And this time with a fixed subject line so that it is clearly visible which policy proposal we are talking about :)
> Op 22 jun. 2015, om 12:10 heeft Sander Steffann <[email protected]> het > volgende geschreven: > > Hello working group, > > Here is your chair's (singular, Gert has abstained from judging consensus as > he became too involved in the discussion on the mailing list and might be > seen as non-neutral on this policy proposal) analysis on the review phase of > RIPE policy proposal 2015-01. > > At the end of the review phase there was a sudden flood of messages both > supporting and opposing the policy proposal. Many of these messages were on > or after the deadline: the end of the review phase. As those messages didn't > bring forward any new arguments they didn't influence my decision making > process. I have included them in this overview for completeness' sake. > > First the people supporting this policy proposal. There were many people who > supported the proposal based on the rationale given in the proposal itself > (also known as "+1" messages). Others also stated the reasons why they > supported the proposal. These included: > - It aligns with original intent (make assignments) of the final /8 policy > - It makes it less profitable to overtly act against the original intent of > the final /8 policy > - It is a good step in the right direction, we may need more steps later > > Here is a list of people that supported this policy proposal: > - Andre Keller > - Andreas Larsen (after deadline) > - Carsten Brückner (after deadline) > - Carsten Schiefner > - Christopher Kunz > - Daniel Suchy > - Dimitri I Sidelnikov > - Erik Bais > - Florian Bauhaus > - Garry Glendown > - Gerald Krause > - Havard Eidnes > - Herve Clement > - Jan Ingvoldstad > - Jens Ott > - Marius Catrangiu > - Martin Millnert (after deadline) > - Mick O Donovan > - Ondřej Caletka > - Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN > - Riccardo Gori > - Richard Hartmann > - Robert Sleigh > - Sebastian Wiesinger > - Thomas Schallar > - Tim Kleefass > - Tom Smyth (after deadline) > - Tore Anderson > - Torunn Narvestad (after deadline) > - Vladislav Potapov > > David Freedman asked for clarifications about the impact on the Mergers and > Acquisitions procedure of the RIPE NCC. These were answered by Marco Schmidt. > > Daniel Baeza and Richard Hartmann asked for clarifications on how this policy > would be applied to allocations made in the past. Marco Schmidt explained > that if accepted this policy would only impact transfers happening after the > policy was implemented. Transfers that happened in the past would not be > impacted. The policy would be applied to existing allocations though. > Allocations made in the past would not be transferrable until they were at > least 24 month old. For some people this was a problem as they considered it > unfair to those LIRs that had started in the last 24 months with the > expectation that they would be able to transfer their allocation from the > final /8. > > The people opposing this policy proposal because they consider it a > retroactive change are: > - Sascha Luck > - Storch Matei > - Vladimir Andreev > > There were many messages on this topic. We consider this objection handled > because this policy doesn't actually change anything that happened in the > past. This policy proposal is about the requirements of transfers. If this > proposal gets accepted transfers that have already happened stay happened, > and transfers that are about to happen will be checked against the current > policy at that time. This is how RIPE policies have always been applied and > this policy proposal is no different. > > There was a message stating opposition to the proposal by Arash Naderpour, > but as no reasons against the proposal were given there is not much we can do > with this. Consensus based policy development means trying to address > objections until the reasons for the objections are taken away. When no > reasons are given this is not possible. Therefore this opposition will not > have much weight in my analysis. > > There was also opposition because people felt that this policy proposal > didn't solve a real problem and/or wasn't solving all problems related to > abuse of the current final /8 policy. They were: > - Amir Mohsen (after deadline) > - Aleksey Bulgakov > - Arash Naderpour (after deadline) > - Borhan Habibi > - Ciprian Nica > - Olga @ip4market.ru (after deadline) > - Petr Umelov > - Sergey Stecenko > - Storch Matei > - Yuri @ntx.ru (after deadline) > > During the discussion it was shown that the number of transfers from the > final /8 pool was increasing, especially for very "young" prefixes. This > shows that there this policy does solve a real problem. As with all policy > proposals it is clear that one policy proposal will not solve all the > potential problems all at once. That there are still other potential problems > related to the final /8 policy is noted as an encouragement for future policy > proposal authors. > > There were also people objecting because preventing organisations to open a > new LIR and then transfer its address space would mean that the membership > growth of the RIPE NCC would be a bit lower, and because the RIPE NCC is > funded by its members the lower membership numbers might cause the membership > cost per member to increase. These were: > - Ciprian Nica > - Sergey Stecenko > - Storch Matei > - Vladimir Andreev > > The impact analysis by the RIPE NCC however explicitly mentions that > "Considering the overall size of the membership, the RIPE NCC does not > anticipate a significant impact will be caused if this proposal is > implemented.". > > Finally, there were also objections that the final /8 pool was too big and/or > not running out fast enough. This objection was made by: > - Ciprian Nica > - Storch Matei > > In the impact analysis however mentions that the current pool will last 5.5 > years based on the allocation rate of the last 6 months (up to the writing of > the impact analysis). That lifetime may be reduced significantly however if > new LIRs continue to join in ever-larger numbers and /22 transfers from last > /8 also gain more popularity. As the remaining lifetime of the IPv4 internet > is extremely likely to be longer than 5.5 years the lifetime of the final /8 > pool seems short as it is. > > Based on the feedback I see strong support for this policy proposal. All > objections seem to be addressed as well, so I hereby declare rough consensus > on policy proposal 2015-01 and ask our friendly RIPE NCC Policy Development > Officer to move this policy proposal to the Last Call phase. > > Sincerely, > Sander Steffann > APWG co-chair > >
