On 01 Aug 2013, at 19:27, Tore Anderson <tore@fud.no> wrote:
* Nick Hilliard
On 01/08/2013 07:38, Tore Anderson wrote:
«Fair use: Public IPv4 address space must be fairly distributed to the End Users operating networks.»
can you define "fair"?
Well *that* is the million dollar question, isn't it. In a state of scarcity, what is "fair"?
I do not know it is such a million dollar question. Scarcity (remember the switch from classful delegations to CIDR…) had been a (maybe perceived) issue in the past too. Basically we dealt with it by putting our trust on the RIRs that they would ensure that through policies which bared "justification of the need". In other words, this was always the case, RIRs had been made the judge of this "fairness" through their community built policies. Now the real problem here 2013-03 is suggesting to remove this judgement of fairness role from the RIPE NCC in the RIPE region, by removing the justification of need from the policy, without coming up with a real alternative, while obviously sense of fairness is still important to various members. Filiz
This is a question that neither I, Malcom, 2013-03, nor ripe-592, presume to have an answer for.
However, I understood the crux of Malcom's objection to be that if we remove this stated objective of "fairness", then we lose our principles in the process, and it becomes hard to add it back later (presumably along with a precise definition of "fair").
Therefore I was hoping that retaining this sentence (which is there in today's policy as well) would help move the discussion forward in the direction of consensus.
Tore