From alan.barrett at afrinic.net Sat Oct 1 04:08:31 2016 From: alan.barrett at afrinic.net (Alan Barrett) Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2016 08:08:31 +0400 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Successful IANA transition Message-ID: Dear AFRINIC community, It?s now a few minutes after midnight in Washington, DC. The IANA contract between NTIA and ICANN has expired. ICANN is now performing the IANA Numbering Services (assigning IP addresses and ASNs to RIRs, and some related tasks) in terms of a contract between the RIRs and ICANN, instead of in terms of a contract between the NTIA and ICANN. ICANN asked for permission to sub-contract the IANA Numbering Services to PTI, and the RIRs consented, so the IANA functions will actually be performed by PTI, although ICANN remains responsible. Apart from announcements and press releases, you will probably not notice much difference. Alan Barrett From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com Sat Oct 1 08:20:17 2016 From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji) Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2016 09:20:17 +0100 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Successful IANA transition In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Great news to hear on a day like this! Congratulation to everyone that contributed towards making this a reality, congratulations to the entire Internet community. Happy new month, happy independence to ICANN and to all Nigerians here ;-) Regards Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 1 Oct 2016 5:09 a.m., "Alan Barrett" wrote: > Dear AFRINIC community, > > It?s now a few minutes after midnight in Washington, DC. The IANA > contract between NTIA and ICANN has expired. > > ICANN is now performing the IANA Numbering Services (assigning IP > addresses and ASNs to RIRs, and some related tasks) in terms of a contract > between the RIRs and ICANN, instead of in terms of a contract between the > NTIA and ICANN. ICANN asked for permission to sub-contract the IANA > Numbering Services to PTI, and the RIRs consented, so the IANA functions > will actually be performed by PTI, although ICANN remains responsible. > > Apart from announcements and press releases, you will probably not notice > much difference. > > Alan Barrett > > > _______________________________________________ > Community-Discuss mailing list > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From evelyngeek at gmail.com Sat Oct 1 08:42:03 2016 From: evelyngeek at gmail.com (Evelyn Namara) Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2016 11:42:03 +0300 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Successful IANA transition In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I would like to add my voice and congratulate the entire Internet community for this spectacular achievement! #YestoIANA On Sat, Oct 1, 2016 at 11:20 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: > Great news to hear on a day like this! Congratulation to everyone that > contributed towards making this a reality, congratulations to the entire > Internet community. > > Happy new month, happy independence to ICANN and to all Nigerians here ;-) > > Regards > > Sent from my LG G4 > Kindly excuse brevity and typos > > On 1 Oct 2016 5:09 a.m., "Alan Barrett" wrote: > >> Dear AFRINIC community, >> >> It?s now a few minutes after midnight in Washington, DC. The IANA >> contract between NTIA and ICANN has expired. >> >> ICANN is now performing the IANA Numbering Services (assigning IP >> addresses and ASNs to RIRs, and some related tasks) in terms of a contract >> between the RIRs and ICANN, instead of in terms of a contract between the >> NTIA and ICANN. ICANN asked for permission to sub-contract the IANA >> Numbering Services to PTI, and the RIRs consented, so the IANA functions >> will actually be performed by PTI, although ICANN remains responsible. >> >> Apart from announcements and press releases, you will probably not notice >> much difference. >> >> Alan Barrett >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Community-Discuss mailing list >> Community-Discuss at afrinic.net >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss >> > > _______________________________________________ > Community-Discuss mailing list > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss > > -- Evelyn Namara | T: +256 754 440893 | E: enamara at riseup.net | Twitter: @enamara | Skype: enamara PGP: B94D 3950 38D6 914A E054 D6C5 E82E 0F66 DC01 E30D -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From badru.ntege at nftconsult.com Sat Oct 1 09:52:11 2016 From: badru.ntege at nftconsult.com (Badru Ntege) Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2016 09:52:11 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Successful IANA transition In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: <9C4E03CE-59A2-4DBD-B953-3CD4FA22BFC9@nftconsult.com> +1 It's a great day for the Internet. Badru Ntege CEO NFT Consult Ltd Www.Nftconsult.com ?Vision without execution is hallucination.? ? Thomas A. Edison On 1 Oct 2016, at 11:43 am, Evelyn Namara > wrote: I would like to add my voice and congratulate the entire Internet community for this spectacular achievement! #YestoIANA On Sat, Oct 1, 2016 at 11:20 AM, Seun Ojedeji > wrote: Great news to hear on a day like this! Congratulation to everyone that contributed towards making this a reality, congratulations to the entire Internet community. Happy new month, happy independence to ICANN and to all Nigerians here ;-) Regards Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 1 Oct 2016 5:09 a.m., "Alan Barrett" > wrote: Dear AFRINIC community, It?s now a few minutes after midnight in Washington, DC. The IANA contract between NTIA and ICANN has expired. ICANN is now performing the IANA Numbering Services (assigning IP addresses and ASNs to RIRs, and some related tasks) in terms of a contract between the RIRs and ICANN, instead of in terms of a contract between the NTIA and ICANN. ICANN asked for permission to sub-contract the IANA Numbering Services to PTI, and the RIRs consented, so the IANA functions will actually be performed by PTI, although ICANN remains responsible. Apart from announcements and press releases, you will probably not notice much difference. Alan Barrett _______________________________________________ Community-Discuss mailing list Community-Discuss at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss _______________________________________________ Community-Discuss mailing list Community-Discuss at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss -- Evelyn Namara | T: +256 754 440893 | E: enamara at riseup.net | Twitter: @enamara | Skype: enamara PGP: B94D 3950 38D6 914A E054 D6C5 E82E 0F66 DC01 E30D _______________________________________________ Community-Discuss mailing list Community-Discuss at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From noah at neo.co.tz Sat Oct 1 11:04:53 2016 From: noah at neo.co.tz (Noah) Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2016 14:04:53 +0300 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Successful IANA transition In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 1 Oct 2016 07:11, "Alan Barrett" wrote: > > Dear AFRINIC community, > > It?s now a few minutes after midnight in Washington, DC. The IANA contract between NTIA and ICANN has expired. > > ICANN is now performing the IANA Numbering Services (assigning IP addresses and ASNs to RIRs, and some related tasks) in terms of a contract between the RIRs and ICANN, instead of in terms of a contract between the NTIA and ICANN. ICANN asked for permission to sub-contract the IANA Numbering Services to PTI, and the RIRs consented, so the IANA functions will actually be performed by PTI, although ICANN remains responsible. > This is positive progress and indeed great news for the diverse internet community at large. What we can all be proud of here is the entire process that was inclusive and indeed made this transition possible. As we can all imagine now, "oversight" is community oriented and the multistakeholder bottom-up process of inclusiveness bred good governance and leadership to make this great achivement possible. We as the AFRNIC community ought to borrow a leaf from this as we continue to develop the African Internet. > > Alan Barrett > Noah -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From abibu at tznic.or.tz Sat Oct 1 11:29:10 2016 From: abibu at tznic.or.tz (Abibu Ntahigiye) Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2016 14:29:10 +0300 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Successful IANA transition In-Reply-To: <9C4E03CE-59A2-4DBD-B953-3CD4FA22BFC9@nftconsult.com> References: , <9C4E03CE-59A2-4DBD-B953-3CD4FA22BFC9@nftconsult.com> Message-ID: A great day indeed to the global community. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Eng. Abibu R. Ntahigiye; Manager, tzNIC; +255 784 279 511 On Oct 1, 2016, at 12:52 PM, Badru Ntege wrote: > +1 > > It's a great day for the Internet. > > Badru Ntege > CEO > NFT Consult Ltd > Www.Nftconsult.com > > ?Vision without execution is hallucination.? > ? Thomas A. Edison > > > > > > > On 1 Oct 2016, at 11:43 am, Evelyn Namara wrote: > >> I would like to add my voice and congratulate the entire Internet community for this spectacular achievement! >> >> #YestoIANA >> >> On Sat, Oct 1, 2016 at 11:20 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: >> Great news to hear on a day like this! Congratulation to everyone that contributed towards making this a reality, congratulations to the entire Internet community. >> >> Happy new month, happy independence to ICANN and to all Nigerians here ;-) >> >> Regards >> >> Sent from my LG G4 >> Kindly excuse brevity and typos >> >> >> On 1 Oct 2016 5:09 a.m., "Alan Barrett" wrote: >> Dear AFRINIC community, >> >> It?s now a few minutes after midnight in Washington, DC. The IANA contract between NTIA and ICANN has expired. >> >> ICANN is now performing the IANA Numbering Services (assigning IP addresses and ASNs to RIRs, and some related tasks) in terms of a contract between the RIRs and ICANN, instead of in terms of a contract between the NTIA and ICANN. ICANN asked for permission to sub-contract the IANA Numbering Services to PTI, and the RIRs consented, so the IANA functions will actually be performed by PTI, although ICANN remains responsible. >> >> Apart from announcements and press releases, you will probably not notice much difference. >> >> Alan Barrett >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Community-Discuss mailing list >> Community-Discuss at afrinic.net >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Community-Discuss mailing list >> Community-Discuss at afrinic.net >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> Evelyn Namara | T: +256 754 440893 | E: enamara at riseup.net | Twitter: @enamara | Skype: enamara >> >> PGP: B94D 3950 38D6 914A E054 D6C5 E82E 0F66 DC01 E30D >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Community-Discuss mailing list >> Community-Discuss at afrinic.net >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss > _______________________________________________ > Community-Discuss mailing list > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com Sat Oct 1 11:48:51 2016 From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji) Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2016 12:48:51 +0100 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Successful IANA transition In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 1 Oct 2016 12:06 p.m., "Noah" wrote: > > On 1 Oct 2016 07:11, "Alan Barrett" wrote: > > > > What we can all be proud of here is the entire process that was inclusive and indeed made this transition possible. > > As we can all imagine now, "oversight" is community oriented and the multistakeholder bottom-up process of inclusiveness bred good governance and leadership to make this great achivement possible. > > We as the AFRNIC community ought to borrow a leaf from this as we continue to develop the African Internet. > SO: I was privileged to have participated in the development of various proposals that lead to the completion of the IANA stewardship transition. Quite a number of people from the Africa community also participated in this as well. It is indeed the inclusiveness mentality which some of us got used to within the numbers community that contributed to what we now call the outcome of the stewardship transition. Perhaps one of such is the fact that ICANN will now "loosely" be a member organisation. While there will always be things to learn from the new ICANN either good or bad, we will not be fair on ourselves as AFRINIC/Africann community if we fail to appreciate/recognise the level of community engagement that is already enshrined into our various processes. That said, it may be good to emphasise that while stewardship transition is done with, an organisation accountability process is not a one time event and will indeed be continuous. The same applies to AFRINIC accountability processes as well. Let's celebrate the moment for now and come back with renewed strength. We the African community should join the ICANN accountability WS2 that is currently on-going and provide input towards the improvement of organisation in the global public interest and in the interest of the organisation itself. Regards > > > > Alan Barrett > > > > Noah > > > _______________________________________________ > Community-Discuss mailing list > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From amelnaud at gmail.com Sat Oct 1 12:03:09 2016 From: amelnaud at gmail.com (Arnaud AMELINA) Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2016 12:03:09 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Successful IANA transition In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Good day for Internet and #yestoIANA . +1 @Noah Le 1 oct. 2016 11:06, "Noah" a ?crit : > On 1 Oct 2016 07:11, "Alan Barrett" wrote: > > > > Dear AFRINIC community, > > > > It?s now a few minutes after midnight in Washington, DC. The IANA > contract between NTIA and ICANN has expired. > > > > ICANN is now performing the IANA Numbering Services (assigning IP > addresses and ASNs to RIRs, and some related tasks) in terms of a contract > between the RIRs and ICANN, instead of in terms of a contract between the > NTIA and ICANN. ICANN asked for permission to sub-contract the IANA > Numbering Services to PTI, and the RIRs consented, so the IANA functions > will actually be performed by PTI, although ICANN remains responsible. > > > > This is positive progress and indeed great news for the diverse internet > community at large. > > What we can all be proud of here is the entire process that was inclusive > and indeed made this transition possible. > > As we can all imagine now, "oversight" is community oriented and the > multistakeholder bottom-up process of inclusiveness bred good governance > and leadership to make this great achivement possible. > > We as the AFRNIC community ought to borrow a leaf from this as we continue > to develop the African Internet. > > > > > Alan Barrett > > > > Noah > > _______________________________________________ > Community-Discuss mailing list > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mathias at houngbo.net Sat Oct 1 12:28:00 2016 From: mathias at houngbo.net (Mathias HOUNGBO) Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2016 13:28:00 +0100 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Successful IANA transition In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <299642af-da3c-0fba-f42b-a14060b79aa1@houngbo.net> Internet #IndependanceDay Le 01/10/2016 ? 12:04, Noah a ?crit : > > On 1 Oct 2016 07:11, "Alan Barrett" > wrote: > > > > Dear AFRINIC community, > > > > It?s now a few minutes after midnight in Washington, DC. The IANA > contract between NTIA and ICANN has expired. > > > > ICANN is now performing the IANA Numbering Services (assigning IP > addresses and ASNs to RIRs, and some related tasks) in terms of a > contract between the RIRs and ICANN, instead of in terms of a contract > between the NTIA and ICANN. ICANN asked for permission to > sub-contract the IANA Numbering Services to PTI, and the RIRs > consented, so the IANA functions will actually be performed by PTI, > although ICANN remains responsible. > > > > This is positive progress and indeed great news for the diverse > internet community at large. > > What we can all be proud of here is the entire process that was > inclusive and indeed made this transition possible. > > As we can all imagine now, "oversight" is community oriented and the > multistakeholder bottom-up process of inclusiveness bred good > governance and leadership to make this great achivement possible. > > We as the AFRNIC community ought to borrow a leaf from this as we > continue to develop the African Internet. > > > > > Alan Barrett > > > > Noah > > > > _______________________________________________ > Community-Discuss mailing list > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss Il n'y a pas de raccourci pour atteindre le d?veloppement. Open source is not limited to software and it is not limited to english either! Mefies toi de la m?diocrit?, c'est la moisissure de l'esprit -- My blog - http://mathias.houngbo.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 819 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From ondouglas at gmail.com Sat Oct 1 13:11:10 2016 From: ondouglas at gmail.com (Douglas Onyango) Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2016 16:11:10 +0300 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Successful IANA transition In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: This global victory is a result of a singular vision and resolve of the Internet community. It demonstrates the endless boundaries and possibilities of what we can achieved when when unite around a cause for greater good. Regards, On 1 Oct 2016 07:09, "Alan Barrett" wrote: > > Dear AFRINIC community, > > It?s now a few minutes after midnight in Washington, DC. The IANA contract between NTIA and ICANN has expired. > > ICANN is now performing the IANA Numbering Services (assigning IP addresses and ASNs to RIRs, and some related tasks) in terms of a contract between the RIRs and ICANN, instead of in terms of a contract between the NTIA and ICANN. ICANN asked for permission to sub-contract the IANA Numbering Services to PTI, and the RIRs consented, so the IANA functions will actually be performed by PTI, although ICANN remains responsible. > > Apart from announcements and press releases, you will probably not notice much difference. > > Alan Barrett > > > _______________________________________________ > Community-Discuss mailing list > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From aalain at trstech.net Sat Oct 1 13:41:36 2016 From: aalain at trstech.net (ALAIN AINA) Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2016 17:41:36 +0400 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Successful IANA transition In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <95F2AEF7-2654-4CBE-9FE5-C69CE9B4F102@trstech.net> > On Oct 1, 2016, at 5:11 PM, Douglas Onyango wrote: > > This global victory is a result of a singular vision and resolve of the Internet community. > > It demonstrates the endless boundaries and possibilities of what we can achieved when when unite around a cause for greater good. > > Totally agree and this is how it must be. Thanks Douglas. ?Alain > Regards, > > On 1 Oct 2016 07:09, "Alan Barrett" > wrote: > > > > Dear AFRINIC community, > > > > It?s now a few minutes after midnight in Washington, DC. The IANA contract between NTIA and ICANN has expired. > > > > ICANN is now performing the IANA Numbering Services (assigning IP addresses and ASNs to RIRs, and some related tasks) in terms of a contract between the RIRs and ICANN, instead of in terms of a contract between the NTIA and ICANN. ICANN asked for permission to sub-contract the IANA Numbering Services to PTI, and the RIRs consented, so the IANA functions will actually be performed by PTI, although ICANN remains responsible. > > > > Apart from announcements and press releases, you will probably not notice much difference. > > > > Alan Barrett > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Community-Discuss mailing list > > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss > _______________________________________________ > Community-Discuss mailing list > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Omo.Oaiya at wacren.net Sat Oct 1 13:45:29 2016 From: Omo.Oaiya at wacren.net (Omo Oaiya) Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2016 14:45:29 +0100 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Successful IANA transition In-Reply-To: <95F2AEF7-2654-4CBE-9FE5-C69CE9B4F102@trstech.net> References: <95F2AEF7-2654-4CBE-9FE5-C69CE9B4F102@trstech.net> Message-ID: +1 On 1 Oct 2016 2:43 p.m., "ALAIN AINA" wrote: > > On Oct 1, 2016, at 5:11 PM, Douglas Onyango wrote: > > This global victory is a result of a singular vision and resolve of the > Internet community. > > It demonstrates the endless boundaries and possibilities of what we can > achieved when when unite around a cause for greater good. > > > Totally agree and this is how it must be. > > Thanks Douglas. > > > ?Alain > > > > Regards, > > On 1 Oct 2016 07:09, "Alan Barrett" wrote: > > > > Dear AFRINIC community, > > > > It?s now a few minutes after midnight in Washington, DC. The IANA > contract between NTIA and ICANN has expired. > > > > ICANN is now performing the IANA Numbering Services (assigning IP > addresses and ASNs to RIRs, and some related tasks) in terms of a contract > between the RIRs and ICANN, instead of in terms of a contract between the > NTIA and ICANN. ICANN asked for permission to sub-contract the IANA > Numbering Services to PTI, and the RIRs consented, so the IANA functions > will actually be performed by PTI, although ICANN remains responsible. > > > > Apart from announcements and press releases, you will probably not > notice much difference. > > > > Alan Barrett > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Community-Discuss mailing list > > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss > _______________________________________________ > Community-Discuss mailing list > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss > > > > _______________________________________________ > Community-Discuss mailing list > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From aalain at trstech.net Sat Oct 1 13:54:12 2016 From: aalain at trstech.net (ALAIN AINA) Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2016 17:54:12 +0400 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum In-Reply-To: References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <4951DB9B-6106-4764-86BD-3FE08DD71E68@wacren.net> <070E72C7-90EF-48B7-BAB2-892040E68D23@afrinic.net> <8b96d562-0842-bb4c-9026-c89b0853fb43@posix.co.za> <006D848C-5FE5-4CC7-A0F6-DFEC45918F72@nftconsult.com> <6A8D2AF5-4AD9-487B-92E6-D0FB9121DDD4@trstech.net> <6524FA98-0B3F-452A-B70E-485DE2AB41D6@liquidtelecom.com> <4FD9A772-C426-4263-8DE9-25BD97C27D98@nftconsult.com> <28CE8EF2-B9AE-4D5A-8A6C-5104681A9085@liquidtelecom.com> <57EE4C15.9090901@afrinic.net> Message-ID: <9CBAB692-A799-4DB9-BA84-C15B70C7B27F@trstech.net> Hello All, It is deplorable that this thread on proxy went in a such chaotic mode and one had the impression that people were talking without listening to each other. We have had so many times, discussions around AFRINIC Ltd(the company) and AFRINIC (the community), Bylaws vs Act, etc?. These threads can be found in the archives. The most recent i could find is at https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/community-discuss/2016-July/000432.html Beside the requirements of the Act and Mauritius laws, this community has adopted rules and given rights to non ?registered members? and ?the Community? to suit the community needs through the bylaws. Ashok?s response was not meant for the public and so i won?t comment or refer to it, but It is clear that the proxy limitation for elections was a "community decision" to accommodate a situation and shall be treated as such. One would expect the debate to stay at the community level and not involve the Act. The community to discuss and agree on how to manage this issue. Referring to the Act beyond what its applied to ?Registered members? seems inappropriate and can lead to questioning may other things? 1- Since ?Resource members? are not recognised by the Act, why is the rules on proxy towards them subject to the Act ? 2- if we were to amend to comply to the Act, will this not only applied to the ?Registered members?? 3- what is the meaning of the rights given to the ?resource members? by the bylaws ? Furthermore, if we go back to the original discussion of amending the bylaws to improve the accountability: - who is being accountable to who ? - what powers does the "registered members" have over the organisation beyond electing the directors to become ?Registered members? ? If i take my favorite example, point 11 of the assessment document(see below),how will amending the bylaws as suggested below will prevent the ?Registered members? from unilaterally amending the bylaws at 75% of votes among them as this would be by powers reserved to the members, the ?registered members? by the Act ? ======== 11- Modification to the Bylaws or Constitution: The Bylaws say how the AFRINIC Members may change the Bylaws, but the Companies Act say that the Registered Members can change it. Consider requiring that the Bylaws/Constitution may be changed only after a Special Resolution by all AFRINIC Members in terms of Bylaws 7.6(vi) , so that the Registered Members (the same nine people as the Directors) cannot act without broader approval. =========== All of these said, i suggest that we continue the discussions on the proxy and the general accountability improvement in the spirit of AFRINIC, the Community. The GC shall lead future discussion on AFRINIC legal status to fix this to the end. Hope this helps Bon weekend ?Alain > On Sep 30, 2016, at 4:24 PM, Alan Barrett wrote: > > Hi Ashok, > >> On 30 Sep 2016, at 15:27, Ashok Radhakissoon wrote: >> >> Dear Alan, >> I am only replying to you on this as I advise the Board only.It is only during an AGMM, when called upon, that i intervene. > > Actually, you replied to the mailing list, but no harm done. I am also replying to the mailing list, and I have asked for the mailing list configuration to be changed so that it does not automatically add a ?Reply-To? header in future. > >> You are right in stating that the Company's Act takes precedence over the bylaws. >> I recall that after the Cairo election, the Community felt that bringing a substantial number of proxies especially from a particular region where AFRINIC membership was dense could not from a "community " perspective give the best representation for the Africa regions.This is why the limitation of the number of proxies was introduced and voted by the community. >> This provision of the bylaws would in no way withstand legal challenge as suggested by >> Andrew. > > Thank you for the advice. I suggest that the limit on pnumber of proxies should be removed. > > Alan Barrett > > > _______________________________________________ > Community-Discuss mailing list > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss From Kivuva at transworldafrica.com Sat Oct 1 14:15:39 2016 From: Kivuva at transworldafrica.com (Mwendwa Kivuva) Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2016 18:15:39 +0400 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Successful IANA transition In-Reply-To: References: <95F2AEF7-2654-4CBE-9FE5-C69CE9B4F102@trstech.net> Message-ID: The Internet community has won in the singular vision to transition the IANA function. This is a win for the people of the world. Thanks to everyone who participated in the process, and to all the support given to the teams that made it possible. It's been a long journey. And as William Shakespeare said, "All's Well That Ends Well". Viva Internet. ______________________ Mwendwa Kivuva, Nairobi, Kenya twitter.com/lordmwesh On 1 October 2016 at 17:45, Omo Oaiya wrote: > +1 > > On 1 Oct 2016 2:43 p.m., "ALAIN AINA" wrote: > >> >> On Oct 1, 2016, at 5:11 PM, Douglas Onyango wrote: >> >> This global victory is a result of a singular vision and resolve of the >> Internet community. >> >> It demonstrates the endless boundaries and possibilities of what we can >> achieved when when unite around a cause for greater good. >> >> >> Totally agree and this is how it must be. >> >> Thanks Douglas. >> >> >> ?Alain >> >> >> >> Regards, >> >> On 1 Oct 2016 07:09, "Alan Barrett" wrote: >> > >> > Dear AFRINIC community, >> > >> > It?s now a few minutes after midnight in Washington, DC. The IANA >> contract between NTIA and ICANN has expired. >> > >> > ICANN is now performing the IANA Numbering Services (assigning IP >> addresses and ASNs to RIRs, and some related tasks) in terms of a contract >> between the RIRs and ICANN, instead of in terms of a contract between the >> NTIA and ICANN. ICANN asked for permission to sub-contract the IANA >> Numbering Services to PTI, and the RIRs consented, so the IANA functions >> will actually be performed by PTI, although ICANN remains responsible. >> > >> > Apart from announcements and press releases, you will probably not >> notice much difference. >> > >> > Alan Barrett >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Community-Discuss mailing list >> > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net >> > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss >> _______________________________________________ >> Community-Discuss mailing list >> Community-Discuss at afrinic.net >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Community-Discuss mailing list >> Community-Discuss at afrinic.net >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss >> >> > _______________________________________________ > Community-Discuss mailing list > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From biaous2002 at gmail.com Sat Oct 1 14:26:24 2016 From: biaous2002 at gmail.com (Ramanou S. BIAOU) Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2016 16:26:24 +0200 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Successful IANA transition In-Reply-To: References: <95F2AEF7-2654-4CBE-9FE5-C69CE9B4F102@trstech.net> Message-ID: New life for Internet #YestoIANA Le 1 oct. 2016 16:17, "Mwendwa Kivuva" a ?crit : > The Internet community has won in the singular vision to transition the > IANA function. This is a win for the people of the world. Thanks to > everyone who participated in the process, and to all the support given to > the teams that made it possible. It's been a long journey. And as William > Shakespeare said, "All's Well That Ends Well". > Viva Internet. > > ______________________ > Mwendwa Kivuva, Nairobi, Kenya > twitter.com/lordmwesh > > > > On 1 October 2016 at 17:45, Omo Oaiya wrote: > >> +1 >> >> On 1 Oct 2016 2:43 p.m., "ALAIN AINA" wrote: >> >>> >>> On Oct 1, 2016, at 5:11 PM, Douglas Onyango wrote: >>> >>> This global victory is a result of a singular vision and resolve of the >>> Internet community. >>> >>> It demonstrates the endless boundaries and possibilities of what we can >>> achieved when when unite around a cause for greater good. >>> >>> >>> Totally agree and this is how it must be. >>> >>> Thanks Douglas. >>> >>> >>> ?Alain >>> >>> >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> On 1 Oct 2016 07:09, "Alan Barrett" wrote: >>> > >>> > Dear AFRINIC community, >>> > >>> > It?s now a few minutes after midnight in Washington, DC. The IANA >>> contract between NTIA and ICANN has expired. >>> > >>> > ICANN is now performing the IANA Numbering Services (assigning IP >>> addresses and ASNs to RIRs, and some related tasks) in terms of a contract >>> between the RIRs and ICANN, instead of in terms of a contract between the >>> NTIA and ICANN. ICANN asked for permission to sub-contract the IANA >>> Numbering Services to PTI, and the RIRs consented, so the IANA functions >>> will actually be performed by PTI, although ICANN remains responsible. >>> > >>> > Apart from announcements and press releases, you will probably not >>> notice much difference. >>> > >>> > Alan Barrett >>> > >>> > >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > Community-Discuss mailing list >>> > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net >>> > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Community-Discuss mailing list >>> Community-Discuss at afrinic.net >>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Community-Discuss mailing list >>> Community-Discuss at afrinic.net >>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Community-Discuss mailing list >> Community-Discuss at afrinic.net >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Community-Discuss mailing list > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From badru.ntege at nftconsult.com Sat Oct 1 14:39:10 2016 From: badru.ntege at nftconsult.com (Badru Ntege) Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2016 14:39:10 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum In-Reply-To: <61820305-998D-4536-9A4E-56E37D539D1A@liquidtelecom.com> References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <070E72C7-90EF-48B7-BAB2-892040E68D23@afrinic.net> <8b96d562-0842-bb4c-9026-c89b0853fb43@posix.co.za> <006D848C-5FE5-4CC7-A0F6-DFEC45918F72@nftconsult.com> <6A8D2AF5-4AD9-487B-92E6-D0FB9121DDD4@trstech.net> <6524FA98-0B3F-452A-B70E-485DE2AB41D6@liquidtelecom.com> <4FD9A772-C426-4263-8DE9-25BD97C27D98@nftconsult.com> <28CE8EF2-B9AE-4D5A-8A6C-5104681A9085@liquidtelecom.com> <9482E057-E45D-456A-A9F1-22288C457592@liquidtelecom.com> <3EBCFCCD-BDEC-4E8F-867A-DC579411A3F5@afrinic.net> <6CDD739C-3DA1-4037-9B1E-269F6940FFDF@liquidtelecom.com> <3A461E36-FC2F-4FCC-9443-67D848748762@nftconsult.com> <2476B044-27D0-4897-9677-A0A6F6723943@liquidtelecom.com> , <61820305-998D-4536-9A4E-56E37D539D1A@liquidtelecom.com> Message-ID: Sent from my iPhone On 30 Sep 2016, at 18:53, Andrew Alston > wrote: You talk about legal constraints and using them ? is that not EXACTLY what has been done with the proxy limitations? Using a bylaw constraint to control the actions of members? Current bylaw and all it's content was voted into life by members after extensive consultation. Let us also be consistent in our arguments Andrew From: Badru Ntege > Date: Friday, 30 September 2016 at 20:48 To: Andrew Alston > Cc: Omo Oaiya >, "community-discuss at afrinic.net" > Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum As usual we miss the point I think historical reference was mentioned by others and not me. I asked for an open discussion which has happened by other members. My objection is to use legal constraints which goes to limiting options. We are a community of many who are by far wiser than the few of us who are vocal on the list and if we start setting boundaries through legal constraints in my view its against the principles that the Internet echo system. Can I also suggest we remain on topic and avoid the temptation to personalise our arguments. It's all about Afrinic and not us Regards Badru Ntege CEO NFT Consult Ltd Www.Nftconsult.com ?Vision without execution is hallucination.? ? Thomas A. Edison On 30 Sep 2016, at 8:37 pm, Andrew Alston > wrote: Badru ? I am very aware there are many jurisdictions and I?ve heard this argument from you sooooo many times. You?re welcome to try and get consensus to move AfriNIC to another juristriction and under the bylaws you could probably even pass a special resolution to do it if you could get those kinda numbers ? but I know how I would be voting in this regard ? but of course if you get a 75% majority for it ? great. What amuses me however is the view that people want to restrict what members can and can?t do because they didn?t like the outcome of a particular scenario ? I have yet to see a single shred of conclusive evidence of proxies being used in any way that is outside of the rules ? I have seen plenty of whining that its impacted things in ways that certain people didn?t like ? but they are very different things. I associate this type of changing of the rules and adding restrictions in my mind with what we have seen in so many parts of the world when an incumbent or someone doesn?t want to accept the will of a clear majority vote ? change the rules? It?s all the same thing in my eyes ? pure and unadulterated hegemony ? and I?m sick of it. If a member wishes to give his proxy to someone ? anyone ? he has a right to do so. If that person uses that proxy in a way the member never intended ? the member can take that up with the person holding the proxy ? it is the members responsibility. If 90% of the members choose to trust one individual carry their votes ? because that is where their faith lies ? that is their choice ? their right ? and their responsibility to deal with the outcomes. That is democracy ? this blatant and transparent attempt to restrict a member?s rights in the name of ?stopping abuse? ? when there is no concrete evidence is a joke. It is undemocratic, it is an insult to the intelligence of the members who sign those proxies, it is transparent manipulation of the system to attempt to achieve a result through the influencing of who can do what ? and it is a joke. This is how I see it ? others my disagree ? but these are the views that I stand by Andrew From: Badru Ntege > Date: Friday, 30 September 2016 at 20:13 To: Andrew Alston > Cc: Omo Oaiya >, "community-discuss at afrinic.net" > Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum Andrew On 30 Sep 2016, at 5:30 pm, Andrew Alston > wrote: No Omo, Please read what Ashok said ? the limitation *WILL NOT SURVIVE LEGAL CHALLENGE* Afrinic is a regional organisation if we are being shackled by jurisdiction of registration we have 52 other jurisdictions. We have options. Let's remain very open and objective to what is best for members. Consensus not legal shackles is what the Internet is built on. The companies act does not ALLOW the limitation. Andrew From: Omo Oaiya > Date: Friday, 30 September 2016 at 17:29 To: Andrew Alston > Cc: Jean-Robert Hountomey >, "community-discuss at afrinic.net" > Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum As you have repeated but that is by the way. What is clear is that electronic voting has solved the issue with proxies so we don?t need them. If the companies act is restrictive and does not support better accountability, proxies can be limited to one per member to balance things out. On 30 Sep 2016, at 15:22, Andrew Alston > wrote: Jean-Robert because proxies are enshrined in the companies act and the act explicitly states that they cannot be removed irrespective of what a company?s bylaws / constitution says. See fifth schedule section 6 Andrew From: Jean-Robert Hountomey > Date: Friday, 30 September 2016 at 17:22 To: "community-discuss at afrinic.net" > Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum Talking about Board Members election (1) and (2), why do we want to keep Proxies While we have Electronic voting ? Proxies make sens when a member cannot attend the meeting in person, isn't what we wanted to solve with electronic voting? (1) http://afrinic.net/en/community/elections/bod-election/process (2) http://afrinic.net/en/about/agmm/participate-vote On 9/29/16 8:56 PM, Alan Barrett wrote: On 30 Sep 2016, at 02:26, Mark Elkins wrote The only time the Proxy Restrictions are enforced is for the Board elections. Traditionally, the elections for the PDP Co-Chair is hands at the meeting and the elections for the ASO-AC is by secret ballot by those present. Proxy restrictions apply to elections by the Members (Resource Members and Registered Members). ASO-AC and PDWG elections are by the community or by the PDWG, not by the Members. Board elections and now Governance Committee elections are by the Members. Alan Barrett _______________________________________________ Community-Discuss mailing list Community-Discuss at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss _______________________________________________ Community-Discuss mailing list Community-Discuss at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss ? Omo Oaiya CTO/Directeur Technique, WACREN Mobile: +234 806 4522778, +221 784 305 224 Skype: kodion http://www.wacren.net _______________________________________________ Community-Discuss mailing list Community-Discuss at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From amelnaud at gmail.com Sat Oct 1 15:06:30 2016 From: amelnaud at gmail.com (Arnaud AMELINA) Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2016 15:06:30 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum In-Reply-To: <9CBAB692-A799-4DB9-BA84-C15B70C7B27F@trstech.net> References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <4951DB9B-6106-4764-86BD-3FE08DD71E68@wacren.net> <070E72C7-90EF-48B7-BAB2-892040E68D23@afrinic.net> <8b96d562-0842-bb4c-9026-c89b0853fb43@posix.co.za> <006D848C-5FE5-4CC7-A0F6-DFEC45918F72@nftconsult.com> <6A8D2AF5-4AD9-487B-92E6-D0FB9121DDD4@trstech.net> <6524FA98-0B3F-452A-B70E-485DE2AB41D6@liquidtelecom.com> <4FD9A772-C426-4263-8DE9-25BD97C27D98@nftconsult.com> <28CE8EF2-B9AE-4D5A-8A6C-5104681A9085@liquidtelecom.com> <57EE4C15.9090901@afrinic.net> <9CBAB692-A799-4DB9-BA84-C15B70C7B27F@trstech.net> Message-ID: +1 Le 1 oct. 2016 13:55, "ALAIN AINA" a ?crit : > Hello All, > > It is deplorable that this thread on proxy went in a such chaotic mode and > one had the impression that people were talking without listening to each > other. > > We have had so many times, discussions around AFRINIC Ltd(the company) and > AFRINIC (the community), Bylaws vs Act, etc?. These threads can be found in > the archives. > > The most recent i could find is at https://lists.afrinic.net/ > pipermail/community-discuss/2016-July/000432.html > > Beside the requirements of the Act and Mauritius laws, this community has > adopted rules and given rights to non ?registered members? and ?the > Community? to suit the community needs through the bylaws. > > Ashok?s response was not meant for the public and so i won?t comment or > refer to it, but It is clear that the proxy limitation for elections was a > "community decision" to accommodate a situation and shall be treated as > such. > > One would expect the debate to stay at the community level and not involve > the Act. The community to discuss and agree on how to manage this issue. > > Referring to the Act beyond what its applied to ?Registered members? seems > inappropriate and can lead to questioning may other things? > > 1- Since ?Resource members? are not recognised by the Act, why is the > rules on proxy towards them subject to the Act ? > > 2- if we were to amend to comply to the Act, will this not only applied to > the ?Registered members?? > > 3- what is the meaning of the rights given to the ?resource members? by > the bylaws ? > > > Furthermore, if we go back to the original discussion of amending the > bylaws to improve the accountability: > > - who is being accountable to who ? > > - what powers does the "registered members" have over the organisation > beyond electing the directors to become ?Registered members? ? > > If i take my favorite example, point 11 of the assessment document(see > below),how will amending the bylaws as suggested below will prevent the > ?Registered members? from unilaterally amending the bylaws at 75% of votes > among them as this would be by powers reserved to the members, the > ?registered members? by the Act ? > ======== > 11- Modification to the Bylaws or Constitution: The Bylaws say how the > AFRINIC > Members may change the Bylaws, but the Companies Act say that the > Registered Members can change it. Consider requiring that the > Bylaws/Constitution may be changed only after a Special Resolution by all > AFRINIC Members in terms of Bylaws 7.6(vi) , so that the Registered Members > (the same nine people as the Directors) cannot act without broader > approval. > =========== > > All of these said, i suggest that we continue the discussions on the proxy > and the general accountability improvement in the spirit of AFRINIC, the > Community. The GC shall lead future discussion on AFRINIC legal status to > fix this to the end. > > Hope this helps > > Bon weekend > > ?Alain > > > > > > > On Sep 30, 2016, at 4:24 PM, Alan Barrett > wrote: > > > > Hi Ashok, > > > >> On 30 Sep 2016, at 15:27, Ashok Radhakissoon wrote: > >> > >> Dear Alan, > >> I am only replying to you on this as I advise the Board only.It is only > during an AGMM, when called upon, that i intervene. > > > > Actually, you replied to the mailing list, but no harm done. I am also > replying to the mailing list, and I have asked for the mailing list > configuration to be changed so that it does not automatically add a > ?Reply-To? header in future. > > > >> You are right in stating that the Company's Act takes precedence over > the bylaws. > >> I recall that after the Cairo election, the Community felt that > bringing a substantial number of proxies especially from a particular > region where AFRINIC membership was dense could not from a "community " > perspective give the best representation for the Africa regions.This is why > the limitation of the number of proxies was introduced and voted by the > community. > >> This provision of the bylaws would in no way withstand legal challenge > as suggested by > >> Andrew. > > > > Thank you for the advice. I suggest that the limit on pnumber of > proxies should be removed. > > > > Alan Barrett > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Community-Discuss mailing list > > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss > > > _______________________________________________ > Community-Discuss mailing list > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com Sat Oct 1 16:04:15 2016 From: Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com (Andrew Alston) Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2016 16:04:15 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum In-Reply-To: <9CBAB692-A799-4DB9-BA84-C15B70C7B27F@trstech.net> References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <4951DB9B-6106-4764-86BD-3FE08DD71E68@wacren.net> <070E72C7-90EF-48B7-BAB2-892040E68D23@afrinic.net> <8b96d562-0842-bb4c-9026-c89b0853fb43@posix.co.za> <006D848C-5FE5-4CC7-A0F6-DFEC45918F72@nftconsult.com> <6A8D2AF5-4AD9-487B-92E6-D0FB9121DDD4@trstech.net> <6524FA98-0B3F-452A-B70E-485DE2AB41D6@liquidtelecom.com> <4FD9A772-C426-4263-8DE9-25BD97C27D98@nftconsult.com> <28CE8EF2-B9AE-4D5A-8A6C-5104681A9085@liquidtelecom.com> <57EE4C15.9090901@afrinic.net> <9CBAB692-A799-4DB9-BA84-C15B70C7B27F@trstech.net> Message-ID: Alain, Quite frankly ? I think what you have said here is, at best, extremely naive and at worst incredibly irresponsible. Yes, AfriNIC is a community of members that believes in a bottom up approach. You are correct there ? and within the bounds of the law the bottom up process must be respected. However ? AfriNIC is also a registered legal entity, subject to the bounds of a legal act, in the jurisdiction in which it is domiciled. There are sections of the companies act that can be overridden by a company?s bylaws (Referred to in the act as the company?s constitution), and sections that cannot. The act is very explicit about any section that cannot be overridden. For example, the companies act as refers to proxies specifically states: Fifth Schedule, section 6, subsection e(ii): Clause 6 other than paragraph (d)(v) shall apply notwithstanding any contrary provision in any constitution adopted by the company. What you are advocating below is to ignore the law for convenience sake ? or because the will of the majority wish us to ignore the law. To do so creates legal liability, which in turn could result in tremendous financial liability of the company, potentially place any elected director at risk of legal action and sequestration were the board to sanction an action outside of the law, and place the entire entity at risk. We have all watched the IANA transition of late, and all welcomed the fact that the transition is proceeding. But there is something to learn from that process ? at all times ? the law was followed, and was respected. Do you believe that because the will of the Internet community said it should go ahead, had the amicus brief filed yesterday and the subsequent hearing to block the baseless injunction that was filed failed, the law would have been ignored because that is what the people wished? I think not. It scares me to death when I see people who have stood for board positions, and in some case former board members, advocating for ignoring the law. It reminds me of what I have seen in South Africa in recent years, where countless times the incumbent government has ignored the law because they thought they could. In the end ? time and again the courts have ruled against them and slapped them down, at huge expense to both the party and the country as a whole. Yes ? the community must have their say ? yes the bylaws must be respected ? but at the end of the day, the law is supreme, the law cannot be violated, not for you, not for me, not for convenience, but because it is exactly that. The Law. Badru has time and again stated that there are other juristrictions if we do not like the current laws ? though in most cases when this has been stated, I?ve actually gone and looked at the various companies acts in a number of countries and found the laws to be similar if not identical. So, if you don?t like the laws, put a special resolution to the floor to move AfriNIC. Then ? abide by the result that comes if you fail to get the super majority that is required. Alternatively, accept that the community as a whole is happy with the current legal state. However ? do not advocate for violating the law (because that is what you are doing when you suggest we ignore the law) because it seems expedient ? that is totally irresponsible and outright dangerous. I for one also pray that the board is never made up of individuals who believe the law can be violated and ignored at will ? because it will be the very death of the organization for which so many have given so much to bring to this point. Andrew On 01/10/2016, 16:54, "ALAIN AINA" wrote: Hello All, It is deplorable that this thread on proxy went in a such chaotic mode and one had the impression that people were talking without listening to each other. We have had so many times, discussions around AFRINIC Ltd(the company) and AFRINIC (the community), Bylaws vs Act, etc?. These threads can be found in the archives. The most recent i could find is at https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/community-discuss/2016-July/000432.html Beside the requirements of the Act and Mauritius laws, this community has adopted rules and given rights to non ?registered members? and ?the Community? to suit the community needs through the bylaws. Ashok?s response was not meant for the public and so i won?t comment or refer to it, but It is clear that the proxy limitation for elections was a "community decision" to accommodate a situation and shall be treated as such. One would expect the debate to stay at the community level and not involve the Act. The community to discuss and agree on how to manage this issue. Referring to the Act beyond what its applied to ?Registered members? seems inappropriate and can lead to questioning may other things? 1- Since ?Resource members? are not recognised by the Act, why is the rules on proxy towards them subject to the Act ? 2- if we were to amend to comply to the Act, will this not only applied to the ?Registered members?? 