work constructively with you on finding solutions to your requests. I'll respond in more detail below.
The latest version of the Impact Analysis says
External Relations
Adoption of this policy would have a major impact on RIPE NCC External Relations, and would require the investment of considerable resources in messaging and defending/explaining this policy shift to stakeholders both inside and outside the technical community. Additionally, these activities would need to target not only stakeholders within the RIPE NCC service region, but also those in other RIR communities.
That's a pretty serious warning, and I think it corroborates everything I have said on this subject.
I don't really see this as a warning, but more a statement of fact. 2013-03 is undeniably a large policy change, and as such it is only to be expected that it will require a correspondingly large effort in external messaging. That does not necessarily mean that it is a *bad* policy change, or that delivering this message would make the RIPE NCC and/or Community "look bad". Put it another way, I think the above paragraph could just as well have been written about 2010-02 (the "last /8" policy). For what it's worth, I have it on good authority that the RIPE NCC Board is much happier about version 3 then they were about version 2. It is worth noting that the Board section in the Impact Analysis went from being full of warnings in the previous version, to being almost absent from the current version.
So I propose the following compromise:
1. 2013-03 be retitled to remove "no need" from the title. Those words are highly detrimental to the NCC's External Relations work, and add nothing useful.
Assuming this does not trigger the need for the NCC to do yet another Impact Analysis, and the Working Group from running another review period (I agree 100% with what you wrote about not having the appetite for that), I have no problems with this at all. The "No Need" moniker was just meant as a nickname for the proposal anyway. From my point of view ("the coalface of assignment requests"), it's descriptive, but I can accept that from other points of view it may appear glib. So then we're left with the title «Post-depletion reality adjustment and cleanup», then?
2. No other changes are made to the proposal itself.
NO WAY! UNACCEPTABLE! ...oh, okay then. I suppose can let you have that one. ;-D
3. The accompanying notes, which are not part of the proposal itself but which are a part of the external messaging, should be re-written. The current version of these notes unhelpfully emphasises the removal of the requirement to demonstrate need, as if need were becoming irrelevant. They should describe the effect of 2013-03, which is to remove the *upfront documentation* of need (a form of ex ante regulation), while retaining the concept of fairness, as defined by the community, as a goal of allocation policy. It should be emphasised that the community retains the right to introduce new policies in the future, if deemed necessary, to ensure that this deregulatory initiative does not bring about unfairness.
Same condition as for #1, as long as it doesn't require another IA, I have problem with this. For what it's worth, I've always considered the rationale text of a proposal more a starting point for the ensuing WG discussion, one that's necessarily biased by the proposer's reasons for submitting the proposal in the first place. There are certainly those who have both opposed and supported proposal for other reasons than those I thought to mention in the accompanying notes. For this reason I wouldn't expect the NCC's External Relations team to feel limited to echoing my specific points made in the proposal notes when creating their slide decks, but also take the WG's deliberations into account, messages such as yours in particular. In any case, I'd need your help with this. You clearly have a pretty good idea of what parts of the notes stand out as "offensive", and what messages are missing. Are you coming to Athens? If so, maybe we could book a meeting room and sit down with the Chairs, someone from the External Relations team, and any other WG members who might be interested in participating here - collaborate on an improved text right there on the projector, and have a version 4 that could be published when going into the final PDP phase.
4. AP-WG should (later, but soon) consider a new policy, as part of a new PDP, that asserts that the fairness goal makes it an objective to maximise the availability of IP addresses for use, and asserts as a community view that it is not fair to artificially restrict supply by hoarding for speculative purposes.
I have absolutely no problem with this - 2013-03 was never intended as an RIPE equivalent of APNIC's prop-103. I can promise you that I would contribute constructively to such an effort, but I cannot promise that I will spearhead it - simply because I have no good ideas on how the mechanisms that enforces this fairness would look like in a post-depletion world. The "all you can eat buffet" mechanism we had before, obviously doesn't work today when there's no longer enough food around to satiate everyone: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151520241646002&set=t.754215401&type=3&theater Also, I think I'll need to recuperate for a while before spearheading another RIPE policy proposal. :-) I'm not sure we do need to assert that "hoarding is unfair" in the policy, though. The EU Competition Law analysis that was prepared for the previous version of the proposal suggest that this practise is not only "unfair", but illegal as well. While I have no principal objection to this being stated in the policy too, it does feel a bit redundant to repeat what's the law anyway, especially considering that the police and the courts has much more efficient tools at their disposal to actually enforce the law than the RIPE NCC has. As an added bonus, keep in mind that this community does not foot the bill for the EU prosecutor's attorneys, while we do for the RIPE NCC's. Best regards, Tore Anderson
On 24.09.2013 12:36, Tore Anderson wrote:
we're left with the title «Post-depletion reality adjustment and cleanup», then? +1
-hph
I support proposal 2013-03. -- Alexey Ivanov LeaderTelecom
On 24/09/2013 11:36, Tore Anderson wrote:
3. The accompanying notes, which are not part of the proposal itself but which are a part of the external messaging, should be re-written. The current version of these notes unhelpfully emphasises the removal of the requirement to demonstrate need, as if need were becoming irrelevant. They should describe the effect of 2013-03, which is to remove the *upfront documentation* of need (a form of ex ante regulation), while retaining the concept of fairness, as defined by the community, as a goal of allocation policy. It should be emphasised that the community retains the right to introduce new policies in the future, if deemed necessary, to ensure that this deregulatory initiative does not bring about unfairness.
