On 8/1/13 12:27 , Tore Anderson 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"?
I believe the primary definition of fairness the RIR communities have been using is, "only those that have *verified operational need* get Internet number resources".
Well *that* is the million dollar question, isn't it. In a state of scarcity, what is "fair"?
Furthermore, I believe that now that everyone's operational need can no longer be meet, a state of scarcity, that fairness is doubly important. How does verified operational need provide fairness in a state of scarcity? If someone without verified operational need were to receive Internet number resources, presumably through a transfer, and you have verifiable operational need that can no longer be meet; it would add insult to injury that someone without that verifiable operational need receives Internet number resources when you can't. Therefore, verifying operational need for transfers, still provides some minimal amount of fairness to those that are not going to receive Internet number resources.
This is a question that neither I, Malcom, 2013-03, nor ripe-592, presume to have an answer for.
This is where you create a problem for me. If you propose to remove the current mechanism of fairness, verified operational need, then it is incumbent on you to propose a replacement. You are saying that "verified operational need" doesn't work in a state of a state of scarcity, I disagree, it may not be perfect, but it will do something. And, that it is no longer necessary because the free pool is gone, again I disagree. But, the crux of my issue isn't that you are removing verified operational need, it is that you seem to claim it isn't your problem to find a replacement for the fairness it provides, even if it isn't perfect fairness.
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.
While this is a start, just saying fairness is necessary, is a hollow jester, without verified operational need or some other replacement mechanism to provides the fairness you are saying is necessary.
Tore
-- ================================================ David Farmer Email: farmer@umn.edu Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 1-612-626-0815 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 1-612-812-9952 ================================================