Michael and all, AgainI fully agree with Michael here.... michael.dillon@bt.com wrote:
It is contrary to the goals of this document and is not in the interests of the Internet community as a whole for address space to be considered freehold property.
Why should an IPv4 policy document take IPv6 policy documents into account? "Different circumstances".
Same stakeholders. Same organization. And the statement does not make any distinction between the two versions of IP.
2007-08 should be rejected because no consensus has been formed and
This is exactly the point of a "v3" of this document: take into account previous discussions and comments, and try finding a consensus on the reworked document.
The argument "I reject this version because no consensus was formed on a previous version" is not a very useful contribution, in itself - if you have specific issues with *v3* (or your concerns about v1 and v2 are still un-addressed), please voice them.
When there is a huge lack of consensus in favour of a policy proposal, that proposal should be abandoned. It goes against consensus to continually make small changes to the proposal and extend the whole process by months or years. This does not help the stakeholders in RIPE and I do not believe that this is what people expect from the WG chairs.
But you asked for specific issues. Let's start with ETNO's concerns that a transfer system cannot ensure a process that is open, transparent and equitable. By opening the door to private negotiations and agreements between LIR's, you will have destroyed the very foundation of RIPE, which is openness, transparency and fairness.
Eric Schmidt feels that transfers open up more possibilities for abuse. This is what happens when you allow for secret agreements.
Jay Daley says that reclaim/reuse could be more efficient than transfers. This is quite likely when you consider that the entire free pool must be in RIPE's hands, therefore there is the greatest possibility of aggregation of blocks, by rejecting 2007-08 and keeping the current system.
Per Heldal mentions legal implications for RIPE. Clearly one of those is the conflict between the statement of principle in the IPv6 policy, and the enabling of transfers for IPv4. How will the courts react to numbers which are freehold property, and others which are not?
Edited versions of the policy proposal cannot fix these issues.
--Michael Dillon
Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827