[LACNIC/Politicas] Nueva propuesta LAC-2020-1 / Nova proposta LAC-2020-1 / New proposal LAC-2020-1

[Carlos Friaças]

Hi
(english inline, again)

On Mon, 3 Feb 2020, Mike Burns wrote:

> Mike- This is my point exactly. If you want to treat the IPv4 market like a disease, LACNIC is the best doctor!
> If you want to treat the IPv4 market as the most rational way to distribute scarce resources, however, this proposal is not good.

Allow me to disagree. This proposal is excellent.



(...)
> Mike - Do you not think increasing the number of female/minority participants in this community to be central!?
> By the way, who defines "central" in terms of limiting the appetites of stewards for more power? The center of our role is accurate registration, not picking protocol winners and losers.

It's not a question of "protocol winner". One is exhausted, the other 
isn't.



>>> Our primary role is to keep an accurate Whois database.
>
>> All the "mickey mouses" and "john does" are now smiling...
>
> Mike - I don't understand what this means? That Whois is corrupt already, so who cares?

There is a part of the community that certainly cares, and wishes to have 
whois as accurate as possible, and without any useless dirt.




(...)
> Mike - If an entity needs to use IPv4, a sale or a lease provides that 
> to the entity. If a sale is more difficult, a lease becomes more 
> attractive.  Why not use the rules at RIPE? Are other rules really 
> "needed"? Because RIPE doesn't have this rule, and they don?t even have 
> a needs test at all. So how do you define "needed"?

LACNIC is not RIPE. LACNIC didn't get the same space from IANA.
If LACNIC adopts something, RIPE policy blockers will at first glance say 
"we don't care, we just like it our way" -- and in fact they do it, 
often. The lack of rules in RIPE can be seen as a good thing by some. It 
is not my case, for sure.



>> You are implying everyone will cheat the rule. I prefer to believe that
> will not be the case within this community.
>
> Mike - With your high regard for the community, maybe we should just 
> make this voluntary and not a requirement?

The proposal, as a i read it, is balanced by the fact the requirement is 
waived if one of the receiving end of a transfer's upstreams doesn't have 
any IPv6.



>>> Pointless in terms of moving the needle on IPv6, which will only
>> respond to more rational inputs.
>> To conclude, even without this in place, the amount of transfers is (very)
> small. I don't believe they will tend to zero because of this new
> requirement. But only time will tell.
>
> Mike- Said another way " Transfers are sickly, let's make them harder instead of easier."

No, what i intended to express is i believe the impact should be 
almost none -- it won't stop transfers, it won't generate more transfers. 
But again, data about already concluded transfers would be useful.


Regards,
Carlos