3- what is the meaning of the rights given to the ?resource members? by the bylaws ? Furthermore, if we go back to the original discussion of amending the bylaws to improve the accountability: - who is being accountable to who ? - what powers does the "registered members" have over the organisation beyond electing the directors to become ?Registered members? ? If i take my favorite example, point 11 of the assessment document(see below),how will amending the bylaws as suggested below will prevent the ?Registered members? from unilaterally amending the bylaws at 75% of votes among them as this would be by powers reserved to the members, the ?registered members? by the Act ? ======== 11- Modification to the Bylaws or Constitution: The Bylaws say how the AFRINIC Members may change the Bylaws, but the Companies Act say that the Registered Members can change it. Consider requiring that the Bylaws/Constitution may be changed only after a Special Resolution by all AFRINIC Members in terms of Bylaws 7.6(vi) , so that the Registered Members (the same nine people as the Directors) cannot act without broader approval. =========== All of these said, i suggest that we continue the discussions on the proxy and the general accountability improvement in the spirit of AFRINIC, the Community. The GC shall lead future discussion on AFRINIC legal status to fix this to the end. Hope this helps Bon weekend ?Alain > On Sep 30, 2016, at 4:24 PM, Alan Barrett wrote: > > Hi Ashok, > >> On 30 Sep 2016, at 15:27, Ashok Radhakissoon wrote: >> >> Dear Alan, >> I am only replying to you on this as I advise the Board only.It is only during an AGMM, when called upon, that i intervene. > > Actually, you replied to the mailing list, but no harm done. I am also replying to the mailing list, and I have asked for the mailing list configuration to be changed so that it does not automatically add a ?Reply-To? header in future. > >> You are right in stating that the Company's Act takes precedence over the bylaws. >> I recall that after the Cairo election, the Community felt that bringing a substantial number of proxies especially from a particular region where AFRINIC membership was dense could not from a "community " perspective give the best representation for the Africa regions.This is why the limitation of the number of proxies was introduced and voted by the community. >> This provision of the bylaws would in no way withstand legal challenge as suggested by >> Andrew. > > Thank you for the advice. I suggest that the limit on pnumber of proxies should be removed. > > Alan Barrett > > > _______________________________________________ > Community-Discuss mailing list > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss _______________________________________________ Community-Discuss mailing list Community-Discuss at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss From boubakarbarry at gmail.com Sat Oct 1 19:56:34 2016 From: boubakarbarry at gmail.com (Boubakar Barry) Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2016 19:56:34 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum In-Reply-To: References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <4951DB9B-6106-4764-86BD-3FE08DD71E68@wacren.net> <070E72C7-90EF-48B7-BAB2-892040E68D23@afrinic.net> <8b96d562-0842-bb4c-9026-c89b0853fb43@posix.co.za> <006D848C-5FE5-4CC7-A0F6-DFEC45918F72@nftconsult.com> <6A8D2AF5-4AD9-487B-92E6-D0FB9121DDD4@trstech.net> <6524FA98-0B3F-452A-B70E-485DE2AB41D6@liquidtelecom.com> <4FD9A772-C426-4263-8DE9-25BD97C27D98@nftconsult.com> <28CE8EF2-B9AE-4D5A-8A6C-5104681A9085@liquidtelecom.com> <57EE4C15.9090901@afrinic.net> <9CBAB692-A799-4DB9-BA84-C15B70C7B27F@trstech.net> Message-ID: This whole discussion looks like confronting the company act AfriNIC has to comply with as an organisation registered in Mauritius with the bylaws that the community wishes AfriNIC to have as governance guideline. Reading some of the contributions, I have the impression that AfriNIC has been operating illegally all that time in Mauritius. Everyone knows what guided us to chose Mauritius as admin/legal host for AfriNIC. We wanted to be pragmatic and move forward as quickly as possible, and Mauritius offered good conditions. Things have evolved, but we should not erect barriers against ourselves where there are none. Personally, I do think that if there are major contradictions between the MU company act and the AfriNIC bylaws, the latter putting community concerns and consensus in the center, then we have to look for other alternatives. What happened today in the Internet ecosystem should inspire us to thrive to put community in the center of our preoccupations. The rest will follow, namely identifying the best possible jurisdiction(s) that can take into account our bottom-up, consensus driven processes. Boubakar On Sat, Oct 1, 2016 at 4:04 PM, Andrew Alston < Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com> wrote: > Alain, > > Quite frankly ? I think what you have said here is, at best, extremely > naive and at worst incredibly irresponsible. > > Yes, AfriNIC is a community of members that believes in a bottom up > approach. You are correct there ? and within the bounds of the law the > bottom up process must be respected. > > However ? AfriNIC is also a registered legal entity, subject to the bounds > of a legal act, in the jurisdiction in which it is domiciled. > > There are sections of the companies act that can be overridden by a > company?s bylaws (Referred to in the act as the company?s constitution), > and sections that cannot. The act is very explicit about any section that > cannot be overridden. For example, the companies act as refers to proxies > specifically states: > > Fifth Schedule, section 6, subsection e(ii): > > Clause 6 other than paragraph (d)(v) shall apply notwithstanding any > contrary provision in any constitution adopted by the company. > > What you are advocating below is to ignore the law for convenience sake ? > or because the will of the majority wish us to ignore the law. To do so > creates legal liability, which in turn could result in tremendous financial > liability of the company, potentially place any elected director at risk of > legal action and sequestration were the board to sanction an action outside > of the law, and place the entire entity at risk. > > We have all watched the IANA transition of late, and all welcomed the fact > that the transition is proceeding. But there is something to learn from > that process ? at all times ? the law was followed, and was respected. Do > you believe that because the will of the Internet community said it should > go ahead, had the amicus brief filed yesterday and the subsequent hearing > to block the baseless injunction that was filed failed, the law would have > been ignored because that is what the people wished? I think not. > > It scares me to death when I see people who have stood for board > positions, and in some case former board members, advocating for ignoring > the law. It reminds me of what I have seen in South Africa in recent > years, where countless times the incumbent government has ignored the law > because they thought they could. In the end ? time and again the courts > have ruled against them and slapped them down, at huge expense to both the > party and the country as a whole. > > Yes ? the community must have their say ? yes the bylaws must be respected > ? but at the end of the day, the law is supreme, the law cannot be > violated, not for you, not for me, not for convenience, but because it is > exactly that. The Law. Badru has time and again stated that there are > other juristrictions if we do not like the current laws ? though in most > cases when this has been stated, I?ve actually gone and looked at the > various companies acts in a number of countries and found the laws to be > similar if not identical. So, if you don?t like the laws, put a special > resolution to the floor to move AfriNIC. Then ? abide by the result that > comes if you fail to get the super majority that is required. > Alternatively, accept that the community as a whole is happy with the > current legal state. > > However ? do not advocate for violating the law (because that is what you > are doing when you suggest we ignore the law) because it seems expedient ? > that is totally irresponsible and outright dangerous. I for one also pray > that the board is never made up of individuals who believe the law can be > violated and ignored at will ? because it will be the very death of the > organization for which so many have given so much to bring to this point. > > Andrew > > > On 01/10/2016, 16:54, "ALAIN AINA" wrote: > > Hello All, > > It is deplorable that this thread on proxy went in a such chaotic mode > and one had the impression that people were talking without listening to > each other. > > We have had so many times, discussions around AFRINIC Ltd(the company) > and AFRINIC (the community), Bylaws vs Act, etc?. These threads can be > found in the archives. > > The most recent i could find is at https://lists.afrinic.net/ > pipermail/community-discuss/2016-July/000432.html > > Beside the requirements of the Act and Mauritius laws, this community > has adopted rules and given rights to non ?registered members? and ?the > Community? to suit the community needs through the bylaws. > > Ashok?s response was not meant for the public and so i won?t comment > or refer to it, but It is clear that the proxy limitation for elections was > a "community decision" to accommodate a situation and shall be treated as > such. > > One would expect the debate to stay at the community level and not > involve the Act. The community to discuss and agree on how to manage this > issue. > > Referring to the Act beyond what its applied to ?Registered members? > seems inappropriate and can lead to questioning may other things? > > 1- Since ?Resource members? are not recognised by the Act, why is the > rules on proxy towards them subject to the Act ? > > 2- if we were to amend to comply to the Act, will this not only > applied to the ?Registered members?? > > 3- what is the meaning of the rights given to the ?resource members? > by the bylaws ? > > > Furthermore, if we go back to the original discussion of amending the > bylaws to improve the accountability: > > - who is being accountable to who ? > > - what powers does the "registered members" have over the organisation > beyond electing the directors to become ?Registered members? ? > > If i take my favorite example, point 11 of the assessment document(see > below),how will amending the bylaws as suggested below will prevent the > ?Registered members? from unilaterally amending the bylaws at 75% of votes > among them as this would be by powers reserved to the members, the > ?registered members? by the Act ? > ======== > 11- Modification to the Bylaws or Constitution: The Bylaws say how the > AFRINIC > Members may change the Bylaws, but the Companies Act say that the > Registered Members can change it. Consider requiring that the > Bylaws/Constitution may be changed only after a Special Resolution by > all > AFRINIC Members in terms of Bylaws 7.6(vi) , so that the Registered > Members > (the same nine people as the Directors) cannot act without broader > approval. > =========== > > All of these said, i suggest that we continue the discussions on the > proxy and the general accountability improvement in the spirit of AFRINIC, > the Community. The GC shall lead future discussion on AFRINIC legal status > to fix this to the end. > > Hope this helps > > Bon weekend > > ?Alain > > > > > > > On Sep 30, 2016, at 4:24 PM, Alan Barrett > wrote: > > > > Hi Ashok, > > > >> On 30 Sep 2016, at 15:27, Ashok Radhakissoon > wrote: > >> > >> Dear Alan, > >> I am only replying to you on this as I advise the Board only.It is > only during an AGMM, when called upon, that i intervene. > > > > Actually, you replied to the mailing list, but no harm done. I am > also replying to the mailing list, and I have asked for the mailing list > configuration to be changed so that it does not automatically add a > ?Reply-To? header in future. > > > >> You are right in stating that the Company's Act takes precedence > over the bylaws. > >> I recall that after the Cairo election, the Community felt that > bringing a substantial number of proxies especially from a particular > region where AFRINIC membership was dense could not from a "community " > perspective give the best representation for the Africa regions.This is why > the limitation of the number of proxies was introduced and voted by the > community. > >> This provision of the bylaws would in no way withstand legal > challenge as suggested by > >> Andrew. > > > > Thank you for the advice. I suggest that the limit on pnumber of > proxies should be removed. > > > > Alan Barrett > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Community-Discuss mailing list > > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss > > > _______________________________________________ > Community-Discuss mailing list > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss > > > > _______________________________________________ > Community-Discuss mailing list > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From badru.ntege at nftconsult.com Sat Oct 1 22:38:32 2016 From: badru.ntege at nftconsult.com (Badru Ntege) Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2016 22:38:32 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum In-Reply-To: References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <4951DB9B-6106-4764-86BD-3FE08DD71E68@wacren.net> <070E72C7-90EF-48B7-BAB2-892040E68D23@afrinic.net> <8b96d562-0842-bb4c-9026-c89b0853fb43@posix.co.za> <006D848C-5FE5-4CC7-A0F6-DFEC45918F72@nftconsult.com> <6A8D2AF5-4AD9-487B-92E6-D0FB9121DDD4@trstech.net> <6524FA98-0B3F-452A-B70E-485DE2AB41D6@liquidtelecom.com> <4FD9A772-C426-4263-8DE9-25BD97C27D98@nftconsult.com> <28CE8EF2-B9AE-4D5A-8A6C-5104681A9085@liquidtelecom.com> <57EE4C15.9090901@afrinic.net> <9CBAB692-A799-4DB9-BA84-C15B70C7B27F@trstech.net> , Message-ID: <2AE95B24-5CDC-4B2B-B661-D903B264D87C@nftconsult.com> +1. We need to find an outcome that works for the entire community. On 1 Oct 2016, at 10:57 pm, Boubakar Barry > wrote: This whole discussion looks like confronting the company act AfriNIC has to comply with as an organisation registered in Mauritius with the bylaws that the community wishes AfriNIC to have as governance guideline. Reading some of the contributions, I have the impression that AfriNIC has been operating illegally all that time in Mauritius. Everyone knows what guided us to chose Mauritius as admin/legal host for AfriNIC. We wanted to be pragmatic and move forward as quickly as possible, and Mauritius offered good conditions. Things have evolved, but we should not erect barriers against ourselves where there are none. Personally, I do think that if there are major contradictions between the MU company act and the AfriNIC bylaws, the latter putting community concerns and consensus in the center, then we have to look for other alternatives. What happened today in the Internet ecosystem should inspire us to thrive to put community in the center of our preoccupations. The rest will follow, namely identifying the best possible jurisdiction(s) that can take into account our bottom-up, consensus driven processes. Boubakar On Sat, Oct 1, 2016 at 4:04 PM, Andrew Alston > wrote: Alain, Quite frankly ? I think what you have said here is, at best, extremely naive and at worst incredibly irresponsible. Yes, AfriNIC is a community of members that believes in a bottom up approach. You are correct there ? and within the bounds of the law the bottom up process must be respected. However ? AfriNIC is also a registered legal entity, subject to the bounds of a legal act, in the jurisdiction in which it is domiciled. There are sections of the companies act that can be overridden by a company?s bylaws (Referred to in the act as the company?s constitution), and sections that cannot. The act is very explicit about any section that cannot be overridden. For example, the companies act as refers to proxies specifically states: Fifth Schedule, section 6, subsection e(ii): Clause 6 other than paragraph (d)(v) shall apply notwithstanding any contrary provision in any constitution adopted by the company. What you are advocating below is to ignore the law for convenience sake ? or because the will of the majority wish us to ignore the law. To do so creates legal liability, which in turn could result in tremendous financial liability of the company, potentially place any elected director at risk of legal action and sequestration were the board to sanction an action outside of the law, and place the entire entity at risk. We have all watched the IANA transition of late, and all welcomed the fact that the transition is proceeding. But there is something to learn from that process ? at all times ? the law was followed, and was respected. Do you believe that because the will of the Internet community said it should go ahead, had the amicus brief filed yesterday and the subsequent hearing to block the baseless injunction that was filed failed, the law would have been ignored because that is what the people wished? I think not. It scares me to death when I see people who have stood for board positions, and in some case former board members, advocating for ignoring the law. It reminds me of what I have seen in South Africa in recent years, where countless times the incumbent government has ignored the law because they thought they could. In the end ? time and again the courts have ruled against them and slapped them down, at huge expense to both the party and the country as a whole. Yes ? the community must have their say ? yes the bylaws must be respected ? but at the end of the day, the law is supreme, the law cannot be violated, not for you, not for me, not for convenience, but because it is exactly that. The Law. Badru has time and again stated that there are other juristrictions if we do not like the current laws ? though in most cases when this has been stated, I?ve actually gone and looked at the various companies acts in a number of countries and found the laws to be similar if not identical. So, if you don?t like the laws, put a special resolution to the floor to move AfriNIC. Then ? abide by the result that comes if you fail to get the super majority that is required. Alternatively, accept that the community as a whole is happy with the current legal state. However ? do not advocate for violating the law (because that is what you are doing when you suggest we ignore the law) because it seems expedient ? that is totally irresponsible and outright dangerous. I for one also pray that the board is never made up of individuals who believe the law can be violated and ignored at will ? because it will be the very death of the organization for which so many have given so much to bring to this point. Andrew On 01/10/2016, 16:54, "ALAIN AINA" > wrote: Hello All, It is deplorable that this thread on proxy went in a such chaotic mode and one had the impression that people were talking without listening to each other. We have had so many times, discussions around AFRINIC Ltd(the company) and AFRINIC (the community), Bylaws vs Act, etc?. These threads can be found in the archives. The most recent i could find is at https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/community-discuss/2016-July/000432.html Beside the requirements of the Act and Mauritius laws, this community has adopted rules and given rights to non ?registered members? and ?the Community? to suit the community needs through the bylaws. Ashok?s response was not meant for the public and so i won?t comment or refer to it, but It is clear that the proxy limitation for elections was a "community decision" to accommodate a situation and shall be treated as such. One would expect the debate to stay at the community level and not involve the Act. The community to discuss and agree on how to manage this issue. Referring to the Act beyond what its applied to ?Registered members? seems inappropriate and can lead to questioning may other things? 1- Since ?Resource members? are not recognised by the Act, why is the rules on proxy towards them subject to the Act ? 2- if we were to amend to comply to the Act, will this not only applied to the ?Registered members?? 3- what is the meaning of the rights given to the ?resource members? by the bylaws ? Furthermore, if we go back to the original discussion of amending the bylaws to improve the accountability: - who is being accountable to who ? - what powers does the "registered members" have over the organisation beyond electing the directors to become ?Registered members? ? If i take my favorite example, point 11 of the assessment document(see below),how will amending the bylaws as suggested below will prevent the ?Registered members? from unilaterally amending the bylaws at 75% of votes among them as this would be by powers reserved to the members, the ?registered members? by the Act ? ======== 11- Modification to the Bylaws or Constitution: The Bylaws say how the AFRINIC Members may change the Bylaws, but the Companies Act say that the Registered Members can change it. Consider requiring that the Bylaws/Constitution may be changed only after a Special Resolution by all AFRINIC Members in terms of Bylaws 7.6(vi) , so that the Registered Members (the same nine people as the Directors) cannot act without broader approval. =========== All of these said, i suggest that we continue the discussions on the proxy and the general accountability improvement in the spirit of AFRINIC, the Community. The GC shall lead future discussion on AFRINIC legal status to fix this to the end. Hope this helps Bon weekend ?Alain > On Sep 30, 2016, at 4:24 PM, Alan Barrett > wrote: > > Hi Ashok, > >> On 30 Sep 2016, at 15:27, Ashok Radhakissoon > wrote: >> >> Dear Alan, >> I am only replying to you on this as I advise the Board only.It is only during an AGMM, when called upon, that i intervene. > > Actually, you replied to the mailing list, but no harm done. I am also replying to the mailing list, and I have asked for the mailing list configuration to be changed so that it does not automatically add a ?Reply-To? header in future. > >> You are right in stating that the Company's Act takes precedence over the bylaws. >> I recall that after the Cairo election, the Community felt that bringing a substantial number of proxies especially from a particular region where AFRINIC membership was dense could not from a "community " perspective give the best representation for the Africa regions.This is why the limitation of the number of proxies was introduced and voted by the community. >> This provision of the bylaws would in no way withstand legal challenge as suggested by >> Andrew. > > Thank you for the advice. I suggest that the limit on pnumber of proxies should be removed. > > Alan Barrett > > > _______________________________________________ > Community-Discuss mailing list > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss _______________________________________________ Community-Discuss mailing list Community-Discuss at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss _______________________________________________ Community-Discuss mailing list Community-Discuss at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss _______________________________________________ Community-Discuss mailing list Community-Discuss at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mirriamlauren at yahoo.com Sun Oct 2 07:36:29 2016 From: mirriamlauren at yahoo.com (Mirriam) Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2016 07:36:29 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum References: <2051404717.8112990.1475393789194.ref@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <2051404717.8112990.1475393789194@mail.yahoo.com> On 1 Oct 2016 19:07, "Andrew Alston" wrote: > > Alain, > > Quite frankly ? I think what you have said here is, at best, extremely naive and at worst incredibly irresponsible. >>Hi Andrew,You need to calm down. No one here is naive or irresponsible so mind how you respond to others and have some respect else Afrinic code of conduct comes into play and i hope the CEO and Chair will caution you.In fact your message is full of exaggeration. What exactly is your point considering following this discussion you seem to have jumped arguments from company bylaws to company act?Everyone herein is well aware that our " Afrinic is a private company registered in Mauritius with a Community Oversight through its Bylaws and remains a community/resource members driven organisation" otherwise we would not all be here deliberating on how to improve the organisation.You are one of the directors elected to the board to respresent the very resource members who elected you and as such you are answerable to us just as all the other directors who the membership sends to the board.So what exactly is your point with that long email as what was being discussed was plain simple proxy limits? Mirriam -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From amelnaud at gmail.com Sun Oct 2 08:24:49 2016 From: amelnaud at gmail.com (Arnaud AMELINA) Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2016 08:24:49 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum In-Reply-To: <2051404717.8112990.1475393789194@mail.yahoo.com> References: <2051404717.8112990.1475393789194.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <2051404717.8112990.1475393789194@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Well said Mirriam. +1 Regards Le 2 oct. 2016 07:38, "Mirriam" a ?crit : > On 1 Oct 2016 19:07, "Andrew Alston" > wrote: > > > > Alain, > > > > Quite frankly ? I think what you have said here is, at best, extremely > naive and at worst incredibly irresponsible. > > > > > Hi Andrew, > You need to calm down. No one here is naive or irresponsible so mind how > you respond to others and have some respect else Afrinic code of conduct > comes into play and i hope the CEO and Chair will caution you. > In fact your message is full of exaggeration. What exactly is your point > considering following this discussion you seem to have jumped arguments > from company bylaws to company act? > Everyone herein is well aware that our " Afrinic is a private company > registered in Mauritius with a Community Oversight through its Bylaws and > remains a community/resource members driven organisation" otherwise we > would not all be here deliberating on how to improve the organisation. > You are one of the directors elected to the board to respresent the very > resource members who elected you and as such you are answerable to us just > as all the other directors who the membership sends to the board. > So what exactly is your point with that long email as what was being > discussed was plain simple proxy limits? > > Mirriam > > > _______________________________________________ > Community-Discuss mailing list > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com Sun Oct 2 08:26:14 2016 From: Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com (Andrew Alston) Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2016 08:26:14 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum In-Reply-To: <2051404717.8112990.1475393789194@mail.yahoo.com> References: <2051404717.8112990.1475393789194.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <2051404717.8112990.1475393789194@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <5F7B42EF-85A9-4997-BC8F-9BFB4381D63D@liquidtelecom.com> Mirriam, I was speaking in my personal capacity ? firstly - and I stand by my right to do that. Secondly ? What was the point? Let me tell you a story ? In Djibouti there was an attempt to block several proxies using an argument of company stamps. That argument went on for many days ? it was eventually invalidated ? because it was determined that it would disenfranchise the members who had no company stamps and was invalid. However, it was a direct attempt to stop certain things through the change of the rules (well, that is my impression). I take serious issue with this statement specifically: One would expect the debate to stay at the community level and not involve the Act. The community to discuss and agree on how to manage this issue. You cannot ignore the act ? I am not a lawyer ? my reading of the act is in laymans terms ? and there are many lawyers that can contradict what I?m saying and I?m ok with that. I was NOT arguing from the perspective of proxies here ? look at the holistic essence of my email ? the only place I referenced proxies was as a specific example of how the companies act can restrict the bylaws from overriding it. What I was saying is that leaving the act out of an argument about the bylaws doesn?t make sense and is ? in my view ? irresponsible. The act is supreme and overriding, and ignoring it can have serious consequences. I stand by the position that ignoring the law is dangerous. Andrew From: Mirriam Reply-To: Mirriam Date: Sunday, 2 October 2016 at 10:36 To: Andrew Alston Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum On 1 Oct 2016 19:07, "Andrew Alston" wrote: > > Alain, > > Quite frankly ? I think what you have said here is, at best, extremely naive and at worst incredibly irresponsible. > > Hi Andrew, You need to calm down. No one here is naive or irresponsible so mind how you respond to others and have some respect else Afrinic code of conduct comes into play and i hope the CEO and Chair will caution you. In fact your message is full of exaggeration. What exactly is your point considering following this discussion you seem to have jumped arguments from company bylaws to company act? Everyone herein is well aware that our " Afrinic is a private company registered in Mauritius with a Community Oversight through its Bylaws and remains a community/resource members driven organisation" otherwise we would not all be here deliberating on how to improve the organisation. You are one of the directors elected to the board to respresent the very resource members who elected you and as such you are answerable to us just as all the other directors who the membership sends to the board. So what exactly is your point with that long email as what was being discussed was plain simple proxy limits? Mirriam -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From geier at geier.ne.tz Mon Oct 3 05:58:48 2016 From: geier at geier.ne.tz (Frank Habicht) Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2016 08:58:48 +0300 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum In-Reply-To: <9CBAB692-A799-4DB9-BA84-C15B70C7B27F@trstech.net> References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <070E72C7-90EF-48B7-BAB2-892040E68D23@afrinic.net> <8b96d562-0842-bb4c-9026-c89b0853fb43@posix.co.za> <006D848C-5FE5-4CC7-A0F6-DFEC45918F72@nftconsult.com> <6A8D2AF5-4AD9-487B-92E6-D0FB9121DDD4@trstech.net> <6524FA98-0B3F-452A-B70E-485DE2AB41D6@liquidtelecom.com> <4FD9A772-C426-4263-8DE9-25BD97C27D98@nftconsult.com> <28CE8EF2-B9AE-4D5A-8A6C-5104681A9085@liquidtelecom.com> <57EE4C15.9090901@afrinic.net> <9CBAB692-A799-4DB9-BA84-C15B70C7B27F@trstech.net> Message-ID: <98879168-84f0-6339-dcbd-24713e494d68@geier.ne.tz> Hi Alain, On 10/1/2016 4:54 PM, ALAIN AINA wrote: ... > Referring to the Act beyond what its applied to "Registered members" > seems inappropriate and can lead to questioning may other things? ... I want to ask and not assume. Do you mean that "questioning other things" is a bad thing? Or was this an invitation to "question other things", like the ones you listed? That's because I was understanding the first, and someone else understood the latter. Thanks, Frank From aalain at trstech.net Mon Oct 3 08:35:20 2016 From: aalain at trstech.net (ALAIN AINA) Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2016 12:35:20 +0400 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum In-Reply-To: <5F7B42EF-85A9-4997-BC8F-9BFB4381D63D@liquidtelecom.com> References: <2051404717.8112990.1475393789194.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <2051404717.8112990.1475393789194@mail.yahoo.com> <5F7B42EF-85A9-4997-BC8F-9BFB4381D63D@liquidtelecom.com> Message-ID: <7ECBCC26-69EF-4928-9DA2-3AA34DA50CB1@trstech.net> Hello Andrew, I respect Afrinic Directors and follow good rules of conduct. So I will not return to the disparaging words used in your response to me. Let me put this in a few points here again: 1- I never said to not follow or comply with Law 2- I called for clear understanding between an Act provision applying to ?registered members? and not to ?resources members?. 2- AFRINIC has always followed the Act, laws, but also accommodates its community oversight. The limit at ?5? of the number of proxy is lawful when applied to ?registered members?. How ? Quorum at Members general meeting is set as follow: ====== ii) The quorum for an Annual General Member meeting shall be composed of minimum of ten (10) members in person comprising: a) Four (4) Directors elected to represent a region; b) One (1) Director elected on a non-regional criterion; and c) Five (5) Resource Members. ========== So five (5) registered members in person are required. With nine (9) registered members in total and a quorum requirement of five (5) members in person how many proxies can a registered member carry to a valid AGMM ? The limit to ?5? means ?no limit for the registered members? and that complies to the act. Hope this helps ?Alain > On Oct 2, 2016, at 12:26 PM, Andrew Alston wrote: > > Mirriam, > > I was speaking in my personal capacity ? firstly - and I stand by my right to do that. > > Secondly ? What was the point? Let me tell you a story ? In Djibouti there was an attempt to block several proxies using an argument of company stamps. That argument went on for many days ? it was eventually invalidated ? because it was determined that it would disenfranchise the members who had no company stamps and was invalid. However, it was a direct attempt to stop certain things through the change of the rules (well, that is my impression). > > I take serious issue with this statement specifically: > > One would expect the debate to stay at the community level and not involve the Act. The community to discuss and agree on how to manage this issue. > > You cannot ignore the act ? I am not a lawyer ? my reading of the act is in laymans terms ? and there are many lawyers that can contradict what I?m saying and I?m ok with that. I was NOT arguing from the perspective of proxies here ? look at the holistic essence of my email ? the only place I referenced proxies was as a specific example of how the companies act can restrict the bylaws from overriding it. > > What I was saying is that leaving the act out of an argument about the bylaws doesn?t make sense and is ? in my view ? irresponsible. The act is supreme and overriding, and ignoring it can have serious consequences. > > I stand by the position that ignoring the law is dangerous. > > Andrew > > > > From: Mirriam > Reply-To: Mirriam > Date: Sunday, 2 October 2016 at 10:36 > To: Andrew Alston > Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC > Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum > > On 1 Oct 2016 19:07, "Andrew Alston" wrote: > > > > Alain, > > > > Quite frankly ? I think what you have said here is, at best, extremely naive and at worst incredibly irresponsible. > > > > > Hi Andrew, > You need to calm down. No one here is naive or irresponsible so mind how you respond to others and have some respect else Afrinic code of conduct comes into play and i hope the CEO and Chair will caution you. > In fact your message is full of exaggeration. What exactly is your point considering following this discussion you seem to have jumped arguments from company bylaws to company act? > Everyone herein is well aware that our " Afrinic is a private company registered in Mauritius with a Community Oversight through its Bylaws and remains a community/resource members driven organisation" otherwise we would not all be here deliberating on how to improve the organisation. > You are one of the directors elected to the board to respresent the very resource members who elected you and as such you are answerable to us just as all the other directors who the membership sends to the board. > So what exactly is your point with that long email as what was being discussed was plain simple proxy limits? > > Mirriam > > _______________________________________________ > Community-Discuss mailing list > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com Mon Oct 3 08:49:21 2016 From: Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com (Andrew Alston) Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2016 08:49:21 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum In-Reply-To: <7ECBCC26-69EF-4928-9DA2-3AA34DA50CB1@trstech.net> References: <2051404717.8112990.1475393789194.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <2051404717.8112990.1475393789194@mail.yahoo.com> <5F7B42EF-85A9-4997-BC8F-9BFB4381D63D@liquidtelecom.com> <7ECBCC26-69EF-4928-9DA2-3AA34DA50CB1@trstech.net> Message-ID: Writing in my personal capacity. Firstly, let me point out that anything I write on this list ? unless explicitly stated ? is written in my personal capacity and not as a director. What I write here is not necessarily representative of the wider board views and should the board be taking a position on something it will be communicated as such via the chairperson or someone delegated that responsibility by the board. So please, let us not mis-interpret my words as the words of the board. Secondly ? my understanding of this situation is actually more complex than what is being stated on these lists. Let us examine the clause in question: (viii) No member entitled to vote during an election held by the Company shall carry more than five (5) proxies during the said election; and There is no limitation anywhere ? and I would argue that you cannot limit this either ? that states that proxies must be given to members. In fact in no proxy that I have seen used at AFRINIC is a proxy issued to a member, it is issued to an individual who then represents the entity that granted the proxy. As such, the above clause is null and void. As an example: If entity X issued a proxy to a specific COMPANY (or Member) ? then the limit would apply. If entity X issued a proxy to a person who was a member in their own right (which ONLY applies to my knowledge in the case of an extremely limited number of associate members) ? the limit would apply. If entity X issued a proxy to a person who was NOT a member in their own right, but merely WORKED for a member, then the proxy has been issued to a non-member, and the above clause is null and void and has no application. Under your argument ? if the proxy is issued to a registered member ? by the act the rule would not apply. This also deals with the fact that registered members are members in their own right (as with the associate members referred to above) ? so again ? the limitation does not apply. Effectively, my reading of the above clause in the bylaws is that it is a mute point and the text in the bylaws is extraneous since it is not in any way enforceable. Again ? open to hearing legal opinion on this. Thanks Andrew From: ALAIN AINA [mailto:aalain at trstech.net] Sent: 03 October 2016 11:35 To: General Discussions of AFRINIC Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum Hello Andrew, I respect Afrinic Directors and follow good rules of conduct. So I will not return to the disparaging words used in your response to me. Let me put this in a few points here again: 1- I never said to not follow or comply with Law 2- I called for clear understanding between an Act provision applying to ?registered members? and not to ?resources members?. 2- AFRINIC has always followed the Act, laws, but also accommodates its community oversight. The limit at ?5? of the number of proxy is lawful when applied to ?registered members?. How ? Quorum at Members general meeting is set as follow: ====== ii) The quorum for an Annual General Member meeting shall be composed of minimum of ten (10) members in person comprising: a) Four (4) Directors elected to represent a region; b) One (1) Director elected on a non-regional criterion; and c) Five (5) Resource Members. ========== So five (5) registered members in person are required. With nine (9) registered members in total and a quorum requirement of five (5) members in person how many proxies can a registered member carry to a valid AGMM ? The limit to ?5? means ?no limit for the registered members? and that complies to the act. Hope this helps ?Alain On Oct 2, 2016, at 12:26 PM, Andrew Alston > wrote: Mirriam, I was speaking in my personal capacity ? firstly - and I stand by my right to do that. Secondly ? What was the point? Let me tell you a story ? In Djibouti there was an attempt to block several proxies using an argument of company stamps. That argument went on for many days ? it was eventually invalidated ? because it was determined that it would disenfranchise the members who had no company stamps and was invalid. However, it was a direct attempt to stop certain things through the change of the rules (well, that is my impression). I take serious issue with this statement specifically: One would expect the debate to stay at the community level and not involve the Act. The community to discuss and agree on how to manage this issue. You cannot ignore the act ? I am not a lawyer ? my reading of the act is in laymans terms ? and there are many lawyers that can contradict what I?m saying and I?m ok with that. I was NOT arguing from the perspective of proxies here ? look at the holistic essence of my email ? the only place I referenced proxies was as a specific example of how the companies act can restrict the bylaws from overriding it. What I was saying is that leaving the act out of an argument about the bylaws doesn?t make sense and is ? in my view ? irresponsible. The act is supreme and overriding, and ignoring it can have serious consequences. I stand by the position that ignoring the law is dangerous. Andrew From: Mirriam > Reply-To: Mirriam > Date: Sunday, 2 October 2016 at 10:36 To: Andrew Alston > Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC > Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum On 1 Oct 2016 19:07, "Andrew Alston" > wrote: > > Alain, > > Quite frankly ? I think what you have said here is, at best, extremely naive and at worst incredibly irresponsible. > > Hi Andrew, You need to calm down. No one here is naive or irresponsible so mind how you respond to others and have some respect else Afrinic code of conduct comes into play and i hope the CEO and Chair will caution you. In fact your message is full of exaggeration. What exactly is your point considering following this discussion you seem to have jumped arguments from company bylaws to company act? Everyone herein is well aware that our " Afrinic is a private company registered in Mauritius with a Community Oversight through its Bylaws and remains a community/resource members driven organisation" otherwise we would not all be here deliberating on how to improve the organisation. You are one of the directors elected to the board to respresent the very resource members who elected you and as such you are answerable to us just as all the other directors who the membership sends to the board. So what exactly is your point with that long email as what was being discussed was plain simple proxy limits? Mirriam _______________________________________________ Community-Discuss mailing list Community-Discuss at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jacksonmuthi at gmail.com Mon Oct 3 10:10:26 2016 From: jacksonmuthi at gmail.com (Jackson Muthili) Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2016 04:10:26 -0600 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum In-Reply-To: References: <2051404717.8112990.1475393789194.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <2051404717.8112990.1475393789194@mail.yahoo.com> <5F7B42EF-85A9-4997-BC8F-9BFB4381D63D@liquidtelecom.com> <7ECBCC26-69EF-4928-9DA2-3AA34DA50CB1@trstech.net> Message-ID: On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 2:49 AM, Andrew Alston wrote: > Writing in my personal capacity. > > Firstly, let me point out that anything I write on this list ? unless > explicitly stated ? is written in my personal capacity and not as a > director. Why are you disrespectful of others in your personal capacity? > What I write here is not necessarily representative of the wider > board views and should the board be taking a position on something it will > be communicated as such via the chairperson or someone delegated that > responsibility by the board. So please, let us not mis-interpret my words > as the words of the board. You said wrote to Alain " Quite frankly ? I think what you have said here is, at best, extremely naive and at worst incredibly irresponsible." You use this kind of language most of the time and this is not good. It is intimidating to new people trying to join discussion and air their opinion and is clear expression of an autocratic mind. Why cant you tolerate and maturely engage in a respectful way? Alain say he respects AfriNIC directors and you are one of them. It has nothing to do with your personal views. You are still a Director of AfriNIC and an important person in your other capacities. Please please just be mindful of peoples feelings and use euphemisms that can deliver the same message in a respectful way. From Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com Mon Oct 3 10:25:14 2016 From: Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com (Andrew Alston) Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2016 10:25:14 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum In-Reply-To: References: <2051404717.8112990.1475393789194.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <2051404717.8112990.1475393789194@mail.yahoo.com> <5F7B42EF-85A9-4997-BC8F-9BFB4381D63D@liquidtelecom.com> <7ECBCC26-69EF-4928-9DA2-3AA34DA50CB1@trstech.net> Message-ID: Jackson, Again, let me clarify my use of wording: Firstly - do I believe that it is irresponsible when I believe that someone is advocating for ignoring the law. Yes - I do, and my opinions my offend some, but I will not be limited in what I say because it may tread on toes if I believe what I am saying is the truth. Secondly - when I use the word na?ve, let's look at the definition of such: (of a person or action) showing a lack of experience, wisdom, or judgment. Do I believe that it is unwise to advocate for ignoring the act? Yes I do. If my stating that I believe these things offends someone - then I apologise for offense caused. I do not however apologise for stating them. It is a fine line we tread - where often the truth of a matter is disputed, and in taking any position, you are quite likely to offend someone who disagrees with your position, particularly when the position you are taking is taken in an unequivocal manner. In this case, I was unequivocal, it is my sincere and utmost believe that ignoring any text is unwise, reckless, irresponsible and shows a lack of judgement. Again, as I stated in what I said to Mirriam, the section to which I was referring to was one specific line: > One would expect the debate to stay at the community level and not involve the Act. The community to discuss and agree on how to manage this issue. So - if I offended people through the choice of words - apologies. For the sentiment behind those words - those I stand by in entirety. Andrew -----Original Message----- From: Jackson Muthili [mailto:jacksonmuthi at gmail.com] Sent: 03 October 2016 13:10 To: Andrew Alston Cc: ALAIN AINA ; General Discussions of AFRINIC Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 2:49 AM, Andrew Alston wrote: > Writing in my personal capacity. > > Firstly, let me point out that anything I write on this list ? unless > explicitly stated ? is written in my personal capacity and not as a > director. Why are you disrespectful of others in your personal capacity? > What I write here is not necessarily representative of the wider board > views and should the board be taking a position on something it will > be communicated as such via the chairperson or someone delegated that > responsibility by the board. So please, let us not mis-interpret my > words as the words of the board. You said wrote to Alain " Quite frankly ? I think what you have said here is, at best, extremely naive and at worst incredibly irresponsible." You use this kind of language most of the time and this is not good. It is intimidating to new people trying to join discussion and air their opinion and is clear expression of an autocratic mind. Why cant you tolerate and maturely engage in a respectful way? Alain say he respects AfriNIC directors and you are one of them. It has nothing to do with your personal views. You are still a Director of AfriNIC and an important person in your other capacities. Please please just be mindful of peoples feelings and use euphemisms that can deliver the same message in a respectful way. From jacksonmuthi at gmail.com Mon Oct 3 10:41:46 2016 From: jacksonmuthi at gmail.com (Jackson Muthili) Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2016 04:41:46 -0600 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum In-Reply-To: References: <2051404717.8112990.1475393789194.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <2051404717.8112990.1475393789194@mail.yahoo.com> <5F7B42EF-85A9-4997-BC8F-9BFB4381D63D@liquidtelecom.com> <7ECBCC26-69EF-4928-9DA2-3AA34DA50CB1@trstech.net> Message-ID: On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 4:25 AM, Andrew Alston wrote: > Jackson, > > Again, let me clarify my use of wording: > > Firstly - do I believe that it is irresponsible when I believe that someone is advocating for ignoring the law. Yes - I do, and my opinions my offend some, but I will not be limited in what I say because it may tread on toes if I believe what I am saying is the truth. > > Secondly - when I use the word na?ve, let's look at the definition of such: > > (of a person or action) showing a lack of experience, wisdom, or judgment. > > Do I believe that it is unwise to advocate for ignoring the act? Yes I do. > > If my stating that I believe these things offends someone - then I apologise for offense caused. I do not however apologise for stating them. > > It is a fine line we tread - where often the truth of a matter is disputed, and in taking any position, you are quite likely to offend someone who disagrees with your position, particularly when the position you are taking is taken in an unequivocal manner. In this case, I was unequivocal, it is my sincere and utmost believe that ignoring any text is unwise, reckless, irresponsible and shows a lack of judgement. > > Again, as I stated in what I said to Mirriam, the section to which I was referring to was one specific line: > >> One would expect the debate to stay at the community level and not involve the Act. The community to discuss and agree on how to manage this issue. > > So - if I offended people through the choice of words - apologies. For the sentiment behind those words - those I stand by in entirety. For the record I agree with the principles behind your argument. You could however use a better choice of words to avoid annoying people and deliver the same message politely and respectfully. Yes I know what naive and irresponsible mean. When dealing with fellow adults and professionals those words are mostly inappropriate. The intent behind which Alain stated his arguments was not a bad one. You cannot call him naive and irresponsible because your viewpoint and his did not align. Simply make known civilly (and calmly) your viewpoint. He will then be more open to understanding yours. -- From alan.barrett at afrinic.net Mon Oct 3 11:03:05 2016 From: alan.barrett at afrinic.net (Alan Barrett) Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2016 15:03:05 +0400 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum In-Reply-To: References: <2051404717.8112990.1475393789194.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <2051404717.8112990.1475393789194@mail.yahoo.com> <5F7B42EF-85A9-4997-BC8F-9BFB4381D63D@liquidtelecom.com> <7ECBCC26-69EF-4928-9DA2-3AA34DA50CB1@trstech.net> Message-ID: <84611736-F109-4BE6-9FC9-4ED7A1290EF8@afrinic.net> Dear Andrew, I ask that you use more diplomatic words to express your opinions. Alan Barrett From Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com Mon Oct 3 11:12:11 2016 From: Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com (Andrew Alston) Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2016 11:12:11 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum In-Reply-To: <84611736-F109-4BE6-9FC9-4ED7A1290EF8@afrinic.net> References: <2051404717.8112990.1475393789194.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <2051404717.8112990.1475393789194@mail.yahoo.com> <5F7B42EF-85A9-4997-BC8F-9BFB4381D63D@liquidtelecom.com> <7ECBCC26-69EF-4928-9DA2-3AA34DA50CB1@trstech.net> <84611736-F109-4BE6-9FC9-4ED7A1290EF8@afrinic.net> Message-ID: Alan, Again, and this will be my last word on the subject - I have very strong opinions on what was stated in that line that I have quoted in my previous two emails on this subject. These are opinions, and I believe that the sentiment that I wished to convey was that the words used could have ramifications and were dangerous. If someone can give me a more diplomatic way to convey the same sentiment - I'm more than happy to hear it - many times my words are designed to convey a sentiment and unfortunately cause offense - happy to learn new words - so long as the sentiment behind the words remains the same :) Andrew -----Original Message----- From: Alan Barrett [mailto:alan.barrett at afrinic.net] Sent: 03 October 2016 14:03 To: Andrew Alston Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum Dear Andrew, I ask that you use more diplomatic words to express your opinions. Alan Barrett From boubakarbarry at gmail.com Mon Oct 3 11:19:49 2016 From: boubakarbarry at gmail.com (Boubakar Barry) Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2016 11:19:49 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum In-Reply-To: <84611736-F109-4BE6-9FC9-4ED7A1290EF8@afrinic.net> References: <2051404717.8112990.1475393789194.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <2051404717.8112990.1475393789194@mail.yahoo.com> <5F7B42EF-85A9-4997-BC8F-9BFB4381D63D@liquidtelecom.com> <7ECBCC26-69EF-4928-9DA2-3AA34DA50CB1@trstech.net> <84611736-F109-4BE6-9FC9-4ED7A1290EF8@afrinic.net> Message-ID: I don't think it's about diplomacy; it's rather about politeness and maturity. Boubakar On Monday, 3 October 2016, Alan Barrett wrote: > Dear Andrew, > > I ask that you use more diplomatic words to express your opinions. > > Alan Barrett > > > _______________________________________________ > Community-Discuss mailing list > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Omo.Oaiya at wacren.net Mon Oct 3 14:13:37 2016 From: Omo.Oaiya at wacren.net (Omo Oaiya) Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2016 15:13:37 +0100 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum In-Reply-To: References: <2051404717.8112990.1475393789194.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <2051404717.8112990.1475393789194@mail.yahoo.com> <5F7B42EF-85A9-4997-BC8F-9BFB4381D63D@liquidtelecom.com> <7ECBCC26-69EF-4928-9DA2-3AA34DA50CB1@trstech.net> <84611736-F109-4BE6-9FC9-4ED7A1290EF8@afrinic.net> Message-ID: Strong or not, you should be able to understand that it is just an opinion whether in your personal capacity or as Afrinic director. When one filters the noise out, the issue boils down to the supremacy of the Mauritius code which if taken to the letter as you so emphatically propose empowers only registered members ie directors of AfriNIC over the bylaws which empower everyone in the community (resource+registered members+interested parties). Very simple to me. Omo. On 3 Oct 2016 12:13 p.m., "Andrew Alston" wrote: > Alan, > > Again, and this will be my last word on the subject - > > I have very strong opinions on what was stated in that line that I have > quoted in my previous two emails on this subject. These are opinions, and > I believe that the sentiment that I wished to convey was that the words > used could have ramifications and were dangerous. If someone can give me a > more diplomatic way to convey the same sentiment - I'm more than happy to > hear it - many times my words are designed to convey a sentiment and > unfortunately cause offense - happy to learn new words - so long as the > sentiment behind the words remains the same :) > > Andrew > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Alan Barrett [mailto:alan.barrett at afrinic.net] > Sent: 03 October 2016 14:03 > To: Andrew Alston > Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC > Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum > > Dear Andrew, > > I ask that you use more diplomatic words to express your opinions. > > Alan Barrett > > > _______________________________________________ > Community-Discuss mailing list > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gnonkoto.patrick at artci.ci Mon Oct 3 14:30:44 2016 From: gnonkoto.patrick at artci.ci (GH.-GNONKOTO Serges PATRICK) Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2016 14:30:44 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Salut, Je crois qu'il faut se garder de tenir de propos d?sobligeants car ce n'est ni le lieu et le moment. Car qui peut avoir cette outrecuidance de lancer une invective sur son coll?gue ? Andrew, il y a eu de revenir sur tes propos et consid?rer que quelqu'un d'autre puisse avoir une id?e divergente de la tienne sans pourtant ?tre ''irresponsable'' (entre griffes, pour ?viter d'employer tes mots) ! La question ici est relative au quorum et au nombre de repr?sentativit?. Nous attelons-nous ? ?a et recentrons le d?bat. Patrick. [cid:image001.jpg at 01D071F4.5E155680] [logo-artci-test] www.artci.ci Serges Patrick GHANSAH-GNONKOTO Chef de service Gestion des Noms de domaine et Adresses IP Head of Service Domain names and IP addresses Management Chef du Projet de Mise en ?uvre du plan national de d?ploiement de l?IPv6 Head of Implementation Project of the national plan of IPv6 deployment Direction des Syst?mes d?information et des Transactions Electroniques T?l?phone : +225 20 34 43 73 / Poste 7960 Mobile : +225 05 28 90 20 Fax : +225 20 34 43 75 Email : gnonkoto.patrick at artci.ci gnonkoto.patrick at nic.ci gnonkoto.patrick at testbedipv6.ci ________________________________ De : community-discuss-request at afrinic.net Envoy? : lundi 3 octobre 2016 12:00 ? : community-discuss at afrinic.net Objet : Community-Discuss Digest, Vol 68, Issue 1 Send Community-Discuss mailing list submissions to community-discuss at afrinic.net To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to community-discuss-request at afrinic.net You can reach the person managing the list at community-discuss-owner at afrinic.net When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Community-Discuss digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: Accountability assessment - quorum (Frank Habicht) 2. Re: Accountability assessment - quorum (ALAIN AINA) 3. Re: Accountability assessment - quorum (Andrew Alston) 4. Re: Accountability assessment - quorum (Jackson Muthili) 5. Re: Accountability assessment - quorum (Andrew Alston) 6. Re: [members-discuss] Accountability assessment- bylaws changes (L.A. Ym) 7. Re: [members-discuss] Accountability assessment - bylaws changes (Ben Roberts) 8. Re: [afnog] IPv6 in Zimbabwe (Barrack Otieno) 9. Re: [afnog] IPv6 in Zimbabwe (ARTHUR CARINDAL) 10. Re: [afnog] IPv6 in Zimbabwe (Musa Stephen Honlue) 11. Re: [afnog] IPv6 in Zimbabwe (Miku, E. Cornelius) 12. Re: [afnog] IPv6 in Zimbabwe (Loganaden Velvindron) 13. Re: Accountability assessment - quorum (Jackson Muthili) 14. Re: Accountability assessment - quorum (Alan Barrett) 15. Re: Accountability assessment - quorum (Andrew Alston) 16. Re: Accountability assessment - quorum (Boubakar Barry) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2016 08:58:48 +0300 From: Frank Habicht To: community-discuss at afrinic.net Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum Message-ID: <98879168-84f0-6339-dcbd-24713e494d68 at geier.ne.tz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Hi Alain, On 10/1/2016 4:54 PM, ALAIN AINA wrote: ... > Referring to the Act beyond what its applied to "Registered members" > seems inappropriate and can lead to questioning may other things? ... I want to ask and not assume. Do you mean that "questioning other things" is a bad thing? Or was this an invitation to "question other things", like the ones you listed? That's because I was understanding the first, and someone else understood the latter. Thanks, Frank ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2016 12:35:20 +0400 From: ALAIN AINA To: General Discussions of AFRINIC Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum Message-ID: <7ECBCC26-69EF-4928-9DA2-3AA34DA50CB1 at trstech.