- address-policy-wg - mailman.ripe.net

Re: [address-policy-wg] global coordination (was: 2012-01)
by John Curran 17 Apr '12

17 Apr '12

On Apr 14, 2012, at 10:39 AM, bmanning(a)vacation.karoshi.com wrote: > Global coordination of a "commons" that is done on regional and national basis. As has been noted, there already is a successfully working process for submission of global policies in the Internet number registry system In fact, I pointed that fact out specifically to Milton the other day - <http://www.internetgovernance.org/2012/04/06/the-coming-trade-war-in-ip-add…> Whether one first seeks regional policies, gains experiences and awareness of the issues and then seeks consensus on a global policy, or one simply goes for the global policy from the beginning is a matter of personal preference. If there are lessons in global process to be learned from other bodies, then I'd love to hear of them, but such seems independent to the consideration of draft policies already underway in the regions under existing processes. FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN

9 17

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2012-01 New Policy Proposal (Inter-RIR IPv4 Address Transfers)
by David Monosov 15 Apr '12

15 Apr '12

Dear address-policy-wg, Ms. Brown, At present, RIPE NCC keeps extensive notes of all resources and actors involved in each direct assignment and allocation. This includes, for example, detailed ticket histories and revisions of the WHOIS database. This provides RIPE NCC with visibility into systemic abuse attempts of services it offers and enables it to challenge such attempts. Wouldn't 2012-01 without a uniform framework across all RIRs that includes provisions for extensive information sharing eliminate this already weak checkpoint by essentially making each RIR see half of each story? At the extreme, it might even encourage the flow of resources from "better informed" toward "less informed" RIRs, while potentially opening new loopholes and avenues for abuse and resource hoarding - especially when it may have increasing financial rewards. -- Respectfully yours, David Monosov On 04/02/2012 03:39 PM, Marco Schmidt wrote: > Dear Colleagues, > > A new RIPE Policy Proposal has been made and is now available for > discussion. > > You can find the full proposal at: > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-01/ > > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to > <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 30 April 2012. > > Regards > > Marco Schmidt > on behalf of the Policy Development Office > RIPE NCC > >

1 0

declining 2012-01
by Erik Bais 15 Apr '12

15 Apr '12

I don't agree with the current policy. Reasoning : As Gert already stated: companies will find ways around this anyway by selling parts of their companies / stocks which would have the IP’s otherwise. I already heard of a situation where an Asian based company opened a UK ltd just to become a RIPE LIR member in order to be able to apply for IP in our region. Bottom line is. People with a specific goal are cunning and more creative than what we allow or not in a specific policy. Especially if (a lot of) money is involved. However by releasing this policy, (semi)authorizing a market that would prolong IPv4 lifetime and further delay v6 deployment, would give the wrong signal to the public in my personal opinion. Any kind of transfer of unused space, should go back to the RIR and not end up with the highest bidder. The sooner people realize that v4 is soo 2000, the better for us all. Regards, Erik Bais

10 16

In favor of 2012-01
by Milton L Mueller 13 Apr '12

13 Apr '12

> this is exactly the problem. this implies that the ip space is an asset of the > seller, which it is not. it is a commons, and if it is sparse, as any one has the > same right to it, it is to be redistributed according to need, fair and equally. The IP address space is not and never has been a commons. Not for those of us who actually understand the vocabulary of resource economics and know what the term "commons" means. For IP addresses to be a "commons" they all would have to be available for use for anyone at any time; i.e., there would have to be no exclusive occupation of it. And of course that doesn't work technically, does it? IP address blocks have to be uniquely and exclusively assigned to specific users to function on the internet. Which means the address pool is not a commons - end of story. Because IP addresses are exclusively assigned, they can be governed either as common pool resources (in which a governance agency establishes rules regulating the extraction of resource units from a free pool) or as tradeable property (in which holders allocate the resources by making trades among themselves) or some combination of both. All that matters is which method is more efficient and produces more benefits for Internet users. Leave your religious beliefs behind. But after IPv4 exhaustion, common pool governance of v4 space breaks down completely and the best way to ensure efficient utilization of remaining v4 resources is to allow market-based transfers. These transfers should be made as flexible and easy as possible. There is probably no need for holding periods, although they don't seem to do a lot of harm as long as they are 1 year or less. Needs assessment is increasingly arbitrary and pointless in such an environment. I know needs-basis is another item of religious faith in some circles, but the idea that RIR staff can accurately assess "need" given inherent uncertainty about time horizons and technical development, is just wrong. Organizations should be allowed to buy as much of an asset as they think they need, and can afford, in order to advance their business interests. Let the price system sort out who really needs what. It should also be obvious that the market for these addresses should be global, not regional. Thus, I support proposed policy 2012-01, my only reservation being that the policy specifies that "Where the recipient is in another region, the conditions on the recipient as defined in the counterpart RIR's transfer policy at the time of the transfer will apply." In this blog post I raised some issues with that and hope that the authors of the policy would respond. http://www.internetgovernance.org/ Milton L. Mueller Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies Internet Governance Project http://blog.internetgovernance.org

