Re: [address-policy-wg] agreement

[Michael Oghia]

Hi all,

Thank you for clarifying Niall. I suggest then that the original proposer
weigh into this process with his/her suggestions on going forward and
potentially incorporating this recommendation to split the proposal into
two parts.

Best,
-Michael
__

Michael J. Oghia
Istanbul, Turkey
Journalist & editor
2015 ISOC IGF Ambassador
Skype: mikeoghia
Twitter <https://www.twitter.com/MikeOghia> *|* LinkedIn
<https://www.linkedin.com/in/mikeoghia>

On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 5:39 PM, Niall O'Reilly <niall.orei...@ucd.ie>
wrote:

> On 10 May 2016, at 14:27, Michael Oghia wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I have been following the discussion and I strongly support Jan's
> > suggestion, especially since the bulk of the contention seems to be with
> > what Jan describes as Part B. Does anyone know if it is possible to split
> > the proposal into two parts?
>
>   Yes.
>
>   If it were my proposal, here's how I would go about it.
>
>   Withdraw the current proposal.
>   The proposer can always do this during the process.
>
>   Introduce two new proposals (2016-somenumber and 2016-someothernumber)
>   respectively containing the "Part A" and "Part B" material from the
>   current proposal.
>
>   There may be other ways of doing it, but this seems simple and effective.
>
>   Best regards,
>
>   Niall O'Reilly
>

Re: [address-policy-wg] agreement

[Michael Oghia]

Hi all,

I have been following the discussion and I strongly support Jan's
suggestion, especially since the bulk of the contention seems to be with
what Jan describes as Part B. Does anyone know if it is possible to split
the proposal into two parts?

Best,
-Michael
__

Michael J. Oghia
Istanbul, Turkey
Journalist & editor
2015 ISOC IGF Ambassador
Skype: mikeoghia
Twitter  *|* LinkedIn


On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 3:53 PM, Jan Ingvoldstad  wrote:

> On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 10:02 AM, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN <
> ripe-...@radu-adrian.feurdean.net> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Mon, May 9, 2016, at 14:50, Sander Steffann wrote:
>> > Indeed. It all comes down to "the needs of those in the next few years
>> > with no IPv4 addresses" vs "those today who have only one /22".
>>
>> I find the situation a little more complex than that:
>>  - First, the "in a few years with no IPv4" is not so far away. Even
>>  with current policy, it is for 2020, with a lot of chance 2021. With
>>  the proposal, worst case scenario is that we MAY loose up to 18 months
>>  (more likely something in the 6-12 months range ). Which is not
>>  completely sure (as Martin Huněk noted a few messages ago).
>>  - Second, right now the NCC is just handing out /22 to whoever can pay
>>  for them (with only a small extra administrative restriction during the
>>  last 6 months). For me this is plain "selling IP addresses" (concept
>>  that the NCC avoided like hell int the past), and it is also defeating
>>  the "keep space for later entrants" purpose. No need check (as in "do
>>  you really need that space" *), no requirement to deploy IPv6 of any
>>  kind, just a simple "pay to have it".
>>
>
> This could be solved without introducing yet another way to deplete the
> remaining pool.
>
> The problem with 2015-05, is its similarity to how certain acts of
> Congress in the US come to pass:
>
> You bundle what you want with something else, to sweeten the deal.
>
> So here is how you can fix the deadlock:
>
> Unbundle. Split the proposal in two parts.
>
> Part A: Additional requirements for IPv4 allocations
>
> Part B: Additional periodical IPv4 allocations for existing LIRs
>
> This would, for instance, make it easy for me to say "yes" to part A, and
> "no" to part B, instead of "no" to the entire package.
> --
> Jan
>