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Hello Andrew, I respect Afrinic Directors and follow good rules of conduct. So I will not return to the disparaging words used in your response to me. Let me put this in a few points here again: 1- I never said to not follow or comply with Law 2- I called for clear understanding between an Act provision applying to ?registered members? and not to ?resources members?. 2- AFRINIC has always followed the Act, laws, but also accommodates its community oversight. The limit at ?5? of the number of proxy is lawful when applied to ?registered members?. How ? Quorum at Members general meeting is set as follow: ====== ii) The quorum for an Annual General Member meeting shall be composed of minimum of ten (10) members in person comprising: a) Four (4) Directors elected to represent a region; b) One (1) Director elected on a non-regional criterion; and c) Five (5) Resource Members. ========== So five (5) registered members in person are required. With nine (9) registered members in total and a quorum requirement of five (5) members in person how many proxies can a registered member carry to a valid AGMM ? The limit to ?5? means ?no limit for the registered members? and that complies to the act. Hope this helps ?Alain > On Oct 2, 2016, at 12:26 PM, Andrew Alston wrote: > > Mirriam, > > I was speaking in my personal capacity ? firstly - and I stand by my right to do that. > > Secondly ? What was the point? Let me tell you a story ? In Djibouti there was an attempt to block several proxies using an argument of company stamps. That argument went on for many days ? it was eventually invalidated ? because it was determined that it would disenfranchise the members who had no company stamps and was invalid. However, it was a direct attempt to stop certain things through the change of the rules (well, that is my impression). > > I take serious issue with this statement specifically: > > One would expect the debate to stay at the community level and not involve the Act. The community to discuss and agree on how to manage this issue. > > You cannot ignore the act ? I am not a lawyer ? my reading of the act is in laymans terms ? and there are many lawyers that can contradict what I?m saying and I?m ok with that. I was NOT arguing from the perspective of proxies here ? look at the holistic essence of my email ? the only place I referenced proxies was as a specific example of how the companies act can restrict the bylaws from overriding it. > > What I was saying is that leaving the act out of an argument about the bylaws doesn?t make sense and is ? in my view ? irresponsible. The act is supreme and overriding, and ignoring it can have serious consequences. > > I stand by the position that ignoring the law is dangerous. > > Andrew > > > > From: Mirriam > Reply-To: Mirriam > Date: Sunday, 2 October 2016 at 10:36 > To: Andrew Alston > Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC > Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum > > On 1 Oct 2016 19:07, "Andrew Alston" wrote: > > > > Alain, > > > > Quite frankly ? I think what you have said here is, at best, extremely naive and at worst incredibly irresponsible. > > > > > Hi Andrew, > You need to calm down. No one here is naive or irresponsible so mind how you respond to others and have some respect else Afrinic code of conduct comes into play and i hope the CEO and Chair will caution you. > In fact your message is full of exaggeration. What exactly is your point considering following this discussion you seem to have jumped arguments from company bylaws to company act? > Everyone herein is well aware that our " Afrinic is a private company registered in Mauritius with a Community Oversight through its Bylaws and remains a community/resource members driven organisation" otherwise we would not all be here deliberating on how to improve the organisation. > You are one of the directors elected to the board to respresent the very resource members who elected you and as such you are answerable to us just as all the other directors who the membership sends to the board. > So what exactly is your point with that long email as what was being discussed was plain simple proxy limits? > > Mirriam > > _______________________________________________ > Community-Discuss mailing list > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2016 08:49:21 +0000 From: Andrew Alston To: ALAIN AINA , General Discussions of AFRINIC Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Writing in my personal capacity. Firstly, let me point out that anything I write on this list ? unless explicitly stated ? is written in my personal capacity and not as a director. What I write here is not necessarily representative of the wider board views and should the board be taking a position on something it will be communicated as such via the chairperson or someone delegated that responsibility by the board. So please, let us not mis-interpret my words as the words of the board. Secondly ? my understanding of this situation is actually more complex than what is being stated on these lists. Let us examine the clause in question: (viii) No member entitled to vote during an election held by the Company shall carry more than five (5) proxies during the said election; and There is no limitation anywhere ? and I would argue that you cannot limit this either ? that states that proxies must be given to members. In fact in no proxy that I have seen used at AFRINIC is a proxy issued to a member, it is issued to an individual who then represents the entity that granted the proxy. As such, the above clause is null and void. As an example: If entity X issued a proxy to a specific COMPANY (or Member) ? then the limit would apply. If entity X issued a proxy to a person who was a member in their own right (which ONLY applies to my knowledge in the case of an extremely limited number of associate members) ? the limit would apply. If entity X issued a proxy to a person who was NOT a member in their own right, but merely WORKED for a member, then the proxy has been issued to a non-member, and the above clause is null and void and has no application. Under your argument ? if the proxy is issued to a registered member ? by the act the rule would not apply. This also deals with the fact that registered members are members in their own right (as with the associate members referred to above) ? so again ? the limitation does not apply. Effectively, my reading of the above clause in the bylaws is that it is a mute point and the text in the bylaws is extraneous since it is not in any way enforceable. Again ? open to hearing legal opinion on this. Thanks Andrew From: ALAIN AINA [mailto:aalain at trstech.net] Sent: 03 October 2016 11:35 To: General Discussions of AFRINIC Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum Hello Andrew, I respect Afrinic Directors and follow good rules of conduct. So I will not return to the disparaging words used in your response to me. Let me put this in a few points here again: 1- I never said to not follow or comply with Law 2- I called for clear understanding between an Act provision applying to ?registered members? and not to ?resources members?. 2- AFRINIC has always followed the Act, laws, but also accommodates its community oversight. The limit at ?5? of the number of proxy is lawful when applied to ?registered members?. How ? Quorum at Members general meeting is set as follow: ====== ii) The quorum for an Annual General Member meeting shall be composed of minimum of ten (10) members in person comprising: a) Four (4) Directors elected to represent a region; b) One (1) Director elected on a non-regional criterion; and c) Five (5) Resource Members. ========== So five (5) registered members in person are required. With nine (9) registered members in total and a quorum requirement of five (5) members in person how many proxies can a registered member carry to a valid AGMM ? The limit to ?5? means ?no limit for the registered members? and that complies to the act. Hope this helps ?Alain On Oct 2, 2016, at 12:26 PM, Andrew Alston > wrote: Mirriam, I was speaking in my personal capacity ? firstly - and I stand by my right to do that. Secondly ? What was the point? Let me tell you a story ? In Djibouti there was an attempt to block several proxies using an argument of company stamps. That argument went on for many days ? it was eventually invalidated ? because it was determined that it would disenfranchise the members who had no company stamps and was invalid. However, it was a direct attempt to stop certain things through the change of the rules (well, that is my impression). I take serious issue with this statement specifically: One would expect the debate to stay at the community level and not involve the Act. The community to discuss and agree on how to manage this issue. You cannot ignore the act ? I am not a lawyer ? my reading of the act is in laymans terms ? and there are many lawyers that can contradict what I?m saying and I?m ok with that. I was NOT arguing from the perspective of proxies here ? look at the holistic essence of my email ? the only place I referenced proxies was as a specific example of how the companies act can restrict the bylaws from overriding it. What I was saying is that leaving the act out of an argument about the bylaws doesn?t make sense and is ? in my view ? irresponsible. The act is supreme and overriding, and ignoring it can have serious consequences. I stand by the position that ignoring the law is dangerous. Andrew From: Mirriam > Reply-To: Mirriam > Date: Sunday, 2 October 2016 at 10:36 To: Andrew Alston > Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC > Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum On 1 Oct 2016 19:07, "Andrew Alston" > wrote: > > Alain, > > Quite frankly ? I think what you have said here is, at best, extremely naive and at worst incredibly irresponsible. > > Hi Andrew, You need to calm down. No one here is naive or irresponsible so mind how you respond to others and have some respect else Afrinic code of conduct comes into play and i hope the CEO and Chair will caution you. In fact your message is full of exaggeration. What exactly is your point considering following this discussion you seem to have jumped arguments from company bylaws to company act? Everyone herein is well aware that our " Afrinic is a private company registered in Mauritius with a Community Oversight through its Bylaws and remains a community/resource members driven organisation" otherwise we would not all be here deliberating on how to improve the organisation. You are one of the directors elected to the board to respresent the very resource members who elected you and as such you are answerable to us just as all the other directors who the membership sends to the board. So what exactly is your point with that long email as what was being discussed was plain simple proxy limits? Mirriam _______________________________________________ Community-Discuss mailing list Community-Discuss at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2016 04:10:26 -0600 From: Jackson Muthili To: Andrew Alston Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 2:49 AM, Andrew Alston wrote: > Writing in my personal capacity. > > Firstly, let me point out that anything I write on this list ? unless > explicitly stated ? is written in my personal capacity and not as a > director. Why are you disrespectful of others in your personal capacity? > What I write here is not necessarily representative of the wider > board views and should the board be taking a position on something it will > be communicated as such via the chairperson or someone delegated that > responsibility by the board. So please, let us not mis-interpret my words > as the words of the board. You said wrote to Alain " Quite frankly ? I think what you have said here is, at best, extremely naive and at worst incredibly irresponsible." You use this kind of language most of the time and this is not good. It is intimidating to new people trying to join discussion and air their opinion and is clear expression of an autocratic mind. Why cant you tolerate and maturely engage in a respectful way? Alain say he respects AfriNIC directors and you are one of them. It has nothing to do with your personal views. You are still a Director of AfriNIC and an important person in your other capacities. Please please just be mindful of peoples feelings and use euphemisms that can deliver the same message in a respectful way. ------------------------------ Message: 5 Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2016 10:25:14 +0000 From: Andrew Alston To: Jackson Muthili Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Jackson, Again, let me clarify my use of wording: Firstly - do I believe that it is irresponsible when I believe that someone is advocating for ignoring the law. Yes - I do, and my opinions my offend some, but I will not be limited in what I say because it may tread on toes if I believe what I am saying is the truth. Secondly - when I use the word na?ve, let's look at the definition of such: (of a person or action) showing a lack of experience, wisdom, or judgment. Do I believe that it is unwise to advocate for ignoring the act? Yes I do. If my stating that I believe these things offends someone - then I apologise for offense caused. I do not however apologise for stating them. It is a fine line we tread - where often the truth of a matter is disputed, and in taking any position, you are quite likely to offend someone who disagrees with your position, particularly when the position you are taking is taken in an unequivocal manner. In this case, I was unequivocal, it is my sincere and utmost believe that ignoring any text is unwise, reckless, irresponsible and shows a lack of judgement. Again, as I stated in what I said to Mirriam, the section to which I was referring to was one specific line: > One would expect the debate to stay at the community level and not involve the Act. The community to discuss and agree on how to manage this issue. So - if I offended people through the choice of words - apologies. For the sentiment behind those words - those I stand by in entirety. Andrew -----Original Message----- From: Jackson Muthili [mailto:jacksonmuthi at gmail.com] Sent: 03 October 2016 13:10 To: Andrew Alston Cc: ALAIN AINA ; General Discussions of AFRINIC Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 2:49 AM, Andrew Alston wrote: > Writing in my personal capacity. > > Firstly, let me point out that anything I write on this list ? unless > explicitly stated ? is written in my personal capacity and not as a > director. Why are you disrespectful of others in your personal capacity? > What I write here is not necessarily representative of the wider board > views and should the board be taking a position on something it will > be communicated as such via the chairperson or someone delegated that > responsibility by the board. So please, let us not mis-interpret my > words as the words of the board. You said wrote to Alain " Quite frankly ? I think what you have said here is, at best, extremely naive and at worst incredibly irresponsible." You use this kind of language most of the time and this is not good. It is intimidating to new people trying to join discussion and air their opinion and is clear expression of an autocratic mind. Why cant you tolerate and maturely engage in a respectful way? Alain say he respects AfriNIC directors and you are one of them. It has nothing to do with your personal views. You are still a Director of AfriNIC and an important person in your other capacities. Please please just be mindful of peoples feelings and use euphemisms that can deliver the same message in a respectful way. ------------------------------ Message: 6 Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2016 16:34:22 +0300 From: "L.A. Ym" To: "Boubakar Barry" , "General Discussions of AFRINIC" Cc: members-discuss at afrinic.net Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] [members-discuss] Accountability assessment- bylaws changes Message-ID: <1C9E2EFFD30E451182FA79832E2A1C8B at toshiba> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" +1 Agree with Boubakar Lala From: Boubakar Barry Sent: Monday, September 19, 2016 12:44 AM To: General Discussions of AFRINIC Cc: members-discuss at afrinic.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment- bylaws changes On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 9:05 PM, Jackson Muthili wrote: On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 12:40 PM, Douglas Onyango wrote: > Hi Alan, > Thanks for sharing this document. It will form a solid basis for continued > deliberation on amendments of the bylaws. > > Regarding #1, specifically the Associate Members' right to (or not) vote, I > was, and still I am opposed to the idea of rescinding the Associate Members > rights to vote. > > Rationale: when an Associate Member is stripped of the right to vote, > he/she is in reality as empowered -- or un-empowered -- as the rest of the > AFRINIC community. AFRINIC would effectively be asking Associate members and > prospects to fork out Associate Membership fees, but offering nothing over > and above "AFRINIC community" status, which poses at least two problems: > First, NO ONE of sound mind, with full understanding of these facts, would > want to be an Associate members, and secondly, AFRINIC would be out-rightly > fleecing its members by charging membership fees and providing no value in > return, neither one of which is desirable. > > Therefore, the Associate Membership category should be imbued with voting > rights -- or some other value add that is codified in the bylaws, barring > which the category should effectively be expunged from the bylaws. +1 If any tier is named "member", such as "associate member"; such tier MUST be given voting rights. Absent of this - it would be a useless membership status. Why be a member of an establishment that cannot let one exercise a simple right like a vote to enable effect change? Let associate members vote or get rid of this membership tier. Simple. Not sure it's as simple as that. Do we want to encourage people/organisations to be be associate members just because of granted voting rights that have the potential of affecting resource members only? I know of organisations in which members are happy to be non-voting associate members because it gives them opportunities to contribute financially to the sustainability of these organisations, without benefiting from core services. Just because they share values of these organisations and want to support them. We can of course think of advantages we can give to associate members to acknowledge their commitment and support. But I would not support giving voting rights to associate members. I would rather be for removing this membership category instead. B. > > > Regards, > > On 16 September 2016 at 17:17, Alan Barrett > wrote: >> >> On 10 June, I posted a document describing potential areas for improvement >> in the Bylaws as a result of an accountability assessment. I invited the >> community and membership to comment on these issues. >> >> I have considered the discussion, and I have asked the legal adviser to >> draft appropriate changes to the bylaws. In some cases, I have edited the >> legal adviser?s text. In some cases, more drafting work is needed and >> proposed text of bylaws changes is not yet available. >> >> I attach a document with the proposed bylaws changes. >> >> Alan Barrett >> CEO, AFRINIC >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Community-Discuss mailing list >> Community-Discuss at afrinic.net >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss >> > > > > -- > Douglas Onyango, PRINCE 2, ITILv3 > UG: +256 776 716 138 > > _______________________________________________ > Community-Discuss mailing list > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss > _______________________________________________ Community-Discuss mailing list Community-Discuss at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Members-Discuss mailing list Members-Discuss at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: ------------------------------ Message: 7 Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2016 21:43:47 +0000 From: Ben Roberts To: ALAIN AINA Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC , "members-discuss at afrinic.net" Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] [members-discuss] Accountability assessment - bylaws changes Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" While we debate what consensus means I maybe have lost the thread of what we were looking for consensus on. ? There was something about associate members and if they should have voting rights I recall? Associate member category is really for interested parties who want to 'join in' but not be part of things properly and pay the full fees and use the services. So maybe it might include research partners, people who want to come along to our meetings and present and sell us stuff, etc etc So no. The associate member category should not have the same voting benefits as a LIR member. Sent from my iPhone On 20 Sep 2016, at 11:24 PM, ALAIN AINA > wrote: Hi, On Sep 20, 2016, at 9:27 AM, Andrew Alston > wrote: Ok, We need to stop for a moment and look at reality ? not wishful thinking. Firstly ? I am hearing talk of rough consensus ? and while consensus is applicable in many areas, I am far from convinced this is one of them. The ONLY place consensus has in this regard is to get a vague indication of which way the vote may go on a particular issue. However, you can get total consensus on this list and beyond ? and still stand a good chance of things not passing. Why is this ? consensus is defined as being reached when all substantive objections have been addressed. However, a substantive objection has to have meaning, that is to say, there is some validity in what people are objecting to. And those can all be addressed, but when the non-substantive, the illogical, the uninformed, the emotional, or whatever, arguments come into it ? those cannot be taken into account in consensus. However, to accept or reject bylaw changes is not done by consensus. It is done by *super majority* vote. So, get all the consensus you like, you have a VAGUE indication ? but nothing more than that ? because if people on the day go ?I don?t like this, and it?s not worth arguing about, so I will simply argue with my vote?, and they vote no, things still won?t pass. Until we amend the bylaws(as suggested by point 11 of the CEO document [ Modification to the Bylaws or Constitution]), the ?Super Majority? you are referring to means "Super Majority of the registered members (the current Board members)". So the board could easily amend the bylaws without involving the community if it is only the voting which matter. By involving the community, one expects that we listen to community, helps the community build consensus on the amendments and then adopt them by the "Super Majority". This community only makes decision by Rough Consensus and does not vote. Voting is for the members who are the "Registered members". So, let me now talk about committees ? for what purpose? So that the ?committee? can propose something and people just accept it? So that the ?committee? can judge consensus somehow better than one person? So the ?committee? can take all the inputs and collate them into some nice document better than one person can? Yes and also lead the consensus building. It is also important to note that while amending bylaws to improve accountability is it not advisable that ?Only" interested parties (CEO, board..) lead the process. Guess what ? it?s all meaningless ? because at the end of the day ? no matter who proposes, no matter what form ? if members like the PRINCIPLE behind the change, they will vote in favor of it. If they don?t, no matter who proposes it, they will vote against it. And committees, individuals, whatever, it?s all meaningless if on the day, the *SUPER MAJORITY VOTE* does not pass. That means for every 1 vote that is cast against, there must be 3 votes for. This is not a feel good game ? this is the law. In the same way, any individual can bring something to the floor and once its n the notice of meeting while it can be discussed on the floor, the resolution *CANNOT BE CHANGED* other than basic minor edits ? it can only be withdrawn. Yes ? I like the idea of consensus to gauge what may or may not pass ? and I believe that is what Alan has been trying to gauge before putting things to the floor. End of the day though ?it?s a nice idea, but has zero impact on the outcome. Not sure. We did a bylaws review in 2012 and the approach did work smoothly Hope this helps ?Alain Andrew From: Arnaud AMELINA > Reply-To: General Discussions of AFRINIC > Date: Monday, 19 September 2016 at 22:14 To: General Discussions of AFRINIC > Cc: "members-discuss at afrinic.net" > Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] [members-discuss] Accountability assessment - bylaws changes +1 @Alain Regards Arnaud 2016-09-19 19:56 GMT+00:00 ALAIN AINA >: Hi, Let?s fix the process and better organise this critical review of the bylawsl. I do support the idea of a committee . ?Alain On Sep 19, 2016, at 4:25 PM, Bope Domilongo Christian > wrote: Dear CEO, [speaking as a member of the community] Following last week discussion on the accountability review and others points raised by the community which was not in your original document, here my response. 1. On the Accountability Review. This review is from an independent AFRINIC's accountability review which identified areas need to be improved. Improving RIR accountability is very important in this context of IANA stewardship transition where the community will be exercising important role in the oversight of the IANA functions. So it is very crucial that the community gives this discussion the required attention and the consensual approach is more needed. It will be unfortunate if we did not follow these important improvements due to lack of consensus. 2. on the Process It was expected that the community discuss, express view and concern thereafter the Leadership will do his best effort to build consensus. Consensus here is strictly in the sense of RIR practices mean The Rough Consensus Model [1]. Ideally, people shall be encourage to comment on the list for the sake of archive and off list contribution should be discouraged and not accepted. That why some members of the community suggested the creation of a committee to lead the process. 3. On the discussion. Community has expressed views on each points. As expected there were convergences and divergences. For example, points 3,4, 5 had active and intensive discussions while reading may sound like profound disagreement. We shall now entire to the consensus building mode by opening the disagreement views and addressing one by one then we'll build ROUGH CONSENSUS. Another example, on point 11, there was no objection, but some suggestions even propose more such as "Registered Members only MUST never amend the bylaws, ..." and The proposed amendment should be published not less than 60 days and not more than 90 days before, with the provisions for more members to comment online and in any meeting held during the consultation period" 4. On the other points. Beyond the 12 points, some areas of improvements were suggested. For example, https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/community-discuss/2016-June/000350.html lists some of the points [1] https://www.nro.net/about-the-nro/rir-accountability on section 1.4 Regards, Bope On 19 September 2016 at 17:03, Andrew Alston > wrote: I agree with the sentiments as echoed by Boubakar below. Thanks Andrew From: Mike Silber > Reply-To: General Discussions of AFRINIC > Date: Monday, 19 September 2016 at 10:39 To: General Discussions of AFRINIC > Cc: "members-discuss at afrinic.net" > Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - bylaws changes On 18 Sep 2016, at 23:44, Boubakar Barry > wrote: ? We can of course think of advantages we can give to associate members to acknowledge their commitment and support. But I would not support giving voting rights to associate members. I would rather be for removing this membership category instead. Boubakar +1 _______________________________________________ Members-Discuss mailing list Members-Discuss at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss _______________________________________________ Community-Discuss mailing list Community-Discuss at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss _______________________________________________ Community-Discuss mailing list Community-Discuss at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss _______________________________________________ Community-Discuss mailing list Community-Discuss at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss _______________________________________________ Members-Discuss mailing list Members-Discuss at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: ------------------------------ Message: 8 Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 08:50:50 +0300 From: Barrack Otieno To: Andrew Alston Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC , afnog Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] [afnog] IPv6 in Zimbabwe Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Well done Andrew and Liquid, Way to go, where next?:-) Regards On 9/29/16, Andrew Alston wrote: > Hi Guys, > > So, let another exciting announcement ? I apologize for the cross posting to > both lists but I figured there were aspects of interest in both forums in > what follows. > > Yesterday we turned up IPv6 on our consumer products in Zimbabwe. There are > now in excess of 10 thousand FTTH users in Zimbabwe with active, live, > native IPv6 ? and they are actively using it. This was the next phase after > our smaller rollout in Kenya done a few weeks ago. > > We crossed the 1.5gigabit/second of consumer v6 traffic last night in that > particular location ? and even more exciting, more than 70% of that traffic > was sourced from CDN nodes and African peering ? it did NOT come via long > distance international links from Europe. > > On the AFRINIC side ? we followed the policy and registered each and every > static customer assignment in the whois database ? it held up well as we > sent a bulk update with close to 15 thousand /48 assignments in a single > update ? my congrats to the AfriNIC team because that was one hell of a long > update to process in one go. > > So, with that said, others talk about being IPv6 ready ? we can now proudly > say we have gone from being IPv6 ready to being truly IPv6 active. > > I expect the google stats and apnic stats will probably update in the next 2 > or 3 days and it will be curious to see what shows up. Let?s wait and see > as the updates happen. > > Thanks > > Andrew > > > > -- Barrack O. Otieno +254721325277 +254733206359 Skype: barrack.otieno PGP ID: 0x2611D86A ------------------------------ Message: 9 Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 11:49:09 +0530 From: ARTHUR CARINDAL To: Andrew Alston Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC , afnog Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] [afnog] IPv6 in Zimbabwe Message-ID: <78A43B26-660D-4B1A-94D5-339715D6ED62 at afrinic.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Dear Andrew We did appreciate your collaboration. And once again, well done! Regards _______________________________________________________________ Arthur Carindal N. Head of Member Services, AFRINIC Ltd. t: +230 403 5100 | f: +230 466 6758 | tt: @afrinic | w: www.afrinic.net facebook.com/afrinic | flickr.com/afrinic | youtube.com/afrinicmedia _______________________________________________________________ Join us for the AFRINIC-25 meeting in Mauritius, 25 to 30 November 2016 > On 29 Sep 2016, at 10:39 AM, Andrew Alston wrote: > > Hi Guys, > > So, let another exciting announcement ? I apologize for the cross posting to both lists but I figured there were aspects of interest in both forums in what follows. > > Yesterday we turned up IPv6 on our consumer products in Zimbabwe. There are now in excess of 10 thousand FTTH users in Zimbabwe with active, live, native IPv6 ? and they are actively using it. This was the next phase after our smaller rollout in Kenya done a few weeks ago. > > We crossed the 1.5gigabit/second of consumer v6 traffic last night in that particular location ? and even more exciting, more than 70% of that traffic was sourced from CDN nodes and African peering ? it did NOT come via long distance international links from Europe. > > On the AFRINIC side ? we followed the policy and registered each and every static customer assignment in the whois database ? it held up well as we sent a bulk update with close to 15 thousand /48 assignments in a single update ? my congrats to the AfriNIC team because that was one hell of a long update to process in one go. > > So, with that said, others talk about being IPv6 ready ? we can now proudly say we have gone from being IPv6 ready to being truly IPv6 active. > > I expect the google stats and apnic stats will probably update in the next 2 or 3 days and it will be curious to see what shows up. Let?s wait and see as the updates happen. > > Thanks > > Andrew > > > > _______________________________________________ > afnog mailing list > https://www.afnog.org/mailman/listinfo/afnog -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: ------------------------------ Message: 10 Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 10:50:07 +0400 From: Musa Stephen Honlue To: Barrack Otieno Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC , afnog Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] [afnog] IPv6 in Zimbabwe Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Well done. On Sep 29, 2016 09:51, "Barrack Otieno" wrote: > Well done Andrew and Liquid, > > Way to go, where next?:-) > > > Regards > > On 9/29/16, Andrew Alston wrote: > > Hi Guys, > > > > So, let another exciting announcement ? I apologize for the cross > posting to > > both lists but I figured there were aspects of interest in both forums in > > what follows. > > > > Yesterday we turned up IPv6 on our consumer products in Zimbabwe. There > are > > now in excess of 10 thousand FTTH users in Zimbabwe with active, live, > > native IPv6 ? and they are actively using it. This was the next phase > after > > our smaller rollout in Kenya done a few weeks ago. > > > > We crossed the 1.5gigabit/second of consumer v6 traffic last night in > that > > particular location ? and even more exciting, more than 70% of that > traffic > > was sourced from CDN nodes and African peering ? it did NOT come via long > > distance international links from Europe. > > > > On the AFRINIC side ? we followed the policy and registered each and > every > > static customer assignment in the whois database ? it held up well as we > > sent a bulk update with close to 15 thousand /48 assignments in a single > > update ? my congrats to the AfriNIC team because that was one hell of a > long > > update to process in one go. > > > > So, with that said, others talk about being IPv6 ready ? we can now > proudly > > say we have gone from being IPv6 ready to being truly IPv6 active. > > > > I expect the google stats and apnic stats will probably update in the > next 2 > > or 3 days and it will be curious to see what shows up. Let?s wait and > see > > as the updates happen. > > > > Thanks > > > > Andrew > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Barrack O. Otieno > +254721325277 > +254733206359 > Skype: barrack.otieno > PGP ID: 0x2611D86A > > _______________________________________________ > afnog mailing list > https://www.afnog.org/mailman/listinfo/afnog -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: ------------------------------ Message: 11 Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 11:48:59 +0300 From: "Miku, E. Cornelius" To: Andrew Alston Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC , afnog Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] [afnog] IPv6 in Zimbabwe Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Interesting news in deed. Congrats Andrew and Team. And AfriNIC. Regards, -- Miku On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 8:09 AM, Andrew Alston < Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com> wrote: > Hi Guys, > > > > So, let another exciting announcement ? I apologize for the cross posting > to both lists but I figured there were aspects of interest in both forums > in what follows. > > > > Yesterday we turned up IPv6 on our consumer products in Zimbabwe. There > are now in excess of 10 thousand FTTH users in Zimbabwe with active, live, > native IPv6 ? and they are actively using it. This was the next phase > after our smaller rollout in Kenya done a few weeks ago. > > > > We crossed the 1.5gigabit/second of consumer v6 traffic last night in that > particular location ? and even more exciting, more than 70% of that traffic > was sourced from CDN nodes and African peering ? it did NOT come via long > distance international links from Europe. > > > > On the AFRINIC side ? we followed the policy and registered each and every > static customer assignment in the whois database ? it held up well as we > sent a bulk update with close to 15 thousand /48 assignments in a single > update ? my congrats to the AfriNIC team because that was one hell of a > long update to process in one go. > > > > So, with that said, others talk about being IPv6 ready ? we can now > proudly say we have gone from being IPv6 ready to being truly IPv6 active. > > > > I expect the google stats and apnic stats will probably update in the next > 2 or 3 days and it will be curious to see what shows up. Let?s wait and > see as the updates happen. > > > > Thanks > > > > Andrew > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > afnog mailing list > https://www.afnog.org/mailman/listinfo/afnog > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: ------------------------------ Message: 12 Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 17:29:38 +0400 From: Loganaden Velvindron To: Andrew Alston Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC , afnog Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] [afnog] IPv6 in Zimbabwe Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 9:09 AM, Andrew Alston wrote: > Hi Guys, > > > > So, let another exciting announcement ? I apologize for the cross posting to > both lists but I figured there were aspects of interest in both forums in > what follows. > > > > Yesterday we turned up IPv6 on our consumer products in Zimbabwe. There are > now in excess of 10 thousand FTTH users in Zimbabwe with active, live, > native IPv6 ? and they are actively using it. This was the next phase after > our smaller rollout in Kenya done a few weeks ago. > > > > We crossed the 1.5gigabit/second of consumer v6 traffic last night in that > particular location ? and even more exciting, more than 70% of that traffic > was sourced from CDN nodes and African peering ? it did NOT come via long > distance international links from Europe. > > > > On the AFRINIC side ? we followed the policy and registered each and every > static customer assignment in the whois database ? it held up well as we > sent a bulk update with close to 15 thousand /48 assignments in a single > update ? my congrats to the AfriNIC team because that was one hell of a long > update to process in one go. > > > > So, with that said, others talk about being IPv6 ready ? we can now proudly > say we have gone from being IPv6 ready to being truly IPv6 active. > > > > I expect the google stats and apnic stats will probably update in the next 2 > or 3 days and it will be curious to see what shows up. Let?s wait and see > as the updates happen. > > > > Thanks > > > > Andrew > Hi Andrew, Congratulations, what is the particular model for the CPE ? ------------------------------ Message: 13 Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2016 04:41:46 -0600 From: Jackson Muthili To: Andrew Alston Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 4:25 AM, Andrew Alston wrote: > Jackson, > > Again, let me clarify my use of wording: > > Firstly - do I believe that it is irresponsible when I believe that someone is advocating for ignoring the law. Yes - I do, and my opinions my offend some, but I will not be limited in what I say because it may tread on toes if I believe what I am saying is the truth. > > Secondly - when I use the word na?ve, let's look at the definition of such: > > (of a person or action) showing a lack of experience, wisdom, or judgment. > > Do I believe that it is unwise to advocate for ignoring the act? Yes I do. > > If my stating that I believe these things offends someone - then I apologise for offense caused. I do not however apologise for stating them. > > It is a fine line we tread - where often the truth of a matter is disputed, and in taking any position, you are quite likely to offend someone who disagrees with your position, particularly when the position you are taking is taken in an unequivocal manner. In this case, I was unequivocal, it is my sincere and utmost believe that ignoring any text is unwise, reckless, irresponsible and shows a lack of judgement. > > Again, as I stated in what I said to Mirriam, the section to which I was referring to was one specific line: > >> One would expect the debate to stay at the community level and not involve the Act. The community to discuss and agree on how to manage this issue. > > So - if I offended people through the choice of words - apologies. For the sentiment behind those words - those I stand by in entirety. For the record I agree with the principles behind your argument. You could however use a better choice of words to avoid annoying people and deliver the same message politely and respectfully. Yes I know what naive and irresponsible mean. When dealing with fellow adults and professionals those words are mostly inappropriate. The intent behind which Alain stated his arguments was not a bad one. You cannot call him naive and irresponsible because your viewpoint and his did not align. Simply make known civilly (and calmly) your viewpoint. He will then be more open to understanding yours. -- ------------------------------ Message: 14 Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2016 15:03:05 +0400 From: Alan Barrett To: Andrew Alston Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum Message-ID: <84611736-F109-4BE6-9FC9-4ED7A1290EF8 at afrinic.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Dear Andrew, I ask that you use more diplomatic words to express your opinions. Alan Barrett ------------------------------ Message: 15 Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2016 11:12:11 +0000 From: Andrew Alston To: Alan Barrett Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252 Alan, Again, and this will be my last word on the subject - I have very strong opinions on what was stated in that line that I have quoted in my previous two emails on this subject. These are opinions, and I believe that the sentiment that I wished to convey was that the words used could have ramifications and were dangerous. If someone can give me a more diplomatic way to convey the same sentiment - I'm more than happy to hear it - many times my words are designed to convey a sentiment and unfortunately cause offense - happy to learn new words - so long as the sentiment behind the words remains the same :) Andrew -----Original Message----- From: Alan Barrett [mailto:alan.barrett at afrinic.net] Sent: 03 October 2016 14:03 To: Andrew Alston Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum Dear Andrew, I ask that you use more diplomatic words to express your opinions. Alan Barrett ------------------------------ Message: 16 Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2016 11:19:49 +0000 From: Boubakar Barry To: Alan Barrett Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" I don't think it's about diplomacy; it's rather about politeness and maturity. Boubakar On Monday, 3 October 2016, Alan Barrett wrote: > Dear Andrew, > > I ask that you use more diplomatic words to express your opinions. > > Alan Barrett > > > _______________________________________________ > Community-Discuss mailing list > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: ------------------------------ Subject: Digest Footer _______________________________________________ Community-Discuss mailing list Community-Discuss at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss ------------------------------ End of Community-Discuss Digest, Vol 68, Issue 1 ************************************************ Ce message et toutes les pi?ces jointes (ci-apr?s le "message") sont confidentiels et ?tablis ? l'intention exclusive de ses destinataires. Toute utilisation ou diffusion non autoris?e est interdite. Tout message ?lectronique est susceptible d'alt?ration, par cons?quent l'ARTCI d?cline toute responsabilit? au titre de ce message s'il a ?t? alt?r?, d?form? ou falsifi?. Ce message et toutes les pi?ces jointes (ci-apr?s le "message") sont confidentiels et ?tablis ? l'intention exclusive de ses destinataires. Toute utilisation ou diffusion non autoris?e est interdite. Tout message ?lectronique est susceptible d'alt?ration, par cons?quent l'ARTCI d?cline toute responsabilit? au titre de ce message s'il a ?t? alt?r?, d?form? ou falsifi?. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: OutlookEmoji-cid:image001.jpg at 01D071F4.5E155680.png Type: image/png Size: 1652 bytes Desc: OutlookEmoji-cid:image001.jpg at 01D071F4.5E155680.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: OutlookEmoji-logo-artci-test.png Type: image/png Size: 6922 bytes Desc: OutlookEmoji-logo-artci-test.png URL: From owen at delong.com Mon Oct 3 17:41:06 2016 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2016 10:41:06 -0700 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - bylaws changes In-Reply-To: References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <25F7D1CF-2E99-42D5-B047-20ED215C00B4@afrinic.net> Message-ID: <6AD995EB-CC30-4CCC-9381-8CD2581F3317@delong.com> I agree with Boubakar here. I think that granting associate membership voting rights is an invitation to organizational capture. Consider the relatively low voting participation as it stands (IIRC, the last time I was involved in counting an AfriNIC election, there were fewer than 200 total votes (possibly less than 100)). Consider that $300/year gets an individual an associate membership in AfriNIC. Even if we assume a 1 year delay to voting, then 200 * 2 * 300 = $120,000. If a company really wanted to seize control of an AfriNIC election, I do not think that it would beard to come up with $120,000 and 200 individuals willing to vote accordingly. I think limiting voting to those that hold internet number resources makes sense because they are the true stakeholders in the services provided by the organization. Owen > On Sep 18, 2016, at 2:44 PM, Boubakar Barry wrote: > > > On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 9:05 PM, Jackson Muthili > wrote: > On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 12:40 PM, Douglas Onyango > wrote: > > Hi Alan, > > Thanks for sharing this document. It will form a solid basis for continued > > deliberation on amendments of the bylaws. > > > > Regarding #1, specifically the Associate Members' right to (or not) vote, I > > was, and still I am opposed to the idea of rescinding the Associate Members > > rights to vote. > > > > Rationale: when an Associate Member is stripped of the right to vote, > > he/she is in reality as empowered -- or un-empowered -- as the rest of the > > AFRINIC community. AFRINIC would effectively be asking Associate members and > > prospects to fork out Associate Membership fees, but offering nothing over > > and above "AFRINIC community" status, which poses at least two problems: > > First, NO ONE of sound mind, with full understanding of these facts, would > > want to be an Associate members, and secondly, AFRINIC would be out-rightly > > fleecing its members by charging membership fees and providing no value in > > return, neither one of which is desirable. > > > > Therefore, the Associate Membership category should be imbued with voting > > rights -- or some other value add that is codified in the bylaws, barring > > which the category should effectively be expunged from the bylaws. > > +1 > > If any tier is named "member", such as "associate member"; such tier > MUST be given voting rights. Absent of this - it would be a useless > membership status. Why be a member of an establishment that cannot let > one exercise a simple right like a vote to enable effect change? > > Let associate members vote or get rid of this membership tier. Simple. > > > Not sure it's as simple as that. > > Do we want to encourage people/organisations to be be associate members just because of granted voting rights that have the potential of affecting resource members only? > > I know of organisations in which members are happy to be non-voting associate members because it gives them opportunities to contribute financially to the sustainability of these organisations, without benefiting from core services. Just because they share values of these organisations and want to support them. > > We can of course think of advantages we can give to associate members to acknowledge their commitment and support. But I would not support giving voting rights to associate members. I would rather be for removing this membership category instead. > > B. > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > On 16 September 2016 at 17:17, Alan Barrett > > > wrote: > >> > >> On 10 June, I posted a document describing potential areas for improvement > >> in the Bylaws as a result of an accountability assessment. I invited the > >> community and membership to comment on these issues. > >> > >> I have considered the discussion, and I have asked the legal adviser to > >> draft appropriate changes to the bylaws. In some cases, I have edited the > >> legal adviser?s text. In some cases, more drafting work is needed and > >> proposed text of bylaws changes is not yet available. > >> > >> I attach a document with the proposed bylaws changes. > >> > >> Alan Barrett > >> CEO, AFRINIC > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Community-Discuss mailing list > >> Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > Douglas Onyango, PRINCE 2, ITILv3 > > UG: +256 776 716 138 > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Community-Discuss mailing list > > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss > > > > _______________________________________________ > Community-Discuss mailing list > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss > > > > _______________________________________________ > Community-Discuss mailing list > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From owen at delong.com Mon Oct 3 17:48:52 2016 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2016 10:48:52 -0700 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - bylaws changes In-Reply-To: <6C40F862-54C2-4ECE-B962-EF396F010F90@afrinic.net> References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <25F7D1CF-2E99-42D5-B047-20ED215C00B4@afrinic.net> <6C40F862-54C2-4ECE-B962-EF396F010F90@afrinic.net> Message-ID: <446DE42F-EF68-4EED-AF03-098F8B42C293@delong.com> > On Sep 19, 2016, at 3:08 AM, Alan Barrett wrote: > > >> On 19 Sep 2016, at 13:08, Seun Ojedeji wrote: >> >> Hello Alan, >> >> One point I observed has not been captured in the summary (which i also suggested), was to limit the Independent Director seat to "at most" one per region at any given time. This will address a possible situation where we end up having 4 directors from a region. > > I don?t think that?s an accountability issue. Even in the unlikely event that there are four from the same sub-region (regional director, two non-regional directors, and CEO), and that the four conspire together to advance some sort of sub-regional interest that?s against AFRINIC?s interest, the four would still not form a majority of the Board. They could, however, easily form a majority of quorum at a meeting where two directors are absent and depending on the particular voting rules of the board when 7 members and the CEO are present, possibly even one absence would be sufficient. > Instead of legislating geographical diversity in the Bylaws, I would prefer to rely on the membership to consider all kinds of diversity when voting. I agree with this. > Remember that Bylaws changes need a 75% majority. Would adding geographical restrictions to the non-geographical seats have enough support to pass? I?m actually not sure how you would reliably enforce such a provision in a fair and equitable manner. For example, if due to resignation, both non-geographic seats came available at the same time, would you limit to one candidate per region? If not, then what if the vote result had an equal number of votes for two candidates from the same region and they had the most votes? Which candidate would you disqualify in favor of the third-place candidate? Owen From amelnaud at gmail.com Mon Oct 3 18:48:23 2016 From: amelnaud at gmail.com (Arnaud AMELINA) Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2016 18:48:23 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] [members-discuss] Accountability assessment - bylaws changes In-Reply-To: <6FB39273-24A7-48DC-B5B3-73FCB8269CA6@afrinic.net> References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <25F7D1CF-2E99-42D5-B047-20ED215C00B4@afrinic.net> <80BA55D7-0F6F-4FAA-91EF-2FF4AF185639@gmail.com> <8C62E426-18A9-49E0-B928-90111058789A@liquidtelecom.com> <34694787-5803-4C56-8F85-08461917E638@afrinic.net> <6FB39273-24A7-48DC-B5B3-73FCB8269CA6@afrinic.net> Message-ID: Hi CEO, nomcom chair, We are reading the GC call for nominations and see a procedure for elections. There is however no requirements, criteria or experience stated which is surprising as this is to do with a governance committee. Any reason for this? Furthermore and once again, why are COE members not allowed to join GC, why COE could not appoint a nominee to GC or for that matter why COE not used for the GC. Regards Arnaud Le 26 sept. 2016 18:31, "Alan Barrett" a ?crit : > > > On 26 Sep 2016, at 21:00, Benjamin Eshun > wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 8:52 AM, Alan Barrett > wrote: > > > > Yes, it?s true that a committee of 5 members cannot include a > representative from all 6 sub-regions. I don?t see that as a problem. > > > > I see alot of problems with the practical implementation this. > > > > 1. My first problem is which region is to be left out and what happens > when the more than one person come from a particular region. > > Of the five voting members on the GC, two are appointed by the Board, and > three are elected by the AFRINIC Membership. The two appointed by the > Board must come from two different sub-regions. The three elected by the > membership must come from three different sub-regions. However, nothing > in the charter prevents the same region from being represented both within > the Board-appointed and the Membership-elected subsets of the GC. The > regional requirements in the charter are to ensure that a single region can > never dominate the votes. > > > 2. Will the Board appoint it's members for/from a particular region and > leave the other regions to the community. In this case which regions will > the rest of the community nominate GC members and which will be done first. > > If the Board appoints somebody from a particular sub-region, that does not > prevent the Membership from electing another person from the same > sub-region, or vice versa. > > Does it matter which is first? I expect that the Board would listen to > advice about that. > > > 3. What selection mechanism will be used to guarantee the regional > diversity. > > NomCom is asking for nominations from all 6 sub-regions. The voting > process has not been finalised, but what I suggested to NomCom was: > > 1. The candidate with the most votes is elected for a three-year term; > 2. All other candidates from the same sub-region are eliminated; > 3. The remaining candidate with the next highest number of votes is > elected for a two-year term; > 4. All other candidates from the same sub-region are eliminated; > 5. The remaining candidate with the next highest number of votes is > elected for a one-year term; > > This will guarantee that the three Membership-elected members of the GC > come from three different sub-regions. > > In the future, assuming nothing unusual happens, one candidate will need > to be elected every year for a three-year term. > > Alan Barrett > > > _______________________________________________ > Community-Discuss mailing list > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alan.barrett at afrinic.net Tue Oct 4 03:56:48 2016 From: alan.barrett at afrinic.net (Alan Barrett) Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2016 07:56:48 +0400 Subject: [Community-Discuss] [members-discuss] Accountability assessment - bylaws changes In-Reply-To: References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <25F7D1CF-2E99-42D5-B047-20ED215C00B4@afrinic.net> <80BA55D7-0F6F-4FAA-91EF-2FF4AF185639@gmail.com> <8C62E426-18A9-49E0-B928-90111058789A@liquidtelecom.com> <34694787-5803-4C56-8F85-08461917E638@afrinic.net> <6FB39273-24A7-48DC-B5B3-73FCB8269CA6@afrinic.net> Message-ID: <542448B8-8FAA-44BB-BC73-EE13A00C8163@afrinic.net> > On 3 Oct 2016, at 22:48, Arnaud AMELINA wrote: > > Hi CEO, nomcom chair, > > We are reading the GC call for nominations and see a procedure for elections. There is however no requirements, criteria or experience stated which is surprising as this is to do with a governance committee. Any reason for this? I?ll let NomCom answer that, if they choose to, but let me ask you: Why do you think that NomCom should impose criteria? Do you think that the membership is not capable of making their own decisions about how to vote? > Furthermore and once again, why are COE members not allowed to join GC, why COE could not appoint a nominee to GC or for that matter why COE not used for the GC. COE members are eligible to be elected to the Governance Committee by the AFRINIC Membership. They are not eligible to be appointed to the Governance Committee by the Board. Alan Barrett From amelnaud at gmail.com Tue Oct 4 10:32:58 2016 From: amelnaud at gmail.com (Arnaud AMELINA) Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2016 10:32:58 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] [members-discuss] Accountability assessment - bylaws changes In-Reply-To: <542448B8-8FAA-44BB-BC73-EE13A00C8163@afrinic.net> References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <25F7D1CF-2E99-42D5-B047-20ED215C00B4@afrinic.net> <80BA55D7-0F6F-4FAA-91EF-2FF4AF185639@gmail.com> <8C62E426-18A9-49E0-B928-90111058789A@liquidtelecom.com> <34694787-5803-4C56-8F85-08461917E638@afrinic.net> <6FB39273-24A7-48DC-B5B3-73FCB8269CA6@afrinic.net> <542448B8-8FAA-44BB-BC73-EE13A00C8163@afrinic.net> Message-ID: It appears to me that such a committee requires certain expertise and skills just like board. For the board, the bylaws has some criteria and allow nomcom to add others. And if there is no requirement, on what basis will nomcom evaluate the candidates? How will community comment on candidates during the public comment? Or if there is no evaluation and members decide by mere vote, what is the role of nomcom? Regards Arnaud 2016-10-04 3:56 GMT+00:00 Alan Barrett : > > > On 3 Oct 2016, at 22:48, Arnaud AMELINA wrote: > > > > Hi CEO, nomcom chair, > > > > We are reading the GC call for nominations and see a procedure for > elections. There is however no requirements, criteria or experience stated > which is surprising as this is to do with a governance committee. Any > reason for this? > > I?ll let NomCom answer that, if they choose to, but let me ask you: Why do > you think that NomCom should impose criteria? Do you think that the > membership is not capable of making their own decisions about how to vote? > > > Furthermore and once again, why are COE members not allowed to join GC, > why COE could not appoint a nominee to GC or for that matter why COE not > used for the GC. > > COE members are eligible to be elected to the Governance Committee by the > AFRINIC Membership. They are not eligible to be appointed to the > Governance Committee by the Board. > > Alan Barrett > > > _______________________________________________ > Community-Discuss mailing list > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alan.barrett at afrinic.net Tue Oct 4 10:50:27 2016 From: alan.barrett at afrinic.net (Alan Barrett) Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2016 14:50:27 +0400 Subject: [Community-Discuss] [members-discuss] Accountability assessment - bylaws changes In-Reply-To: References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <25F7D1CF-2E99-42D5-B047-20ED215C00B4@afrinic.net> <80BA55D7-0F6F-4FAA-91EF-2FF4AF185639@gmail.com> <8C62E426-18A9-49E0-B928-90111058789A@liquidtelecom.com> <34694787-5803-4C56-8F85-08461917E638@afrinic.net> <6FB39273-24A7-48DC-B5B3-73FCB8269CA6@afrinic.net> <542448B8-8FAA-44BB-BC73-EE13A00C8163@afrinic.net> Message-ID: <8A5B941C-B293-4393-ACF2-67E239659D90@afrinic.net> On 4 Oct 2016, at 14:32, Arnaud AMELINA wrote: > > It appears to me that such a committee requires certain expertise and skills just like board. For the board, the bylaws has some criteria and allow nomcom to add others. Yes, NomCom may add criteria beyond what?s in the Governance Committee charter. They appear to have decided not to do so. I don?t know whether they had particular reasons, but somebody from NomCom is free to comment. > And if there is no requirement, on what basis will nomcom evaluate the candidates? How will community comment on candidates during the public comment? > Or if there is no evaluation and members decide by mere vote, what is the role of nomcom? NomCom?s role in Governance Committee elections is as similar as possible to their role in Board elections, as given in section 9 of the Bylaws. They have significant freedom in how they perform their task. When commenting on the suitability of any nominee or candidate, I would hope that people consider the role of the Governanc Committee as given in its charter, and the person?s ability to perform in such a role. Alan Barrett From gnonkoto.patrick at artci.ci Tue Oct 4 12:06:53 2016 From: gnonkoto.patrick at artci.ci (GH.