Hello, On 25 Jul 2013, at 21:55, Jan Ingvoldstad <frettled@gmail.com> wrote:
I'm bewildered, confuzzled, and wide-eyed, yes, nearly astonished, that Tore's points don't seem to penetrate the fog.
I can say the same thing. I did not really think what I was saying was so confusing…
I've read this proposal a few times, and as far as I can tell, most if not all of the alleged counterpoints to 2013-03 are _not_ counterpoints to 2013-03, but to something else.
I may have misread the proposal, and therefore I request that Filiz, Michele and Nick please point out exactly which points _introduced_ or _altered_ with 2013-03 they disagree with, so that I, and other confused people, can have a better chance of understanding your arguments.
Please?
Just because you asked nicely :).. I am not going to go through a very detailed word smithing or referencing, sorry, in my case I do not believe this will be helpful. But I will try to put my point of view in a different way again, using some different words and then I will stop because I feel I am repeating myself and some of the members of this list may already feel overwhelmed about the discussion. Here it is my main point: "Justification for need" and "evaluation of justification for need" are two different things. First one, "Justification for need", is perfectly a policy matter and I believe IPv4 policy should still mention this, as long as RIPE NCC continues allocating space to its members and the last /8 is totally exhausted. Say something along the lines, "LIRs requesting address space from the RIPE NCC should have a need for the requested space for a network of their own or their customer". So that we at least put a barrier in front of those who would just ask for an allocation to immediately turn it into an asset. But those who really are in need are primarily highlighted by the policy. Current policy has the following text: "Members can receive an initial IPv4 allocation when they have demonstrated a need for IPv4 address space." Tore's proposal is removing this totally and I do not agree with it. The latter, "evaluation of justification for need" is totally an operational matter that is performed by the RIPE NCC. Neither the current policy nor Tore's proposal has any significant text on this but this is one of his arguments for his proposal. In my opinion, real solution to this procedural problem of evaluation is on procedural level, not on the policy level. RIPE NCC may be asked to change their evaluation tools/systems/mechanisms. This does not require to remove the entire "need" notion from the policy text. Kind regards Filiz Yilmaz
-- Jan