11 14

In support of 2012-01, and side questions.
by Tiberiu Ungureanu 12 Apr '12

12 Apr '12

Hello. First, I want to show support for 2012-01. Second, I read the treads regarding this proposal, and I've seen some opposition, but I don't understand the arguments of the opposition, so I would like the people who oppose to clarify their positions: - What are the dangers that we face if we approve this proposal? * Resources that are available in another region will be made available to RIPE members? Isn't that a good thing? * Resources currently assigned to a RIPE member will leave RIPE influence zone, the RIPE member will potentially get some cash that *maybe* will help that member spend money to deploy IPv6? Or maybe that member will take the money and run to the first casino and waste them all (but wouldn't that in the end help the economy?) * Resources that a RIPE member "sold" to an entity outside the RIPE region, instead of returning them to RIPE could have been used by another RIPE member that now needs them and doesn't have them available. This other RIPE member is now forced to use IPv6, because there's no IPv4 left. But isn't that what we all want? It is not my intention to feed the trolls, but I find 2012-01 very reasonable, and I don't understand the opposition to it. So I allow for the unlikely situation ( ;) ) where I may be wrong. Am I? -- Tiberiu Ungureanu ro.ines

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 Last Call for Comments (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation)
by Anfinsen, Ragnar 11 Apr '12

11 Apr '12

+1 MVH/Regards Ragnar Anfinsen > -----Opprinnelig melding----- > Fra: address-policy-wg-bounces(a)ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg- > bounces(a)ripe.net] På vegne av Emilio Madaio > Sendt: 4. april 2012 15:22 > Til: policy-announce(a)ripe.net > Kopi: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net > Emne: [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 Last Call for Comments (Extension of > the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation) > > > Dear Colleagues, > > The proposal described in 2011-04 is now at its Concluding Phase. > > You can find the full proposal at: > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-04 > > > Please e-mail any final comments about this proposal to > address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 2 May 2012. > > > Regards > Emilio Madaio > Policy Development Officer > RIPE NCC >

5 9

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2011-05 New Draft Document Published (Safeguarding future IXPs with IPv4 space)
by Gert Doering 11 Apr '12

11 Apr '12

Dear Address-Policy WG, (cc'ing the EIX wg due to "this is where the proposal came from") after a very lifely debate in the early stages of this proposal, you have been VERY quiet in this review phase. Specifically, *no* comments have been voiced, and this is not enough for the proposal to go anywhere - so unless I see a few more comments really soon now, we'll have to extend the review phase. Please let us know whether this version 3.0 of the proposal is what you want to see become policy, or whether you oppose it. If you oppose it, please make clear whether you oppose the general idea or just specific aspects of the proposal as written now. thanks, Gert Doering, APWG chair On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 04:41:23PM +0100, Emilio Madaio wrote: > > Dear Colleagues, > > The text of RIPE Policy Proposal 2011-05, "Safeguarding future IXPs > with IPv4 space", has been revised based on the community feedback > received on the mailing list. We have published the new version > (version 3.0) today. > > Highlights of the changes in version 3.0 are: > > -a new punctuation is used in the first bullet point of the proposed > section 5.6.2 > > > As per RIPE document ripe-500, "Policy Development Process in RIPE", > the suggested change was not considered significant to require a new > Discussion Phase. Hence the proposal moves to the Review Phase of the > RIPE Policy Development Process. > > The draft document for the proposal has been published. The impact > analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been published > > > You can find the full proposal and impact analysis at: > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-05 > > and the draft document at: > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-05/draft > > > We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments > to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 3 April 2011. > > Regards > > Emilio Madaio > Policy Development Officer > RIPE NCC > > Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- 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 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

23 27

2011-05 Last Call for Comments (Safeguarding future IXPs with IPv4 space)
by Emilio Madaio 11 Apr '12

11 Apr '12

Dear Colleagues, The proposal described in 2011-05, "Safeguarding future IXPs with IPv4 space", is now at its Concluding Phase. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-05 Please e-mail any final comments about this proposal to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 9 May 2012. Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

2011-05 Decision to move to Last Call (Safeguarding future IXPs with IPv4 space)
by Gert Doering 10 Apr '12