-GNONKOTO Serges PATRICK) Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2016 12:06:53 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum Message-ID: Chez nous, on dit : ? Le chien ne change jamais sa mani?re de s?assoir ?. C?est juste diplomatique et un proverbe bien de chez nous. Avan?ons. Patrick. [cid:image001.jpg at 01D071F4.5E155680] [logo-artci-test] www.artci.ci Serges Patrick GHANSAH-GNONKOTO Chef de service Gestion des Noms de domaine et Adresses IP Head of Service Domain names and IP addresses Management Chef du Projet de Mise en ?uvre du plan national de d?ploiement de l?IPv6 Head of Implementation Project of the national plan of IPv6 deployment Direction des Syst?mes d?information et des Transactions Electroniques T?l?phone : +225 20 34 43 73 / Poste 7960 Mobile : +225 05 28 90 20 Fax : +225 20 34 43 75 Email : gnonkoto.patrick at artci.ci gnonkoto.patrick at nic.ci gnonkoto.patrick at testbedipv6.ci -----Message d'origine----- De : community-discuss-request at afrinic.net [mailto:community-discuss-request at afrinic.net] Envoy? : mardi 4 octobre 2016 12:00 ? : community-discuss at afrinic.net Objet : Community-Discuss Digest, Vol 69, Issue 1 Send Community-Discuss mailing list submissions to community-discuss at afrinic.net To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to community-discuss-request at afrinic.net You can reach the person managing the list at community-discuss-owner at afrinic.net When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Community-Discuss digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: Accountability assessment - quorum (Omo Oaiya) 2. Re: Accountability assessment - quorum (GH.-GNONKOTO Serges PATRICK) 3. Re: Accountability assessment - bylaws changes (Owen DeLong) 4. Re: Accountability assessment - bylaws changes (Owen DeLong) 5. Re: [members-discuss] Accountability assessment - bylaws changes (Arnaud AMELINA) 6. Re: [members-discuss] Accountability assessment - bylaws changes (Alan Barrett) 7. Re: [members-discuss] Accountability assessment - bylaws changes (Arnaud AMELINA) 8. Re: [members-discuss] Accountability assessment - bylaws changes (Alan Barrett) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2016 15:13:37 +0100 From: Omo Oaiya > To: Andrew Alston > Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC > Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Strong or not, you should be able to understand that it is just an opinion whether in your personal capacity or as Afrinic director. When one filters the noise out, the issue boils down to the supremacy of the Mauritius code which if taken to the letter as you so emphatically propose empowers only registered members ie directors of AfriNIC over the bylaws which empower everyone in the community (resource+registered members+interested parties). Very simple to me. Omo. On 3 Oct 2016 12:13 p.m., "Andrew Alston" > wrote: > Alan, > > Again, and this will be my last word on the subject - > > I have very strong opinions on what was stated in that line that I have > quoted in my previous two emails on this subject. These are opinions, and > I believe that the sentiment that I wished to convey was that the words > used could have ramifications and were dangerous. If someone can give me a > more diplomatic way to convey the same sentiment - I'm more than happy to > hear it - many times my words are designed to convey a sentiment and > unfortunately cause offense - happy to learn new words - so long as the > sentiment behind the words remains the same :) > > Andrew > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Alan Barrett [mailto:alan.barrett at afrinic.net] > Sent: 03 October 2016 14:03 > To: Andrew Alston > > Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC > > Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum > > Dear Andrew, > > I ask that you use more diplomatic words to express your opinions. > > Alan Barrett > > > _______________________________________________ > Community-Discuss mailing list > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2016 14:30:44 +0000 From: GH.-GNONKOTO Serges PATRICK > To: "community-discuss at afrinic.net" > Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Salut, Je crois qu'il faut se garder de tenir de propos d?sobligeants car ce n'est ni le lieu et le moment. Car qui peut avoir cette outrecuidance de lancer une invective sur son coll?gue ? Andrew, il y a eu de revenir sur tes propos et consid?rer que quelqu'un d'autre puisse avoir une id?e divergente de la tienne sans pourtant ?tre ''irresponsable'' (entre griffes, pour ?viter d'employer tes mots) ! La question ici est relative au quorum et au nombre de repr?sentativit?. Nous attelons-nous ? ?a et recentrons le d?bat. Patrick. [cid:image001.jpg at 01D071F4.5E155680] [logo-artci-test] www.artci.ci> Serges Patrick GHANSAH-GNONKOTO Chef de service Gestion des Noms de domaine et Adresses IP Head of Service Domain names and IP addresses Management Chef du Projet de Mise en ?uvre du plan national de d?ploiement de l?IPv6 Head of Implementation Project of the national plan of IPv6 deployment Direction des Syst?mes d?information et des Transactions Electroniques T?l?phone : +225 20 34 43 73 / Poste 7960 Mobile : +225 05 28 90 20 Fax : +225 20 34 43 75 Email : gnonkoto.patrick at artci.ci> gnonkoto.patrick at nic.ci> gnonkoto.patrick at testbedipv6.ci> ________________________________ De : community-discuss-request at afrinic.net > Envoy? : lundi 3 octobre 2016 12:00 ? : community-discuss at afrinic.net Objet : Community-Discuss Digest, Vol 68, Issue 1 Send Community-Discuss mailing list submissions to community-discuss at afrinic.net To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to community-discuss-request at afrinic.net You can reach the person managing the list at community-discuss-owner at afrinic.net When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Community-Discuss digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: Accountability assessment - quorum (Frank Habicht) 2. Re: Accountability assessment - quorum (ALAIN AINA) 3. Re: Accountability assessment - quorum (Andrew Alston) 4. Re: Accountability assessment - quorum (Jackson Muthili) 5. Re: Accountability assessment - quorum (Andrew Alston) 6. Re: [members-discuss] Accountability assessment- bylaws changes (L.A. Ym) 7. Re: [members-discuss] Accountability assessment - bylaws changes (Ben Roberts) 8. Re: [afnog] IPv6 in Zimbabwe (Barrack Otieno) 9. Re: [afnog] IPv6 in Zimbabwe (ARTHUR CARINDAL) 10. Re: [afnog] IPv6 in Zimbabwe (Musa Stephen Honlue) 11. Re: [afnog] IPv6 in Zimbabwe (Miku, E. Cornelius) 12. Re: [afnog] IPv6 in Zimbabwe (Loganaden Velvindron) 13. Re: Accountability assessment - quorum (Jackson Muthili) 14. Re: Accountability assessment - quorum (Alan Barrett) 15. Re: Accountability assessment - quorum (Andrew Alston) 16. Re: Accountability assessment - quorum (Boubakar Barry) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2016 08:58:48 +0300 From: Frank Habicht > To: community-discuss at afrinic.net Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum Message-ID: <98879168-84f0-6339-dcbd-24713e494d68 at geier.ne.tz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Hi Alain, On 10/1/2016 4:54 PM, ALAIN AINA wrote: ... > Referring to the Act beyond what its applied to "Registered members" > seems inappropriate and can lead to questioning may other things? ... I want to ask and not assume. Do you mean that "questioning other things" is a bad thing? Or was this an invitation to "question other things", like the ones you listed? That's because I was understanding the first, and someone else understood the latter. Thanks, Frank ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2016 12:35:20 +0400 From: ALAIN AINA > To: General Discussions of AFRINIC > Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum Message-ID: <7ECBCC26-69EF-4928-9DA2-3AA34DA50CB1 at trstech.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Hello Andrew, I respect Afrinic Directors and follow good rules of conduct. So I will not return to the disparaging words used in your response to me. Let me put this in a few points here again: 1- I never said to not follow or comply with Law 2- I called for clear understanding between an Act provision applying to ?registered members? and not to ?resources members?. 2- AFRINIC has always followed the Act, laws, but also accommodates its community oversight. The limit at ?5? of the number of proxy is lawful when applied to ?registered members?. How ? Quorum at Members general meeting is set as follow: ====== ii) The quorum for an Annual General Member meeting shall be composed of minimum of ten (10) members in person comprising: a) Four (4) Directors elected to represent a region; b) One (1) Director elected on a non-regional criterion; and c) Five (5) Resource Members. ========== So five (5) registered members in person are required. With nine (9) registered members in total and a quorum requirement of five (5) members in person how many proxies can a registered member carry to a valid AGMM ? The limit to ?5? means ?no limit for the registered members? and that complies to the act. Hope this helps ?Alain > On Oct 2, 2016, at 12:26 PM, Andrew Alston > wrote: > > Mirriam, > > I was speaking in my personal capacity ? firstly - and I stand by my right to do that. > > Secondly ? What was the point? Let me tell you a story ? In Djibouti there was an attempt to block several proxies using an argument of company stamps. That argument went on for many days ? it was eventually invalidated ? because it was determined that it would disenfranchise the members who had no company stamps and was invalid. However, it was a direct attempt to stop certain things through the change of the rules (well, that is my impression). > > I take serious issue with this statement specifically: > > One would expect the debate to stay at the community level and not involve the Act. The community to discuss and agree on how to manage this issue. > > You cannot ignore the act ? I am not a lawyer ? my reading of the act is in laymans terms ? and there are many lawyers that can contradict what I?m saying and I?m ok with that. I was NOT arguing from the perspective of proxies here ? look at the holistic essence of my email ? the only place I referenced proxies was as a specific example of how the companies act can restrict the bylaws from overriding it. > > What I was saying is that leaving the act out of an argument about the bylaws doesn?t make sense and is ? in my view ? irresponsible. The act is supreme and overriding, and ignoring it can have serious consequences. > > I stand by the position that ignoring the law is dangerous. > > Andrew > > > > From: Mirriam > > Reply-To: Mirriam > > Date: Sunday, 2 October 2016 at 10:36 > To: Andrew Alston > > Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC > > Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum > > On 1 Oct 2016 19:07, "Andrew Alston" > wrote: > > > > Alain, > > > > Quite frankly ? I think what you have said here is, at best, extremely naive and at worst incredibly irresponsible. > > > > > Hi Andrew, > You need to calm down. No one here is naive or irresponsible so mind how you respond to others and have some respect else Afrinic code of conduct comes into play and i hope the CEO and Chair will caution you. > In fact your message is full of exaggeration. What exactly is your point considering following this discussion you seem to have jumped arguments from company bylaws to company act? > Everyone herein is well aware that our " Afrinic is a private company registered in Mauritius with a Community Oversight through its Bylaws and remains a community/resource members driven organisation" otherwise we would not all be here deliberating on how to improve the organisation. > You are one of the directors elected to the board to respresent the very resource members who elected you and as such you are answerable to us just as all the other directors who the membership sends to the board. > So what exactly is your point with that long email as what was being discussed was plain simple proxy limits? > > Mirriam > > _______________________________________________ > Community-Discuss mailing list > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2016 08:49:21 +0000 From: Andrew Alston > To: ALAIN AINA >, General Discussions of AFRINIC > Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Writing in my personal capacity. Firstly, let me point out that anything I write on this list ? unless explicitly stated ? is written in my personal capacity and not as a director. What I write here is not necessarily representative of the wider board views and should the board be taking a position on something it will be communicated as such via the chairperson or someone delegated that responsibility by the board. So please, let us not mis-interpret my words as the words of the board. Secondly ? my understanding of this situation is actually more complex than what is being stated on these lists. Let us examine the clause in question: (viii) No member entitled to vote during an election held by the Company shall carry more than five (5) proxies during the said election; and There is no limitation anywhere ? and I would argue that you cannot limit this either ? that states that proxies must be given to members. In fact in no proxy that I have seen used at AFRINIC is a proxy issued to a member, it is issued to an individual who then represents the entity that granted the proxy. As such, the above clause is null and void. As an example: If entity X issued a proxy to a specific COMPANY (or Member) ? then the limit would apply. If entity X issued a proxy to a person who was a member in their own right (which ONLY applies to my knowledge in the case of an extremely limited number of associate members) ? the limit would apply. If entity X issued a proxy to a person who was NOT a member in their own right, but merely WORKED for a member, then the proxy has been issued to a non-member, and the above clause is null and void and has no application. Under your argument ? if the proxy is issued to a registered member ? by the act the rule would not apply. This also deals with the fact that registered members are members in their own right (as with the associate members referred to above) ? so again ? the limitation does not apply. Effectively, my reading of the above clause in the bylaws is that it is a mute point and the text in the bylaws is extraneous since it is not in any way enforceable. Again ? open to hearing legal opinion on this. Thanks Andrew From: ALAIN AINA [mailto:aalain at trstech.net] Sent: 03 October 2016 11:35 To: General Discussions of AFRINIC > Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum Hello Andrew, I respect Afrinic Directors and follow good rules of conduct. So I will not return to the disparaging words used in your response to me. Let me put this in a few points here again: 1- I never said to not follow or comply with Law 2- I called for clear understanding between an Act provision applying to ?registered members? and not to ?resources members?. 2- AFRINIC has always followed the Act, laws, but also accommodates its community oversight. The limit at ?5? of the number of proxy is lawful when applied to ?registered members?. How ? Quorum at Members general meeting is set as follow: ====== ii) The quorum for an Annual General Member meeting shall be composed of minimum of ten (10) members in person comprising: a) Four (4) Directors elected to represent a region; b) One (1) Director elected on a non-regional criterion; and c) Five (5) Resource Members. ========== So five (5) registered members in person are required. With nine (9) registered members in total and a quorum requirement of five (5) members in person how many proxies can a registered member carry to a valid AGMM ? The limit to ?5? means ?no limit for the registered members? and that complies to the act. Hope this helps ?Alain On Oct 2, 2016, at 12:26 PM, Andrew Alston >> wrote: Mirriam, I was speaking in my personal capacity ? firstly - and I stand by my right to do that. Secondly ? What was the point? Let me tell you a story ? In Djibouti there was an attempt to block several proxies using an argument of company stamps. That argument went on for many days ? it was eventually invalidated ? because it was determined that it would disenfranchise the members who had no company stamps and was invalid. However, it was a direct attempt to stop certain things through the change of the rules (well, that is my impression). I take serious issue with this statement specifically: One would expect the debate to stay at the community level and not involve the Act. The community to discuss and agree on how to manage this issue. You cannot ignore the act ? I am not a lawyer ? my reading of the act is in laymans terms ? and there are many lawyers that can contradict what I?m saying and I?m ok with that. I was NOT arguing from the perspective of proxies here ? look at the holistic essence of my email ? the only place I referenced proxies was as a specific example of how the companies act can restrict the bylaws from overriding it. What I was saying is that leaving the act out of an argument about the bylaws doesn?t make sense and is ? in my view ? irresponsible. The act is supreme and overriding, and ignoring it can have serious consequences. I stand by the position that ignoring the law is dangerous. Andrew From: Mirriam >> Reply-To: Mirriam >> Date: Sunday, 2 October 2016 at 10:36 To: Andrew Alston >> Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC >> Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum On 1 Oct 2016 19:07, "Andrew Alston" >> wrote: > > Alain, > > Quite frankly ? I think what you have said here is, at best, extremely naive and at worst incredibly irresponsible. > > Hi Andrew, You need to calm down. No one here is naive or irresponsible so mind how you respond to others and have some respect else Afrinic code of conduct comes into play and i hope the CEO and Chair will caution you. In fact your message is full of exaggeration. What exactly is your point considering following this discussion you seem to have jumped arguments from company bylaws to company act? Everyone herein is well aware that our " Afrinic is a private company registered in Mauritius with a Community Oversight through its Bylaws and remains a community/resource members driven organisation" otherwise we would not all be here deliberating on how to improve the organisation. You are one of the directors elected to the board to respresent the very resource members who elected you and as such you are answerable to us just as all the other directors who the membership sends to the board. So what exactly is your point with that long email as what was being discussed was plain simple proxy limits? Mirriam _______________________________________________ Community-Discuss mailing list Community-Discuss at afrinic.net> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2016 04:10:26 -0600 From: Jackson Muthili > To: Andrew Alston > Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC > Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 2:49 AM, Andrew Alston > wrote: > Writing in my personal capacity. > > Firstly, let me point out that anything I write on this list ? unless > explicitly stated ? is written in my personal capacity and not as a > director. Why are you disrespectful of others in your personal capacity? > What I write here is not necessarily representative of the wider > board views and should the board be taking a position on something it will > be communicated as such via the chairperson or someone delegated that > responsibility by the board. So please, let us not mis-interpret my words > as the words of the board. You said wrote to Alain " Quite frankly ? I think what you have said here is, at best, extremely naive and at worst incredibly irresponsible." You use this kind of language most of the time and this is not good. It is intimidating to new people trying to join discussion and air their opinion and is clear expression of an autocratic mind. Why cant you tolerate and maturely engage in a respectful way? Alain say he respects AfriNIC directors and you are one of them. It has nothing to do with your personal views. You are still a Director of AfriNIC and an important person in your other capacities. Please please just be mindful of peoples feelings and use euphemisms that can deliver the same message in a respectful way. ------------------------------ Message: 5 Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2016 10:25:14 +0000 From: Andrew Alston > To: Jackson Muthili > Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC > Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Jackson, Again, let me clarify my use of wording: Firstly - do I believe that it is irresponsible when I believe that someone is advocating for ignoring the law. Yes - I do, and my opinions my offend some, but I will not be limited in what I say because it may tread on toes if I believe what I am saying is the truth. Secondly - when I use the word na?ve, let's look at the definition of such: (of a person or action) showing a lack of experience, wisdom, or judgment. Do I believe that it is unwise to advocate for ignoring the act? Yes I do. If my stating that I believe these things offends someone - then I apologise for offense caused. I do not however apologise for stating them. It is a fine line we tread - where often the truth of a matter is disputed, and in taking any position, you are quite likely to offend someone who disagrees with your position, particularly when the position you are taking is taken in an unequivocal manner. In this case, I was unequivocal, it is my sincere and utmost believe that ignoring any text is unwise, reckless, irresponsible and shows a lack of judgement. Again, as I stated in what I said to Mirriam, the section to which I was referring to was one specific line: > One would expect the debate to stay at the community level and not involve the Act. The community to discuss and agree on how to manage this issue. So - if I offended people through the choice of words - apologies. For the sentiment behind those words - those I stand by in entirety. Andrew -----Original Message----- From: Jackson Muthili [mailto:jacksonmuthi at gmail.com] Sent: 03 October 2016 13:10 To: Andrew Alston > Cc: ALAIN AINA >; General Discussions of AFRINIC > Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 2:49 AM, Andrew Alston > wrote: > Writing in my personal capacity. > > Firstly, let me point out that anything I write on this list ? unless > explicitly stated ? is written in my personal capacity and not as a > director. Why are you disrespectful of others in your personal capacity? > What I write here is not necessarily representative of the wider board > views and should the board be taking a position on something it will > be communicated as such via the chairperson or someone delegated that > responsibility by the board. So please, let us not mis-interpret my > words as the words of the board. You said wrote to Alain " Quite frankly ? I think what you have said here is, at best, extremely naive and at worst incredibly irresponsible." You use this kind of language most of the time and this is not good. It is intimidating to new people trying to join discussion and air their opinion and is clear expression of an autocratic mind. Why cant you tolerate and maturely engage in a respectful way? Alain say he respects AfriNIC directors and you are one of them. It has nothing to do with your personal views. You are still a Director of AfriNIC and an important person in your other capacities. Please please just be mindful of peoples feelings and use euphemisms that can deliver the same message in a respectful way. ------------------------------ Message: 6 Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2016 16:34:22 +0300 From: "L.A. Ym" > To: "Boubakar Barry" >, "General Discussions of AFRINIC" > Cc: members-discuss at afrinic.net Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] [members-discuss] Accountability assessment- bylaws changes Message-ID: <1C9E2EFFD30E451182FA79832E2A1C8B at toshiba> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" +1 Agree with Boubakar Lala From: Boubakar Barry Sent: Monday, September 19, 2016 12:44 AM To: General Discussions of AFRINIC Cc: members-discuss at afrinic.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment- bylaws changes On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 9:05 PM, Jackson Muthili > wrote: On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 12:40 PM, Douglas Onyango > wrote: > Hi Alan, > Thanks for sharing this document. It will form a solid basis for continued > deliberation on amendments of the bylaws. > > Regarding #1, specifically the Associate Members' right to (or not) vote, I > was, and still I am opposed to the idea of rescinding the Associate Members > rights to vote. > > Rationale: when an Associate Member is stripped of the right to vote, > he/she is in reality as empowered -- or un-empowered -- as the rest of the > AFRINIC community. AFRINIC would effectively be asking Associate members and > prospects to fork out Associate Membership fees, but offering nothing over > and above "AFRINIC community" status, which poses at least two problems: > First, NO ONE of sound mind, with full understanding of these facts, would > want to be an Associate members, and secondly, AFRINIC would be out-rightly > fleecing its members by charging membership fees and providing no value in > return, neither one of which is desirable. > > Therefore, the Associate Membership category should be imbued with voting > rights -- or some other value add that is codified in the bylaws, barring > which the category should effectively be expunged from the bylaws. +1 If any tier is named "member", such as "associate member"; such tier MUST be given voting rights. Absent of this - it would be a useless membership status. Why be a member of an establishment that cannot let one exercise a simple right like a vote to enable effect change? Let associate members vote or get rid of this membership tier. Simple. Not sure it's as simple as that. Do we want to encourage people/organisations to be be associate members just because of granted voting rights that have the potential of affecting resource members only? I know of organisations in which members are happy to be non-voting associate members because it gives them opportunities to contribute financially to the sustainability of these organisations, without benefiting from core services. Just because they share values of these organisations and want to support them. We can of course think of advantages we can give to associate members to acknowledge their commitment and support. But I would not support giving voting rights to associate members. I would rather be for removing this membership category instead. B. > > > Regards, > > On 16 September 2016 at 17:17, Alan Barrett > > wrote: >> >> On 10 June, I posted a document describing potential areas for improvement >> in the Bylaws as a result of an accountability assessment. I invited the >> community and membership to comment on these issues. >> >> I have considered the discussion, and I have asked the legal adviser to >> draft appropriate changes to the bylaws. In some cases, I have edited the >> legal adviser?s text. In some cases, more drafting work is needed and >> proposed text of bylaws changes is not yet available. >> >> I attach a document with the proposed bylaws changes. >> >> Alan Barrett >> CEO, AFRINIC >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Community-Discuss mailing list >> Community-Discuss at afrinic.net >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss >> > > > > -- > Douglas Onyango, PRINCE 2, ITILv3 > UG: +256 776 716 138 > > _______________________________________________ > Community-Discuss mailing list > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss > _______________________________________________ Community-Discuss mailing list Community-Discuss at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Members-Discuss mailing list Members-Discuss at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: ------------------------------ Message: 7 Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2016 21:43:47 +0000 From: Ben Roberts > To: ALAIN AINA > Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC >, "members-discuss at afrinic.net" > Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] [members-discuss] Accountability assessment - bylaws changes Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" While we debate what consensus means I maybe have lost the thread of what we were looking for consensus on. ? There was something about associate members and if they should have voting rights I recall? Associate member category is really for interested parties who want to 'join in' but not be part of things properly and pay the full fees and use the services. So maybe it might include research partners, people who want to come along to our meetings and present and sell us stuff, etc etc So no. The associate member category should not have the same voting benefits as a LIR member. Sent from my iPhone On 20 Sep 2016, at 11:24 PM, ALAIN AINA >> wrote: Hi, On Sep 20, 2016, at 9:27 AM, Andrew Alston >> wrote: Ok, We need to stop for a moment and look at reality ? not wishful thinking. Firstly ? I am hearing talk of rough consensus ? and while consensus is applicable in many areas, I am far from convinced this is one of them. The ONLY place consensus has in this regard is to get a vague indication of which way the vote may go on a particular issue. However, you can get total consensus on this list and beyond ? and still stand a good chance of things not passing. Why is this ? consensus is defined as being reached when all substantive objections have been addressed. However, a substantive objection has to have meaning, that is to say, there is some validity in what people are objecting to. And those can all be addressed, but when the non-substantive, the illogical, the uninformed, the emotional, or whatever, arguments come into it ? those cannot be taken into account in consensus. However, to accept or reject bylaw changes is not done by consensus. It is done by *super majority* vote. So, get all the consensus you like, you have a VAGUE indication ? but nothing more than that ? because if people on the day go ?I don?t like this, and it?s not worth arguing about, so I will simply argue with my vote?, and they vote no, things still won?t pass. Until we amend the bylaws(as suggested by point 11 of the CEO document [ Modification to the Bylaws or Constitution]), the ?Super Majority? you are referring to means "Super Majority of the registered members (the current Board members)". So the board could easily amend the bylaws without involving the community if it is only the voting which matter. By involving the community, one expects that we listen to community, helps the community build consensus on the amendments and then adopt them by the "Super Majority". This community only makes decision by Rough Consensus and does not vote. Voting is for the members who are the "Registered members". So, let me now talk about committees ? for what purpose? So that the ?committee? can propose something and people just accept it? So that the ?committee? can judge consensus somehow better than one person? So the ?committee? can take all the inputs and collate them into some nice document better than one person can? Yes and also lead the consensus building. It is also important to note that while amending bylaws to improve accountability is it not advisable that ?Only" interested parties (CEO, board..) lead the process. Guess what ? it?s all meaningless ? because at the end of the day ? no matter who proposes, no matter what form ? if members like the PRINCIPLE behind the change, they will vote in favor of it. If they don?t, no matter who proposes it, they will vote against it. And committees, individuals, whatever, it?s all meaningless if on the day, the *SUPER MAJORITY VOTE* does not pass. That means for every 1 vote that is cast against, there must be 3 votes for. This is not a feel good game ? this is the law. In the same way, any individual can bring something to the floor and once its n the notice of meeting while it can be discussed on the floor, the resolution *CANNOT BE CHANGED* other than basic minor edits ? it can only be withdrawn. Yes ? I like the idea of consensus to gauge what may or may not pass ? and I believe that is what Alan has been trying to gauge before putting things to the floor. End of the day though ?it?s a nice idea, but has zero impact on the outcome. Not sure. We did a bylaws review in 2012 and the approach did work smoothly Hope this helps ?Alain Andrew From: Arnaud AMELINA >> Reply-To: General Discussions of AFRINIC >> Date: Monday, 19 September 2016 at 22:14 To: General Discussions of AFRINIC >> Cc: "members-discuss at afrinic.net" >> Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] [members-discuss] Accountability assessment - bylaws changes +1 @Alain Regards Arnaud 2016-09-19 19:56 GMT+00:00 ALAIN AINA >>: Hi, Let?s fix the process and better organise this critical review of the bylawsl. I do support the idea of a committee . ?Alain On Sep 19, 2016, at 4:25 PM, Bope Domilongo Christian >> wrote: Dear CEO, [speaking as a member of the community] Following last week discussion on the accountability review and others points raised by the community which was not in your original document, here my response. 1. On the Accountability Review. This review is from an independent AFRINIC's accountability review which identified areas need to be improved. Improving RIR accountability is very important in this context of IANA stewardship transition where the community will be exercising important role in the oversight of the IANA functions. So it is very crucial that the community gives this discussion the required attention and the consensual approach is more needed. It will be unfortunate if we did not follow these important improvements due to lack of consensus. 2. on the Process It was expected that the community discuss, express view and concern thereafter the Leadership will do his best effort to build consensus. Consensus here is strictly in the sense of RIR practices mean The Rough Consensus Model [1]. Ideally, people shall be encourage to comment on the list for the sake of archive and off list contribution should be discouraged and not accepted. That why some members of the community suggested the creation of a committee to lead the process. 3. On the discussion. Community has expressed views on each points. As expected there were convergences and divergences. For example, points 3,4, 5 had active and intensive discussions while reading may sound like profound disagreement. We shall now entire to the consensus building mode by opening the disagreement views and addressing one by one then we'll build ROUGH CONSENSUS. Another example, on point 11, there was no objection, but some suggestions even propose more such as "Registered Members only MUST never amend the bylaws, ..." and The proposed amendment should be published not less than 60 days and not more than 90 days before, with the provisions for more members to comment online and in any meeting held during the consultation period" 4. On the other points. Beyond the 12 points, some areas of improvements were suggested. For example, https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/community-discuss/2016-June/000350.html lists some of the points [1] https://www.nro.net/about-the-nro/rir-accountability on section 1.4 Regards, Bope On 19 September 2016 at 17:03, Andrew Alston >> wrote: I agree with the sentiments as echoed by Boubakar below. Thanks Andrew From: Mike Silber >> Reply-To: General Discussions of AFRINIC >> Date: Monday, 19 September 2016 at 10:39 To: General Discussions of AFRINIC >> Cc: "members-discuss at afrinic.net" >> Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - bylaws changes On 18 Sep 2016, at 23:44, Boubakar Barry >> wrote: ? We can of course think of advantages we can give to associate members to acknowledge their commitment and support. But I would not support giving voting rights to associate members. I would rather be for removing this membership category instead. Boubakar +1 _______________________________________________ Members-Discuss mailing list Members-Discuss at afrinic.net> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss _______________________________________________ Community-Discuss mailing list Community-Discuss at afrinic.net> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss _______________________________________________ Community-Discuss mailing list Community-Discuss at afrinic.net> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss _______________________________________________ Community-Discuss mailing list Community-Discuss at afrinic.net> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss _______________________________________________ Members-Discuss mailing list Members-Discuss at afrinic.net> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: ------------------------------ Message: 8 Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 08:50:50 +0300 From: Barrack Otieno > To: Andrew Alston > Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC >, afnog > Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] [afnog] IPv6 in Zimbabwe Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Well done Andrew and Liquid, Way to go, where next?:-) Regards On 9/29/16, Andrew Alston > wrote: > Hi Guys, > > So, let another exciting announcement ? I apologize for the cross posting to > both lists but I figured there were aspects of interest in both forums in > what follows. > > Yesterday we turned up IPv6 on our consumer products in Zimbabwe. There are > now in excess of 10 thousand FTTH users in Zimbabwe with active, live, > native IPv6 ? and they are actively using it. This was the next phase after > our smaller rollout in Kenya done a few weeks ago. > > We crossed the 1.5gigabit/second of consumer v6 traffic last night in that > particular location ? and even more exciting, more than 70% of that traffic > was sourced from CDN nodes and African peering ? it did NOT come via long > distance international links from Europe. > > On the AFRINIC side ? we followed the policy and registered each and every > static customer assignment in the whois database ? it held up well as we > sent a bulk update with close to 15 thousand /48 assignments in a single > update ? my congrats to the AfriNIC team because that was one hell of a long > update to process in one go. > > So, with that said, others talk about being IPv6 ready ? we can now proudly > say we have gone from being IPv6 ready to being truly IPv6 active. > > I expect the google stats and apnic stats will probably update in the next 2 > or 3 days and it will be curious to see what shows up. Let?s wait and see > as the updates happen. > > Thanks > > Andrew > > > > -- Barrack O. Otieno +254721325277 +254733206359 Skype: barrack.otieno PGP ID: 0x2611D86A ------------------------------ Message: 9 Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 11:49:09 +0530 From: ARTHUR CARINDAL > To: Andrew Alston > Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC >, afnog > Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] [afnog] IPv6 in Zimbabwe Message-ID: <78A43B26-660D-4B1A-94D5-339715D6ED62 at afrinic.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Dear Andrew We did appreciate your collaboration. And once again, well done! Regards _______________________________________________________________ Arthur Carindal N. Head of Member Services, AFRINIC Ltd. t: +230 403 5100 | f: +230 466 6758 | tt: @afrinic | w: www.afrinic.net> facebook.com/afrinic | flickr.com/afrinic | youtube.com/afrinicmedia _______________________________________________________________ Join us for the AFRINIC-25 meeting in Mauritius, 25 to 30 November 2016 > On 29 Sep 2016, at 10:39 AM, Andrew Alston > wrote: > > Hi Guys, > > So, let another exciting announcement ? I apologize for the cross posting to both lists but I figured there were aspects of interest in both forums in what follows. > > Yesterday we turned up IPv6 on our consumer products in Zimbabwe. There are now in excess of 10 thousand FTTH users in Zimbabwe with active, live, native IPv6 ? and they are actively using it. This was the next phase after our smaller rollout in Kenya done a few weeks ago. > > We crossed the 1.5gigabit/second of consumer v6 traffic last night in that particular location ? and even more exciting, more than 70% of that traffic was sourced from CDN nodes and African peering ? it did NOT come via long distance international links from Europe. > > On the AFRINIC side ? we followed the policy and registered each and every static customer assignment in the whois database ? it held up well as we sent a bulk update with close to 15 thousand /48 assignments in a single update ? my congrats to the AfriNIC team because that was one hell of a long update to process in one go. > > So, with that said, others talk about being IPv6 ready ? we can now proudly say we have gone from being IPv6 ready to being truly IPv6 active. > > I expect the google stats and apnic stats will probably update in the next 2 or 3 days and it will be curious to see what shows up. Let?s wait and see as the updates happen. > > Thanks > > Andrew > > > > _______________________________________________ > afnog mailing list > https://www.afnog.org/mailman/listinfo/afnog -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: ------------------------------ Message: 10 Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 10:50:07 +0400 From: Musa Stephen Honlue > To: Barrack Otieno > Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC >, afnog > Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] [afnog] IPv6 in Zimbabwe Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Well done. On Sep 29, 2016 09:51, "Barrack Otieno" > wrote: > Well done Andrew and Liquid, > > Way to go, where next?:-) > > > Regards > > On 9/29/16, Andrew Alston > wrote: > > Hi Guys, > > > > So, let another exciting announcement ? I apologize for the cross > posting to > > both lists but I figured there were aspects of interest in both forums in > > what follows. > > > > Yesterday we turned up IPv6 on our consumer products in Zimbabwe. There > are > > now in excess of 10 thousand FTTH users in Zimbabwe with active, live, > > native IPv6 ? and they are actively using it. This was the next phase > after > > our smaller rollout in Kenya done a few weeks ago. > > > > We crossed the 1.5gigabit/second of consumer v6 traffic last night in > that > > particular location ? and even more exciting, more than 70% of that > traffic > > was sourced from CDN nodes and African peering ? it did NOT come via long > > distance international links from Europe. > > > > On the AFRINIC side ? we followed the policy and registered each and > every > > static customer assignment in the whois database ? it held up well as we > > sent a bulk update with close to 15 thousand /48 assignments in a single > > update ? my congrats to the AfriNIC team because that was one hell of a > long > > update to process in one go. > > > > So, with that said, others talk about being IPv6 ready ? we can now > proudly > > say we have gone from being IPv6 ready to being truly IPv6 active. > > > > I expect the google stats and apnic stats will probably update in the > next 2 > > or 3 days and it will be curious to see what shows up. Let?s wait and > see > > as the updates happen. > > > > Thanks > > > > Andrew > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Barrack O. Otieno > +254721325277 > +254733206359 > Skype: barrack.otieno > PGP ID: 0x2611D86A > > _______________________________________________ > afnog mailing list > https://www.afnog.org/mailman/listinfo/afnog -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: ------------------------------ Message: 11 Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 11:48:59 +0300 From: "Miku, E. Cornelius" To: Andrew Alston Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC , afnog Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] [afnog] IPv6 in Zimbabwe Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Interesting news in deed. Congrats Andrew and Team. And AfriNIC. Regards, -- Miku On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 8:09 AM, Andrew Alston < Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com> wrote: > Hi Guys, > > > > So, let another exciting announcement ? I apologize for the cross posting > to both lists but I figured there were aspects of interest in both forums > in what follows. > > > > Yesterday we turned up IPv6 on our consumer products in Zimbabwe. There > are now in excess of 10 thousand FTTH users in Zimbabwe with active, live, > native IPv6 ? and they are actively using it. This was the next phase > after our smaller rollout in Kenya done a few weeks ago. > > > > We crossed the 1.5gigabit/second of consumer v6 traffic last night in that > particular location ? and even more exciting, more than 70% of that traffic > was sourced from CDN nodes and African peering ? it did NOT come via long > distance international links from Europe. > > > > On the AFRINIC side ? we followed the policy and registered each and every > static customer assignment in the whois database ? it held up well as we > sent a bulk update with close to 15 thousand /48 assignments in a single > update ? my congrats to the AfriNIC team because that was one hell of a > long update to process in one go. > > > > So, with that said, others talk about being IPv6 ready ? we can now > proudly say we have gone from being IPv6 ready to being truly IPv6 active. > > > > I expect the google stats and apnic stats will probably update in the next > 2 or 3 days and it will be curious to see what shows up. Let?s wait and > see as the updates happen. > > > > Thanks > > > > Andrew > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > afnog mailing list > https://www.afnog.org/mailman/listinfo/afnog > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: ------------------------------ Message: 12 Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 17:29:38 +0400 From: Loganaden Velvindron To: Andrew Alston Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC , afnog Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] [afnog] IPv6 in Zimbabwe Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 9:09 AM, Andrew Alston wrote: > Hi Guys, > > > > So, let another exciting announcement ? I apologize for the cross posting to > both lists but I figured there were aspects of interest in both forums in > what follows. > > > > Yesterday we turned up IPv6 on our consumer products in Zimbabwe. There are > now in excess of 10 thousand FTTH users in Zimbabwe with active, live, > native IPv6 ? and they are actively using it. This was the next phase after > our smaller rollout in Kenya done a few weeks ago. > > > > We crossed the 1.5gigabit/second of consumer v6 traffic last night in that > particular location ? and even more exciting, more than 70% of that traffic > was sourced from CDN nodes and African peering ? it did NOT come via long > distance international links from Europe. > > > > On the AFRINIC side ? we followed the policy and registered each and every > static customer assignment in the whois database ? it held up well as we > sent a bulk update with close to 15 thousand /48 assignments in a single > update ? my congrats to the AfriNIC team because that was one hell of a long > update to process in one go. > > > > So, with that said, others talk about being IPv6 ready ? we can now proudly > say we have gone from being IPv6 ready to being truly IPv6 active. > > > > I expect the google stats and apnic stats will probably update in the next 2 > or 3 days and it will be curious to see what shows up. Let?s wait and see > as the updates happen. > > > > Thanks > > > > Andrew > Hi Andrew, Congratulations, what is the particular model for the CPE ? ------------------------------ Message: 13 Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2016 04:41:46 -0600 From: Jackson Muthili To: Andrew Alston Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 4:25 AM, Andrew Alston wrote: > Jackson, > > Again, let me clarify my use of wording: > > Firstly - do I believe that it is irresponsible when I believe that someone is advocating for ignoring the law. Yes - I do, and my opinions my offend some, but I will not be limited in what I say because it may tread on toes if I believe what I am saying is the truth. > > Secondly - when I use the word na?ve, let's look at the definition of such: > > (of a person or action) showing a lack of experience, wisdom, or judgment. > > Do I believe that it is unwise to advocate for ignoring the act? Yes I do. > > If my stating that I believe these things offends someone - then I apologise for offense caused. I do not however apologise for stating them. > > It is a fine line we tread - where often the truth of a matter is disputed, and in taking any position, you are quite likely to offend someone who disagrees with your position, particularly when the position you are taking is taken in an unequivocal manner. In this case, I was unequivocal, it is my sincere and utmost believe that ignoring any text is unwise, reckless, irresponsible and shows a lack of judgement. > > Again, as I stated in what I said to Mirriam, the section to which I was referring to was one specific line: > >> One would expect the debate to stay at the community level and not involve the Act. The community to discuss and agree on how to manage this issue. > > So - if I offended people through the choice of words - apologies. For the sentiment behind those words - those I stand by in entirety. For the record I agree with the principles behind your argument. You could however use a better choice of words to avoid annoying people and deliver the same message politely and respectfully. Yes I know what naive and irresponsible mean. When dealing with fellow adults and professionals those words are mostly inappropriate. The intent behind which Alain stated his arguments was not a bad one. You cannot call him naive and irresponsible because your viewpoint and his did not align. Simply make known civilly (and calmly) your viewpoint. He will then be more open to understanding yours. -- ------------------------------ Message: 14 Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2016 15:03:05 +0400 From: Alan Barrett To: Andrew Alston Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum Message-ID: <84611736-F109-4BE6-9FC9-4ED7A1290EF8 at afrinic.