[AfriNIC-rpd] Last Call on IPv4 Soft Landing Policy (AFPUB-2010-v4-005-draft-05)

[Frank Habicht]

I support it.
Frank

On 9/5/2011 3:25 PM, McTim wrote:
> Dear Colleagues
> 
> During the  AfriNIC-14 Public Policy Meeting that took place 
> in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania on the 8th and 9th June 2011, the
> "IPv4 Soft Landing Policy" proposal with reference
> AFPUB-2010-v4-005-draft-04 was declared to have reached
> consensus. In line with the AfriNIC Policy Development Process
> (PDP),  we, the PDPWG Co-chairs, are now issuing a
> Last Call for comments on the proposal as follows:
> 
> Start of Last Call: 5 September 2011
> End of Last Call:  20 September 2011
> 
> The community is hereby called upon to review the policy proposal
> and its associated documents and make comments.  As a brief guide, in
> recent debate, comments and issues were raised on the following areas of
> the policy which have now been modified:
> 
> -       Section 2: Incentive Text Changed
> 
> -       Section 3.5.1: Standardize the Minimum Allocation/Assignment
> to cater for route aggregation etc
> 
> -       Section 3.5: Change the names of the two sub-phases within
> the Exhaustion Phase to "Exhaustion Phase 1" and "Exhaustion Phase 2".
> 
> -       Exhaustion Phase 2:  During this phase a minimum
> Allocation/Assignment size will be /24, and the maximum will  be /22
> per allocation/assignment.
> 
> -       Section 3.8.1: The 10% per Allocation/Assignment was dropped in
> favour of a support for backward connectivity without explicit mention
> of percentages
> 
> -       AfriNIC resources are for AfriNIC service region and any use
> outside the region should be solely in support of connectivity
> back to the AfriNIC region
> 
> For your reference, the deliberations on this proposal at the meeting
> are re-produced from the minutes at the end of the message:
> 
> At the end of the Last Call, we will make a final assessment on
> whether consensus has been reached by taking into consideration
> the comments from the Public Policy Meeting as well as those during this
> Last Call period.
> 
> Regards.
> 
> The Co-Chairs
> AfriNIC Policy Development Working Group (PDPWG)
> 
> 
> 
> [References]
> 
> 
> (i) The full text of the policy proposal that got consensus in Dar es Salaam
> <http://www.afrinic.net/docs/policies/AFPUB-2010-v4-005-draft-05.htm
> <http://www.afrinic.net/docs/policies/AFPUB-2010-v4-005-draft-04.htm>>
> 
> (ii) Minutes of the AfriNIC-14 policy discussions
> 
> <http://www.afrinic.net/docs/policies/afrinic14_f2f_meeting_minutes.pdf>
> 
> (iii) Staff Comments and Implementation Analyses of the proposal
> by AfriNIC Ltd
>   <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2011/001209.html>
> 
> (iv) The AfriNIC Policy Development Process
>  <http://www.afrinic.net/docs/policies/AFPUB-2010-GEN-005.htm>
> 
> (v) Post Meeting Policy Report by interim PDWG co-chairs
>  <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2011/001759.html >
> 
> 
> Highlights of Discussions during Face to Face meeting in Dar es Salaam
> 
> On the contentious issue of a limit on how much space could be
> used outside the region:
> 
> ** Andrew Alston stated that he will support the proposal without the
> 10% clause.
> 
> **Nii Quaynor proposed a 1% limit combined with inclusion into the
> RSA of what kinds of out of region uses were realistic. Mark Elkins
> responded that  1% of a /22 (the typical allocation during exhaustion
> phase 2) will be inadequate for most purposes. He expressed support
> for the proposal if the 10% was exclusively to allow connectivity back
> to the continent.
> 
> **Frank Habicht suggested that a middle ground to specifying
> percentage was to change the clause to state that more than half of all
> the space of the requesting entity (including legacy space) has to be
> used within the AfriNIC service region.
> 
> **Mark Tinka  and Sunday Folayan opposed the proposal on the
> grounds that it tries to tell an operator how to run their networks.
> 
> **Consensus at the meeting was that the most contentious piece of
> the proposal was paragraph 3.8 and several proposals to replace it
> were given at the meeting. In the end the adopted replacement for
> that paragraph was as follows:
> 
> (a) When applying for more space, the applicant must have used 90%
> of all space currently held by them. This 90% excludes legacy
> space Should this space include legacy space? Three people from the
> audience said that legacy space.
> 
> (b) For second part of 3.8 (regarding the 10% limit on out-of-region
> use), Alan presented the options as follows:
> 
> (Option 1) Keep existing text
> (Option 2) No more than 1%
> (Option 3) No more than 50% outside of Africa (including legacy space)
> (Option 4) No number, just a statement stating that "AfriNIC
> resources are for the AfriNIC geographical region and any use outside
> should be solely in support for connectivity back to the region."
> (Option 5): Internet resources allocated by AfriNIC may be used
> solely within the AfriNIC region or to support connectivity back to the
> region.
> 
> Consensus was on option 4  but with "geographic region" changed
> into "service region"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rpd mailing list
> rpd at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd