Fwd: Re: 2013-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and Cleanup)
Sorry this should have went to the list. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2013-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and Cleanup) Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 15:21:31 -0500 From: David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu> Reply-To: David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu> Organization: University of Minnesota To: Tore Anderson <tore@fud.no> CC: David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu> On 9/20/13 07:27 , Tore Anderson wrote:
Hi Sylvain, ...
Deregulation + commercial transfer make the ressources governed by sole market, which we do not agree with. We consider Ripe NCC should stay in its regulation role and not give public ressources away to the private sector and market.
The transfer policy is in place already. If you oppose a commercial transfer market, 2013-03 is the wrong policy proposal to attack, it is really 2007-08 you should be going after.
You are obfuscating and trivializing Sylvain's objection. He didn't say that he doesn't support the transfer market. He said he doesn't support your "deregulation" of the transfer market, which I interpret as removal of justification of need for transfers. And, yes the transfer market is a reality as of 2007-08, but this proposal does very much change the status quo, that is deregulating the transfer market by removing justification of need for transfers.
On your second point, I would like to stress that 2013-03 version 3 does ensure that the NCC's distribution of IPv4 address space stays the same as right now: If you want your last /22, you'll have to use it for making assignments; and if you're an IXP and want something larger than a /24, you'll have to demonstrate the operational need for it.
Also, I think it is worth noting that "giving public resources away" is and has always been one of the (perhaps "the") primary functions of the NCC. This is true even when the recipient is a private sector LIR who might at a later time choose to sell the resource on the IPv4 market. This is how things are today. 2013-03 does not change it one way or the other.
If you want to prohibit private sector entities from being eligible from receiving resources from the NCC, you are free to submit a proposal that does just that. If you want to undo 2007-08 and thus retire the IPv4 market, you are free to submit a proposal that does just that too. But please leave those topics out of the 2013-03 thread.
Again you are obfuscating and trivializing his objection. The RIPE NCC doesn't just "giving public resources away", the primary cost is the justification of those resources. Or, the cost of dealing with the "bureaucracy" that you want to eliminate, that is not free, which is why you want to eliminate it. Please stop obfuscating and trivializing people's objections, you either have sufficient support to ignore their objections or you should address them properly. Thank you. -- ================================================ David Farmer Email: farmer@umn.edu Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 1-612-626-0815 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 1-612-812-9952 ================================================
* David Farmer
You are obfuscating and trivializing Sylvain's objection. He didn't say that he doesn't support the transfer market. He said he doesn't support your "deregulation" of the transfer market, which I interpret as removal of justification of need for transfers. And, yes the transfer market is a reality as of 2007-08, but this proposal does very much change the status quo, that is deregulating the transfer market by removing justification of need for transfers.
The market appears to be supplying only about 3% of the demand, assuming the demand for IPv4 in the region is as high as before the NCC ran out. There is no reason to believe that I can see reason to assume that the buyers and the would-be buyers do not have "need". More likely, I think, is that many by now have a quite desperate need. So for a "buyer without need" to even come into the picture, they must be willing to outspend those needy 97% in order to get at the available resource. If these "buyers without need" truly exist and are that determined and resourceful, I have no doubt they are also capable of synthesising whatever "need" required to stay within the constraints of today's need-based policy. It's not at all difficult, they could simply offer to lease (or even loan) back the addresses to the "needy" LIRs they have just outbid.
Again you are obfuscating and trivializing his objection. The RIPE NCC doesn't just "giving public resources away", the primary cost is the justification of those resources. Or, the cost of dealing with the "bureaucracy" that you want to eliminate, that is not free, which is why you want to eliminate it.
The cost of obtaining public IPv4 resources from the RIPE NCC is an one-time fee of €2000 plus a yearly fee of €1800 (which may be adjusted annually). Plus the cost of sending an e-mail requesting the /22. This e-mail is *not* the bureaucracy I want to eliminate. Indeed, the changes going into version 3 is there precisely to keep this the way it is today. The bureaucracy 2013-03 do want to eliminate* is that of the interaction between the LIRs and their End Users. In other words, the *assignment* bureaucracy. The RIPE NCC is not involved in this at all, apart from a few exceptions, for example when assignment size > AW and during LIR Audits. * Actually, "make optional" is more describing. If an LIR wants to keep its current operational practises, by all means, it's free to do so.
Please stop obfuscating and trivializing people's objections, you either have sufficient support to ignore their objections or you should address them properly.
My aim is always to address any objections properly. I hope this message contributed to that.
From: David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu> Organization: University of Minnesota
Which reminds me, as you stated earlier on this list «I neither support or oppose [2013-03], as I do not represent any resources used within the RIPE region»: I am truly perplexed with the intensity at which ARIN community members seem to take an interest in RIPE policy making, and perhaps especially in 2013-03. Do you have any clue as to the reason for this? 2013-03 is not intended as a global policy proposal, has someone claimed that it is? Best regards, Tore Anderson
Hi, On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 03:25:39PM -0500, David Farmer wrote:
Again you are obfuscating and trivializing his objection. The RIPE NCC doesn't just "giving public resources away", the primary cost is the justification of those resources. Or, the cost of dealing with the "bureaucracy" that you want to eliminate, that is not free, which is why you want to eliminate it.
Please stop obfuscating and trivializing people's objections, you either have sufficient support to ignore their objections or you should address them properly.
Tore is actually responding to your and Sylvain's concerns to *address* them (or to explain why he's convinced that 2013-03 does not affect the concern voiced), not to obfuscate/trivialize them, and the WG chairs appreciate that. Whether or not we as WG chairs can "ignore the objection" depends somewhat on the total balance of support (preferably from the people affected by this, which really is "RIPE LIRs day to day business"), repetitive, and new objections. We'll see. 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
participants (3)
-
David Farmer -
Gert Doering -
Tore Anderson