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Dear Andrew, I ask that you use more diplomatic words to express your opinions. Alan Barrett ------------------------------ Message: 15 Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2016 11:12:11 +0000 From: Andrew Alston To: Alan Barrett Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252 Alan, Again, and this will be my last word on the subject - I have very strong opinions on what was stated in that line that I have quoted in my previous two emails on this subject. These are opinions, and I believe that the sentiment that I wished to convey was that the words used could have ramifications and were dangerous. If someone can give me a more diplomatic way to convey the same sentiment - I'm more than happy to hear it - many times my words are designed to convey a sentiment and unfortunately cause offense - happy to learn new words - so long as the sentiment behind the words remains the same :) Andrew -----Original Message----- From: Alan Barrett [mailto:alan.barrett at afrinic.net] Sent: 03 October 2016 14:03 To: Andrew Alston Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum Dear Andrew, I ask that you use more diplomatic words to express your opinions. Alan Barrett ------------------------------ Message: 16 Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2016 11:19:49 +0000 From: Boubakar Barry To: Alan Barrett Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" I don't think it's about diplomacy; it's rather about politeness and maturity. Boubakar On Monday, 3 October 2016, Alan Barrett wrote: > Dear Andrew, > > I ask that you use more diplomatic words to express your opinions. > > Alan Barrett > > > _______________________________________________ > Community-Discuss mailing list > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: ------------------------------ Subject: Digest Footer _______________________________________________ Community-Discuss mailing list Community-Discuss at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss ------------------------------ End of Community-Discuss Digest, Vol 68, Issue 1 ************************************************ Ce message et toutes les pi?ces jointes (ci-apr?s le "message") sont confidentiels et ?tablis ? l'intention exclusive de ses destinataires. Toute utilisation ou diffusion non autoris?e est interdite. Tout message ?lectronique est susceptible d'alt?ration, par cons?quent l'ARTCI d?cline toute responsabilit? au titre de ce message s'il a ?t? alt?r?, d?form? ou falsifi?. Ce message et toutes les pi?ces jointes (ci-apr?s le "message") sont confidentiels et ?tablis ? l'intention exclusive de ses destinataires. Toute utilisation ou diffusion non autoris?e est interdite. Tout message ?lectronique est susceptible d'alt?ration, par cons?quent l'ARTCI d?cline toute responsabilit? au titre de ce message s'il a ?t? alt?r?, d?form? ou falsifi?. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: OutlookEmoji-cid:image001.jpg at 01D071F4.5E155680.png Type: image/png Size: 1652 bytes Desc: OutlookEmoji-cid:image001.jpg at 01D071F4.5E155680.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: OutlookEmoji-logo-artci-test.png Type: image/png Size: 6922 bytes Desc: OutlookEmoji-logo-artci-test.png URL: ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2016 10:41:06 -0700 From: Owen DeLong To: General Discussions of AFRINIC Cc: "members-discuss at afrinic.net" Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - bylaws changes Message-ID: <6AD995EB-CC30-4CCC-9381-8CD2581F3317 at delong.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" I agree with Boubakar here. I think that granting associate membership voting rights is an invitation to organizational capture. Consider the relatively low voting participation as it stands (IIRC, the last time I was involved in counting an AfriNIC election, there were fewer than 200 total votes (possibly less than 100)). Consider that $300/year gets an individual an associate membership in AfriNIC. Even if we assume a 1 year delay to voting, then 200 * 2 * 300 = $120,000. If a company really wanted to seize control of an AfriNIC election, I do not think that it would beard to come up with $120,000 and 200 individuals willing to vote accordingly. I think limiting voting to those that hold internet number resources makes sense because they are the true stakeholders in the services provided by the organization. Owen > On Sep 18, 2016, at 2:44 PM, Boubakar Barry wrote: > > > On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 9:05 PM, Jackson Muthili > wrote: > On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 12:40 PM, Douglas Onyango > wrote: > > Hi Alan, > > Thanks for sharing this document. It will form a solid basis for continued > > deliberation on amendments of the bylaws. > > > > Regarding #1, specifically the Associate Members' right to (or not) vote, I > > was, and still I am opposed to the idea of rescinding the Associate Members > > rights to vote. > > > > Rationale: when an Associate Member is stripped of the right to vote, > > he/she is in reality as empowered -- or un-empowered -- as the rest of the > > AFRINIC community. AFRINIC would effectively be asking Associate members and > > prospects to fork out Associate Membership fees, but offering nothing over > > and above "AFRINIC community" status, which poses at least two problems: > > First, NO ONE of sound mind, with full understanding of these facts, would > > want to be an Associate members, and secondly, AFRINIC would be out-rightly > > fleecing its members by charging membership fees and providing no value in > > return, neither one of which is desirable. > > > > Therefore, the Associate Membership category should be imbued with voting > > rights -- or some other value add that is codified in the bylaws, barring > > which the category should effectively be expunged from the bylaws. > > +1 > > If any tier is named "member", such as "associate member"; such tier > MUST be given voting rights. Absent of this - it would be a useless > membership status. Why be a member of an establishment that cannot let > one exercise a simple right like a vote to enable effect change? > > Let associate members vote or get rid of this membership tier. Simple. > > > Not sure it's as simple as that. > > Do we want to encourage people/organisations to be be associate members just because of granted voting rights that have the potential of affecting resource members only? > > I know of organisations in which members are happy to be non-voting associate members because it gives them opportunities to contribute financially to the sustainability of these organisations, without benefiting from core services. Just because they share values of these organisations and want to support them. > > We can of course think of advantages we can give to associate members to acknowledge their commitment and support. But I would not support giving voting rights to associate members. I would rather be for removing this membership category instead. > > B. > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > On 16 September 2016 at 17:17, Alan Barrett > > > wrote: > >> > >> On 10 June, I posted a document describing potential areas for improvement > >> in the Bylaws as a result of an accountability assessment. I invited the > >> community and membership to comment on these issues. > >> > >> I have considered the discussion, and I have asked the legal adviser to > >> draft appropriate changes to the bylaws. In some cases, I have edited the > >> legal adviser?s text. In some cases, more drafting work is needed and > >> proposed text of bylaws changes is not yet available. > >> > >> I attach a document with the proposed bylaws changes. > >> > >> Alan Barrett > >> CEO, AFRINIC > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Community-Discuss mailing list > >> Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > Douglas Onyango, PRINCE 2, ITILv3 > > UG: +256 776 716 138 > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Community-Discuss mailing list > > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss > > > > _______________________________________________ > Community-Discuss mailing list > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss > > > > _______________________________________________ > Community-Discuss mailing list > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2016 10:48:52 -0700 From: Owen DeLong To: General Discussions of AFRINIC Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - bylaws changes Message-ID: <446DE42F-EF68-4EED-AF03-098F8B42C293 at delong.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > On Sep 19, 2016, at 3:08 AM, Alan Barrett wrote: > > >> On 19 Sep 2016, at 13:08, Seun Ojedeji wrote: >> >> Hello Alan, >> >> One point I observed has not been captured in the summary (which i also suggested), was to limit the Independent Director seat to "at most" one per region at any given time. This will address a possible situation where we end up having 4 directors from a region. > > I don?t think that?s an accountability issue. Even in the unlikely event that there are four from the same sub-region (regional director, two non-regional directors, and CEO), and that the four conspire together to advance some sort of sub-regional interest that?s against AFRINIC?s interest, the four would still not form a majority of the Board. They could, however, easily form a majority of quorum at a meeting where two directors are absent and depending on the particular voting rules of the board when 7 members and the CEO are present, possibly even one absence would be sufficient. > Instead of legislating geographical diversity in the Bylaws, I would prefer to rely on the membership to consider all kinds of diversity when voting. I agree with this. > Remember that Bylaws changes need a 75% majority. Would adding geographical restrictions to the non-geographical seats have enough support to pass? I?m actually not sure how you would reliably enforce such a provision in a fair and equitable manner. For example, if due to resignation, both non-geographic seats came available at the same time, would you limit to one candidate per region? If not, then what if the vote result had an equal number of votes for two candidates from the same region and they had the most votes? Which candidate would you disqualify in favor of the third-place candidate? Owen ------------------------------ Message: 5 Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2016 18:48:23 +0000 From: Arnaud AMELINA To: General Discussions of AFRINIC Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] [members-discuss] Accountability assessment - bylaws changes Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Hi CEO, nomcom chair, We are reading the GC call for nominations and see a procedure for elections. There is however no requirements, criteria or experience stated which is surprising as this is to do with a governance committee. Any reason for this? Furthermore and once again, why are COE members not allowed to join GC, why COE could not appoint a nominee to GC or for that matter why COE not used for the GC. Regards Arnaud Le 26 sept. 2016 18:31, "Alan Barrett" a ?crit : > > > On 26 Sep 2016, at 21:00, Benjamin Eshun > wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 8:52 AM, Alan Barrett > wrote: > > > > Yes, it?s true that a committee of 5 members cannot include a > representative from all 6 sub-regions. I don?t see that as a problem. > > > > I see alot of problems with the practical implementation this. > > > > 1. My first problem is which region is to be left out and what happens > when the more than one person come from a particular region. > > Of the five voting members on the GC, two are appointed by the Board, and > three are elected by the AFRINIC Membership. The two appointed by the > Board must come from two different sub-regions. The three elected by the > membership must come from three different sub-regions. However, nothing > in the charter prevents the same region from being represented both within > the Board-appointed and the Membership-elected subsets of the GC. The > regional requirements in the charter are to ensure that a single region can > never dominate the votes. > > > 2. Will the Board appoint it's members for/from a particular region and > leave the other regions to the community. In this case which regions will > the rest of the community nominate GC members and which will be done first. > > If the Board appoints somebody from a particular sub-region, that does not > prevent the Membership from electing another person from the same > sub-region, or vice versa. > > Does it matter which is first? I expect that the Board would listen to > advice about that. > > > 3. What selection mechanism will be used to guarantee the regional > diversity. > > NomCom is asking for nominations from all 6 sub-regions. The voting > process has not been finalised, but what I suggested to NomCom was: > > 1. The candidate with the most votes is elected for a three-year term; > 2. All other candidates from the same sub-region are eliminated; > 3. The remaining candidate with the next highest number of votes is > elected for a two-year term; > 4. All other candidates from the same sub-region are eliminated; > 5. The remaining candidate with the next highest number of votes is > elected for a one-year term; > > This will guarantee that the three Membership-elected members of the GC > come from three different sub-regions. > > In the future, assuming nothing unusual happens, one candidate will need > to be elected every year for a three-year term. > > Alan Barrett > > > _______________________________________________ > Community-Discuss mailing list > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: ------------------------------ Message: 6 Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2016 07:56:48 +0400 From: Alan Barrett To: General Discussions of AFRINIC Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] [members-discuss] Accountability assessment - bylaws changes Message-ID: <542448B8-8FAA-44BB-BC73-EE13A00C8163 at afrinic.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > On 3 Oct 2016, at 22:48, Arnaud AMELINA wrote: > > Hi CEO, nomcom chair, > > We are reading the GC call for nominations and see a procedure for elections. There is however no requirements, criteria or experience stated which is surprising as this is to do with a governance committee. Any reason for this? I?ll let NomCom answer that, if they choose to, but let me ask you: Why do you think that NomCom should impose criteria? Do you think that the membership is not capable of making their own decisions about how to vote? > Furthermore and once again, why are COE members not allowed to join GC, why COE could not appoint a nominee to GC or for that matter why COE not used for the GC. COE members are eligible to be elected to the Governance Committee by the AFRINIC Membership. They are not eligible to be appointed to the Governance Committee by the Board. Alan Barrett ------------------------------ Message: 7 Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2016 10:32:58 +0000 From: Arnaud AMELINA To: Alan Barrett Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] [members-discuss] Accountability assessment - bylaws changes Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" It appears to me that such a committee requires certain expertise and skills just like board. For the board, the bylaws has some criteria and allow nomcom to add others. And if there is no requirement, on what basis will nomcom evaluate the candidates? How will community comment on candidates during the public comment? Or if there is no evaluation and members decide by mere vote, what is the role of nomcom? Regards Arnaud 2016-10-04 3:56 GMT+00:00 Alan Barrett : > > > On 3 Oct 2016, at 22:48, Arnaud AMELINA wrote: > > > > Hi CEO, nomcom chair, > > > > We are reading the GC call for nominations and see a procedure for > elections. There is however no requirements, criteria or experience stated > which is surprising as this is to do with a governance committee. Any > reason for this? > > I?ll let NomCom answer that, if they choose to, but let me ask you: Why do > you think that NomCom should impose criteria? Do you think that the > membership is not capable of making their own decisions about how to vote? > > > Furthermore and once again, why are COE members not allowed to join GC, > why COE could not appoint a nominee to GC or for that matter why COE not > used for the GC. > > COE members are eligible to be elected to the Governance Committee by the > AFRINIC Membership. They are not eligible to be appointed to the > Governance Committee by the Board. > > Alan Barrett > > > _______________________________________________ > Community-Discuss mailing list > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: ------------------------------ Message: 8 Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2016 14:50:27 +0400 From: Alan Barrett To: General Discussions of AFRINIC Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] [members-discuss] Accountability assessment - bylaws changes Message-ID: <8A5B941C-B293-4393-ACF2-67E239659D90 at afrinic.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 On 4 Oct 2016, at 14:32, Arnaud AMELINA wrote: > > It appears to me that such a committee requires certain expertise and skills just like board. For the board, the bylaws has some criteria and allow nomcom to add others. Yes, NomCom may add criteria beyond what?s in the Governance Committee charter. They appear to have decided not to do so. I don?t know whether they had particular reasons, but somebody from NomCom is free to comment. > And if there is no requirement, on what basis will nomcom evaluate the candidates? How will community comment on candidates during the public comment? > Or if there is no evaluation and members decide by mere vote, what is the role of nomcom? NomCom?s role in Governance Committee elections is as similar as possible to their role in Board elections, as given in section 9 of the Bylaws. They have significant freedom in how they perform their task. When commenting on the suitability of any nominee or candidate, I would hope that people consider the role of the Governanc Committee as given in its charter, and the person?s ability to perform in such a role. Alan Barrett ------------------------------ Subject: Digest Footer _______________________________________________ Community-Discuss mailing list Community-Discuss at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss ------------------------------ End of Community-Discuss Digest, Vol 69, Issue 1 ************************************************ Ce message et toutes les pi?ces jointes (ci-apr?s le "message") sont confidentiels et ?tablis ? l'intention exclusive de ses destinataires. Toute utilisation ou diffusion non autoris?e est interdite. Tout message ?lectronique est susceptible d'alt?ration, par cons?quent l'ARTCI d?cline toute responsabilit? au titre de ce message s'il a ?t? alt?r?, d?form? ou falsifi?. Ce message et toutes les pi?ces jointes (ci-apr?s le "message") sont confidentiels et ?tablis ? l'intention exclusive de ses destinataires. Toute utilisation ou diffusion non autoris?e est interdite. Tout message ?lectronique est susceptible d'alt?ration, par cons?quent l'ARTCI d?cline toute responsabilit? au titre de ce message s'il a ?t? alt?r?, d?form? ou falsifi?. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 1652 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.png Type: image/png Size: 6921 bytes Desc: image002.png URL: From mje at posix.co.za Tue Oct 4 14:15:13 2016 From: mje at posix.co.za (Mark Elkins) Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2016 16:15:13 +0200 Subject: [Community-Discuss] [members-discuss] Accountability assessment - bylaws changes In-Reply-To: <8A5B941C-B293-4393-ACF2-67E239659D90@afrinic.net> References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <25F7D1CF-2E99-42D5-B047-20ED215C00B4@afrinic.net> <80BA55D7-0F6F-4FAA-91EF-2FF4AF185639@gmail.com> <8C62E426-18A9-49E0-B928-90111058789A@liquidtelecom.com> <34694787-5803-4C56-8F85-08461917E638@afrinic.net> <6FB39273-24A7-48DC-B5B3-73FCB8269CA6@afrinic.net> <542448B8-8FAA-44BB-BC73-EE13A00C8163@afrinic.net> <8A5B941C-B293-4393-ACF2-67E239659D90@afrinic.net> Message-ID: <1c6ed09a-f903-9149-6399-8ce277ccc1f2@posix.co.za> Firstly everybody, the AFRINIC Governance Committee Nomination process is due to close in one week. To nominate yourself or a candidate of your choice, please complete the nomination form at: https://registration.afrinic.net/events/node/25/ Nomination deadline is 11 October 2016 at 2000UTC On 04/10/2016 12:50, Alan Barrett wrote: > On 4 Oct 2016, at 14:32, Arnaud AMELINA wrote: >> >> It appears to me that such a committee requires certain expertise >> and skills just like board. For the board, the bylaws has some >> criteria and allow nomcom to add others. > > Yes, NomCom may add criteria beyond what?s in the Governance > Committee charter. They appear to have decided not to do so. I > don?t know whether they had particular reasons, but somebody from > NomCom is free to comment. For now, NomCom is not imposing extra criteria to limit whom we accept for Nomination. We would obviously like people with useful skills, etc. Technically, asking for a Nominee to be nominated by two (different) Members is an additional criteria - which however is becoming the norm. >> And if there is no requirement, on what basis will nomcom evaluate >> the candidates? How will community comment on candidates during the >> public comment? Or if there is no evaluation and members decide by >> mere vote, what is the role of nomcom? NomCom collects the Nominees so the Membership can choose. We hope to have more nominees than places but no more than a factor of between 2 and 3, ie we would like to present between 6 and 9 people for the upcoming elections. We collect nominees by posting on the usual lists and by explicitly contacting people. NomCom explicitly noted that the GC nominees should be both language and gender diverse as well as geographically diverse. In order to achieve this, NomCom has been reaching out to find at least one suitable female candidate from each of the six AFRINIC regions. We are otherwise guided by: 5.2.1. The AFRINIC Membership shall elect three (3) members of the Governance Committee, using a procedure similar to that used for election of Directors to the AFRINIC Board. > NomCom?s role in Governance Committee elections is as similar as > possible to their role in Board elections, as given in section 9 of > the Bylaws. They have significant freedom in how they perform their > task. > > When commenting on the suitability of any nominee or candidate, I > would hope that people consider the role of the Governanc Committee > as given in its charter, and the person?s ability to perform in such > a role. > > Alan Barrett -- Mark James ELKINS - Posix Systems - (South) Africa mje at posix.co.za Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: https://ftth.posix.co.za -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 4230 bytes Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature URL: From hytham at tra.gov.eg Tue Oct 4 19:07:37 2016 From: hytham at tra.gov.eg (Hytham El-Nakhal) Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2016 19:07:37 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum In-Reply-To: <41d4338a-3d86-a60e-983c-f3b1df96dbba@posix.co.za> References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <006D848C-5FE5-4CC7-A0F6-DFEC45918F72@nftconsult.com> <6A8D2AF5-4AD9-487B-92E6-D0FB9121DDD4@trstech.net> <6524FA98-0B3F-452A-B70E-485DE2AB41D6@liquidtelecom.com> <4FD9A772-C426-4263-8DE9-25BD97C27D98@nftconsult.com> <28CE8EF2-B9AE-4D5A-8A6C-5104681A9085@liquidtelecom.com> <9482E057-E45D-456A-A9F1-22288C457592@liquidtelecom.com> <3EBCFCCD-BDEC-4E8F-867A-DC579411A3F5@afrinic.net> <6CDD739C-3DA1-4037-9B1E-269F6940FFDF@liquidtelecom.com> <3A461E36-FC2F-4FCC-9443-67D848748762@nftconsult.com>, <41d4338a-3d86-a60e-983c-f3b1df96dbba@posix.co.za> Message-ID: <1475608097937.54653@tra.gov.eg> "Talking as a community member in my personal capacity" +1 Mark, I support the freedom for member to choose the way to cast his vote and to remove the restriction on the total number of proxies that one member can carry (if 100 members trust one specific member so they all have equal rights to issue a proxy for him). I understand that this restriction is applied only for members who has the right to vote in the meeting as per article 12.12.viii , and not applied on non-member person who assigned as a proxy by members as per item 12.12.i & ii & vii the member is free to choose anyone as a proxy, I'm not a lawyer but just read the articles of AFRINIC bylaws. Thanks, Haitham ________________________________________ From: Mark Elkins Sent: Friday, September 30, 2016 7:54 PM To: community-discuss at afrinic.net Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum I don't think the Proxy issue would survive a legal challenge in any African country based on English (or Dutch) law. French law can be different but this is law about how a company operates and with a few minor exceptions (eg company stamps) - I'd expect this to be very similar the world over. I personally prefer freedom for the individual member to choose the way in which they want to vote, whether in person, via proxy (without restrictions) or via electronic voting. On 30/09/2016 19:13, Badru Ntege wrote: > Andrew > > On 30 Sep 2016, at 5:30 pm, Andrew Alston > > wrote: > >> No Omo, >> >> >> >> Please read what Ashok said ? the limitation **WILL NOT SURVIVE LEGAL >> CHALLENGE** >> > > Afrinic is a regional organisation if we are being shackled by > jurisdiction of registration we have 52 other jurisdictions. > > We have options. Let's remain very open and objective to what is best > for members. > > Consensus not legal shackles is what the Internet is built on. > > > >> >> >> The companies act does not ALLOW the limitation. >> >> >> >> Andrew >> >> >> >> >> >> *From: *Omo Oaiya > >> *Date: *Friday, 30 September 2016 at 17:29 >> *To: *Andrew Alston > > >> *Cc: *Jean-Robert Hountomey > >, "community-discuss at afrinic.net >> " > > >> *Subject: *Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum >> >> >> >> As you have repeated but that is by the way. What is clear is that >> electronic voting has solved the issue with proxies so we don?t need >> them. If the companies act is restrictive and does not support better >> accountability, proxies can be limited to one per member to balance >> things out. >> >> >> >> On 30 Sep 2016, at 15:22, Andrew Alston >> > > wrote: >> >> >> >> Jean-Robert because proxies are enshrined in the companies act and >> the act explicitly states that they cannot be removed irrespective >> of what a company?s bylaws / constitution says. >> >> >> >> See fifth schedule section 6 >> >> >> >> Andrew >> >> >> >> >> >> *From: *Jean-Robert Hountomey > > >> *Date: *Friday, 30 September 2016 at 17:22 >> *To: *"community-discuss at afrinic.net >> " >> > >> *Subject: *Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum >> >> >> >> Talking about Board Members election (1) and (2), why do we want to keep Proxies While we have Electronic voting ? >> >> Proxies make sens when a member cannot attend the meeting in person, isn't what we wanted to solve with electronic voting? >> >> >> >> (1) http://afrinic.net/en/community/elections/bod-election/process >> >> (2) http://afrinic.net/en/about/agmm/participate-vote >> >> >> >> On 9/29/16 8:56 PM, Alan Barrett wrote: >> >> On 30 Sep 2016, at 02:26, Mark Elkins wrote >> >> The only time the Proxy Restrictions are enforced is for the Board >> >> elections. Traditionally, the elections for the PDP Co-Chair is hands at >> >> the meeting and the elections for the ASO-AC is by secret ballot by >> >> those present. >> >> Proxy restrictions apply to elections by the Members (Resource Members and Registered Members). ASO-AC and PDWG elections are by the community or by the PDWG, not by the Members. Board elections and now Governance Committee elections are by the Members. >> >> >> >> Alan Barrett >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> Community-Discuss mailing list >> >> Community-Discuss at afrinic.net >> >> >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Community-Discuss mailing list >> Community-Discuss at afrinic.net >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss >> >> >> >> >> ? >> >> Omo Oaiya >> CTO/Directeur Technique, WACREN >> Mobile: +234 806 4522778, +221 784 305 224 >> Skype: kodion >> http://www.wacren.net >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Community-Discuss mailing list >> Community-Discuss at afrinic.net >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss > > > _______________________________________________ > Community-Discuss mailing list > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss > -- Mark James ELKINS - Posix Systems - (South) Africa mje at posix.co.za Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: https://ftth.posix.co.za From amelnaud at gmail.com Tue Oct 4 19:15:56 2016 From: amelnaud at gmail.com (Arnaud AMELINA) Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2016 19:15:56 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] [members-discuss] Accountability assessment - bylaws changes In-Reply-To: <1c6ed09a-f903-9149-6399-8ce277ccc1f2@posix.co.za> References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <25F7D1CF-2E99-42D5-B047-20ED215C00B4@afrinic.net> <80BA55D7-0F6F-4FAA-91EF-2FF4AF185639@gmail.com> <8C62E426-18A9-49E0-B928-90111058789A@liquidtelecom.com> <34694787-5803-4C56-8F85-08461917E638@afrinic.net> <6FB39273-24A7-48DC-B5B3-73FCB8269CA6@afrinic.net> <542448B8-8FAA-44BB-BC73-EE13A00C8163@afrinic.net> <8A5B941C-B293-4393-ACF2-67E239659D90@afrinic.net> <1c6ed09a-f903-9149-6399-8ce277ccc1f2@posix.co.za> Message-ID: Would you please announce these new criteria of "useful skills" for prospective candidates and community to know? I suspect you must have some that you are using to find the suitable female candidates from each of the six afrinic regions. How are you convincing people to nominate if they don't know the skills and expertise you need? How balanced shall the gc be in terms of expertise? Regards Arnaud Le 4 oct. 2016 14:18, "Mark Elkins" a ?crit : > Firstly everybody, the AFRINIC Governance Committee Nomination process > is due to close in one week. > > To nominate yourself or a candidate of your choice, please complete > the nomination form at: > > https://registration.afrinic.net/events/node/25/ > > Nomination deadline is 11 October 2016 at 2000UTC > > On 04/10/2016 12:50, Alan Barrett wrote: > > On 4 Oct 2016, at 14:32, Arnaud AMELINA wrote: > >> > >> It appears to me that such a committee requires certain expertise > >> and skills just like board. For the board, the bylaws has some > >> criteria and allow nomcom to add others. > > > > Yes, NomCom may add criteria beyond what?s in the Governance > > Committee charter. They appear to have decided not to do so. I > > don?t know whether they had particular reasons, but somebody from > > NomCom is free to comment. > > For now, NomCom is not imposing extra criteria to limit whom we accept > for Nomination. We would obviously like people with useful skills, etc. > Technically, asking for a Nominee to be nominated by two (different) > Members is an additional criteria - which however is becoming the norm. > > >> And if there is no requirement, on what basis will nomcom evaluate > >> the candidates? How will community comment on candidates during the > >> public comment? Or if there is no evaluation and members decide by > >> mere vote, what is the role of nomcom? > > NomCom collects the Nominees so the Membership can choose. We hope to > have more nominees than places but no more than a factor of between 2 > and 3, ie we would like to present between 6 and 9 people for the > upcoming elections. > > We collect nominees by posting on the usual lists and by explicitly > contacting people. > > NomCom explicitly noted that the GC nominees should be both language and > gender diverse as well as geographically diverse. In order to achieve > this, NomCom has been reaching out to find at least one suitable female > candidate from each of the six AFRINIC regions. > > We are otherwise guided by: > > 5.2.1. The AFRINIC Membership shall elect three (3) members of the > Governance Committee, using a procedure similar to that used for > election of Directors to the AFRINIC Board. > > > NomCom?s role in Governance Committee elections is as similar as > > possible to their role in Board elections, as given in section 9 of > > the Bylaws. They have significant freedom in how they perform their > > task. > > > > When commenting on the suitability of any nominee or candidate, I > > would hope that people consider the role of the Governanc Committee > > as given in its charter, and the person?s ability to perform in such > > a role. > > > > Alan Barrett > > -- > Mark James ELKINS - Posix Systems - (South) Africa > mje at posix.co.za Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 > For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: https://ftth.posix.co.za > > > _______________________________________________ > Community-Discuss mailing list > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From boubakarbarry at gmail.com Tue Oct 4 19:44:00 2016 From: boubakarbarry at gmail.com (Boubakar Barry) Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2016 19:44:00 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum In-Reply-To: <1475608097937.54653@tra.gov.eg> References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <006D848C-5FE5-4CC7-A0F6-DFEC45918F72@nftconsult.com> <6A8D2AF5-4AD9-487B-92E6-D0FB9121DDD4@trstech.net> <6524FA98-0B3F-452A-B70E-485DE2AB41D6@liquidtelecom.com> <4FD9A772-C426-4263-8DE9-25BD97C27D98@nftconsult.com> <28CE8EF2-B9AE-4D5A-8A6C-5104681A9085@liquidtelecom.com> <9482E057-E45D-456A-A9F1-22288C457592@liquidtelecom.com> <3EBCFCCD-BDEC-4E8F-867A-DC579411A3F5@afrinic.net> <6CDD739C-3DA1-4037-9B1E-269F6940FFDF@liquidtelecom.com> <3A461E36-FC2F-4FCC-9443-67D848748762@nftconsult.com> <41d4338a-3d86-a60e-983c-f3b1df96dbba@posix.co.za> <1475608097937.54653@tra.gov.eg> Message-ID: In many countries, and not only in Africa, people buy votes and/or vote differently than instructed. By limiting the number of proxies one can carry, we won't eliminate this risk, but we would at least reduce it. I don't understand the logic whereby somebody trusts a third party more than him/herself? What is the electronic voting facility for? Yes, I know some will say everybody should be given the right to vote the way he/she wants (paper ballot paper onsite, electronic voting or proxy). No problem with that. But let's limit the risks by limiting the number of proxies one eligible voter can carry. There were good reasons for putting the limit. Boubakar On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 7:07 PM, Hytham El-Nakhal wrote: > "Talking as a community member in my personal capacity" > > +1 Mark, > I support the freedom for member to choose the way to cast his vote and to > remove the restriction on the total number of proxies that one member can > carry (if 100 members trust one specific member so they all have equal > rights to issue a proxy for him). > I understand that this restriction is applied only for members who has the > right to vote in the meeting as per article 12.12.viii , and not applied on > non-member person who assigned as a proxy by members as per item 12.12.i & > ii & vii the member is free to choose anyone as a proxy, I'm not a lawyer > but just read the articles of AFRINIC bylaws. > > Thanks, > Haitham > ________________________________________ > From: Mark Elkins > Sent: Friday, September 30, 2016 7:54 PM > To: community-discuss at afrinic.net > Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum > > I don't think the Proxy issue would survive a legal challenge in any > African country based on English (or Dutch) law. > > French law can be different but this is law about how a company operates > and with a few minor exceptions (eg company stamps) - I'd expect this to > be very similar the world over. > > I personally prefer freedom for the individual member to choose the way > in which they want to vote, whether in person, via proxy (without > restrictions) or via electronic voting. > > On 30/09/2016 19:13, Badru Ntege wrote: > > Andrew > > > > On 30 Sep 2016, at 5:30 pm, Andrew Alston > > > > wrote: > > > >> No Omo, > >> > >> > >> > >> Please read what Ashok said ? the limitation **WILL NOT SURVIVE LEGAL > >> CHALLENGE** > >> > > > > Afrinic is a regional organisation if we are being shackled by > > jurisdiction of registration we have 52 other jurisdictions. > > > > We have options. Let's remain very open and objective to what is best > > for members. > > > > Consensus not legal shackles is what the Internet is built on. > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> The companies act does not ALLOW the limitation. > >> > >> > >> > >> Andrew > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> *From: *Omo Oaiya > > >> *Date: *Friday, 30 September 2016 at 17:29 > >> *To: *Andrew Alston >> > > >> *Cc: *Jean-Robert Hountomey >> >, "community-discuss at afrinic.net > >> " >> > > >> *Subject: *Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum > >> > >> > >> > >> As you have repeated but that is by the way. What is clear is that > >> electronic voting has solved the issue with proxies so we don?t need > >> them. If the companies act is restrictive and does not support better > >> accountability, proxies can be limited to one per member to balance > >> things out. > >> > >> > >> > >> On 30 Sep 2016, at 15:22, Andrew Alston > >> >> > wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> Jean-Robert because proxies are enshrined in the companies act and > >> the act explicitly states that they cannot be removed irrespective > >> of what a company?s bylaws / constitution says. > >> > >> > >> > >> See fifth schedule section 6 > >> > >> > >> > >> Andrew > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> *From: *Jean-Robert Hountomey >> > > >> *Date: *Friday, 30 September 2016 at 17:22 > >> *To: *"community-discuss at afrinic.net > >> " > >> afrinic.net>> > >> *Subject: *Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - > quorum > >> > >> > >> > >> Talking about Board Members election (1) and (2), why do we want to > keep Proxies While we have Electronic voting ? > >> > >> Proxies make sens when a member cannot attend the meeting in > person, isn't what we wanted to solve with electronic voting? > >> > >> > >> > >> (1) http://afrinic.net/en/community/elections/bod-election/process > >> > >> (2) http://afrinic.net/en/about/agmm/participate-vote > >> > >> > >> > >> On 9/29/16 8:56 PM, Alan Barrett wrote: > >> > >> On 30 Sep 2016, at 02:26, Mark Elkins > wrote > >> > >> The only time the Proxy Restrictions are enforced is for > the Board > >> > >> elections. Traditionally, the elections for the PDP > Co-Chair is hands at > >> > >> the meeting and the elections for the ASO-AC is by secret > ballot by > >> > >> those present. > >> > >> Proxy restrictions apply to elections by the Members (Resource > Members and Registered Members). ASO-AC and PDWG elections are by the > community or by the PDWG, not by the Members. Board elections and now > Governance Committee elections are by the Members. > >> > >> > >> > >> Alan Barrett > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> > >> Community-Discuss mailing list > >> > >> Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > >> > >> > >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss > >> > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Community-Discuss mailing list > >> Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > > >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> ? > >> > >> Omo Oaiya > >> CTO/Directeur Technique, WACREN > >> Mobile: +234 806 4522778, +221 784 305 224 > >> Skype: kodion > >> http://www.wacren.net > >> > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Community-Discuss mailing list > >> Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Community-Discuss mailing list > > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss > > > > -- > Mark James ELKINS - Posix Systems - (South) Africa > mje at posix.co.za Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 > For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: https://ftth.posix.co.za > > > _______________________________________________ > Community-Discuss mailing list > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com Tue Oct 4 19:53:31 2016 From: Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com (Andrew Alston) Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2016 19:53:31 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum In-Reply-To: References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <006D848C-5FE5-4CC7-A0F6-DFEC45918F72@nftconsult.com> <6A8D2AF5-4AD9-487B-92E6-D0FB9121DDD4@trstech.net> <6524FA98-0B3F-452A-B70E-485DE2AB41D6@liquidtelecom.com> <4FD9A772-C426-4263-8DE9-25BD97C27D98@nftconsult.com> <28CE8EF2-B9AE-4D5A-8A6C-5104681A9085@liquidtelecom.com> <9482E057-E45D-456A-A9F1-22288C457592@liquidtelecom.com> <3EBCFCCD-BDEC-4E8F-867A-DC579411A3F5@afrinic.net> <6CDD739C-3DA1-4037-9B1E-269F6940FFDF@liquidtelecom.com> <3A461E36-FC2F-4FCC-9443-67D848748762@nftconsult.com> <41d4338a-3d86-a60e-983c-f3b1df96dbba@posix.co.za> <1475608097937.54653@tra.gov.eg> Message-ID: Speaking in my own personal capacity. Firstly ? You don?t eliminate the risk of bought votes by limiting proxies ? it makes absolutely zero difference ? because the person could just as easily pay someone to vote a particular way electronically. Secondly ? The reason that people give others proxies is often more than just votes ? the voting aspect of it is just another element of the proxy that can be exercised at the same time. Companies may well want their voices heard at an AGMM that they cannot be present at ? so they issue a proxy and the individual carrying the proxy then speaks on their behalf *AND* votes on their behalf Thirdly ? If we determine that the current wording in the bylaws is invalid or out of sync with the act or has giant problems with it ? the only way to fix that is to the fix the bylaws ? and calling for this to be fixed won?t help until someone actually proposes new wording to fix the issue ? and then sees if it will get the majority that is required for the bylaw change. Personally, having read the responses on this list ? I do not see a consensus for a proxy limitation at all ? so I have my personal doubts that such a bylaw change would succeed ? but it is still the only way to actually rectify the problem. (Due to the fact that for all the reasons I have stated, even if we take the act out of the picture, the current bylaw limit is in my view invalid since proxies aren?t granted to members, they are granted to individuals). Note: I personally will have zero issue if someone attempts to put a special resolution for anything on the floor ? and I would encourage people who really believe that this is limit SHOULD be there to do exactly that ? attempt to fix the wording in the bylaws such that there is actually a legitimate limit. I just doubt it would pass a 75% majority based on what I have seen on this list so far ? where I see absolutely no consensus for such a limit. Andrew From: Boubakar Barry Date: Tuesday, 4 October 2016 at 22:44 To: Hytham El-Nakhal Cc: "community-discuss at afrinic.net" Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum In many countries, and not only in Africa, people buy votes and/or vote differently than instructed. By limiting the number of proxies one can carry, we won't eliminate this risk, but we would at least reduce it. I don't understand the logic whereby somebody trusts a third party more than him/herself? What is the electronic voting facility for? Yes, I know some will say everybody should be given the right to vote the way he/she wants (paper ballot paper onsite, electronic voting or proxy). No problem with that. But let's limit the risks by limiting the number of proxies one eligible voter can carry. There were good reasons for putting the limit. Boubakar On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 7:07 PM, Hytham El-Nakhal > wrote: "Talking as a community member in my personal capacity" +1 Mark, I support the freedom for member to choose the way to cast his vote and to remove the restriction on the total number of proxies that one member can carry (if 100 members trust one specific member so they all have equal rights to issue a proxy for him). I understand that this restriction is applied only for members who has the right to vote in the meeting as per article 12.12.viii , and not applied on non-member person who assigned as a proxy by members as per item 12.12.i & ii & vii the member is free to choose anyone as a proxy, I'm not a lawyer but just read the articles of AFRINIC bylaws. Thanks, Haitham ________________________________________ From: Mark Elkins > Sent: Friday, September 30, 2016 7:54 PM To: community-discuss at afrinic.net Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum I don't think the Proxy issue would survive a legal challenge in any African country based on English (or Dutch) law. French law can be different but this is law about how a company operates and with a few minor exceptions (eg company stamps) - I'd expect this to be very similar the world over. I personally prefer freedom for the individual member to choose the way in which they want to vote, whether in person, via proxy (without restrictions) or via electronic voting. On 30/09/2016 19:13, Badru Ntege wrote: > Andrew > > On 30 Sep 2016, at 5:30 pm, Andrew Alston > > >> wrote: > >> No Omo, >> >> >> >> Please read what Ashok said ? the limitation **WILL NOT SURVIVE LEGAL >> CHALLENGE** >> > > Afrinic is a regional organisation if we are being shackled by > jurisdiction of registration we have 52 other jurisdictions. > > We have options. Let's remain very open and objective to what is best > for members. > > Consensus not legal shackles is what the Internet is built on. > > > >> >> >> The companies act does not ALLOW the limitation. >> >> >> >> Andrew >> >> >> >> >> >> *From: *Omo Oaiya >> >> *Date: *Friday, 30 September 2016 at 17:29 >> *To: *Andrew Alston >> >> >> *Cc: *Jean-Robert Hountomey >> >>, "community-discuss at afrinic.net >> >" >> >> >> *Subject: *Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum >> >> >> >> As you have repeated but that is by the way. What is clear is that >> electronic voting has solved the issue with proxies so we don?t need >> them. If the companies act is restrictive and does not support better >> accountability, proxies can be limited to one per member to balance >> things out. >> >> >> >> On 30 Sep 2016, at 15:22, Andrew Alston >> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> Jean-Robert because proxies are enshrined in the companies act and >> the act explicitly states that they cannot be removed irrespective >> of what a company?s bylaws / constitution says. >> >> >> >> See fifth schedule section 6 >> >> >> >> Andrew >> >> >> >> >> >> *From: *Jean-Robert Hountomey >> >> >> *Date: *Friday, 30 September 2016 at 17:22 >> *To: *"community-discuss at afrinic.net >> >" >> >> >> *Subject: *Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum >> >> >> >> Talking about Board Members election (1) and (2), why do we want to keep Proxies While we have Electronic voting ? >> >> Proxies make sens when a member cannot attend the meeting in person, isn't what we wanted to solve with electronic voting? >> >> >> >> (1) http://afrinic.net/en/community/elections/bod-election/process >> >> (2) http://afrinic.net/en/about/agmm/participate-vote >> >> >> >> On 9/29/16 8:56 PM, Alan Barrett wrote: >> >> On 30 Sep 2016, at 02:26, Mark Elkins > > wrote >> >> The only time the Proxy Restrictions are enforced is for the Board >> >> elections. Traditionally, the elections for the PDP Co-Chair is hands at >> >> the meeting and the elections for the ASO-AC is by secret ballot by >> >> those present. >> >> Proxy restrictions apply to elections by the Members (Resource Members and Registered Members). ASO-AC and PDWG elections are by the community or by the PDWG, not by the Members. Board elections and now Governance Committee elections are by the Members. >> >> >> >> Alan Barrett >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> Community-Discuss mailing list >> >> Community-Discuss at afrinic.net >> > >> >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Community-Discuss mailing list >> Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss >> >> >> >> >> ? >> >> Omo Oaiya >> CTO/Directeur Technique, WACREN >> Mobile: +234 806 4522778, +221 784 305 224 >> Skype: kodion >> http://www.wacren.net >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Community-Discuss mailing list >> Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss > > > _______________________________________________ > Community-Discuss mailing list > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss > -- Mark James ELKINS - Posix Systems - (South) Africa mje at posix.co.za Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: https://ftth.posix.co.za _______________________________________________ Community-Discuss mailing list Community-Discuss at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From boubakarbarry at gmail.com Tue Oct 4 20:00:55 2016 From: boubakarbarry at gmail.com (Boubakar Barry) Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2016 20:00:55 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum In-Reply-To: References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <006D848C-5FE5-4CC7-A0F6-DFEC45918F72@nftconsult.com> <6A8D2AF5-4AD9-487B-92E6-D0FB9121DDD4@trstech.net> <6524FA98-0B3F-452A-B70E-485DE2AB41D6@liquidtelecom.com> <4FD9A772-C426-4263-8DE9-25BD97C27D98@nftconsult.com> <28CE8EF2-B9AE-4D5A-8A6C-5104681A9085@liquidtelecom.com> <9482E057-E45D-456A-A9F1-22288C457592@liquidtelecom.com> <3EBCFCCD-BDEC-4E8F-867A-DC579411A3F5@afrinic.net> <6CDD739C-3DA1-4037-9B1E-269F6940FFDF@liquidtelecom.com> <3A461E36-FC2F-4FCC-9443-67D848748762@nftconsult.com> <41d4338a-3d86-a60e-983c-f3b1df96dbba@posix.co.za> <1475608097937.54653@tra.gov.eg> Message-ID: To be honest, I just read the beginning of your email. Many other important things to do. Just to say: for a resource member who really doesn't care about how AfriNIC is managed/governed and just wants to get its resources (and there is a load of them if you look at meetings attendance and participation in the mailing lists), it makes a huge difference between looking at candidates profiles before logging in to vote and signing a pre-filled form. My last 2 cents on this. Members and the community should decide. B. On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 7:53 PM, Andrew Alston < Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com> wrote: > Speaking in my own personal capacity. > > > > Firstly ? You don?t eliminate the risk of bought votes by limiting proxies > ? it makes absolutely zero difference ? because the person could just as > easily pay someone to vote a particular way electronically. > > > > Secondly ? The reason that people give others proxies is often more than > just votes ? the voting aspect of it is just another element of the proxy > that can be exercised at the same time. Companies may well want their > voices heard at an AGMM that they cannot be present at ? so they issue a > proxy and the individual carrying the proxy then speaks on their behalf * > *AND** votes on their behalf > > > > Thirdly ? If we determine that the current wording in the bylaws is > invalid or out of sync with the act or has giant problems with it ? the > only way to fix that is to the fix the bylaws ? and calling for this to be > fixed won?t help until someone actually proposes new wording to fix the > issue ? and then sees if it will get the majority that is required for the > bylaw change. Personally, having read the responses on this list ? I do > not see a consensus for a proxy limitation at all ? so I have my personal > doubts that such a bylaw change would succeed ? but it is still the only > way to actually rectify the problem. (Due to the fact that for all the > reasons I have stated, even if we take the act out of the picture, the > current bylaw limit is in my view invalid since proxies aren?t granted to > members, they are granted to individuals). > > > > Note: I personally will have zero issue if someone attempts to put a > special resolution for anything on the floor ? and I would encourage people > who really believe that this is limit SHOULD be there to do exactly that ? > attempt to fix the wording in the bylaws such that there is actually a > legitimate limit. I just doubt it would pass a 75% majority based on what > I have seen on this list so far ? where I see absolutely no consensus for > such a limit. > > > > Andrew > > > > > > *From: *Boubakar Barry > *Date: *Tuesday, 4 October 2016 at 22:44 > *To: *Hytham El-Nakhal > *Cc: *"community-discuss at afrinic.net" > > *Subject: *Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum > > > > In many countries, and not only in Africa, people buy votes and/or vote > differently than instructed. > > By limiting the number of proxies one can carry, we won't eliminate this > risk, but we would at least reduce it. > > I don't understand the logic whereby somebody trusts a third party more > than him/herself? What is the electronic voting facility for? > > Yes, I know some will say everybody should be given the right to vote the > way he/she wants (paper ballot paper onsite, electronic voting or proxy). > No problem with that. > > But let's limit the risks by limiting the number of proxies one eligible > voter can carry. There were good reasons for putting the limit. > > Boubakar > > > > On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 7:07 PM, Hytham El-Nakhal > wrote: > > "Talking as a community member in my personal capacity" > > +1 Mark, > I support the freedom for member to choose the way to cast his vote and to > remove the restriction on the total number of proxies that one member can > carry (if 100 members trust one specific member so they all have equal > rights to issue a proxy for him). > I understand that this restriction is applied only for members who has the > right to vote in the meeting as per article 12.12.viii , and not applied on > non-member person who assigned as a proxy by members as per item 12.12.i & > ii & vii the member is free to choose anyone as a proxy, I'm not a lawyer > but just read the articles of AFRINIC bylaws. > > Thanks, > Haitham > ________________________________________ > From: Mark Elkins > Sent: Friday, September 30, 2016 7:54 PM > To: community-discuss at afrinic.net > Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum > > > I don't think the Proxy issue would survive a legal challenge in any > African country based on English (or Dutch) law. > > French law can be different but this