Hi Sacha, you wrote:
I support the proposal as-is, without any list of "allowed" parameters, for those reasons:
1) I doubt we can come up with an exhaustive list of parameters for request evaluation and so we will be here again next year when there will be an edge case not catered for.
2) Both the current and the here proposed list are biased towards conservationism, where ripe-641 explicitly states that aggregation is the greater good.
Thanks for your support. In your previous post on 28 April you voiced the fear that transparency is an issue if the text is removed and asked that this be addressed in the NCC Impact Statement. I hope that the NCC does this. With my suggested criteria I was thinking of the 20 large requests mentioned my Andrea Cima in his presentation at RIPE70 where hierarchy and longevity of allocation could not be considered by the NCC when evaluating requests. Maybe not all "edge cases" are covered, but I hope that a large number of cases will be covered. I think that this is better than the current situation. Concerning the bias towards the conservation of address space I believe that my suggestion relaxes the current constraints to a sensible degree. Without policy anchored judgement criteria, what "reasonably justifies the request" will be difficult to identify opening the door to arbitrariness. Best regards, John