10 Apr '12

Dear AP WG, 2011-05 (Safeguarding future IXPs with IPv4 space) has come to the end of the Review Phase. Sander and I have gone through the mails sent by you in the discussion phase and review phase, categorizing everything into "support", "opposition", "side track discussion", and so on - as usual :-) - all the details are listed below. Overall, there was very strong support for the proposal, with a fairly high number of supportive e-mails. In the discussion phase, we had a number of people that wanted to see textual changes, or required clarification on details. Some voices had reservation or opposed the proposal initially but changed that to "neutral" or "support" after discussion with the chairs. Two people opposed on the principle of "no special rules" - more to that later. In review phase, 18 individuals expressed their explicit support (some of them relaying support from industry bodies, but this did not influence the decision process). One person sustained his opposition, based on "there should not be a special rule for IXP/ISPs" and "only IXP folks are supporting their support, non-IXPs are underrepresented and would otherwise oppose the proposal". Indeed, many of the voices supporting the proposal have come from people working for IXPs, but I see a number of supporters that I know do *not* work for an IXP - and I also know that there are lots of non-IXP people on the address policy list who are well-capable to express their opposition to a policy proposal. So that part of the argument doesn't hold. Remains the counter-argument of non-supporting special-cases for IXPs - and indeed, the address policy could be much more simple if all consumers of IP addresses were equal. They aren't, and thus we allow special cases if there is enough support for it. Counting voices, I see very strong support. So, we think that we have enough support to call consensus, and move to Last Call. Emilio will do the formal announcement from the PDO soon. If you disagree with our interpretation of what has been said, and the conclusion we have drawn from it, please let us know. Gert Doering, Address Policy WG Chair ----------------------------------------------------- Discussion Phase pro James Blessing Babak Farrokhi Brian Nisbet Remco Van Mook Martin Millnert Sascha Lenz (even if "not a fan of special entities") Niels Bakker Tom Hodgson "worried about special cases, but still supports policy" Henk Steenman Wolfgang Tremmel Larisa Yurkina Harald Michl David Freedman Job Snijders Vincent PAGES Barry O'Donovan Michiel Appelman Steven Bakker Tom Bird Erik Bais Jan Zorz Carlos Friacas David Croft Basile Bluntschli Rolf Schärer Daniel Holme Kjetil Otter Olsen Sascha Luck Nick Hilliard (with some reservactions about the "must do IPv6" bits) against Florian Weimer "IXPs shouldn't be special-cased" chrish(a)consol.net "no special treatment... 'no'" "this should not be necessary" Nigel Titley (later agrees with intent of proposal) Jim Reid ("reservations but no strong objection") clarifications Dan Luedtke ("which /16 is used?"), answered by proposer Remco Van Mook (sizing criteria?), answered by proposer and chair, text integrated into next version Martin Millnert (what about multiple peering LANs?), answered by proposer Sascha Lenz (renumbering time?), answered by Niels Bakker Nigel Titley ("shouldn't be the every-lir-gets-a-/22 rule be good enough?"), +1'ed by Jim Reid, answered by proposer Henk Uijterwaal ("will v4 IXPs be needed after v4 runout?") side-track "why does an IXP have to return PI and not PA?" Florian Weimer, Niels Bakker side-track "shouldn't this be limited to non-commercial IXPs?" Erik Bais, Andy Davidson, Jim Reid side-track "address assignment must be fair, no special rules for IXPs, and non-IXP-folks are not properly represented at APWG anyway" chrish(a)consol.net, Nick Hilliard (multiple mails) Review Phase, v3.0 with textual changes suggested in discussion phase pro James Blessing Sascha Luck Jan Zorz Sascha Lenz Remco van Mook Florian Hibler (needs more coffee) Paul Thornton Arnold Nipper Job Snijders Alexander Leefmann Lindqvist Kurt Erik Christian Kaufmann Kjetil Otter Olsen Petr Jiran Jérôme Fleury Jan Torreele John Souter Sylwester Biernacki against chrish(a)consol.net side remark Turchanyi Geza "it's good that the WG affected is supporting the proposal" (side track discussion about organizations or individuals speaking in the APWG) -- 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 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

1 0

On use of the word "sold" (was: 2012-01 New Policy Proposal (Inter-RIR IPv4 Address Transfers))
by John Curran 07 Apr '12

07 Apr '12

RIPE Policy Folks - I have no comments to make with regards to the merits of policy proposal 2012-01, but will comment for sake of clarity on the use of the words "sell" and "sold" in the proposal. In the policies in the ARIN region, we have made use of the term "transfer" for this purpose, although one can argue that "sell" and "sold" is equally accurate. The challenge with using the word "sell" is simply that for many readers it carries the connotation of 'free and clear' transfer of property to another. I do not know, (nor intend to assert) what transfer of number resources in the RIPE region means, but in the ARIN region we hold that there are multiple parties with rights to each number resource, and this includes the resource holder (who has the right of exclusive use) but also includes the community (who has the right of visibility into the public portion of the registration, the right to set policies by which the resource may be transferred or reclaimed, etc.) We've had parties come to ARIN and indicate that they have "bought" or "sold" their address blocks, and we have to point out that they may indeed have sold their particular rights to the address block, but that any transfer in our region must comply with the community policies, and ask that they put a transfer request (agreed to by the seller) so that we may transfer the number resources to the new registrant. In short, using terms like "sell" and "sold" in the policy text may create the impression for some readers that Internet number resources are just widgets to be bought and sold as desired, but that error is may be unavoidable in any case given the circumstances. I do not believe that the use of "sell" or "sold" is incorrect, but simply of question of personal judgement as to whether the improved readability is worth the connotations that some readers will draw as a result. FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN

6 9