Same condition as for #1, as long as it doesn't require another IA, I have problem with this.
I've just had a quick word with Ingrid to ask whether this could be done without restarting the Phase. She said she'd want to see the changes and to consult the Chairs before giving a definitive view, but in principle it sounded reasonable. [...]
In any case, I'd need your help with this. You clearly have a pretty good idea of what parts of the notes stand out as "offensive", and what messages are missing. Are you coming to Athens? If so, maybe we could book a meeting room and sit down with the Chairs, someone from the External Relations team, and any other WG members who might be interested in participating here - collaborate on an improved text right there on the projector, and have a version 4 that could be published when going into the final PDP phase.
Great, let's do that. I'm in Athens. I've made a first stab at producing some text to act as a starting point. -- Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523 Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/ London Internet Exchange Ltd 21-27 St Thomas Street, London SE1 9RY Company Registered in England No. 3137929 Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA
Hi Malcolm, On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 11:54 AM, Malcolm Hutty <malcolm@linx.net> wrote: <snip>
Much of what McTim wrote I also agree with, especially this:
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.
However he also said:
The primary issue there is incompatibility with other regional transfer policies.
Just to be precise "there" in that sentence referred to the impact analysis. My main objection to the proposal is the removal of documented need. I agree with Filiz that some text like: "3. LIR must demonstrate its need for the IPv4 address space and must confirm it will make assignment(s) from the allocation." is essential, because, as she said previously: "- 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.]" My rational for this is that the RIRs have always "rationed" resources. the wikipedia definition of rationing is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationing This "controlled distribution of scarce resources" has always used the demonstration of need as a prerequisite for allocation. In the last /8 phase, we are using a different rationing method. I don't see the logic whereby demonstrating need can be eliminated, as it stands to reason (to me at least) that in a situation of dwindling resources, distribution requirements should be tighter, not looser. This is not traditionalism for the sake of it, it is just my instinct to be more conservative in the face of dwindling resources. For the record, I do not have a policy role, paid or unpaid in any RIR region. I am however serving out my last term on the AFRINIC Nominations Committee this year. I have zero financial interest in any IP block. I think however that having folk from other regions giving input to the PDP is a feature, not a bug. <snip>
So I propose the following compromise:
1. 2013-03 be retitled to remove "no need" from the title. Those words are highly detrimental to the NCC's External Relations work, and add nothing useful.
+1
2. No other changes are made to the proposal itself.
see #3 above for the change I would like to see. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel
On 23/09/2013 17:54, Malcolm Hutty wrote:
Is that good enough? I think it should be, if we are willing to work together.
So beautiful :-) I was (sincerely) quite "touched" by what Malcolm wrote and proposed, and also his ability to reach the expected rought consensus inside his own head. Please read this at first degree : I am not sarcastic and I do not want my bad english be miss-interpreted, I am sincere. I wish I could too, but unfortunately "supporting arguments" still miss, whereas deregulation obsesses me a little bit. * Malcoms makes some good points however, by proposing the solution of removing the upfront documentation while maintaining the capacity of control of the NCC, thus making fair (still to be defined) use of the ressources a necessity for LIRs, and also ensure they can provide proper documentation when requested to do so. before, after, on-demand ... Who knows anyway how it is made today, with AW ? But what is the difference, actually, between gathering the information and making the proper documentation when you do things, or trying to make it late and under pressure months or years later ? It seems quite obvious to me that, if proper documentation has to be produced on day, the only way is to make it on time. But, OK, whatever suspicious I can be regarding this, why not let each one deal with its paperwork organisation. This also leads me to request a bit more precision : what is the documentation one would expect ? This question also concerns the proposal Filiz made recently, and McTim just recalled : "3. LIR must demonstrate its need for the IPv4 address space and must confirm it will make assignment(s) from the allocation." What demonstration, what documentation ? Note : this is about needs for IP addresse space (not for "an allocation"), and this is about needs for addresses not yet granted by the RIR to the LIR, so we are in a very different context here, from Malcom's post documentation which is about already assigned IP space. And to finish on this point I would personnaly be reassured by knowing that this "past need" on-demand documentation would *quite probably* be requested to justify that past allocations where properly used, and before a new allocation or transfer can be granted. Which might have some encouraging effect. But this would need to be written somewhere. Which brings me to my second point. * My other concern is that point 4. does not modifiy the proposal, but calls for another PDP and another proposal, while agreeing for this one that remain, by definition, not satisfying. Well, I do not see the point of having a separate PDP, if it has to go though the same process anyway. I think they should be merged, so that both give a consensus, or none of them. I would +1 Richard on this, since "promisses only tie those who believe them" (litterally translated from French, sorry), we know what 2013-03 removes, we don't have a clue about what a new PDP will bring. * I feel sorry about exposing more problems that proposing solutions for the proposal. But from my view it is difficult to have a fondamentally wrong idea changed into something acceptable, even by many corrections. Unfortunately Malcoms very constructive contribution and proposition does not solve the problems inside 2013-03, and 2013-03 remains what it is, whatever the PDPs we could imagine to amend it : if we want to amend it so much, then maybe we should not pass it. Best regards, Sylvain
participants (9)
-
Hans Petter Holen -
Jan Ingvoldstad -
LeaderTelecom Ltd. -
Malcolm Hutty -
McTim -
Richard Hartmann -
Sebastian Wiesinger -
Sylvain Vallerot -
Tore Anderson