is law about how a company operates > and with a few minor exceptions (eg company stamps) - I'd expect this to > be very similar the world over. > > I personally prefer freedom for the individual member to choose the way > in which they want to vote, whether in person, via proxy (without > restrictions) or via electronic voting. > > On 30/09/2016 19:13, Badru Ntege wrote: > > Andrew > > > > On 30 Sep 2016, at 5:30 pm, Andrew Alston > > > > wrote: > > > >> No Omo, > >> > >> > >> > >> Please read what Ashok said ? the limitation **WILL NOT SURVIVE LEGAL > >> CHALLENGE** > >> > > > > Afrinic is a regional organisation if we are being shackled by > > jurisdiction of registration we have 52 other jurisdictions. > > > > We have options. Let's remain very open and objective to what is best > > for members. > > > > Consensus not legal shackles is what the Internet is built on. > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> The companies act does not ALLOW the limitation. > >> > >> > >> > >> Andrew > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> *From: *Omo Oaiya > > >> *Date: *Friday, 30 September 2016 at 17:29 > >> *To: *Andrew Alston >> > > >> *Cc: *Jean-Robert Hountomey >> >, "community-discuss at afrinic.net > >> " >> > > >> *Subject: *Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum > >> > >> > >> > >> As you have repeated but that is by the way. What is clear is that > >> electronic voting has solved the issue with proxies so we don?t need > >> them. If the companies act is restrictive and does not support better > >> accountability, proxies can be limited to one per member to balance > >> things out. > >> > >> > >> > >> On 30 Sep 2016, at 15:22, Andrew Alston > >> >> > wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> Jean-Robert because proxies are enshrined in the companies act and > >> the act explicitly states that they cannot be removed irrespective > >> of what a company?s bylaws / constitution says. > >> > >> > >> > >> See fifth schedule section 6 > >> > >> > >> > >> Andrew > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> *From: *Jean-Robert Hountomey >> > > >> *Date: *Friday, 30 September 2016 at 17:22 > >> *To: *"community-discuss at afrinic.net > >> " > >> afrinic.net>> > >> *Subject: *Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - > quorum > >> > >> > >> > >> Talking about Board Members election (1) and (2), why do we want to > keep Proxies While we have Electronic voting ? > >> > >> Proxies make sens when a member cannot attend the meeting in > person, isn't what we wanted to solve with electronic voting? > >> > >> > >> > >> (1) http://afrinic.net/en/community/elections/bod-election/process > >> > >> (2) http://afrinic.net/en/about/agmm/participate-vote > >> > >> > >> > >> On 9/29/16 8:56 PM, Alan Barrett wrote: > >> > >> On 30 Sep 2016, at 02:26, Mark Elkins > wrote > >> > >> The only time the Proxy Restrictions are enforced is for > the Board > >> > >> elections. Traditionally, the elections for the PDP > Co-Chair is hands at > >> > >> the meeting and the elections for the ASO-AC is by secret > ballot by > >> > >> those present. > >> > >> Proxy restrictions apply to elections by the Members (Resource > Members and Registered Members). ASO-AC and PDWG elections are by the > community or by the PDWG, not by the Members. Board elections and now > Governance Committee elections are by the Members. > >> > >> > >> > >> Alan Barrett > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> > >> Community-Discuss mailing list > >> > >> Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > >> > >> > >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss > >> > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Community-Discuss mailing list > >> Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > > >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> ? > >> > >> Omo Oaiya > >> CTO/Directeur Technique, WACREN > >> Mobile: +234 806 4522778, +221 784 305 224 > >> Skype: kodion > >> http://www.wacren.net > >> > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Community-Discuss mailing list > >> Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Community-Discuss mailing list > > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss > > > > -- > Mark James ELKINS - Posix Systems - (South) Africa > mje at posix.co.za Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 > For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: https://ftth.posix.co.za > > > _______________________________________________ > Community-Discuss mailing list > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mje at posix.co.za Tue Oct 4 20:01:38 2016 From: mje at posix.co.za (Mark Elkins) Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2016 22:01:38 +0200 Subject: [Community-Discuss] [members-discuss] Accountability assessment - bylaws changes In-Reply-To: References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <80BA55D7-0F6F-4FAA-91EF-2FF4AF185639@gmail.com> <8C62E426-18A9-49E0-B928-90111058789A@liquidtelecom.com> <34694787-5803-4C56-8F85-08461917E638@afrinic.net> <6FB39273-24A7-48DC-B5B3-73FCB8269CA6@afrinic.net> <542448B8-8FAA-44BB-BC73-EE13A00C8163@afrinic.net> <8A5B941C-B293-4393-ACF2-67E239659D90@afrinic.net> <1c6ed09a-f903-9149-6399-8ce277ccc1f2@posix.co.za> Message-ID: On 04/10/2016 21:15, Arnaud AMELINA wrote: > Would you please announce these new criteria of "useful skills" for > prospective candidates and community to know? I'd like to see a cross section of skills. That would include: * Technical (with respect to AFRINIC) * Law * Financial * Human Resource * Management/Board There is nothing new about wanting these skills though. I was hoping common sense would prevail. > I suspect you must have > some that you are using to find the suitable female candidates from each > of the six afrinic regions. Generally, if a woman is even moderately successful in the Internet industry - she's probably got the skills we are looking for. > How are you convincing people to nominate if they don't know the skills > and expertise you need? Personally - I hope they read the "job description" and are intelligent enough to decide whether they would be useful or not. > How balanced shall the gc be in terms of expertise? That ultimately depends on whom is voted in by the membership. > Regards > > Arnaud > > > Le 4 oct. 2016 14:18, "Mark Elkins" > a ?crit : > > Firstly everybody, the AFRINIC Governance Committee Nomination process > is due to close in one week. > > To nominate yourself or a candidate of your choice, please complete > the nomination form at: > > https://registration.afrinic.net/events/node/25/ > > > Nomination deadline is 11 October 2016 at 2000UTC > > On 04/10/2016 12:50, Alan Barrett wrote: > > On 4 Oct 2016, at 14:32, Arnaud AMELINA > wrote: > >> > >> It appears to me that such a committee requires certain expertise > >> and skills just like board. For the board, the bylaws has some > >> criteria and allow nomcom to add others. > > > > Yes, NomCom may add criteria beyond what?s in the Governance > > Committee charter. They appear to have decided not to do so. I > > don?t know whether they had particular reasons, but somebody from > > NomCom is free to comment. > > For now, NomCom is not imposing extra criteria to limit whom we accept > for Nomination. We would obviously like people with useful skills, etc. > Technically, asking for a Nominee to be nominated by two (different) > Members is an additional criteria - which however is becoming the norm. > > >> And if there is no requirement, on what basis will nomcom evaluate > >> the candidates? How will community comment on candidates during the > >> public comment? Or if there is no evaluation and members decide by > >> mere vote, what is the role of nomcom? > > NomCom collects the Nominees so the Membership can choose. We hope to > have more nominees than places but no more than a factor of between 2 > and 3, ie we would like to present between 6 and 9 people for the > upcoming elections. > > We collect nominees by posting on the usual lists and by explicitly > contacting people. > > NomCom explicitly noted that the GC nominees should be both language and > gender diverse as well as geographically diverse. In order to achieve > this, NomCom has been reaching out to find at least one suitable female > candidate from each of the six AFRINIC regions. > > We are otherwise guided by: > > 5.2.1. The AFRINIC Membership shall elect three (3) members of the > Governance Committee, using a procedure similar to that used for > election of Directors to the AFRINIC Board. > > > NomCom?s role in Governance Committee elections is as similar as > > possible to their role in Board elections, as given in section 9 of > > the Bylaws. They have significant freedom in how they perform their > > task. > > > > When commenting on the suitability of any nominee or candidate, I > > would hope that people consider the role of the Governanc Committee > > as given in its charter, and the person?s ability to perform in such > > a role. > > > > Alan Barrett > > -- > Mark James ELKINS - Posix Systems - (South) Africa > mje at posix.co.za Tel: +27.128070590 > Cell: +27.826010496 > For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: https://ftth.posix.co.za > > > _______________________________________________ > Community-Discuss mailing list > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss > > -- Mark James ELKINS - Posix Systems - (South) Africa mje at posix.co.za Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: https://ftth.posix.co.za -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 4230 bytes Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature URL: From Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com Tue Oct 4 20:04:38 2016 From: Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com (Andrew Alston) Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2016 20:04:38 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum In-Reply-To: References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <006D848C-5FE5-4CC7-A0F6-DFEC45918F72@nftconsult.com> <6A8D2AF5-4AD9-487B-92E6-D0FB9121DDD4@trstech.net> <6524FA98-0B3F-452A-B70E-485DE2AB41D6@liquidtelecom.com> <4FD9A772-C426-4263-8DE9-25BD97C27D98@nftconsult.com> <28CE8EF2-B9AE-4D5A-8A6C-5104681A9085@liquidtelecom.com> <9482E057-E45D-456A-A9F1-22288C457592@liquidtelecom.com> <3EBCFCCD-BDEC-4E8F-867A-DC579411A3F5@afrinic.net> <6CDD739C-3DA1-4037-9B1E-269F6940FFDF@liquidtelecom.com> <3A461E36-FC2F-4FCC-9443-67D848748762@nftconsult.com> <41d4338a-3d86-a60e-983c-f3b1df96dbba@posix.co.za> <1475608097937.54653@tra.gov.eg> Message-ID: <25CBCB5C-94E3-4D15-BE02-76E914F00763@liquidtelecom.com> Sorry ? But what you are saying here still does not make sense to me, and I really would like to understand your argument better. You are saying that limiting proxies limits vote buying because someone can buy a signed piece of paper ? ok ? now lets look at electronic voting? What is preventing someone from paying someone to not look at the candidates at all and log in, and say ?vote for this person? ? absolutely nothing ? the same thing occurs. Personally I don?t believe that there is any situation where buying votes in the context of AfriNIC would make any sense whatsoever and I just don?t see it ever happening ? but if we want to be paranoid and protect against it ? limiting proxies certainly won?t do that. Andrew From: Boubakar Barry Date: Tuesday, 4 October 2016 at 23:00 To: Andrew Alston Cc: Hytham El-Nakhal , "community-discuss at afrinic.net" Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum To be honest, I just read the beginning of your email. Many other important things to do. Just to say: for a resource member who really doesn't care about how AfriNIC is managed/governed and just wants to get its resources (and there is a load of them if you look at meetings attendance and participation in the mailing lists), it makes a huge difference between looking at candidates profiles before logging in to vote and signing a pre-filled form. My last 2 cents on this. Members and the community should decide. B. On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 7:53 PM, Andrew Alston > wrote: Speaking in my own personal capacity. Firstly ? You don?t eliminate the risk of bought votes by limiting proxies ? it makes absolutely zero difference ? because the person could just as easily pay someone to vote a particular way electronically. Secondly ? The reason that people give others proxies is often more than just votes ? the voting aspect of it is just another element of the proxy that can be exercised at the same time. Companies may well want their voices heard at an AGMM that they cannot be present at ? so they issue a proxy and the individual carrying the proxy then speaks on their behalf *AND* votes on their behalf Thirdly ? If we determine that the current wording in the bylaws is invalid or out of sync with the act or has giant problems with it ? the only way to fix that is to the fix the bylaws ? and calling for this to be fixed won?t help until someone actually proposes new wording to fix the issue ? and then sees if it will get the majority that is required for the bylaw change. Personally, having read the responses on this list ? I do not see a consensus for a proxy limitation at all ? so I have my personal doubts that such a bylaw change would succeed ? but it is still the only way to actually rectify the problem. (Due to the fact that for all the reasons I have stated, even if we take the act out of the picture, the current bylaw limit is in my view invalid since proxies aren?t granted to members, they are granted to individuals). Note: I personally will have zero issue if someone attempts to put a special resolution for anything on the floor ? and I would encourage people who really believe that this is limit SHOULD be there to do exactly that ? attempt to fix the wording in the bylaws such that there is actually a legitimate limit. I just doubt it would pass a 75% majority based on what I have seen on this list so far ? where I see absolutely no consensus for such a limit. Andrew From: Boubakar Barry > Date: Tuesday, 4 October 2016 at 22:44 To: Hytham El-Nakhal > Cc: "community-discuss at afrinic.net" > Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum In many countries, and not only in Africa, people buy votes and/or vote differently than instructed. By limiting the number of proxies one can carry, we won't eliminate this risk, but we would at least reduce it. I don't understand the logic whereby somebody trusts a third party more than him/herself? What is the electronic voting facility for? Yes, I know some will say everybody should be given the right to vote the way he/she wants (paper ballot paper onsite, electronic voting or proxy). No problem with that. But let's limit the risks by limiting the number of proxies one eligible voter can carry. There were good reasons for putting the limit. Boubakar On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 7:07 PM, Hytham El-Nakhal > wrote: "Talking as a community member in my personal capacity" +1 Mark, I support the freedom for member to choose the way to cast his vote and to remove the restriction on the total number of proxies that one member can carry (if 100 members trust one specific member so they all have equal rights to issue a proxy for him). I understand that this restriction is applied only for members who has the right to vote in the meeting as per article 12.12.viii , and not applied on non-member person who assigned as a proxy by members as per item 12.12.i & ii & vii the member is free to choose anyone as a proxy, I'm not a lawyer but just read the articles of AFRINIC bylaws. Thanks, Haitham ________________________________________ From: Mark Elkins > Sent: Friday, September 30, 2016 7:54 PM To: community-discuss at afrinic.net Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum I don't think the Proxy issue would survive a legal challenge in any African country based on English (or Dutch) law. French law can be different but this is law about how a company operates and with a few minor exceptions (eg company stamps) - I'd expect this to be very similar the world over. I personally prefer freedom for the individual member to choose the way in which they want to vote, whether in person, via proxy (without restrictions) or via electronic voting. On 30/09/2016 19:13, Badru Ntege wrote: > Andrew > > On 30 Sep 2016, at 5:30 pm, Andrew Alston > > >> wrote: > >> No Omo, >> >> >> >> Please read what Ashok said ? the limitation **WILL NOT SURVIVE LEGAL >> CHALLENGE** >> > > Afrinic is a regional organisation if we are being shackled by > jurisdiction of registration we have 52 other jurisdictions. > > We have options. Let's remain very open and objective to what is best > for members. > > Consensus not legal shackles is what the Internet is built on. > > > >> >> >> The companies act does not ALLOW the limitation. >> >> >> >> Andrew >> >> >> >> >> >> *From: *Omo Oaiya >> >> *Date: *Friday, 30 September 2016 at 17:29 >> *To: *Andrew Alston >> >> >> *Cc: *Jean-Robert Hountomey >> >>, "community-discuss at afrinic.net >> >" >> >> >> *Subject: *Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum >> >> >> >> As you have repeated but that is by the way. What is clear is that >> electronic voting has solved the issue with proxies so we don?t need >> them. If the companies act is restrictive and does not support better >> accountability, proxies can be limited to one per member to balance >> things out. >> >> >> >> On 30 Sep 2016, at 15:22, Andrew Alston >> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> Jean-Robert because proxies are enshrined in the companies act and >> the act explicitly states that they cannot be removed irrespective >> of what a company?s bylaws / constitution says. >> >> >> >> See fifth schedule section 6 >> >> >> >> Andrew >> >> >> >> >> >> *From: *Jean-Robert Hountomey >> >> >> *Date: *Friday, 30 September 2016 at 17:22 >> *To: *"community-discuss at afrinic.net >> >" >> >> >> *Subject: *Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum >> >> >> >> Talking about Board Members election (1) and (2), why do we want to keep Proxies While we have Electronic voting ? >> >> Proxies make sens when a member cannot attend the meeting in person, isn't what we wanted to solve with electronic voting? >> >> >> >> (1) http://afrinic.net/en/community/elections/bod-election/process >> >> (2) http://afrinic.net/en/about/agmm/participate-vote >> >> >> >> On 9/29/16 8:56 PM, Alan Barrett wrote: >> >> On 30 Sep 2016, at 02:26, Mark Elkins > > wrote >> >> The only time the Proxy Restrictions are enforced is for the Board >> >> elections. Traditionally, the elections for the PDP Co-Chair is hands at >> >> the meeting and the elections for the ASO-AC is by secret ballot by >> >> those present. >> >> Proxy restrictions apply to elections by the Members (Resource Members and Registered Members). ASO-AC and PDWG elections are by the community or by the PDWG, not by the Members. Board elections and now Governance Committee elections are by the Members. >> >> >> >> Alan Barrett >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> Community-Discuss mailing list >> >> Community-Discuss at afrinic.net >> > >> >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Community-Discuss mailing list >> Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss >> >> >> >> >> ? >> >> Omo Oaiya >> CTO/Directeur Technique, WACREN >> Mobile: +234 806 4522778, +221 784 305 224 >> Skype: kodion >> http://www.wacren.net >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Community-Discuss mailing list >> Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss > > > _______________________________________________ > Community-Discuss mailing list > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss > -- Mark James ELKINS - Posix Systems - (South) Africa mje at posix.co.za Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: https://ftth.posix.co.za _______________________________________________ Community-Discuss mailing list Community-Discuss at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Boubakar.Barry at wacren.net Tue Oct 4 20:11:43 2016 From: Boubakar.Barry at wacren.net (Boubakar Barry) Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2016 20:11:43 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] [members-discuss] Accountability assessment - bylaws changes In-Reply-To: References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <80BA55D7-0F6F-4FAA-91EF-2FF4AF185639@gmail.com> <8C62E426-18A9-49E0-B928-90111058789A@liquidtelecom.com> <34694787-5803-4C56-8F85-08461917E638@afrinic.net> <6FB39273-24A7-48DC-B5B3-73FCB8269CA6@afrinic.net> <542448B8-8FAA-44BB-BC73-EE13A00C8163@afrinic.net> <8A5B941C-B293-4393-ACF2-67E239659D90@afrinic.net> <1c6ed09a-f903-9149-6399-8ce277ccc1f2@posix.co.za> Message-ID: On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 8:01 PM, Mark Elkins wrote: > On 04/10/2016 21:15, Arnaud AMELINA wrote: > > Would you please announce these new criteria of "useful skills" for > > prospective candidates and community to know? > > I'd like to see a cross section of skills. That would include: > > * Technical (with respect to AFRINIC) > * Law > * Financial > * Human Resource > * Management/Board > You or NomCom? And why not state this in the call for nominations? > > There is nothing new about wanting these skills though. I was hoping > common sense would prevail. > For everyone to give his/her own definition of what common sense is in case we get to a contentious situation? Boubakar -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From boubakarbarry at gmail.com Tue Oct 4 20:26:57 2016 From: boubakarbarry at gmail.com (Boubakar Barry) Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2016 20:26:57 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum In-Reply-To: <25CBCB5C-94E3-4D15-BE02-76E914F00763@liquidtelecom.com> References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <006D848C-5FE5-4CC7-A0F6-DFEC45918F72@nftconsult.com> <6A8D2AF5-4AD9-487B-92E6-D0FB9121DDD4@trstech.net> <6524FA98-0B3F-452A-B70E-485DE2AB41D6@liquidtelecom.com> <4FD9A772-C426-4263-8DE9-25BD97C27D98@nftconsult.com> <28CE8EF2-B9AE-4D5A-8A6C-5104681A9085@liquidtelecom.com> <9482E057-E45D-456A-A9F1-22288C457592@liquidtelecom.com> <3EBCFCCD-BDEC-4E8F-867A-DC579411A3F5@afrinic.net> <6CDD739C-3DA1-4037-9B1E-269F6940FFDF@liquidtelecom.com> <3A461E36-FC2F-4FCC-9443-67D848748762@nftconsult.com> <41d4338a-3d86-a60e-983c-f3b1df96dbba@posix.co.za> <1475608097937.54653@tra.gov.eg> <25CBCB5C-94E3-4D15-BE02-76E914F00763@liquidtelecom.com> Message-ID: I said it was the last thing I will say on this. This is not a one to one dialogue and I will elaborate on this very trivial issue only if other members of the community think that what I have posted on this issue is not clear enough. Boubakar On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 8:04 PM, Andrew Alston < Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com> wrote: > Sorry ? But what you are saying here still does not make sense to me, and > I really would like to understand your argument better. > > > > You are saying that limiting proxies limits vote buying because someone > can buy a signed piece of paper ? ok ? now lets look at electronic voting? > > > > What is preventing someone from paying someone to not look at the > candidates at all and log in, and say ?vote for this person? ? absolutely > nothing ? the same thing occurs. > > > > Personally I don?t believe that there is any situation where buying votes > in the context of AfriNIC would make any sense whatsoever and I just don?t > see it ever happening ? but if we want to be paranoid and protect against > it ? limiting proxies certainly won?t do that. > > > > Andrew > > > > > > *From: *Boubakar Barry > *Date: *Tuesday, 4 October 2016 at 23:00 > *To: *Andrew Alston > *Cc: *Hytham El-Nakhal , "community-discuss at afrinic.net" > > > *Subject: *Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum > > > > To be honest, I just read the beginning of your email. Many other > important things to do. > > Just to say: for a resource member who really doesn't care about how > AfriNIC is managed/governed and just wants to get its resources (and there > is a load of them if you look at meetings attendance and participation in > the mailing lists), it makes a huge difference between looking at > candidates profiles before logging in to vote and signing a pre-filled form. > > My last 2 cents on this. Members and the community should decide. > > B. > > > > On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 7:53 PM, Andrew Alston < > Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com> wrote: > > Speaking in my own personal capacity. > > > > Firstly ? You don?t eliminate the risk of bought votes by limiting proxies > ? it makes absolutely zero difference ? because the person could just as > easily pay someone to vote a particular way electronically. > > > > Secondly ? The reason that people give others proxies is often more than > just votes ? the voting aspect of it is just another element of the proxy > that can be exercised at the same time. Companies may well want their > voices heard at an AGMM that they cannot be present at ? so they issue a > proxy and the individual carrying the proxy then speaks on their behalf * > *AND** votes on their behalf > > > > Thirdly ? If we determine that the current wording in the bylaws is > invalid or out of sync with the act or has giant problems with it ? the > only way to fix that is to the fix the bylaws ? and calling for this to be > fixed won?t help until someone actually proposes new wording to fix the > issue ? and then sees if it will get the majority that is required for the > bylaw change. Personally, having read the responses on this list ? I do > not see a consensus for a proxy limitation at all ? so I have my personal > doubts that such a bylaw change would succeed ? but it is still the only > way to actually rectify the problem. (Due to the fact that for all the > reasons I have stated, even if we take the act out of the picture, the > current bylaw limit is in my view invalid since proxies aren?t granted to > members, they are granted to individuals). > > > > Note: I personally will have zero issue if someone attempts to put a > special resolution for anything on the floor ? and I would encourage people > who really believe that this is limit SHOULD be there to do exactly that ? > attempt to fix the wording in the bylaws such that there is actually a > legitimate limit. I just doubt it would pass a 75% majority based on what > I have seen on this list so far ? where I see absolutely no consensus for > such a limit. > > > > Andrew > > > > > > *From: *Boubakar Barry > *Date: *Tuesday, 4 October 2016 at 22:44 > *To: *Hytham El-Nakhal > *Cc: *"community-discuss at afrinic.net" > > > *Subject: *Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum > > > > In many countries, and not only in Africa, people buy votes and/or vote > differently than instructed. > > By limiting the number of proxies one can carry, we won't eliminate this > risk, but we would at least reduce it. > > I don't understand the logic whereby somebody trusts a third party more > than him/herself? What is the electronic voting facility for? > > Yes, I know some will say everybody should be given the right to vote the > way he/she wants (paper ballot paper onsite, electronic voting or proxy). > No problem with that. > > But let's limit the risks by limiting the number of proxies one eligible > voter can carry. There were good reasons for putting the limit. > > Boubakar > > > > On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 7:07 PM, Hytham El-Nakhal > wrote: > > "Talking as a community member in my personal capacity" > > +1 Mark, > I support the freedom for member to choose the way to cast his vote and to > remove the restriction on the total number of proxies that one member can > carry (if 100 members trust one specific member so they all have equal > rights to issue a proxy for him). > I understand that this restriction is applied only for members who has the > right to vote in the meeting as per article 12.12.viii , and not applied on > non-member person who assigned as a proxy by members as per item 12.12.i & > ii & vii the member is free to choose anyone as a proxy, I'm not a lawyer > but just read the articles of AFRINIC bylaws. > > Thanks, > Haitham > ________________________________________ > From: Mark Elkins > Sent: Friday, September 30, 2016 7:54 PM > To: community-discuss at afrinic.net > Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum > > > I don't think the Proxy issue would survive a legal challenge in any > African country based on English (or Dutch) law. > > French law can be different but this is law about how a company operates > and with a few minor exceptions (eg company stamps) - I'd expect this to > be very similar the world over. > > I personally prefer freedom for the individual member to choose the way > in which they want to vote, whether in person, via proxy (without > restrictions) or via electronic voting. > > On 30/09/2016 19:13, Badru Ntege wrote: > > Andrew > > > > On 30 Sep 2016, at 5:30 pm, Andrew Alston > > > > wrote: > > > >> No Omo, > >> > >> > >> > >> Please read what Ashok said ? the limitation **WILL NOT SURVIVE LEGAL > >> CHALLENGE** > >> > > > > Afrinic is a regional organisation if we are being shackled by > > jurisdiction of registration we have 52 other jurisdictions. > > > > We have options. Let's remain very open and objective to what is best > > for members. > > > > Consensus not legal shackles is what the Internet is built on. > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> The companies act does not ALLOW the limitation. > >> > >> > >> > >> Andrew > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> *From: *Omo Oaiya > > >> *Date: *Friday, 30 September 2016 at 17:29 > >> *To: *Andrew Alston >> > > >> *Cc: *Jean-Robert Hountomey >> >, "community-discuss at afrinic.net > >> " >> > > >> *Subject: *Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum > >> > >> > >> > >> As you have repeated but that is by the way. What is clear is that > >> electronic voting has solved the issue with proxies so we don?t need > >> them. If the companies act is restrictive and does not support better > >> accountability, proxies can be limited to one per member to balance > >> things out. > >> > >> > >> > >> On 30 Sep 2016, at 15:22, Andrew Alston > >> >> > wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> Jean-Robert because proxies are enshrined in the companies act and > >> the act explicitly states that they cannot be removed irrespective > >> of what a company?s bylaws / constitution says. > >> > >> > >> > >> See fifth schedule section 6 > >> > >> > >> > >> Andrew > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> *From: *Jean-Robert Hountomey >> > > >> *Date: *Friday, 30 September 2016 at 17:22 > >> *To: *"community-discuss at afrinic.net > >> " > >> afrinic.net>> > >> *Subject: *Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - > quorum > >> > >> > >> > >> Talking about Board Members election (1) and (2), why do we want to > keep Proxies While we have Electronic voting ? > >> > >> Proxies make sens when a member cannot attend the meeting in > person, isn't what we wanted to solve with electronic voting? > >> > >> > >> > >> (1) http://afrinic.net/en/community/elections/bod-election/process > >> > >> (2) http://afrinic.net/en/about/agmm/participate-vote > >> > >> > >> > >> On 9/29/16 8:56 PM, Alan Barrett wrote: > >> > >> On 30 Sep 2016, at 02:26, Mark Elkins > wrote > >> > >> The only time the Proxy Restrictions are enforced is for > the Board > >> > >> elections. Traditionally, the elections for the PDP > Co-Chair is hands at > >> > >> the meeting and the elections for the ASO-AC is by secret > ballot by > >> > >> those present. > >> > >> Proxy restrictions apply to elections by the Members (Resource > Members and Registered Members). ASO-AC and PDWG elections are by the > community or by the PDWG, not by the Members. Board elections and now > Governance Committee elections are by the Members. > >> > >> > >> > >> Alan Barrett > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> > >> Community-Discuss mailing list > >> > >> Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > >> > >> > >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss > >> > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Community-Discuss mailing list > >> Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > > >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> ? > >> > >> Omo Oaiya > >> CTO/Directeur Technique, WACREN > >> Mobile: +234 806 4522778, +221 784 305 224 > >> Skype: kodion > >> http://www.wacren.net > >> > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Community-Discuss mailing list > >> Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Community-Discuss mailing list > > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss > > > > -- > Mark James ELKINS - Posix Systems - (South) Africa > mje at posix.co.za Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 > For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: https://ftth.posix.co.za > > > _______________________________________________ > Community-Discuss mailing list > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jrhountomey at gmail.com Wed Oct 5 00:56:42 2016 From: jrhountomey at gmail.com (Hountomey Jean Robert) Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2016 17:56:42 -0700 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum Message-ID: Excuses me but this discussion should be handled in a different way. It should be more structured for a serious matter of business at that level. AfriNIC does have a history and there is a reason where the limit was put there, why the number 5 and also why electronic voting was introduced. Having said that: (1). I do remember that Legal has always been called for advice. Now Legal also disagree. (2). Where are the minutes from the previous meetings when we made those decisions and why are we discussing a so serious business matter affecting AfriNIC this way? (3). Now that there are under the ?assumption of legal mistake? made by the community with the blessing of our Legal, the CEO and the Board, the best way would have been to conduct a due diligence process gathering all the facts, weighting the pros and cons including how we make sure to limit disagreements, what controls can be put in place etc. Board you should have done that before we move further in the discussion. Then a report should have been presented to the community for informed decisions. (4). In another world, with board members standing against a process that has elected them, with the support of the CEO and legal, they should have step down until we reached a consensus and organize new elections. I suggest that we don't proceed backwards until we find the best way that strengthen the AfriNIC that is dear to all of us. Jean-Robert. 2016-10-04 13:26 GMT-07:00 Boubakar Barry : > I said it was the last thing I will say on this. > > This is not a one to one dialogue and I will elaborate on this very > trivial issue only if other members of the community think that what I have > posted on this issue is not clear enough. > > Boubakar > > > On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 8:04 PM, Andrew Alston < > Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com> wrote: > >> Sorry ? But what you are saying here still does not make sense to me, and >> I really would like to understand your argument better. >> >> >> >> You are saying that limiting proxies limits vote buying because someone >> can buy a signed piece of paper ? ok ? now lets look at electronic voting? >> >> >> >> What is preventing someone from paying someone to not look at the >> candidates at all and log in, and say ?vote for this person? ? absolutely >> nothing ? the same thing occurs. >> >> >> >> Personally I don?t believe that there is any situation where buying votes >> in the context of AfriNIC would make any sense whatsoever and I just don?t >> see it ever happening ? but if we want to be paranoid and protect against >> it ? limiting proxies certainly won?t do that. >> >> >> >> Andrew >> >> >> >> >> >> *From: *Boubakar Barry >> *Date: *Tuesday, 4 October 2016 at 23:00 >> *To: *Andrew Alston >> *Cc: *Hytham El-Nakhal , " >> community-discuss at afrinic.net" >> >> *Subject: *Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum >> >> >> >> To be honest, I just read the beginning of your email. Many other >> important things to do. >> >> Just to say: for a resource member who really doesn't care about how >> AfriNIC is managed/governed and just wants to get its resources (and there >> is a load of them if you look at meetings attendance and participation in >> the mailing lists), it makes a huge difference between looking at >> candidates profiles before logging in to vote and signing a pre-filled form. >> >> My last 2 cents on this. Members and the community should decide. >> >> B. >> >> >> >> On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 7:53 PM, Andrew Alston < >> Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com> wrote: >> >> Speaking in my own personal capacity. >> >> >> >> Firstly ? You don?t eliminate the risk of bought votes by limiting >> proxies ? it makes absolutely zero difference ? because the person could >> just as easily pay someone to vote a particular way electronically. >> >> >> >> Secondly ? The reason that people give others proxies is often more than >> just votes ? the voting aspect of it is just another element of the proxy >> that can be exercised at the same time. Companies may well want their >> voices heard at an AGMM that they cannot be present at ? so they issue a >> proxy and the individual carrying the proxy then speaks on their behalf * >> *AND** votes on their behalf >> >> >> >> Thirdly ? If we determine that the current wording in the bylaws is >> invalid or out of sync with the act or has giant problems with it ? the >> only way to fix that is to the fix the bylaws ? and calling for this to be >> fixed won?t help until someone actually proposes new wording to fix the >> issue ? and then sees if it will get the majority that is required for the >> bylaw change. Personally, having read the responses on this list ? I do >> not see a consensus for a proxy limitation at all ? so I have my personal >> doubts that such a bylaw change would succeed ? but it is still the only >> way to actually rectify the problem. (Due to the fact that for all the >> reasons I have stated, even if we take the act out of the picture, the >> current bylaw limit is in my view invalid since proxies aren?t granted to >> members, they are granted to individuals). >> >> >> >> Note: I personally will have zero issue if someone attempts to put a >> special resolution for anything on the floor ? and I would encourage people >> who really believe that this is limit SHOULD be there to do exactly that ? >> attempt to fix the wording in the bylaws such that there is actually a >> legitimate limit. I just doubt it would pass a 75% majority based on what >> I have seen on this list so far ? where I see absolutely no consensus for >> such a limit. >> >> >> >> Andrew >> >> >> >> >> >> *From: *Boubakar Barry >> *Date: *Tuesday, 4 October 2016 at 22:44 >> *To: *Hytham El-Nakhal >> *Cc: *"community-discuss at afrinic.net" >> >> >> *Subject: *Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum >> >> >> >> In many countries, and not only in Africa, people buy votes and/or vote >> differently than instructed. >> >> By limiting the number of proxies one can carry, we won't eliminate this >> risk, but we would at least reduce it. >> >> I don't understand the logic whereby somebody trusts a third party more >> than him/herself? What is the electronic voting facility for? >> >> Yes, I know some will say everybody should be given the right to vote the >> way he/she wants (paper ballot paper onsite, electronic voting or proxy). >> No problem with that. >> >> But let's limit the risks by limiting the number of proxies one eligible >> voter can carry. There were good reasons for putting the limit. >> >> Boubakar >> >> >> >> On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 7:07 PM, Hytham El-Nakhal >> wrote: >> >> "Talking as a community member in my personal capacity" >> >> +1 Mark, >> I support the freedom for member to choose the way to cast his vote and >> to remove the restriction on the total number of proxies that one member >> can carry (if 100 members trust one specific member so they all have equal >> rights to issue a proxy for him). >> I understand that this restriction is applied only for members who has >> the right to vote in the meeting as per article 12.12.viii , and not >> applied on non-member person who assigned as a proxy by members as per item >> 12.12.i & ii & vii the member is free to choose anyone as a proxy, I'm not >> a lawyer but just read the articles of AFRINIC bylaws. >> >> Thanks, >> Haitham >> ________________________________________ >> From: Mark Elkins >> Sent: Friday, September 30, 2016 7:54 PM >> To: community-discuss at afrinic.net >> Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum >> >> >> I don't think the Proxy issue would survive a legal challenge in any >> African country based on English (or Dutch) law. >> >> French law can be different but this is law about how a company operates >> and with a few minor exceptions (eg company stamps) - I'd expect this to >> be very similar the world over. >> >> I personally prefer freedom for the individual member to choose the way >> in which they want to vote, whether in person, via proxy (without >> restrictions) or via electronic voting. >> >> On 30/09/2016 19:13, Badru Ntege wrote: >> > Andrew >> > >> > On 30 Sep 2016, at 5:30 pm, Andrew Alston >> > > > > wrote: >> > >> >> No Omo, >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Please read what Ashok said ? the limitation **WILL NOT SURVIVE LEGAL >> >> CHALLENGE** >> >> >> > >> > Afrinic is a regional organisation if we are being shackled by >> > jurisdiction of registration we have 52 other jurisdictions. >> > >> > We have options. Let's remain very open and objective to what is best >> > for members. >> > >> > Consensus not legal shackles is what the Internet is built on. >> > >> > >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> The companies act does not ALLOW the limitation. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Andrew >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> *From: *Omo Oaiya > >> >> *Date: *Friday, 30 September 2016 at 17:29 >> >> *To: *Andrew Alston > >> > >> >> *Cc: *Jean-Robert Hountomey > >> >, "community-discuss at afrinic.net >> >> " > >> > >> >> *Subject: *Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> As you have repeated but that is by the way. What is clear is that >> >> electronic voting has solved the issue with proxies so we don?t need >> >> them. If the companies act is restrictive and does not support better >> >> accountability, proxies can be limited to one per member to balance >> >> things out. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 30 Sep 2016, at 15:22, Andrew Alston >> >> > >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Jean-Robert because proxies are enshrined in the companies act and >> >> the act explicitly states that they cannot be removed irrespective >> >> of what a company?s bylaws / constitution says. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> See fifth schedule section 6 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Andrew >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> *From: *Jean-Robert Hountomey > >> > >> >> *Date: *Friday, 30 September 2016 at 17:22 >> >> *To: *"community-discuss at afrinic.net >> >> " >> >> > nic.net>> >> >> *Subject: *Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - >> quorum >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Talking about Board Members election (1) and (2), why do we want >> to keep Proxies While we have Electronic voting ? >> >> >> >> Proxies make sens when a member cannot attend the meeting in >> person, isn't what we wanted to solve with electronic voting? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> (1) http://afrinic.net/en/community/elections/bod-election/process >> >> >> >> (2) http://afrinic.net/en/about/agmm/participate-vote >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 9/29/16 8:56 PM, Alan Barrett wrote: >> >> >> >> On 30 Sep 2016, at 02:26, Mark Elkins >> wrote >> >> >> >> The only time the Proxy Restrictions are enforced is for >> the Board >> >> >> >> elections. Traditionally, the elections for the PDP >> Co-Chair is hands at >> >> >> >> the meeting and the elections for the ASO-AC is by secret >> ballot by >> >> >> >> those present. >> >> >> >> Proxy restrictions apply to elections by the Members (Resource >> Members and Registered Members). ASO-AC and PDWG elections are by the >> community or by the PDWG, not by the Members. Board elections and now >> Governance Committee elections are by the Members. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Alan Barrett >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> >> >> Community-Discuss mailing list >> >> >> >> Community-Discuss at afrinic.net >> >> >> >> >> >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> Community-Discuss mailing list >> >> Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > nic.net> >> >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ? >> >> >> >> Omo Oaiya >> >> CTO/Directeur Technique, WACREN >> >> Mobile: +234 806 4522778, +221 784 305 224 >> >> Skype: kodion >> >> http://www.wacren.net >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> Community-Discuss mailing list >> >> Community-Discuss at afrinic.net >> >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Community-Discuss mailing list >> > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net >> > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss >> > >> >> -- >> Mark James ELKINS - Posix Systems - (South) Africa >> mje at posix.co.za Tel: <%2B27.128070590>+27.128070590 Cell: >> <%2B27.826010496>+27.826010496 >> For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: https://ftth.posix.co.za >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Community-Discuss mailing list >> Community-Discuss at afrinic.net >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss >> >> >> >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Community-Discuss mailing list > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From geier at geier.ne.tz Wed Oct 5 04:02:22 2016 From: geier at geier.ne.tz (Frank Habicht) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2016 07:02:22 +0300 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum In-Reply-To: References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <6A8D2AF5-4AD9-487B-92E6-D0FB9121DDD4@trstech.net> <6524FA98-0B3F-452A-B70E-485DE2AB41D6@liquidtelecom.com> <4FD9A772-C426-4263-8DE9-25BD97C27D98@nftconsult.com> <28CE8EF2-B9AE-4D5A-8A6C-5104681A9085@liquidtelecom.com> <9482E057-E45D-456A-A9F1-22288C457592@liquidtelecom.com> <3EBCFCCD-BDEC-4E8F-867A-DC579411A3F5@afrinic.net> <6CDD739C-3DA1-4037-9B1E-269F6940FFDF@liquidtelecom.com> <3A461E36-FC2F-4FCC-9443-67D848748762@nftconsult.com> <41d4338a-3d86-a60e-983c-f3b1df96dbba@posix.co.za> <1475608097937.54653@tra.gov.eg> Message-ID: <6215e001-e1b3-7962-ce59-427c9e9d3ced@geier.ne.tz> Hi, On 10/4/2016 10:44 PM, Boubakar Barry wrote: > In many countries, and not only in Africa, people buy votes and/or vote > differently than instructed. > > By limiting the number of proxies one can carry, we won't eliminate this > risk, but we would at least reduce it. I would argue that the members should be old and clever enough to decide individually whether and how they want to reduce this risk. > I don't understand the logic whereby somebody trusts a third party more > than him/herself? What is the electronic voting facility for? I have an example. Suppose member A has voted electronically just before the AGMM started, suppose member B has given a proxy without very specific instructions to someone attending in-person. If at the AGMM some truly significant developments come to light, like unacceptable behaviour of sitting board members comes to light, who are also candidates in the election, to be re-elected, and that is significant enough to prompt a short board meeting on stage during the meeting, and then these board members resign (presumably for a reason) from the board, but still remain candidates in the election, then member A might regret how he/she/it voted earlier and member B's vote can still be changed (if desired) in response to these developments. I don't think that this is a very unlikely corner-case. And I consider it the case where electronic voting gives a disadvantage. > Yes, I know some will say everybody should be given the right to vote > the way he/she wants (paper ballot paper onsite, electronic voting or > proxy). No problem with that. > > But let's limit the risks by limiting the number of proxies one eligible > voter can carry. There were good reasons for putting the limit. To me it seems like the decision is between these two things: - avoiding to get someone on the board the same way Mark Elkins did - treating AfriNIC (resource) members like children who can't take care when assigning proxies Sorry to put it bluntly. Greetings, Frank From noah at neo.co.tz Wed Oct 5 06:39:08 2016 From: noah at neo.co.tz (Noah) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2016 09:39:08 +0300 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum In-Reply-To: <1475608097937.54653@tra.gov.eg> References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <006D848C-5FE5-4CC7-A0F6-DFEC45918F72@nftconsult.com> <6A8D2AF5-4AD9-487B-92E6-D0FB9121DDD4@trstech.net> <6524FA98-0B3F-452A-B70E-485DE2AB41D6@liquidtelecom.com> <4FD9A772-C426-4263-8DE9-25BD97C27D98@nftconsult.com> <28CE8EF2-B9AE-4D5A-8A6C-5104681A9085@liquidtelecom.com> <9482E057-E45D-456A-A9F1-22288C457592@liquidtelecom.com> <3EBCFCCD-BDEC-4E8F-867A-DC579411A3F5@afrinic.net> <6CDD739C-3DA1-4037-9B1E-269F6940FFDF@liquidtelecom.com> <3A461E36-FC2F-4FCC-9443-67D848748762@nftconsult.com> <41d4338a-3d86-a60e-983c-f3b1df96dbba@posix.co.za> <1475608097937.54653@tra.gov.eg> Message-ID: On 4 Oct 2016 22:12, "Hytham El-Nakhal" wrote: > > (if 100 members trust one specific member so they all have equal rights to issue a proxy for him). > Really....... and you dont see this as a problem. > Thanks, > Haitham Noah -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com Wed Oct 5 06:52:49 2016 From: Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com (Andrew Alston) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2016 06:52:49 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum In-Reply-To: References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <006D848C-5FE5-4CC7-A0F6-DFEC45918F72@nftconsult.com> <6A8D2AF5-4AD9-487B-92E6-D0FB9121DDD4@trstech.net> <6524FA98-0B3F-452A-B70E-485DE2AB41D6@liquidtelecom.com> <4FD9A772-C426-4263-8DE9-25BD97C27D98@nftconsult.com> <28CE8EF2-B9AE-4D5A-8A6C-5104681A9085@liquidtelecom.com> <9482E057-E45D-456A-A9F1-22288C457592@liquidtelecom.com> <3EBCFCCD-BDEC-4E8F-867A-DC579411A3F5@afrinic.net> <6CDD739C-3DA1-4037-9B1E-269F6940FFDF@liquidtelecom.com> <3A461E36-FC2F-4FCC-9443-67D848748762@nftconsult.com> <41d4338a-3d86-a60e-983c-f3b1df96dbba@posix.co.za> <1475608097937.54653@tra.gov.eg> Message-ID: I certainly don?t. Who are we to dictate to people who they trust? Or do we somehow claim to be know better than the members and we believe they aren?t smart enough to make their own decisions? Andrew From: Noah Date: Wednesday, 5 October 2016 at 09:39 To: Hytham El-Nakhal Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum On 4 Oct 2016 22:12, "Hytham El-Nakhal" > wrote: > > (if 100 members trust one specific member so they all have equal rights to issue a proxy for him). > Really....... and you dont see this as a problem. > Thanks, > Haitham Noah -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nishal at controlfreak.co.za Wed Oct 5 07:13:11 2016 From: nishal at controlfreak.co.za (Nishal Goburdhan) Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2016 09:13:11 +0200 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum In-Reply-To: References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <006D848C-5FE5-4CC7-A0F6-DFEC45918F72@nftconsult.com> <6A8D2AF5-4AD9-487B-92E6-D0FB9121DDD4@trstech.net> <6524FA98-0B3F-452A-B70E-485DE2AB41D6@liquidtelecom.com> <4FD9A772-C426-4263-8DE9-25BD97C27D98@nftconsult.com> <28CE8EF2-B9AE-4D5A-8A6C-5104681A9085@liquidtelecom.com> <9482E057-E45D-456A-A9F1-22288C457592@liquidtelecom.com> <3EBCFCCD-BDEC-4E8F-867A-DC579411A3F5@afrinic.net> <6CDD739C-3DA1-4037-9B1E-269F6940FFDF@liquidtelecom.com> <3A461E36-FC2F-4FCC-9443-67D848748762@nftconsult.com> <41d4338a-3d86-a60e-983c-f3b1df96dbba@posix.co.za> <1475608097937.54653@tra.gov.eg> Message-ID: <546951EA-9287-4572-87F2-30063DA49143@controlfreak.co.za> On 5 Oct 2016, at 8:39, Noah wrote: > On 4 Oct 2016 22:12, "Hytham El-Nakhal" wrote: >> >> (if 100 members trust one specific member so they all have equal >> rights > to issue a proxy for him). > > Really....... and you dont see this as a problem. no. because it?s a member?s *right* to trust (your word) whomever that member believes, can best serve their interests. welcome to democracy; it?s not a perfect solution. if you want true change, start to educate your community for it. ?n. From Omo.Oaiya at wacren.net Wed Oct 5 07:16:11 2016 From: Omo.Oaiya at wacren.net (Omo Oaiya) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2016 08:16:11 +0100 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum In-Reply-To: References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <006D848C-5FE5-4CC7-A0F6-DFEC45918F72@nftconsult.com> <6A8D2AF5-4AD9-487B-92E6-D0FB9121DDD4@trstech.net> <6524FA98-0B3F-452A-B70E-485DE2AB41D6@liquidtelecom.com> <4FD9A772-C426-4263-8DE9-25BD97C27D98@nftconsult.com> <28CE8EF2-B9AE-4D5A-8A6C-5104681A9085@liquidtelecom.com> <9482E057-E45D-456A-A9F1-22288C457592@liquidtelecom.com> <3EBCFCCD-BDEC-4E8F-867A-DC579411A3F5@afrinic.net> <6CDD739C-3DA1-4037-9B1E-269F6940FFDF@liquidtelecom.com> <3A461E36-FC2F-4FCC-9443-67D848748762@nftconsult.com> <41d4338a-3d86-a60e-983c-f3b1df96dbba@posix.co.za> <1475608097937.54653@tra.gov.eg> Message-ID: On 5 Oct 2016 7:54 a.m., "Andrew Alston" wrote: > > I certainly don?t. Who are we to dictate to people who they trust? > People are welcome to whom they trust. The interest is the integrity of the voting process and avoiding proxy abuse. > > Or do we somehow claim to be know better than the members and we believe they aren?t smart enough to make their own decisions? > I am amazed at the apparent disregard of the ethical considerations by board members whether in personal capacity or not. > > > Andrew > > > > > > From: Noah > Date: Wednesday, 5 October 2016 at 09:39 > To: Hytham El-Nakhal > Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC > Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum > > > > On 4 Oct 2016 22:12, "Hytham El-Nakhal" wrote: > > > > (if 100 members trust one specific member so they all have equal rights to issue a proxy for him). > > > > Really....... and you dont see this as a problem. > > > Thanks, > > Haitham > > Noah > > > _______________________________________________ > Community-Discuss mailing list > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com Wed Oct 5 07:27:36 2016 From: Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com (Andrew Alston) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2016 07:27:36 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum In-Reply-To: References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <006D848C-5FE5-4CC7-A0F6-DFEC45918F72@nftconsult.com> <6A8D2AF5-4AD9-487B-92E6-D0FB9121DDD4@trstech.net> <6524FA98-0B3F-452A-B70E-485DE2AB41D6@liquidtelecom.com> <4FD9A772-C426-4263-8DE9-25BD97C27D98@nftconsult.com> <28CE8EF2-B9AE-4D5A-8A6C-5104681A9085@liquidtelecom.com> <9482E057-E45D-456A-A9F1-22288C457592@liquidtelecom.com> <3EBCFCCD-BDEC-4E8F-867A-DC579411A3F5@afrinic.net> <6CDD739C-3DA1-4037-9B1E-269F6940FFDF@liquidtelecom.com> <3A461E36-FC2F-4FCC-9443-67D848748762@nftconsult.com> <41d4338a-3d86-a60e-983c-f3b1df96dbba@posix.co.za> <1475608097937.54653@tra.gov.eg> Message-ID: <0B2CCF2C-4BDA-4CAE-BB6A-638A8696F6E3@liquidtelecom.com> What ethical considerations Omo? I?m confused here ? what is not ethical about a person saying ?Here is my proxy, I trust you to vote with it, either in a particular way, or because I trust your judgement? What is not ethical about accepting to be a voice for someone who feels that they want to be heard and that is the method of being heard that they choose? Please ? explain this ethical dilemma to me ? because I just don?t get it Andrew From: Omo Oaiya Date: Wednesday, 5 October 2016 at 10:16 To: Andrew Alston Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC , Noah , Hytham El-Nakhal Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum On 5 Oct 2016 7:54 a.m., "Andrew Alston" > wrote: > > I certainly don?t. Who are we to dictate to people who they trust? > People are welcome to whom they trust. The interest is the integrity of the voting process and avoiding proxy abuse. > > Or do we somehow claim to be know better than the members and we believe they aren?t smart enough to make their own decisions? > I am amazed at the apparent disregard of the ethical considerations by board members whether in personal capacity or not. > > > Andrew > > > > > > From: Noah > > Date: Wednesday, 5 October 2016 at 09:39 > To: Hytham El-Nakhal > > Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC > > Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum > > > > On 4 Oct 2016 22:12, "Hytham El-Nakhal" > wrote: > > > > (if 100 members trust one specific member so they all have equal rights to issue a proxy for him). > > > > Really....... and you dont see this as a problem. > > > Thanks, > > Haitham > > Noah > > > _______________________________________________ > Community-Discuss mailing list > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From aalain at trstech.net Wed Oct 5 08:17:29 2016 From: aalain at trstech.net (ALAIN AINA) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2016 12:17:29 +0400 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum In-Reply-To: <546951EA-9287-4572-87F2-30063DA49143@controlfreak.co.za> References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <006D848C-5FE5-4CC7-A0F6-DFEC45918F72@nftconsult.com> <6A8D2AF5-4AD9-487B-92E6-D0FB9121DDD4@trstech.net> <6524FA98-0B3F-452A-B70E-485DE2AB41D6@liquidtelecom.com> <4FD9A772-C426-4263-8DE9-25BD97C27D98@nftconsult.com> <28CE8EF2-B9AE-4D5A-8A6C-5104681A9085@liquidtelecom.com> <9482E057-E45D-456A-A9F1-22288C457592@liquidtelecom.com> <3EBCFCCD-BDEC-4E8F-867A-DC579411A3F5@afrinic.net> <6CDD739C-3DA1-4037-9B1E-269F6940FFDF@liquidtelecom.com> <3A461E36-FC2F-4FCC-9443-67D848748762@nftconsult.com> <41d4338a-3d86-a60e-983c-f3b1df96dbba@posix.co.za> <1475608097937.54653@tra.gov.eg> <546951EA-9287-4572-87F2-30063DA49143@controlfreak.co.za> Message-ID: <9478AC5C-4A7B-4D6B-8980-DBABB8C1D3E4@trstech.net> > On Oct 5, 2016, at 11:13 AM, Nishal Goburdhan wrote: > > On 5 Oct 2016, at 8:39, Noah wrote: > >> On 4 Oct 2016 22:12, "Hytham El-Nakhal" wrote: >>> >>> (if 100 members trust one specific member so they all have equal rights >> to issue a proxy for him). >> >> Really....... and you dont see this as a problem. > > no. because it?s a member?s *right* to trust (your word) whomever that member believes, can best serve their interests. > > welcome to democracy; it?s not a perfect solution. > if you want true change, start to educate your community for it. This is the role and duties of the board and the management team. This discussion is about improving accountability and so touch on more member participation and involvement which requires engagement, communication and education. Hope this helps ?Alain > > ?n. > > _______________________________________________ > Community-Discuss mailing list > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss From honest1989 at gmail.com Wed Oct 5 09:00:33 2016 From: honest1989 at gmail.com (Honest Ornella GANKPA) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2016 10:00:33 +0100 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hello All, Comments are inline Honest Ornella GANKPA 2016-10-05 1:56 GMT+01:00 Hountomey Jean Robert : > Excuses me but this discussion should be handled in a different way. It > should be more structured for a serious matter of business at that level. > AfriNIC does have a history and there is a reason where the limit was put > there, why the number 5 and also why electronic voting was introduced. > > > Having said that: > > (1). I do remember that Legal has always been called for advice. Now > Legal also disagree. > > > (2). Where are the minutes from the previous meetings when we made those > decisions and why are we discussing a so serious business matter affecting > AfriNIC this way? > > > I fully agree with Jean-Robert. The entire community (especially newer members) would benefits from reading those minutes of meeting. It would give everyone a clear understanding as to why proxies limit was voted in the first place. > (3). Now that there are under the ?assumption of legal mistake? made by > the community with the blessing of our Legal, the CEO and the Board, the > best way would have been to conduct a due diligence process gathering all > the facts, weighting the pros and cons including how we make sure to limit > disagreements, what controls can be put in place etc. Board you should > have done that before we move further in the discussion. Then a report > should have been presented to the community for informed decisions. > Agreed. However it is not too late. This could be a priority topic for the governance commitee > (4). In another world, with board members standing against a process that > has elected them, with the support of the CEO and legal, they should have > step down until we reached a consensus and organize new elections. > I support this proposal as well. We either go all out to fix the process or there is nothing to fix there (that is proxies limit) and everyone shall move on and focus on other matters > > I suggest that we don't proceed backwards until we find the best way that > strengthen the AfriNIC that is dear to all of us. > > > Jean-Robert. > > > > 2016-10-04 13:26 GMT-07:00 Boubakar Barry : > >> I said it was the last thing I will say on this. >> >> This is not a one to one dialogue and I will elaborate on this very >> trivial issue only if other members of the community think that what I have >> posted on this issue is not clear enough. >> >> Boubakar >> >> >> On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 8:04 PM, Andrew Alston < >> Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com> wrote: >> >>> Sorry ? But what you are saying here still does not make sense to me, >>> and I really would like to understand your argument better. >>> >>> >>> >>> You are saying that limiting proxies limits vote buying because someone >>> can buy a signed piece of paper ? ok ? now lets look at electronic voting? >>> >>> >>> >>> What is preventing someone from paying someone to not look at the >>> candidates at all and log in, and say ?vote for this person? ? absolutely >>> nothing ? the same thing occurs. >>> >>> >>> >>> Personally I don?t believe that there is any situation where buying >>> votes in the context of AfriNIC would make any sense whatsoever and I just >>> don?t see it ever happening ? but if we want to be paranoid and protect >>> against it ? limiting proxies certainly won?t do that. >>> >>> >>> >>> Andrew >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> *From: *Boubakar Barry >>> *Date: *Tuesday, 4 October 2016 at 23:00 >>> *To: *Andrew Alston >>> *Cc: *Hytham El-Nakhal , " >>> community-discuss at afrinic.net" >>> >>> *Subject: *Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum >>> >>> >>> >>> To be honest, I just read the beginning of your email. Many other >>> important things to do. >>> >>> Just to say: for a resource member who really doesn't care about how >>> AfriNIC is managed/governed and just wants to get its resources (and there >>> is a load of them if you look at meetings attendance and participation in >>> the mailing lists), it makes a huge difference between looking at >>> candidates profiles before logging in to vote and signing a pre-filled form. >>> >>> My last 2 cents on this. Members and the community should decide. >>> >>> B. >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 7:53 PM, Andrew Alston < >>> Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com> wrote: >>> >>> Speaking in my own personal capacity. >>> >>> >>> >>> Firstly ? You don?t eliminate the risk of bought votes by limiting >>> proxies ? it makes absolutely zero difference ? because the person could >>> just as easily pay someone to vote a particular way electronically. >>> >>> >>> >>> Secondly ? The reason that people give others proxies is often more than >>> just votes ? the voting aspect of it is just another element of the proxy >>> that can be exercised at the same time. Companies may well want their >>> voices heard at an AGMM that they cannot be present at ? so they issue a >>> proxy and the individual carrying the proxy then speaks on their behalf * >>> *AND** votes on their behalf >>> >>> >>> >>> Thirdly ? If we determine that the current wording in the bylaws is >>> invalid or out of sync with the act or has giant problems with it ? the >>> only way to fix that is to the fix the bylaws ? and calling for this to be >>> fixed won?t help until someone actually proposes new wording to fix the >>> issue ? and then sees if it will get the majority that is required for the >>> bylaw change. Personally, having read the responses on this list ? I do >>> not see a consensus for a proxy limitation at all ? so I have my personal >>> doubts that such a bylaw change would succeed ? but it is still the only >>> way to actually rectify the problem. (Due to the fact that for all the >>> reasons I have stated, even if we take the act out of the picture, the >>> current bylaw limit is in my view invalid since proxies aren?t granted to >>> members, they are granted to individuals). >>> >>> >>> >>> Note: I personally will have zero issue if someone attempts to put a >>> special resolution for anything on the floor ? and I would encourage people >>> who really believe that this is limit SHOULD be there to do exactly that ? >>> attempt to fix the wording in the bylaws such that there is actually a >>> legitimate limit. I just doubt it would pass a 75% majority based on what >>> I have seen on this list so far ? where I see absolutely no consensus for >>> such a limit. >>> >>> >>> >>> Andrew >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> *From: *Boubakar Barry >>> *Date: *Tuesday, 4 October 2016 at 22:44 >>> *To: *Hytham El-Nakhal >>> *Cc: *"community-discuss at afrinic.net" >>> >>> >>> *Subject: *Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum >>> >>> >>> >>> In many countries, and not only in Africa, people buy votes and/or vote >>> differently than instructed. >>> >>> By limiting the number of proxies one can carry, we won't eliminate this >>> risk, but we would at least reduce it. >>> >>> I don't understand the logic whereby somebody trusts a third party more >>> than him/herself? What is the electronic voting facility for? >>> >>> Yes, I know some will say everybody should be given the right to vote >>> the way he/she wants (paper ballot paper onsite, electronic voting or >>> proxy). No problem with that. >>> >>> But let's limit the risks by limiting the number of proxies one eligible >>> voter can carry. There were good reasons for putting the limit. >>> >>> Boubakar >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 7:07 PM, Hytham El-Nakhal >>> wrote: >>> >>> "Talking as a community member in my personal capacity" >>> >>> +1 Mark, >>> I support the freedom for member to choose the way to cast his vote and >>> to remove the restriction on the total number of proxies that one member >>> can carry (if 100 members trust one specific member so they all have equal >>> rights to issue a proxy for him). >>> I understand that this restriction is applied only for members who has >>> the right to vote in the meeting as per article 12.12.viii , and not >>> applied on non-member person who assigned as a proxy by members as per item >>> 12.12.i & ii & vii the member is free to choose anyone as a proxy, I'm not >>> a lawyer but just read the articles of AFRINIC bylaws. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Haitham >>> ________________________________________ >>> From: Mark Elkins >>> Sent: Friday, September 30, 2016 7:54 PM >>> To: community-discuss at afrinic.net >>> Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum >>> >>> >>> I don't think the Proxy issue would survive a legal challenge in any >>> African country based on English (or Dutch) law. >>> >>> French law can be different but this is law about how a company operates >>> and with a few minor exceptions (eg company stamps) - I'd expect this to >>> be very similar the world over. >>> >>> I personally prefer freedom for the individual member to choose the way >>> in which they want to vote, whether in person, via proxy (without >>> restrictions) or via electronic voting. >>> >>> On 30/09/2016 19:13, Badru Ntege wrote: >>> > Andrew >>> > >>> > On 30 Sep 2016, at 5:30 pm, Andrew Alston >>> > >> > > wrote: >>> > >>> >> No Omo, >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> Please read what Ashok said ? the limitation **WILL NOT SURVIVE LEGAL >>> >> CHALLENGE** >>> >> >>> > >>> > Afrinic is a regional organisation if we are being shackled by >>> > jurisdiction of registration we have 52 other jurisdictions. >>> > >>> > We have options. Let's remain very open and objective to what is best >>> > for members. >>> > >>> > Consensus not legal shackles is what the Internet is built on. >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> The companies act does not ALLOW the limitation. >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> Andrew >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> *From: *Omo Oaiya >> >> >>> >> *Date: *Friday, 30 September 2016 at 17:29 >>> >> *To: *Andrew Alston >> >> > >>> >> *Cc: *Jean-Robert Hountomey >> >> >, "community-discuss at afrinic.net >>> >> " < >>> community-discuss at afrinic.net >>> >> > >>> >> *Subject: *Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> As you have repeated but that is by the way. What is clear is that >>> >> electronic voting has solved the issue with proxies so we don?t need >>> >> them. If the companies act is restrictive and does not support better >>> >> accountability, proxies can be limited to one per member to balance >>> >> things out. >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> On 30 Sep 2016, at 15:22, Andrew Alston >>> >> >> >> > wrote: >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> Jean-Robert because proxies are enshrined in the companies act and >>> >> the act explicitly states that they cannot be removed irrespective >>> >> of what a company?s bylaws / constitution says. >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> See fifth schedule section 6 >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> Andrew >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> *From: *Jean-Robert Hountomey >> >> > >>> >> *Date: *Friday, 30 September 2016 at 17:22 >>> >> *To: *"community-discuss at afrinic.net >>> >> " >>> >> >> nic.net>> >>> >> *Subject: *Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - >>> quorum >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> Talking about Board Members election (1) and (2), why do we want >>> to keep Proxies While we have Electronic voting ? >>> >> >>> >> Proxies make sens when a member cannot attend the meeting in >>> person, isn't what we wanted to solve with electronic voting? >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> (1) http://afrinic.net/en/community/elections/bod-election/proce >>> ss >>> >> >>> >> (2) http://afrinic.net/en/about/agmm/participate-vote >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> On 9/29/16 8:56 PM, Alan Barrett wrote: >>> >> >>> >> On 30 Sep 2016, at 02:26, Mark Elkins >>> wrote >>> >> >>> >> The only time the Proxy Restrictions are enforced is for >>> the Board >>> >> >>> >> elections. Traditionally, the elections for the PDP >>> Co-Chair is hands at >>> >> >>> >> the meeting and the elections for the ASO-AC is by secret >>> ballot by >>> >> >>> >> those present. >>> >> >>> >> Proxy restrictions apply to elections by the Members >>> (Resource Members and Registered Members). ASO-AC and PDWG elections are >>> by the community or by the PDWG, not by the Members. Board elections and >>> now Governance Committee elections are by the Members. >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> Alan Barrett >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >>> >> >>> >> Community-Discuss mailing list >>> >> >>> >> Community-Discuss at afrinic.net >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >>> >> Community-Discuss mailing list >>> >> Community-Discuss at afrinic.net >> nic.net> >>> >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> ? >>> >> >>> >> Omo Oaiya >>> >> CTO/Directeur Technique, WACREN >>> >> Mobile: +234 806 4522778, +221 784 305 224 >>> >> Skype: kodion >>> >> http://www.wacren.net >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >>> >> Community-Discuss mailing list >>> >> Community-Discuss at afrinic.net >>> >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss >>> > >>> > >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > Community-Discuss mailing list >>> > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net >>> > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss >>> > >>> >>> -- >>> Mark James ELKINS - Posix Systems - (South) Africa >>> mje at posix.co.za Tel: <%2B27.128070590>+27.128070590 Cell: >>> <%2B27.826010496>+27.826010496 >>> For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: https://ftth.posix.co.za >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Community-Discuss mailing list >>> Community-Discuss at afrinic.net >>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Community-Discuss mailing list >> Community-Discuss at afrinic.net >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Community-Discuss mailing list > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From aalain at trstech.net Fri Oct 7 17:51:39 2016 From: aalain at trstech.net (ALAIN AINA) Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2016 21:51:39 +0400 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - bylaws changes In-Reply-To: <446DE42F-EF68-4EED-AF03-098F8B42C293@delong.com> References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <25F7D1CF-2E99-42D5-B047-20ED215C00B4@afrinic.net> <6C40F862-54C2-4ECE-B962-EF396F010F90@afrinic.net> <446DE42F-EF68-4EED-AF03-098F8B42C293@delong.com> Message-ID: <77493EE6-F491-4D59-8AB7-BBC8BD4773FC@trstech.net> > On Oct 3, 2016, at 9:48 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > > >> On Sep 19, 2016, at 3:08 AM, Alan Barrett wrote: >> >> >>> On 19 Sep 2016, at 13:08, Seun Ojedeji wrote: >>> >>> Hello Alan, >>> >>> One point I observed has not been captured in the summary (which i also suggested), was to limit the Independent Director seat to "at most" one per region at any given time. This will address a possible situation where we end up having 4 directors from a region. >> >> I don?t think that?s an accountability issue. Even in the unlikely event that there are four from the same sub-region (regional director, two non-regional directors, and CEO), and that the four conspire together to advance some sort of sub-regional interest that?s against AFRINIC?s interest, the four would still not form a majority of the Board. > > They could, however, easily form a majority of quorum at a meeting where two directors are absent and depending on the particular voting rules of the board when 7 members and the CEO are present, possibly even one absence would be sufficient. I also support this point as it is aligned with the proposals made at https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/community-discuss/2016-June/000343.html section 5 ===== > >>> 5- Independence of Directors: Consider adding a limit to the number of > Directors who may work for the same organisation. > > >>> We need to decide whether or not to add a limit, and what the limit > should be. We need to keep refreshing the board with independence, expertise and skills so a better managed succession process is a must. I propose with the exclusion of the CEO that we have - Max 1 per org/company - Max 1 per country - Max 2 per region - Not more than one Director may have employment, consultancy or advisory relationships with the same Company or Organization and/or with one of its Related Companies or Organizations established or not in the same country. - not more than one Director may be domiciled in the same country. Should a candidate for a position on the Board of Directors have more than one domicile, one of which involves a presumed incompatibility, in order to analyze his/her case for usual country of residence, the country where the company or organization he/she is a part of or works for is established, and/or any other relevant data shall be considered; - not more than two Directors may be domiciled in the same region. =============== "Not more than 2 directors may be domiciled in the same region". As each region has by default a regional director, it can?t have more than one non regional director. > >> Instead of legislating geographical diversity in the Bylaws, I would prefer to rely on the membership to consider all kinds of diversity when voting. > > I agree with this. The geographical diversity is part of AFRINIC foundation as the best representation structure which matches this RIR service region rich in history and cultural, linguistically and economically diverse.This is why the bylaws prescribed geographical diversity for the BoD. It has be the same for the non-regional if we agree to move and not depend on membership votes... > >> Remember that Bylaws changes need a 75% majority. Would adding geographical restrictions to the non-geographical seats have enough support to pass? > > I?m actually not sure how you would reliably enforce such a provision in a fair and equitable manner. For example, if due to resignation, both non-geographic seats came available at the same time, would you limit to one candidate per region? If not, then what if the vote result had an equal number of votes for two candidates from the same region and they had the most votes? Which candidate would you disqualify in favor of the third-place candidate? The election mechanism for the GC members seems to address your question; In your second scenario, but did not foresee the tie in the votes. http://www.afrinic.net/en/about/governance-committee/1889-election-and-nomination-process section 8.4 (d) The solution for the scenario you described would be that in case of vote equality for 2 from the same region, have other rounds of vote until one wins. Hope this helps ?Alain > > Owen > > > _______________________________________________ > Community-Discuss mailing list > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ali at hussein.me.ke Mon Oct 10 06:01:00 2016 From: ali at hussein.me.ke (Ali Hussein) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 09:01:00 +0300 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Liquid Telecom warns of looming address shortage - Daily Nation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear listers Greetings and apologies for cross-posting. Internet service provider Liquid Telecom Kenya has warned that Africa is set to run out of Internet Protocol (IP) addresses as early as next year, potentially slowing down digital growth in the continent. Read on:- http://www.nation.co.ke/business/Liquid-Telecom-warns-of-looming-address-shortage/996-3410850-format-xhtml-aub5sm/index.html Couple of questions:- 1. How involved are we as a community in ensuring the smooth transition from IPV4 to IPV6? 2. What have been the major impediments to the successful migration? 3. How can we move the needle faster? Ali Hussein Tel: +254 713 601113 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com Mon Oct 10 06:25:42 2016 From: Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com (Andrew Alston) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 06:25:42 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Liquid Telecom warns of looming address shortage - Daily Nation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Ali, If I may respond here. Firstly ? I think we need to be careful about referring to blanket transition ? what Liquid has said is, we have to be ready with dual-stack networks. As v4 runs out ? that dual-stack becomes more and more critical because it will enable the full transition when the time comes for it. How soon that will come is hard to say ? but it is coming. What are the major impediments? There are 2 or 3 major points here: a.) Lack of will to actually do it ? it takes work, it takes time, it takes effort ? and the will power to actually move beyond talking the talk into walking the walk doesn?t seem to be there b.) Lack of understanding/skill ? The fact is that implementing v6 vs implementing v4 ? it?s just another protocol, same routing, same everything. But there is a fear factor walking into something that is misunderstood. That lack of understanding that you can build this simultaneously in the same way you build v4, creates the fear factor. The fear of handling addressing plans in hexadecimal is also prohibiting growth. I run into that one a lot ? people having issues with the address planning. c.) The last question is the million dollar one ? because the reality is ? all it takes is will power and a willingness to actually take some action. The simple fact is ? we had a relatively small team on this ? we committed a bunch of hours ? we stuck our heads down and did it. We did not spend money ? other than the cost of the time (which is an OPEX cost admittedly). We said ourselves deadlines and we DID it. There are those who propose that setting policies to try and force v6 is workable ? it?s not ? unless the will is there it will achieve nothing. People have to WANT this. It is a matter of desire and a matter of seeing the benefits ? the benefits are future proofing ? they are not based on revenue generation, but more revenue retention. And if anyone wants to see just how much impact you can have with a small team that actually has the desire, please see the following stats out of Zimbabwe (our largest consumer market) http://stats.labs.apnic.net/ipv6/ZW?b=20161001&d=10 http://stats.labs.apnic.net/ipv6/AS30969?b=20161001&d=10 http://stats.labs.apnic.net/ipv6/XB?b=20161001&d=10 (I see things have slightly dropped off today, these stats tend to fluctuate, but fact is ? it?s out there and it work?s. Andrew From: Ali Hussein Date: Monday, 10 October 2016 at 09:01 To: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions , General Discussions of AFRINIC Subject: [Community-Discuss] Liquid Telecom warns of looming address shortage - Daily Nation Dear listers Greetings and apologies for cross-posting. Internet service provider Liquid Telecom Kenya has warned that Africa is set to run out of Internet Protocol (IP) addresses as early as next year, potentially slowing down digital growth in the continent. Read on:- http://www.nation.co.ke/business/Liquid-Telecom-warns-of-looming-address-shortage/996-3410850-format-xhtml-aub5sm/index.html Couple of questions:- 1. How involved are we as a community in ensuring the smooth transition from IPV4 to IPV6? 2. What have been the major impediments to the successful migration? 3. How can we move the needle faster? Ali Hussein Tel: +254 713 601113 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From geier at geier.ne.tz Mon Oct 10 06:38:16 2016 From: geier at geier.ne.tz (Frank Habicht) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 09:38:16 +0300 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Liquid Telecom warns of looming address shortage - Daily Nation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 10/10/2016 9:01 AM, Ali Hussein wrote: > 3. How can we move the needle faster? conf t int ..... ip address 2xxx:xxxx:xxxx::xxx/yyy end wr From Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com Mon Oct 10 06:46:43 2016 From: Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com (Andrew Alston) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 06:46:43 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Liquid Telecom warns of looming address shortage - Daily Nation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: As another note ? that I forgot to mention in my previous email. We have to educate our corporate consumers ? because unlike the consumer market where you can turn on v6 through ISP controlled access to the CPE?s and it just works, corporates, you have to actually sit with them, discuss, and get them to move, because getting it to the edge of their networks is easy ? getting them to enable it through firewalls etc ? that?s another story. Andrew From: Ali Hussein Date: Monday, 10 October 2016 at 09:01 To: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions , General Discussions of AFRINIC Subject: [Community-Discuss] Liquid Telecom warns of looming address shortage - Daily Nation Dear listers Greetings and apologies for cross-posting. Internet service provider Liquid Telecom Kenya has warned that Africa is set to run out of Internet Protocol (IP) addresses as early as next year, potentially slowing down digital growth in the continent. Read on:- http://www.nation.co.ke/business/Liquid-Telecom-warns-of-looming-address-shortage/996-3410850-format-xhtml-aub5sm/index.html Couple of questions:- 1. How involved are we as a community in ensuring the smooth transition from IPV4 to IPV6? 2. What have been the major impediments to the successful migration? 3. How can we move the needle faster? Ali Hussein Tel: +254 713 601113 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From saul at enetworks.co.za Mon Oct 10 07:01:01 2016 From: saul at enetworks.co.za (Saul Stein) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 09:01:01 +0200 (SAST) Subject: [Community-Discuss] Liquid Telecom warns of looming address shortage - Daily Nation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <289f01d222c4$0f778070$2e668150$@enetworks.co.za> Hi Andrew, This is where things start to get interesting. Corporate uptake? I know that some ISPs give v6 to all customers, I wonder how many of them use it? I have spoken to a few corporate customers to try and understand the barriers and interest. Some, its bureaucracy different departments for LAN, firewall and then change control etc, for some its time ? simply not high on the priorities board to allocate recourses, others its training and then the previous issues. I have managed to get one to agree to take it, offered to assist them with the implementation, but that has still to go somewhere?.. From: Andrew Alston [mailto:Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com] Sent: 10 October 2016 08:47 AM To: Ali Hussein ; KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions ; General Discussions of AFRINIC Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Liquid Telecom warns of looming address shortage - Daily Nation As another note ? that I forgot to mention in my previous email. We have to educate our corporate consumers ? because unlike the consumer market where you can turn on v6 through ISP controlled access to the CPE?s and it just works, corporates, you have to actually sit with them, discuss, and get them to move, because getting it to the edge of their networks is easy ? getting them to enable it through firewalls etc ? that?s another story. Andrew From: Ali Hussein > Date: Monday, 10 October 2016 at 09:01 To: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions >, General Discussions of AFRINIC > Subject: [Community-Discuss] Liquid Telecom warns of looming address shortage - Daily Nation Dear listers Greetings and apologies for cross-posting. Internet service provider Liquid Telecom Kenya has warned that Africa is set to run out of Internet Protocol (IP) addresses as early as next year, potentially slowing down digital growth in the continent. Read on:- http://www.nation.co.ke/business/Liquid-Telecom-warns-of-looming-address-shortage/996-3410850-format-xhtml-aub5sm/index.html Couple of questions:- 1. How involved are we as a community in ensuring the smooth transition from IPV4 to IPV6? 2. What have been the major impediments to the successful migration? 3. How can we move the needle faster? Ali Hussein Tel: +254 713 601113 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mark.tinka at seacom.mu Mon Oct 10 07:09:44 2016 From: mark.tinka at seacom.mu (Mark Tinka) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 09:09:44 +0200 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Liquid Telecom warns of looming address shortage - Daily Nation In-Reply-To: <289f01d222c4$0f778070$2e668150$@enetworks.co.za> References: <289f01d222c4$0f778070$2e668150$@enetworks.co.za> Message-ID: <606dcece-49ed-8627-0f63-7d3a0d0c2ab1@seacom.mu> On 10/Oct/16 09:01, Saul Stein wrote: > > > I know that some ISPs give v6 to all customers, I wonder how many of > them use it? > We assign each enterprise customer an IPv6 prefix. I'd estimate use of it at 0% today (even there about 5% of them ask for it). Our service provider customers are more interested in getting the IPv6 BGP session going, and announcing their IPv6 allocation. I'd estimate that at about 50% (much of which comes through pestering them). > > > I have spoken to a few corporate customers to try and understand the > barriers and interest. > > Some, its bureaucracy different departments for LAN, firewall and then > change control etc, for some its time ? simply not high on the > priorities board to allocate recourses, others its training and then > the previous issues. > In general, it is a lack of interest. Mark. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ali at hussein.me.ke Mon Oct 10 07:16:51 2016 From: ali at hussein.me.ke (Ali Hussein) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 10:16:51 +0300 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Liquid Telecom warns of looming address shortage - Daily Nation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9991EA7C-EEFC-4CBD-8363-5A60EFA8A7AA@hussein.me.ke> Andrew Thank you so much for that informative response. So let's paint a scenario. Say, v4 exhausts in say 3 years. What are the implications for the continent esp those who will not have migrated? Ali Hussein Principal Hussein & Associates +254 0713 601113 Twitter: @AliHKassim Skype: abu-jomo LinkedIn: http://ke.linkedin.com/in/alihkassim "Discovery consists in seeing what everyone else has seen and thinking what no one else has thought". ~ Albert Szent-Gy?rgyi Sent from my iPad > On 10 Oct 2016, at 9:25 AM, Andrew Alston wrote: > > Hi Ali, > > If I may respond here. > > Firstly ? I think we need to be careful about referring to blanket transition ? what Liquid has said is, we have to be ready with dual-stack networks. As v4 runs out ? that dual-stack becomes more and more critical because it will enable the full transition when the time comes for it. How soon that will come is hard to say ? but it is coming. > > What are the major impediments? There are 2 or 3 major points here: > > a.) Lack of will to actually do it ? it takes work, it takes time, it takes effort ? and the will power to actually move beyond talking the talk into walking the walk doesn?t seem to be there > b.) Lack of understanding/skill ? The fact is that implementing v6 vs implementing v4 ? it?s just another protocol, same routing, same everything. But there is a fear factor walking into something that is misunderstood. That lack of understanding that you can build this simultaneously in the same way you build v4, creates the fear factor. The fear of handling addressing plans in hexadecimal is also prohibiting growth. I run into that one a lot ? people having issues with the address planning. > c.) The last question is the million dollar one ? because the reality is ? all it takes is will power and a willingness to actually take some action. > > The simple fact is ? we had a relatively small team on this ? we committed a bunch of hours ? we stuck our heads down and did it. We did not spend money ? other than the cost of the time (which is an OPEX cost admittedly). We said ourselves deadlines and we DID it. > > There are those who propose that setting policies to try and force v6 is workable ? it?s not ? unless the will is there it will achieve nothing. People have to WANT this. It is a matter of desire and a matter of seeing the benefits ? the benefits are future proofing ? they are not based on revenue generation, but more revenue retention. > > And if anyone wants to see just how much impact you can have with a small team that actually has the desire, please see the following stats out of Zimbabwe (our largest consumer market) > > http://stats.labs.apnic.net/ipv6/ZW?b=20161001&d=10 > http://stats.labs.apnic.net/ipv6/AS30969?b=20161001&d=10 > http://stats.labs.apnic.net/ipv6/XB?b=20161001&d=10 > > (I see things have slightly dropped off today, these stats tend to fluctuate, but fact is ? it?s out there and it work?s. > > Andrew > > > > > From: Ali Hussein > Date: Monday, 10 October 2016 at 09:01 > To: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions , General Discussions of AFRINIC > Subject: [Community-Discuss] Liquid Telecom warns of looming address shortage - Daily Nation > > Dear listers > > Greetings and apologies for cross-posting. > > Internet service provider Liquid Telecom Kenya has warned that Africa is set to run out of Internet Protocol (IP) addresses as early as next year, potentially slowing down digital growth in the continent. > > Read on:- > > http://www.nation.co.ke/business/Liquid-Telecom-warns-of-looming-address-shortage/996-3410850-format-xhtml-aub5sm/index.html > > Couple of questions:- > > 1. How involved are we as a community in ensuring the smooth transition from IPV4 to IPV6? > > 2. What have been the major impediments to the successful migration? > > 3. How can we move the needle faster? > > Ali Hussein > Tel: +254 713 601113 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From noah at neo.co.tz Mon Oct 10 07:49:54 2016 From: noah at neo.co.tz (Noah) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 10:49:54 +0300 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Liquid Telecom warns of looming address shortage - Daily Nation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 9:38 AM, Frank Habicht wrote: > > > On 10/10/2016 9:01 AM, Ali Hussein wrote: > > 3. How can we move the needle faster? > > conf t > int ..... > ip address 2xxx:xxxx:xxxx::xxx/yyy > ipv6 address 2xxx:xxxx:xxxx::xxx/yyy end > wr > > The internet is multi-vendor.... and each vendor has a different sythax just like above Cisoc ios implementation. But yes that is the how to start... by doing it. > > > -- *./noah* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sonniemwangi at gmail.com Mon Oct 10 07:52:30 2016 From: sonniemwangi at gmail.com (Caroline Mwangi) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 10:52:30 +0300 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Liquid Telecom warns of looming address shortage - Daily Nation In-Reply-To: <9991EA7C-EEFC-4CBD-8363-5A60EFA8A7AA@hussein.me.ke> References: <9991EA7C-EEFC-4CBD-8363-5A60EFA8A7AA@hussein.me.ke> Message-ID: I like the ideas. I feel sensitizing the market/users on this possible scenario (exhaustion of IPv4) is vital. We could run an event annually or biannually to pass this message. We could call it the "Biannual/Annual Africa Networking Conference" In the event, we could bring up issues such as Information System Security as highlighted above, the need to shift to IPv6, etc Kind regards, Caroline Mwangi. On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 10:16 AM, Ali Hussein wrote: > Andrew > > Thank you so much for that informative response. > > So let's paint a scenario. > > Say, v4 exhausts in say 3 years. What are the implications for the > continent esp those who will not have migrated? > > *Ali Hussein* > *Principal* > *Hussein & Associates* > +254 0713 601113 > > Twitter: @AliHKassim > > Skype: abu-jomo > > LinkedIn: http://ke.linkedin.com/in/alihkassim > > > "Discovery consists in seeing what everyone else has seen and thinking > what no one else has thought". ~ Albert Szent-Gy?rgyi > > Sent from my iPad > > On 10 Oct 2016, at 9:25 AM, Andrew Alston > wrote: > > Hi Ali, > > > > If I may respond here. > > > > Firstly ? I think we need to be careful about referring to blanket > transition ? what Liquid has said is, we have to be ready with dual-stack > networks. As v4 runs out ? that dual-stack becomes more and more critical > because it will enable the full transition when the time comes for it. How > soon that will come is hard to say ? but it is coming. > > > > What are the major impediments? There are 2 or 3 major points here: > > > > a.) Lack of will to actually do it ? it takes work, it takes time, it > takes effort ? and the will power to actually move beyond talking the talk > into walking the walk doesn?t seem to be there > > b.) Lack of understanding/skill ? The fact is that implementing v6 vs > implementing v4 ? it?s just another protocol, same routing, same > everything. But there is a fear factor walking into something that is > misunderstood. That lack of understanding that you can build this > simultaneously in the same way you build v4, creates the fear factor. The > fear of handling addressing plans in hexadecimal is also prohibiting > growth. I run into that one a lot ? people having issues with the address > planning. > > c.) The last question is the million dollar one ? because the reality > is ? all it takes is will power and a willingness to actually take some > action. > > > > The simple fact is ? we had a relatively small team on this ? we committed > a bunch of hours ? we stuck our heads down and did it. We did not spend > money ? other than the cost of the time (which is an OPEX cost > admittedly). We said ourselves deadlines and we DID it. > > > > There are those who propose that setting policies to try and force v6 is > workable ? it?s not ? unless the will is there it will achieve nothing. > People have to WANT this. It is a matter of desire and a matter of seeing > the benefits ? the benefits are future proofing ? they are not based on > revenue generation, but more revenue retention. > > > > And if anyone wants to see just how much impact you can have with a small > team that actually has the desire, please see the following stats out of > Zimbabwe (our largest consumer market) > > > > http://stats.labs.apnic.net/ipv6/ZW?b=20161001&d=10 > > http://stats.labs.apnic.net/ipv6/AS30969?b=20161001&d=10 > > http://stats.labs.apnic.net/ipv6/XB?b=20161001&d=10 > > > > (I see things have slightly dropped off today, these stats tend to > fluctuate, but fact is ? it?s out there and it work?s. > > > > Andrew > > > > > > > > > > *From: *Ali Hussein > *Date: *Monday, 10 October 2016 at 09:01 > *To: *KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions , > General Discussions of AFRINIC > *Subject: *[Community-Discuss] Liquid Telecom warns of looming address > shortage - Daily Nation > > > > Dear listers > > Greetings and apologies for cross-posting. > > Internet service provider Liquid Telecom Kenya has warned that Africa is > set to run out of Internet Protocol (IP) addresses as early as next year, > potentially slowing down digital growth in the continent. > > Read on:- > > http://www.nation.co.ke/business/Liquid-Telecom-warns- > of-looming-address-shortage/996-3410850-format-xhtml-aub5sm/index.html > > Couple of questions:- > > 1. How involved are we as a community in ensuring the smooth transition > from IPV4 to IPV6? > > 2. What have been the major impediments to the successful migration? > > 3. How can we move the needle faster? > > Ali Hussein > Tel: +254 713 601113 > > > _______________________________________________ > Community-Discuss mailing list > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mangawilly at gmail.com Mon Oct 10 08:12:08 2016 From: mangawilly at gmail.com (Willy MANGA) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 09:12:08 +0100 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Liquid Telecom warns of looming address shortage - Daily Nation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Le 10/10/2016 ? 07:01, Ali Hussein a ?crit : > Dear listers >[...]> > 3. How can we move the needle faster? On your GNU/Linux box up ip -6 addr add 2xxx:xxxx:xxxx:::x/yy dev ethzz :) Add some firewall rules.. And you'll have a dual stack network EVEN through a tunnel if your ISP like me doesn't progress on v6 activation ;) -- Willy Manga freenode: ongolaBoy Ubuntu Cameroonian Loco Team https://launchpad.net/~manga-willy -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 819 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From Kivuva at transworldafrica.com Mon Oct 10 08:55:31 2016 From: Kivuva at transworldafrica.com (Mwendwa Kivuva) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 12:55:31 +0400 Subject: [Community-Discuss] [kictanet] Liquid Telecom warns of looming address shortage - Daily Nation In-Reply-To: References: <9991EA7C-EEFC-4CBD-8363-5A60EFA8A7AA@hussein.me.ke> Message-ID: This is an extremely important debate for the continent. Thank you Ali for that. Some of these issues have been debated thoroughly in several forums. It's very important we continue debating them until we see an exponential growth of IPv6 in the continent. To answer a few questions, there is a clear justification on why it is necessary to migrate to IPv6. Among them: - There are no enough IPv4 remaining for everyone. There are more devices, and people on earth than IPv4. Maximum IPv4 addresses are 4billion. Population of Earth is 7.3Billion. Maximum IPv6 address 3.4?10 38 - Migration will not happen overnight since the recommended implementation is dual-stacking; that is, running IPv4 and IPv6 in parallel. We are not telling people to do away with IPv4, but to run the two protocols in parallel. - To be a producer of information, you cannot use a shared IP, you need a dedicated IP. This has been a big challenge in the continent. We have stifled innovation by using shared IPs. - There are many services now around the world which are IPv6 only website and services. If you are not on IPv6, you cannot get to these networks. Africa may get into what I can call "Information dark age" if we cannot acess some parts of the Internet. - IPv6 is necessary for business growth. How? How will your business scale when IPv4 has run out? *What has AFRINIC done to bridge the gap?* 1. Trainings. This year alone, AFRINIC is conducting free IPv6 trainings to over 23 countries across the continent. Kenya was among the beneficiaries. Check this link http://www.afrinic.net/services/training AFRINIC has an extensive training program provides free training to over 600 network engineers per year on Internet Number Resources Management (INRM) and IPv6 Planning and Deployment. Our training courses are always growing to support the technologies related to Internet resources, including DNSSEC & RPKI. AFRINIC's IPv6 course are IPv6 Forum (Gold) Certified and are fully hands-on, making use of extensive IPv6 testbed access which gives participants hands-on experience on real equipment to configure, test and troubleshoot IPv6. 2. AFRINIC has a Government Working Group (AfGWG). Here government players are brought together to be sensitized on the need to push for IPv6 adoption, and rollout of IXPs, among other. Here is the link https://meeting.afrinic.net/afgwg/ 3. Issuance of v6 blocks to ISPs. All ISPs have been issued V6 blocks by AFRINIC. What we should be seeing now is clients insisting they want the ISPs to pass the benefits to the end users. *What can you do?* - *Government Organizations:* Coordinate with industry to support and promote awareness and educational activities. Adopt regulatory and economic incentives to encourage IPv6 adoption. Require IPv6 compatibility in procurement procedures. Officially adopt IPv6 within your government agencies. - *Broadband Access Providers*: Your customers want access to the entire Internet, and this means IPv4 and IPv6 websites. Offering full access requires running IPv4/IPv6 transition services and is a significant engineering project. Multiple transition technologies are available, and each provider needs to make their own architectural decisions. - *Internet Service Providers:* Implement a plan that will allow your customers to connect to the Internet via IPv6 and IPv6/IPv4, not just IPv4. Businesses are beginning to ask for IPv6 over their existing Internet connections and for their co-located servers. Communicate with your peers and vendors about IPv6, and confirm their timelines for production IPv6 services. - *Internet Content Providers*: Content must be reachable to future Internet customers. Plan on serving content via IPv6 in addition to IPv4 as soon as possible. - *Enterprise Customers*: Email, web, and application servers must be reachable via IPv6 in addition to IPv4. Open a dialogue with your ISP about providing IPv6 services. Each organization must decide on timelines, and investment level will vary. *What is the role of Internet Service Providers (ISPs) in deploying IPv*6? This link https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/afripv6-discuss/attachments/20160710/f7e693ac/attachment-0001.pdf contains some very interesting statistics and findings on V6 deployments around the world, shared at the OECD Ministerial Meeting in June2016. One lesson we can learn from this is work very closely with ISPs. That seems to be the solution in the success stories. *Some statistics on deployments* Belgium 55.11%, Germany 34.50%, United States 32.83% Greece 28.53% Portugal 25.80% Ecuador 20.8%, Peru 19.35%, Estonia 17,32% Japan 16.61%, Canada 9.83% Norway 6.65% Bolivia 3.8% Italy 0.73% Spain 0.7% Denmark 0.61% Some interesting findings is that deployment depends on the large ISPs uptake of v6 regardless of economic circumstances. e.g Peru has a lower per capita but has more deployment than Norway. Portugal with $22,000/capita and Greece $21,000/capita are outperforming Denmark with $60,000/capita. Canada $45,000/capita is trailing Estonia with $19,000/capita. In the success stories, the majority of the commercial access market products have IPv6 enabled by default, and competing products have matching features. Regards ______________________ Mwendwa Kivuva, Nairobi, Kenya twitter.com/lordmwesh On 10 October 2016 at 11:44, Joseph Mucheru via kictanet < kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote: > That said, do we have any experts on DOA? I personally believe this is the > way forward... > > https://www.google.co.kr/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url= > https://www.itu.int/ITU-D/arb/ARO/2011/CyberSecurityForum- > Eg/Docs/Doc11-Sorene_18-12-2011.pptx&ved=0ahUKEwjsv8jc3c_ > PAhUU82MKHeXuALIQFggZMAA&usg=AFQjCNGzWEx4VBdgLQYrceW-eme4GvjaWw > > Thanks > > On 10 Oct 2016 4:37 PM, "Ali Hussein via kictanet" < > kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote: > >> Andrew >> >> Thank you so much for that informative response. >> >> So let's paint a scenario. >> >> Say, v4 exhausts in say 3 years. What are the implications for the >> continent esp those who will not have migrated? >> >> *Ali Hussein* >> *Principal* >> *Hussein & Associates* >> +254 0713 601113 >> >> Twitter: @AliHKassim >> >> Skype: abu-jomo >> >> LinkedIn: http://ke.linkedin.com/in/alihkassim >> >> >> "Discovery consists in seeing what everyone else has seen and thinking >> what no one else has thought". ~ Albert Szent-Gy?rgyi >> >> Sent from my iPad >> >> On 10 Oct 2016, at 9:25 AM, Andrew Alston > om> wrote: >> >> Hi Ali, >> >> >> >> If I may respond here. >> >> >> >> Firstly ? I think we need to be careful about referring to blanket >> transition ? what Liquid has said is, we have to be ready with dual-stack >> networks. As v4 runs out ? that dual-stack becomes more and more critical >> because it will enable the full transition when the time comes for it. How >> soon that will come is hard to say ? but it is coming. >> >> >> >> What are the major impediments? There are 2 or 3 major points here: >> >> >> >> a.) Lack of will to actually do it ? it takes work, it takes time, >> it takes effort ? and the will power to actually move beyond talking the >> talk into walking the walk doesn?t seem to be there >> >> b.) Lack of understanding/skill ? The fact is that implementing v6 >> vs implementing v4 ? it?s just another protocol, same routing, same >> everything. But there is a fear factor walking into something that is >> misunderstood. That lack of understanding that you can build this >> simultaneously in the same way you build v4, creates the fear factor. The >> fear of handling addressing plans in hexadecimal is also prohibiting >> growth. I run into that one a lot ? people having issues with the address >> planning. >> >> c.) The last question is the million dollar one ? because the >> reality is ? all it takes is will power and a willingness to actually take >> some action. >> >> >> >> The simple fact is ? we had a relatively small team on this ? we >> committed a bunch of hours ? we stuck our heads down and did it. We did >> not spend money ? other than the cost of the time (which is an OPEX cost >> admittedly). We said ourselves deadlines and we DID it. >> >> >> >> There are those who propose that setting policies to try and force v6 is >> workable ? it?s not ? unless the will is there it will achieve nothing. >> People have to WANT this. It is a matter of desire and a matter of seeing >> the benefits ? the benefits are future proofing ? they are not based on >> revenue generation, but more revenue retention. >> >> >> >> And if anyone wants to see just how much impact you can have with a small >> team that actually has the desire, please see the following stats out of >> Zimbabwe (our largest consumer market) >> >> >> >> http://stats.labs.apnic.net/ipv6/ZW?b=20161001&d=10 >> >> http://stats.labs.apnic.net/ipv6/AS30969?b=20161001&d=10 >> >> http://stats.labs.apnic.net/ipv6/XB?b=20161001&d=10 >> >> >> >> (I see things have slightly dropped off today, these stats tend to >> fluctuate, but fact is ? it?s out there and it work?s. >> >> >> >> Andrew >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> *From: *Ali Hussein >> *Date: *Monday, 10 October 2016 at 09:01 >> *To: *KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions , >> General Discussions of AFRINIC >> *Subject: *[Community-Discuss] Liquid Telecom warns of looming address >> shortage - Daily Nation >> >> >> >> Dear listers >> >> Greetings and apologies for cross-posting. >> >> Internet service provider Liquid Telecom Kenya has warned that Africa is >> set to run out of Internet Protocol (IP) addresses as early as next year, >> potentially slowing down digital growth in the continent. >> >> Read on:- >> >> http://www.nation.co.ke/business/Liquid-Telecom-warns-of- >> looming-address-shortage/996-3410850-format-xhtml-aub5sm/index.html >> >> Couple of questions:- >> >> 1. How involved are we as a community in ensuring the smooth transition >> from IPV4 to IPV6? >> >> 2. What have been the major impediments to the successful migration? >> >> 3. How can we move the needle faster? >> >> Ali Hussein >> Tel: +254 713 601113 >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> kictanet mailing list >> kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke >> https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet >> >> Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/m >> ailman/options/kictanet/joe%40mucheru.com >> >> The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is a multi-stakeholder platform >> for people and institutions interested and involved in ICT policy and >> regulation. The network aims to act as a catalyst for reform in the ICT >> sector in support of the national aim of ICT enabled growth and development. >> >> KICTANetiquette : Adhere to the same standards of acceptable behaviors >> online that you follow in real life: respect people's times and bandwidth, >> share knowledge, don't flame or abuse or personalize, respect privacy, do >> not spam, do not market your wares or qualifications. >> > > _______________________________________________ > kictanet mailing list > kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke > https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet > > Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/ > mailman/options/kictanet/kivuva%40transworldafrica.com > > The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is a multi-stakeholder platform > for people and institutions interested and involved in ICT policy and > regulation. The network aims to act as a catalyst for reform in the ICT > sector in support of the national aim of ICT enabled growth and development. > > KICTANetiquette : Adhere to the same standards of acceptable behaviors > online that you follow in real life: respect people's times and bandwidth, > share knowledge, don't flame or abuse or personalize, respect privacy, do > not spam, do not market your wares or qualifications. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jwalu at yahoo.com Mon Oct 10 09:38:30 2016 From: jwalu at yahoo.com (Walubengo J) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 09:38:30 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Community-Discuss] [kictanet] Liquid Telecom warns of looming address shortage - Daily Nation In-Reply-To: References: <9991EA7C-EEFC-4CBD-8363-5A60EFA8A7AA@hussein.me.ke> Message-ID: <199417367.1174622.1476092310060@mail.yahoo.com> @Mwendwa,>>> What can you do? - Government Organizations:?Coordinate with industry to support and promote awareness and educational activities. Adopt regulatory and economic incentives to encourage IPv6 adoption. Require IPv6 compatibility in procurement procedures. Officially adopt IPv6 within your government agencies. >>>The above text is what we were looking for to include in our revised .KE ICT Policy. ?How I wish you had shared this earlier :-) walu. From: Mwendwa Kivuva via kictanet To: jwalu at yahoo.com Cc: Mwendwa Kivuva ; General Discussions of AFRINIC Sent: Monday, October 10, 2016 11:55 AM Subject: Re: [kictanet] [Community-Discuss] Liquid Telecom warns of looming address shortage - Daily Nation This is an extremely important debate for the continent. Thank you Ali for that.? Some of these issues have been debated thoroughly in several forums. It's very important we continue debating them until we see an exponential growth of IPv6 in the continent.To answer a few questions, there is a clear justification on why it is necessary to migrate to IPv6.? Among them: - There are no enough IPv4 remaining for everyone. There are more devices, and people on earth than IPv4. Maximum IPv4 addresses are 4billion. Population of Earth is 7.3Billion. Maximum IPv6 address?3.4?10 38? - Migration will not happen overnight since the recommended implementation is dual-stacking; that is, running IPv4 and IPv6 in parallel. We are not telling people to do away with IPv4, but to run the two protocols in parallel. - To be a producer of information, you cannot use a shared IP, you need a dedicated IP. This has been a big challenge in the continent. We have stifled innovation by using shared IPs. - There are many services now around the world which are IPv6 only website and services. If you are not on IPv6, you cannot get to these networks. Africa may get into what I can call "Information dark age" if we cannot acess some parts of the Internet. - IPv6 is necessary for business growth. How? How will your business scale when IPv4 has run out? What has AFRINIC done to bridge the gap?1. Trainings. This year alone, AFRINIC is conducting free IPv6 trainings to over 23 countries across the continent. Kenya was among the beneficiaries. Check this link http://www.afrinic.net/services/training AFRINIC has an extensive training program provides free training to over 600 network engineers per year on Internet Number Resources Management (INRM) and IPv6 Planning and Deployment. Our training courses are always growing to support the technologies related to Internet resources, including DNSSEC & RPKI. AFRINIC's IPv6 course are IPv6 Forum (Gold) Certified and are fully hands-on, making use of extensive IPv6 testbed access which gives participants hands-on experience on real equipment to configure, test and troubleshoot IPv6. 2. AFRINIC has a Government Working Group (AfGWG). Here government players are brought together to be sensitized on the need to push for IPv6 adoption, and rollout of IXPs, among other. Here is the link?https://meeting.afrinic.net/afgwg/ 3. Issuance of v6 blocks to ISPs. All ISPs have been issued V6 blocks by AFRINIC. What we should be seeing now is clients insisting they want the ISPs to pass the benefits to the end users. What can you do? - Government Organizations:?Coordinate with industry to support and promote awareness and educational activities. Adopt regulatory and economic incentives to encourage IPv6 adoption. Require IPv6 compatibility in procurement procedures. Officially adopt IPv6 within your government agencies. - Broadband Access Providers: Your customers want access to the entire Internet, and this means IPv4 and IPv6 websites. Offering full access requires running IPv4/IPv6 transition services and is a significant engineering project. Multiple transition technologies are available, and each provider needs to make their own architectural decisions. - Internet Service Providers:?Implement a plan that will allow your customers to connect to the Internet via IPv6 and IPv6/IPv4, not just IPv4. Businesses are beginning to ask for IPv6 over their existing Internet connections and for their co-located servers. Communicate with your peers and vendors about IPv6, and confirm their timelines for production IPv6 services. - Internet Content Providers: Content must be reachable to future Internet customers. Plan on serving content via IPv6 in addition to IPv4 as soon as possible. - Enterprise Customers: Email, web, and application servers must be reachable via IPv6 in addition to IPv4. Open a dialogue with your ISP about providing IPv6 services. Each organization must decide on timelines, and investment level will vary. What is the role of Internet Service Providers (ISPs) in deploying IPv6?This link https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/afripv6-discuss/attachments/20160710/f7e693ac/attachment-0001.pdf contains some very interesting statistics and findings on V6 deployments around the world, shared at the OECD Ministerial Meeting in June2016. One lesson we can learn from this is work very closely with ISPs. That seems to be the solution in the success stories. *Some statistics on deployments*Belgium 55.11%,Germany 34.50%,United States 32.83%Greece 28.53%Portugal 25.80%Ecuador 20.8%,Peru 19.35%,Estonia 17,32%Japan 16.61%,Canada 9.83%Norway 6.65%Bolivia 3.8%Italy 0.73%Spain 0.7%Denmark 0.61% Some interesting findings is that deployment depends on the large ISPs uptake of v6 regardless of economic circumstances. e.g Peru has a lower per capita but has more deployment than Norway. Portugal with $22,000/capita and Greece $21,000/capita are outperforming Denmark with $60,000/capita. Canada $45,000/capita is trailing Estonia with $19,000/capita. In the success stories, the majority of the commercial access market products have IPv6 enabled by default, and competing products have matching features. Regards? ______________________ Mwendwa Kivuva, Nairobi, Kenya twitter.com/lordmwesh On 10 October 2016 at 11:44, Joseph Mucheru via kictanet wrote: That said, do we have any experts on DOA? I personally believe this is the way forward... https://www.google.co.kr/url? sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url= https://www.itu.int/ITU-D/arb/ ARO/2011/CyberSecurityForum- Eg/Docs/Doc11-Sorene_18-12- 2011.pptx&ved=0ahUKEwjsv8jc3c_ PAhUU82MKHeXuALIQFggZMAA&usg= AFQjCNGzWEx4VBdgLQYrceW- eme4GvjaWwThanks On 10 Oct 2016 4:37 PM, "Ali Hussein via kictanet" wrote: Andrew Thank you so much for that informative response.? So let's paint a scenario.? Say, v4 exhausts in say 3 years. What are the implications for the continent esp those who will not have migrated? Ali HusseinPrincipalHussein & Associates+254 0713 601113? Twitter: @AliHKassimSkype: abu-jomoLinkedIn:?http://ke.linkedin.c om/in/alihkassim "Discovery consists in seeing what everyone else has seen and thinking what no one else has thought". ?~ Albert Szent-Gy?rgyi Sent from my iPad On 10 Oct 2016, at 9:25 AM, Andrew Alston wrote: Hi Ali,?If I may respond here.??Firstly ? I think we need to be careful about referring to blanket transition ? what Liquid has said is, we have to be ready with dual-stack networks.? As v4 runs out ? that dual-stack becomes more and more critical because it will enable the full transition when the time comes for it.? How soon that will come is hard to say ? but it is coming.?What are the major impediments?? There are 2 or 3 major points here:?a.)????Lack of will to actually do it ? it takes work, it takes time, it takes effort ? and the will power to actually move beyond talking the talk into walking the walk doesn?t seem to be thereb.)????Lack of understanding/skill ? The fact is that implementing v6 vs implementing v4 ? it?s just another protocol, same routing, same everything.? But there is a fear factor walking into something that is misunderstood.? That lack of understanding that you can build this simultaneously in the same way you build v4, creates the fear factor.? The fear of handling addressing plans in hexadecimal is also prohibiting growth.? I run into that one a lot ? people having issues with the address planning.c.)????The last question is the million dollar one ? because the reality is ? all it takes is will power and a willingness to actually take some action.?The simple fact is ? we had a relatively small team on this ? we committed a bunch of hours ? we stuck our heads down and did it.? We did not spend money ? other than the cost of the time (which is an OPEX cost admittedly).? We said ourselves deadlines and we DID it.??There are those who propose that setting policies to try and force v6 is workable ? it?s not ? unless the will is there it will achieve nothing.? People have to WANT this.? It is a matter of desire and a matter of seeing the benefits ? the benefits are future proofing ? they are not based on revenue generation, but more revenue retention.?And if anyone wants to see just how much impact you can have with a small team that actually has the desire, please see the following stats out of Zimbabwe (our largest consumer market)?http://stats.labs.apnic.net/ip v6/ZW?b=20161001&d=10http://stats.labs.apnic.net/ip v6/AS30969?b=20161001&d=10http://stats.labs.apnic.net/ip v6/XB?b=20161001&d=10?(I see things have slightly dropped off today, these stats tend to fluctuate, but fact is ? it?s out there and it work?s.?Andrew????From: Ali Hussein Date: Monday, 10 October 2016 at 09:01 To: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions , General Discussions of AFRINIC Subject: [Community-Discuss] Liquid Telecom warns of looming address shortage - Daily Nation?Dear listersGreetings and apologies for cross-posting.Internet service provider Liquid Telecom Kenya has warned that Africa is set to run out of Internet Protocol (IP) addresses as early as next year, potentially slowing down digital growth in the continent.Read on:-http://www.nation.co.ke/busine ss/Liquid-Telecom-warns-of- looming-address-shortage/996- 3410850-format-xhtml-aub5sm/ index.htmlCouple of questions:-1. How involved are we as a community in ensuring the smooth transition from IPV4 to IPV6?2. What have been the major impediments to the successful migration?3. How can we move the needle faster?Ali Hussein Tel: +254 713 601113 ______________________________ _________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/m ailman/listinfo/kictanet Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/m ailman/options/kictanet/joe%40 mucheru.com The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is a multi-stakeholder platform for people and institutions interested and involved in ICT policy and regulation. The network aims to act as a catalyst for reform in the ICT sector in support of the national aim of ICT enabled growth and development. KICTANetiquette : Adhere to the same standards of acceptable behaviors online that you follow in real life: respect people's times and bandwidth, share knowledge, don't flame or abuse or personalize, respect privacy, do not spam, do not market your wares or qualifications. ______________________________ _________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/ mailman/listinfo/kictanet Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/ mailman/options/kictanet/ kivuva%40transworldafrica.com The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is a multi-stakeholder platform for people and institutions interested and involved in ICT policy and regulation. The network aims to act as a catalyst for reform in the ICT sector in support of the national aim of ICT enabled growth and development. KICTANetiquette : Adhere to the same standards of acceptable behaviors online that you follow in real life: respect people's times and bandwidth, share knowledge, don't flame or abuse or personalize, respect privacy, do not spam, do not market your wares or qualifications. _______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/jwalu%40yahoo.com The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is a multi-stakeholder platform for people and institutions interested and involved in ICT policy and regulation. The network aims to act as a catalyst for reform in the ICT sector in support of the national aim of ICT enabled growth and development. KICTANetiquette : Adhere to the same standards of acceptable behaviors online that you follow in real life: respect people's times and bandwidth, share knowledge, don't flame or abuse or personalize, respect privacy, do not spam, do not market your wares or qualifications. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com Mon Oct 10 10:42:39 2016 From: Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com (Andrew Alston) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 10:42:39 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] [kictanet] Liquid Telecom warns of looming address shortage - Daily Nation In-Reply-To: References: <9991EA7C-EEFC-4CBD-8363-5A60EFA8A7AA@hussein.me.ke> Message-ID: Hi Mwendwa, Just to give you some updated statistics as well ? in terms of global deployment as updated today and ranked in order of penetration percentage: 1 Belgium 46.18% 2 United States of America 28.96% 3 Greece 26.74% 4 Switzerland 26.34% 5 Germany 26.18% 6 Luxembourg 20.90% 7 Ecuador 18.96% 8 Portugal 18.94% 9 Estonia 15.53% 10 Peru 15.47% 25 Australia 5.64% 26 Austria 5.00% 27 Hungary 4.71% 28 Saudi Arabia 4.48% 29 Singapore 4.39% 30 Zimbabwe 4.39% 31 South Korea 4.21% 32 Bolivia 4.13% 33 Vietnam 4.05% 34 New Zealand 3.22% 35 Poland 3.08% Beyond that ? in terms of African deployment ? We have Sudan in position 51, with 0.48%, we have South Africa in position 61, with 0.2%, we have Egypt in Position 63 with 0.17%, Tanzania in position 74 with 0.08%, Cameroon in position 77 with 0.07%, Rwanda in position 81 with 0.05%, Burkina Faso in position 91 with 0.03% and Kenya in position 94 with 0.02%. The rest of the African countries don?t feature on the list at all. I am also expecting the Zimbabwe position in position 30 to rise probably to another 5 to 10 places in the coming days ? since I suspect that once all the stats are averaged out its going to be sitting somewhere between 6 and 10%. What is most disturbing about this picture is that the biggest economies on the continent barely feature ? Of the top 10 economies on the continent, only half of them feature on the top 100 most v6 enabled places on the continent, and every single one of is in the bottom half of the top 100. (Nigeria, Algeria, Morocco, Angola, Ethiopia do not feature at all, Egypt, South Africa, Sudan, Kenya, Tanzania are the 5 that do). Thanks Andrew *Some statistics on deployments* Belgium 55.11%, Germany 34.50%, United States 32.83% Greece 28.53% Portugal 25.80% Ecuador 20.8%, Peru 19.35%, Estonia 17,32% Japan 16.61%, Canada 9.83% Norway 6.65% Bolivia 3.8% Italy 0.73% Spain 0.7% Denmark 0.61% Some interesting findings is that deployment depends on the large ISPs uptake of v6 regardless of economic circumstances. e.g Peru has a lower per capita but has more deployment than Norway. Portugal with $22,000/capita and Greece $21,000/capita are outperforming Denmark with $60,000/capita. Canada $45,000/capita is trailing Estonia with $19,000/capita. In the success stories, the majority of the commercial access market products have IPv6 enabled by default, and competing products have matching features. Regards ______________________ Mwendwa Kivuva, Nairobi, Kenya twitter.com/lordmwesh On 10 October 2016 at 11:44, Joseph Mucheru via kictanet > wrote: That said, do we have any experts on DOA? I personally believe this is the way forward... https://www.google.co.kr/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.itu.int/ITU-D/arb/ARO/2011/CyberSecurityForum-Eg/Docs/Doc11-Sorene_18-12-2011.pptx&ved=0ahUKEwjsv8jc3c_PAhUU82MKHeXuALIQFggZMAA&usg=AFQjCNGzWEx4VBdgLQYrceW-eme4GvjaWw Thanks On 10 Oct 2016 4:37 PM, "Ali Hussein via kictanet" > wrote: Andrew Thank you so much for that informative response. So let's paint a scenario. Say, v4 exhausts in say 3 years. What are the implications for the continent esp those who will not have migrated? Ali Hussein Principal Hussein & Associates +254 0713 601113 Twitter: @AliHKassim Skype: abu-jomo LinkedIn: http://ke.linkedin.com/in/alihkassim "Discovery consists in seeing what everyone else has seen and thinking what no one else has thought". ~ Albert Szent-Gy?rgyi Sent from my iPad On 10 Oct 2016, at 9:25 AM, Andrew Alston > wrote: Hi Ali, If I may respond here. Firstly ? I think we need to be careful about referring to blanket transition ? what Liquid has said is, we have to be ready with dual-stack networks. As v4 runs out ? that dual-stack becomes more and more critical because it will enable the full transition when the time comes for it. How soon that will come is hard to say ? but it is coming. What are the major impediments? There are 2 or 3 major points here: a.) Lack of will to actually do it ? it takes work, it takes time, it takes effort ? and the will power to actually move beyond talking the talk into walking the walk doesn?t seem to be there b.) Lack of understanding/skill ? The fact is that implementing v6 vs implementing v4 ? it?s just another protocol, same routing, same everything. But there is a fear factor walking into something that is misunderstood. That lack of understanding that you can build this simultaneously in the same way you build v4, creates the fear factor. The fear of handling addressing plans in hexadecimal is also prohibiting growth. I run into that one a lot ? people having issues with the address planning. c.) The last question is the million dollar one ? because the reality is ? all it takes is will power and a willingness to actually take some action. The simple fact is ? we had a relatively small team on this ? we committed a bunch of hours ? we stuck our heads down and did it. We did not spend money ? other than the cost of the time (which is an OPEX cost admittedly). We said ourselves deadlines and we DID it. There are those who propose that setting policies to try and force v6 is workable ? it?s not ? unless the will is there it will achieve nothing. People have to WANT this. It is a matter of desire and a matter of seeing the benefits ? the benefits are future proofing ? they are not based on revenue generation, but more revenue retention. And if anyone wants to see just how much impact you can have with a small team that actually has the desire, please see the following stats out of Zimbabwe (our largest consumer market) http://stats.labs.apnic.net/ipv6/ZW?b=20161001&d=10 http://stats.labs.apnic.net/ipv6/AS30969?b=20161001&d=10 http://stats.labs.apnic.net/ipv6/XB?b=20161001&d=10 (I see things have slightly dropped off today, these stats tend to fluctuate, but fact is ? it?s out there and it work?s. Andrew From: Ali Hussein > Date: Monday, 10 October 2016 at 09:01 To: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions >, General Discussions of AFRINIC > Subject: [Community-Discuss] Liquid Telecom warns of looming address shortage - Daily Nation Dear listers Greetings and apologies for cross-posting. Internet service provider Liquid Telecom Kenya has warned that Africa is set to run out of Internet Protocol (IP) addresses as early as next year, potentially slowing down digital growth in the continent. Read on:- http://www.nation.co.ke/business/Liquid-Telecom-warns-of-looming-address-shortage/996-3410850-format-xhtml-aub5sm/index.html Couple of questions:- 1. How involved are we as a community in ensuring the smooth transition from IPV4 to IPV6? 2. What have been the major impediments to the successful migration? 3. How can we move the needle faster? Ali Hussein Tel: +254 713 601113 _______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/joe%40mucheru.com The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is a multi-stakeholder platform for people and institutions interested and involved in ICT policy and regulation. The network aims to act as a catalyst for reform in the ICT sector in support of the national aim of ICT enabled growth and development. KICTANetiquette : Adhere to the same standards of acceptable behaviors online that you follow in real life: respect people's times and bandwidth, share knowledge, don't flame or abuse or personalize, respect privacy, do not spam, do not market your wares or qualifications. _______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/kivuva%40transworldafrica.com The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is a multi-stakeholder platform for people and institutions interested and involved in ICT policy and regulation. The network aims to act as a catalyst for reform in the ICT sector in support of the national aim of ICT enabled growth and development. KICTANetiquette : Adhere to the same standards of acceptable behaviors online that you follow in real life: respect people's times and bandwidth, share knowledge, don't flame or abuse or personalize, respect privacy, do not spam, do not market your wares or qualifications. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com Mon Oct 10 10:46:13 2016 From: Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com (Andrew Alston) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 10:46:13 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] [kictanet] Liquid Telecom warns of looming address shortage - Daily Nation In-Reply-To: <199417367.1174622.1476092310060@mail.yahoo.com> References: <9991EA7C-EEFC-4CBD-8363-5A60EFA8A7AA@hussein.me.ke> <199417367.1174622.1476092310060@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: As another note ? I would STRONGLY encourage every government on this continent to take a very close look at the draft Zimbabwean IPv6 strategy plan as published by POTRAZ (the Zimbabwean regulator), which was open for public comment. It is a detailed, in depth, carefully worded document ? not perfect ? but far and away one of the better v6 documents I have seen coming out of any regulator. There is plenty to learn from in there. If anyone is looking for this document ? it can be found at: https://www.potraz.gov.zw/images/documents/Zimbabwe-Draft-IPv6-Implementation-Strategy.pdf Thanks Andrew From: Walubengo J [mailto:jwalu at yahoo.com] Sent: 10 October 2016 12:39 To: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] [kictanet] Liquid Telecom warns of looming address shortage - Daily Nation @Mwendwa, >>> What can you do? * Government Organizations: Coordinate with industry to support and promote awareness and educational activities. Adopt regulatory and economic incentives to encourage IPv6 adoption. Require IPv6 compatibility in procurement procedures. Officially adopt IPv6 within your government agencies. >>> The above text is what we were looking for to include in our revised .KE ICT Policy. How I wish you had shared this earlier :-) walu. ________________________________ From: Mwendwa Kivuva via kictanet > To: jwalu at yahoo.com Cc: Mwendwa Kivuva >; General Discussions of AFRINIC > Sent: Monday, October 10, 2016 11:55 AM Subject: Re: [kictanet] [Community-Discuss] Liquid Telecom warns of looming address shortage - Daily Nation This is an extremely important debate for the continent. Thank you Ali for that. Some of these issues have been debated thoroughly in several forums. It's very important we continue debating them until we see an exponential growth of IPv6 in the continent. To answer a few questions, there is a clear justification on why it is necessary to migrate to IPv6. Among them: * There are no enough IPv4 remaining for everyone. There are more devices, and people on earth than IPv4. Maximum IPv4 addresses are 4billion. Population of Earth is 7.3Billion. Maximum IPv6 address 3.4?1038 * Migration will not happen overnight since the recommended implementation is dual-stacking; that is, running IPv4 and IPv6 in parallel. We are not telling people to do away with IPv4, but to run the two protocols in parallel. * To be a producer of information, you cannot use a shared IP, you need a dedicated IP. This has been a big challenge in the continent. We have stifled innovation by using shared IPs. * There are many services now around the world which are IPv6 only website and services. If you are not on IPv6, you cannot get to these networks. Africa may get into what I can call "Information dark age" if we cannot acess some parts of the Internet. * IPv6 is necessary for business growth. How? How will your business scale when IPv4 has run out? What has AFRINIC done to bridge the gap? 1. Trainings. This year alone, AFRINIC is conducting free IPv6 trainings to over 23 countries across the continent. Kenya was among the beneficiaries. Check this link http://www.afrinic.net/services/training AFRINIC has an extensive training program provides free training to over 600 network engineers per year on Internet Number Resources Management (INRM) and IPv6 Planning and Deployment. Our training courses are always growing to support the technologies related to Internet resources, including DNSSEC & RPKI. AFRINIC's IPv6 course are IPv6 Forum (Gold) Certified and are fully hands-on, making use of extensive IPv6 testbed access which gives participants hands-on experience on real equipment to configure, test and troubleshoot IPv6. 2. AFRINIC has a Government Working Group (AfGWG). Here government players are brought together to be sensitized on the need to push for IPv6 adoption, and rollout of IXPs, among other. Here is the link https://meeting.afrinic.net/afgwg/ 3. Issuance of v6 blocks to ISPs. All ISPs have been issued V6 blocks by AFRINIC. What we should be seeing now is clients insisting they want the ISPs to pass the benefits to the end users. What can you do? * Government Organizations: Coordinate with industry to support and promote awareness and educational activities. Adopt regulatory and economic incentives to encourage IPv6 adoption. Require IPv6 compatibility in procurement procedures. Officially adopt IPv6 within your government agencies. * Broadband Access Providers: Your customers want access to the entire Internet, and this means IPv4 and IPv6 websites. Offering full access requires running IPv4/IPv6 transition services and is a significant engineering project. Multiple transition technologies are available, and each provider needs to make their own architectural decisions. * Internet Service Providers: Implement a plan that will allow your customers to connect to the Internet via IPv6 and IPv6/IPv4, not just IPv4. Businesses are beginning to ask for IPv6 over their existing Internet connections and for their co-located servers. Communicate with your peers and vendors about IPv6, and confirm their timelines for production IPv6 services. * Internet Content Providers: Content must be reachable to future Internet customers. Plan on serving content via IPv6 in addition to IPv4 as soon as possible. * Enterprise Customers: Email, web, and application servers must be reachable via IPv6 in addition to IPv4. Open a dialogue with your ISP about providing IPv6 services. Each organization must decide on timelines, and investment level will vary. What is the role of Internet Service Providers (ISPs) in deploying IPv6? This link https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/afripv6-discuss/attachments/20160710/f7e693ac/attachment-0001.pdf contains some very interesting statistics and findings on V6 deployments around the world, shared at the OECD Ministerial Meeting in June2016. One lesson we can learn from this is work very closely with ISPs. That seems to be the solution in the success stories. *Some statistics on deployments* Belgium 55.11%, Germany 34.50%, United States 32.83% Greece 28.53% Portugal 25.80% Ecuador 20.8%, Peru 19.35%, Estonia 17,32% Japan 16.61%, Canada 9.83% Norway 6.65% Bolivia 3.8% Italy 0.73% Spain 0.7% Denmark 0.61% Some interesting findings is that deployment depends on the large ISPs uptake of v6 regardless of economic circumstances. e.g Peru has a lower per capita but has more deployment than Norway. Portugal with $22,000/capita and Greece $21,000/capita are outperforming Denmark with $60,000/capita. Canada $45,000/capita is trailing Estonia with $19,000/capita. In the success stories, the majority of the commercial access market products have IPv6 enabled by default, and competing products have matching features. Regards ______________________ Mwendwa Kivuva, Nairobi, Kenya twitter.com/lordmwesh On 10 October 2016 at 11:44, Joseph Mucheru via kictanet > wrote: That said, do we have any experts on DOA? I personally believe this is the way forward... https://www.google.co.kr/url? sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url= https://www.itu.int/ITU-D/arb/ ARO/2011/CyberSecurityForum- Eg/Docs/Doc11-Sorene_18-12- 2011.pptx&ved=0ahUKEwjsv8jc3c_ PAhUU82MKHeXuALIQFggZMAA&usg= AFQjCNGzWEx4VBdgLQYrceW- eme4GvjaWw Thanks On 10 Oct 2016 4:37 PM, "Ali Hussein via kictanet" > wrote: Andrew Thank you so much for that informative response. So let's paint a scenario. Say, v4 exhausts in say 3 years. What are the implications for the continent esp those who will not have migrated? Ali Hussein Principal Hussein & Associates +254 0713 601113 Twitter: @AliHKassim Skype: abu-jomo LinkedIn: http://ke.linkedin.c om/in/alihkassim "Discovery consists in seeing what everyone else has seen and thinking what no one else has thought". ~ Albert Szent-Gy?rgyi Sent from my iPad On 10 Oct 2016, at 9:25 AM, Andrew Alston > wrote: Hi Ali, If I may respond here. Firstly ? I think we need to be careful about referring to blanket transition ? what Liquid has said is, we have to be ready with dual-stack networks. As v4 runs out ? that dual-stack becomes more and more critical because it will enable the full transition when the time comes for it. How soon that will come is hard to say ? but it is coming. What are the major impediments? There are 2 or 3 major points here: a.) Lack of will to actually do it ? it takes work, it takes time, it takes effort ? and the will power to actually move beyond talking the talk into walking the walk doesn?t seem to be there b.) Lack of understanding/skill ? The fact is that implementing v6 vs implementing v4 ? it?s just another protocol, same routing, same everything. But there is a fear factor walking into something that is misunderstood. That lack of understanding that you can build this simultaneously in the same way you build v4, creates the fear factor. The fear of handling addressing plans in hexadecimal is also prohibiting growth. I run into that one a lot ? people having issues with the address planning. c.) The last question is the million dollar one ? because the reality is ? all it takes is will power and a willingness to actually take some action. The simple fact is ? we had a relatively small team on this ? we committed a bunch of hours ? we stuck our heads down and did it. We did not spend money ? other than the cost of the time (which is an OPEX cost admittedly). We said ourselves deadlines and we DID it. There are those who propose that setting policies to try and force v6 is workable ? it?s not ? unless the will is there it will achieve nothing. People have to WANT this. It is a matter of desire and a matter of seeing the benefits ? the benefits are future proofing ? they are not based on revenue generation, but more revenue retention. And if anyone wants to see just how much impact you can have with a small team that actually has the desire, please see the following stats out of Zimbabwe (our largest consumer market) http://stats.labs.apnic.net/ip v6/ZW?b=20161001&d=10 http://stats.labs.apnic.net/ip v6/AS30969?b=20161001&d=10 http://stats.labs.apnic.net/ip v6/XB?b=20161001&d=10 (I see things have slightly dropped off today, these stats tend to fluctuate, but fact is ? it?s out there and it work?s. Andrew From: Ali Hussein > Date: Monday, 10 October 2016 at 09:01 To: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions >, General Discussions of AFRINIC > Subject: [Community-Discuss] Liquid Telecom warns of looming address shortage - Daily Nation Dear listers Greetings and apologies for cross-posting. Internet service provider Liquid Telecom Kenya has warned that Africa is set to run out of Internet Protocol (IP) addresses as early as next year, potentially slowing down digital growth in the continent. Read on:- http://www.nation.co.ke/busine ss/Liquid-Telecom-warns-of- looming-address-shortage/996- 3410850-format-xhtml-aub5sm/ index.html Couple of questions:- 1. How involved are we as a community in ensuring the smooth transition from IPV4 to IPV6? 2. What have been the major impediments to the successful migration? 3. How can we move the needle faster? Ali Hussein Tel: +254 713 601113 ______________________________ _________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/m ailman/listinfo/kictanet Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/m ailman/options/kictanet/joe%40 mucheru.com The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is a multi-stakeholder platform for people and institutions interested and involved in ICT policy and regulation. The network aims to act as a catalyst for reform in the ICT sector in support of the national aim of ICT enabled growth and development. KICTANetiquette : Adhere to the same standards of acceptable behaviors online that you follow in real life: respect people's times and bandwidth, share knowledge, don't flame or abuse or personalize, respect privacy, do not spam, do not market your wares or qualifications. ______________________________ _________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/ mailman/listinfo/kictanet Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/ mailman/options/kictanet/ kivuva%40transworldafrica.com The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is a multi-stakeholder platform for people and institutions interested and involved in ICT policy and regulation. The network aims to act as a catalyst for reform in the ICT sector in support of the national aim of ICT enabled growth and development. KICTANetiquette : Adhere to the same standards of acceptable behaviors online that you follow in real life: respect people's times and bandwidth, share knowledge, don't flame or abuse or personalize, respect privacy, do not spam, do not market your wares or qualifications. _______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/jwalu%40yahoo.com The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is a multi-stakeholder platform for people and institutions interested and involved in ICT policy and regulation. The network aims to act as a catalyst for reform in the ICT sector in support of the national aim of ICT enabled growth and development. KICTANetiquette : Adhere to the same standards of acceptable behaviors online that you follow in real life: respect people's times and bandwidth, share knowledge, don't flame or abuse or personalize, respect privacy, do not spam, do not market your wares or qualifications. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From otieno.barrack at gmail.com Mon Oct 10 11:28:30 2016 From: otieno.barrack at gmail.com (Barrack Otieno) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 14:28:30 +0300 Subject: [Community-Discuss] [kictanet] Liquid Telecom warns of looming address shortage - Daily Nation In-Reply-To: <199417367.1174622.1476092310060@mail.yahoo.com> References: <9991EA7C-EEFC-4CBD-8363-5A60EFA8A7AA@hussein.me.ke> <199417367.1174622.1476092310060@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Dear Walu et al? Liquid has been on Zimbabwean Media over successfull V6 deployment. Andrew , what is impeding deployment of the same in Kenya? Regards On 10/10/16, Walubengo J via kictanet wrote: > @Mwendwa,>>> > What can you do? > - Government Organizations:?Coordinate with industry to support and > promote awareness and educational activities. Adopt regulatory and economic > incentives to encourage IPv6 adoption. Require IPv6 compatibility in > procurement procedures. Officially adopt IPv6 within your government > agencies. >>>>The above text is what we were looking for to include in our revised .KE >>>> ICT Policy. ?How I wish you had shared this earlier :-) > walu. > > From: Mwendwa Kivuva via kictanet > To: jwalu at yahoo.com > Cc: Mwendwa Kivuva ; General Discussions of > AFRINIC > Sent: Monday, October 10, 2016 11:55 AM > Subject: Re: [kictanet] [Community-Discuss] Liquid Telecom warns of looming > address shortage - Daily Nation > > This is an extremely important debate for the continent. Thank you Ali for > that. > Some of these issues have been debated thoroughly in several forums. It's > very important we continue debating them until we see an exponential growth > of IPv6 in the continent.To answer a few questions, there is a clear > justification on why it is necessary to migrate to IPv6.? Among them: > - There are no enough IPv4 remaining for everyone. There are more > devices, and people on earth than IPv4. Maximum IPv4 addresses are 4billion. > Population of Earth is 7.3Billion. Maximum IPv6 address?3.4?10 38 > - Migration will not happen overnight since the recommended > implementation is dual-stacking; that is, running IPv4 and IPv6 in parallel. > We are not telling people to do away with IPv4, but to run the two protocols > in parallel. > - To be a producer of information, you cannot use a shared IP, you need a > dedicated IP. This has been a big challenge in the continent. We have > stifled innovation by using shared IPs. > - There are many services now around the world which are IPv6 only > website and services. If you are not on IPv6, you cannot get to these > networks. Africa may get into what I can call "Information dark age" if we > cannot acess some parts of the Internet. > - IPv6 is necessary for business growth. How? How will your business > scale when IPv4 has run out? > What has AFRINIC done to bridge the gap?1. Trainings. This year alone, > AFRINIC is conducting free IPv6 trainings to over 23 countries across the > continent. Kenya was among the beneficiaries. Check this link > http://www.afrinic.net/services/training > AFRINIC has an extensive training program provides free training to over 600 > network engineers per year on Internet Number Resources Management (INRM) > and IPv6 Planning and Deployment. Our training courses are always growing to > support the technologies related to Internet resources, including DNSSEC & > RPKI. AFRINIC's IPv6 course are IPv6 Forum (Gold) Certified and are fully > hands-on, making use of extensive IPv6 testbed access which gives > participants hands-on experience on real equipment to configure, test and > troubleshoot IPv6. > > 2. AFRINIC has a Government Working Group (AfGWG). Here government players > are brought together to be sensitized on the need to push for IPv6 adoption, > and rollout of IXPs, among other. Here is the > link?https://meeting.afrinic.net/afgwg/ > 3. Issuance of v6 blocks to ISPs. All ISPs have been issued V6 blocks by > AFRINIC. What we should be seeing now is clients insisting they want the > ISPs to pass the benefits to the end users. > What can you do? > - Government Organizations:?Coordinate with industry to support and > promote awareness and educational activities. Adopt regulatory and economic > incentives to encourage IPv6 adoption. Require IPv6 compatibility in > procurement procedures. Officially adopt IPv6 within your government > agencies. > - Broadband Access Providers: Your customers want access to the entire > Internet, and this means IPv4 and IPv6 websites. Offering full access > requires running IPv4/IPv6 transition services and is a significant > engineering project. Multiple transition technologies are available, and > each provider needs to make their own architectural decisions. > - Internet Service Providers:?Implement a plan that will allow your > customers to connect to the Internet via IPv6 and IPv6/IPv4, not just IPv4. > Businesses are beginning to ask for IPv6 over their existing Internet > connections and for their co-located servers. Communicate with your peers > and vendors about IPv6, and confirm their timelines for production IPv6 > services. > - Internet Content Providers: Content must be reachable to future > Internet customers. Plan on serving content via IPv6 in addition to IPv4 as > soon as possible. > - Enterprise Customers: Email, web, and application servers must be > reachable via IPv6 in addition to IPv4. Open a dialogue with your ISP about > providing IPv6 services. Each organization must decide on timelines, and > investment level will vary. > > What is the role of Internet Service Providers (ISPs) in deploying IPv6?This > link > https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/afripv6-discuss/attachments/20160710/f7e693ac/attachment-0001.pdf > contains some very interesting statistics and findings on V6 deployments > around the world, shared at the OECD Ministerial Meeting in June2016. One > lesson we can learn from this is work very closely with ISPs. That seems to > be the solution in the success stories. > > *Some statistics on deployments*Belgium 55.11%,Germany 34.50%,United States > 32.83%Greece 28.53%Portugal 25.80%Ecuador 20.8%,Peru 19.35%,Estonia > 17,32%Japan 16.61%,Canada 9.83%Norway 6.65%Bolivia 3.8%Italy 0.73%Spain > 0.7%Denmark 0.61% > Some interesting findings is that deployment depends on the large ISPs > uptake of v6 regardless of economic circumstances. e.g Peru has a lower per > capita but has more deployment than Norway. Portugal with $22,000/capita and > Greece $21,000/capita are outperforming Denmark with $60,000/capita. Canada > $45,000/capita is trailing Estonia with $19,000/capita. > In the success stories, the majority of the commercial access market > products have IPv6 enabled by default, and competing products have matching > features. > > Regards > > ______________________ > Mwendwa Kivuva, Nairobi, Kenya > twitter.com/lordmwesh > > > > On 10 October 2016 at 11:44, Joseph Mucheru via kictanet > wrote: > > That said, do we have any experts on DOA? I personally believe this is the > way forward... > https://www.google.co.kr/url? sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url= > https://www.itu.int/ITU-D/arb/ ARO/2011/CyberSecurityForum- > Eg/Docs/Doc11-Sorene_18-12- 2011.pptx&ved=0ahUKEwjsv8jc3c_ > PAhUU82MKHeXuALIQFggZMAA&usg= AFQjCNGzWEx4VBdgLQYrceW- eme4GvjaWwThanks > On 10 Oct 2016 4:37 PM, "Ali Hussein via kictanet" > wrote: > > Andrew > Thank you so much for that informative response. > So let's paint a scenario. > Say, v4 exhausts in say 3 years. What are the implications for the continent > esp those who will not have migrated? > Ali HusseinPrincipalHussein & Associates+254 0713 601113 > Twitter: @AliHKassimSkype: abu-jomoLinkedIn:?http://ke.linkedin.c > om/in/alihkassim > > "Discovery consists in seeing what everyone else has seen and thinking what > no one else has thought". ?~ Albert Szent-Gy?rgyi > Sent from my iPad > On 10 Oct 2016, at 9:25 AM, Andrew Alston > wrote: > > > Hi Ali,?If I may respond here.??Firstly ? I think we need to be careful > about referring to blanket transition ? what Liquid has said is, we have to > be ready with dual-stack networks.? As v4 runs out ? that dual-stack becomes > more and more critical because it will enable the full transition when the > time comes for it.? How soon that will come is hard to say ? but it is > coming.?What are the major impediments?? There are 2 or 3 major points > here:?a.)????Lack of will to actually do it ? it takes work, it takes time, > it takes effort ? and the will power to actually move beyond talking the > talk into walking the walk doesn?t seem to be thereb.)????Lack of > understanding/skill ? The fact is that implementing v6 vs implementing v4 ? > it?s just another protocol, same routing, same everything.? But there is a > fear factor walking into something that is misunderstood.? That lack of > understanding that you can build this simultaneously in the same way you > build v4, creates the fear factor.? The fear of handling addressing plans in > hexadecimal is also prohibiting growth.? I run into that one a lot ? people > having issues with the address planning.c.)????The last question is the > million dollar one ? because the reality is ? all it takes is will power and > a willingness to actually take some action.?The simple fact is ? we had a > relatively small team on this ? we committed a bunch of hours ? we stuck our > heads down and did it.? We did not spend money ? other than the cost of the > time (which is an OPEX cost admittedly).? We said ourselves deadlines and we > DID it.??There are those who propose that setting policies to try and force > v6 is workable ? it?s not ? unless the will is there it will achieve > nothing.? People have to WANT this.? It is a matter of desire and a matter > of seeing the benefits ? the benefits are future proofing ? they are not > based on revenue generation, but more revenue retention.?And if anyone wants > to see just how much impact you can have with a small team that actually has > the desire, please see the following stats out of Zimbabwe (our largest > consumer market)?http://stats.labs.apnic.net/ip > v6/ZW?b=20161001&d=10http://stats.labs.apnic.net/ip > v6/AS30969?b=20161001&d=10http://stats.labs.apnic.net/ip > v6/XB?b=20161001&d=10?(I see things have slightly dropped off today, these > stats tend to fluctuate, but fact is ? it?s out there and it > work?s.?Andrew????From: Ali Hussein > Date: Monday, 10 October 2016 at 09:01 > To: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions , > General Discussions of AFRINIC > Subject: [Community-Discuss] Liquid Telecom warns of looming address > shortage - Daily Nation?Dear listersGreetings and apologies for > cross-posting.Internet service provider Liquid Telecom Kenya has warned that > Africa is set to run out of Internet Protocol (IP) addresses as early as > next year, potentially slowing down digital growth in the continent.Read > on:-http://www.nation.co.ke/busine ss/Liquid-Telecom-warns-of- > looming-address-shortage/996- 3410850-format-xhtml-aub5sm/ index.htmlCouple > of questions:-1. How involved are we as a community in ensuring the smooth > transition from IPV4 to IPV6?2. What have been the major impediments to the > successful migration?3. How can we move the needle faster?Ali Hussein > Tel: +254 713 601113 > > ______________________________ _________________ > kictanet mailing list > kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke > https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/m ailman/listinfo/kictanet > > Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/m > ailman/options/kictanet/joe%40 mucheru.com > > The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is a multi-stakeholder platform for > people and institutions interested and involved in ICT policy and > regulation. The network aims to act as a catalyst for reform in the ICT > sector in support of the national aim of ICT enabled growth and > development. > > KICTANetiquette : Adhere to the same standards of acceptable behaviors > online that you follow in real life: respect people's times and bandwidth, > share knowledge, don't flame or abuse or personalize, respect privacy, do > not spam, do not market your wares or qualifications. > > > ______________________________ _________________ > kictanet mailing list > kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke > https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/ mailman/listinfo/kictanet > > Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/ > mailman/options/kictanet/ kivuva%40transworldafrica.com > > The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is a multi-stakeholder platform for > people and institutions interested and involved in ICT policy and > regulation. The network aims to act as a catalyst for reform in the ICT > sector in support of the national aim of ICT enabled growth and > development. > > KICTANetiquette : Adhere to the same standards of acceptable behaviors > online that you follow in real life: respect people's times and bandwidth, > share knowledge, don't flame or abuse or personalize, respect privacy, do > not spam, do not market your wares or qualifications. > > > > _______________________________________________ > kictanet mailing list > kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke > https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet > > Unsubscribe or change your options at > https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/jwalu%40yahoo.com > > The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is a multi-stakeholder platform for > people and institutions interested and involved in ICT policy and > regulation. The network aims to act as a catalyst for reform in the ICT > sector in support of the national aim of ICT enabled growth and > development. > > KICTANetiquette : Adhere to the same standards of acceptable behaviors > online that you follow in real life: respect people's times and bandwidth, > share knowledge, don't flame or abuse or personalize, respect privacy, do > not spam, do not market your wares or qualifications. > > -- Barrack O. Otieno +254721325277 +254733206359 Skype: barrack.otieno PGP ID: 0x2611D86A From Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com Mon Oct 10 11:40:36 2016 From: Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com (Andrew Alston) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 11:40:36 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] [kictanet] Liquid Telecom warns of looming address shortage - Daily Nation In-Reply-To: References: <9991EA7C-EEFC-4CBD-8363-5A60EFA8A7AA@hussein.me.ke> <199417367.1174622.1476092310060@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Hi Barrack, We are also running native v6 on our FTTH network and continuing to deploy. We plan to also shortly enable our public wifi networks in Kenya and are working towards this (couple of vendor related issues that are being worked on in this regard) We are in a position to roll out IPv6 to any corporate customer and IP transit customer who wishes it as well, and have some IPT customers actively using IPv6 - Basically the entire Liquid network, irrespective of which country we operate in, is fully V6 ready. The reason the percentage point indicators in the stats I've given haven't moved that much though is because convincing corporate customers to take IPv6 is slightly more challenging, and our consumer rollouts in Kenya are still relatively new (and as a result not yet large enough to seriously move the penetration figures for the entire country). We are however working with our customers to continue to increase the penetration percentages and get the v6 adopted by the customers. Thanks Andrew -----Original Message----- From: Barrack Otieno [mailto:otieno.barrack at gmail.com] Sent: 10 October 2016 14:29 To: Walubengo J ; KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] [kictanet] Liquid Telecom warns of looming address shortage - Daily Nation Dear Walu et al? Liquid has been on Zimbabwean Media over successfull V6 deployment. Andrew , what is impeding deployment of the same in Kenya? Regards On 10/10/16, Walubengo J via kictanet wrote: > @Mwendwa,>>> > What can you do? > - Government Organizations:?Coordinate with industry to support and > promote awareness and educational activities. Adopt regulatory and > economic incentives to encourage IPv6 adoption. Require IPv6 > compatibility in procurement procedures. Officially adopt IPv6 within > your government agencies. >>>>The above text is what we were looking for to include in our revised >>>>.KE ICT Policy. ?How I wish you had shared this earlier :-) > walu. > > From: Mwendwa Kivuva via kictanet > > To: jwalu at yahoo.com > Cc: Mwendwa Kivuva ; General Discussions > of AFRINIC > Sent: Monday, October 10, 2016 11:55 AM > Subject: Re: [kictanet] [Community-Discuss] Liquid Telecom warns of > looming address shortage - Daily Nation > > This is an extremely important debate for the continent. Thank you Ali > for that. > Some of these issues have been debated thoroughly in several forums. > It's very important we continue debating them until we see an > exponential growth of IPv6 in the continent.To answer a few questions, > there is a clear justification on why it is necessary to migrate to IPv6.? Among them: > - There are no enough IPv4 remaining for everyone. There are more > devices, and people on earth than IPv4. Maximum IPv4 addresses are 4billion. > Population of Earth is 7.3Billion. Maximum IPv6 address?3.4?10 38 > - Migration will not happen overnight since the recommended > implementation is dual-stacking; that is, running IPv4 and IPv6 in parallel. > We are not telling people to do away with IPv4, but to run the two > protocols in parallel. > - To be a producer of information, you cannot use a shared IP, you > need a dedicated IP. This has been a big challenge in the continent. > We have stifled innovation by using shared IPs. > - There are many services now around the world which are IPv6 only > website and services. If you are not on IPv6, you cannot get to these > networks. Africa may get into what I can call "Information dark age" > if we cannot acess some parts of the Internet. > - IPv6 is necessary for business growth. How? How will your > business scale when IPv4 has run out? > What has AFRINIC done to bridge the gap?1. Trainings. This year alone, > AFRINIC is conducting free IPv6 trainings to over 23 countries across > the continent. Kenya was among the beneficiaries. Check this link > http://www.afrinic.net/services/training > AFRINIC has an extensive training program provides free training to > over 600 network engineers per year on Internet Number Resources > Management (INRM) and IPv6 Planning and Deployment. Our training > courses are always growing to support the technologies related to > Internet resources, including DNSSEC & RPKI. AFRINIC's IPv6 course are > IPv6 Forum (Gold) Certified and are fully hands-on, making use of > extensive IPv6 testbed access which gives participants hands-on > experience on real equipment to configure, test and troubleshoot IPv6. > > 2. AFRINIC has a Government Working Group (AfGWG). Here government > players are brought together to be sensitized on the need to push for > IPv6 adoption, and rollout of IXPs, among other. Here is the link? > https://meeting.afrinic.net/afgwg/ > 3. Issuance of v6 blocks to ISPs. All ISPs have been issued V6 blocks > by AFRINIC. What we should be seeing now is clients insisting they > want the ISPs to pass the benefits to the end users. > What can you do? > - Government Organizations:?Coordinate with industry to support and > promote awareness and educational activities. Adopt regulatory and > economic incentives to encourage IPv6 adoption. Require IPv6 > compatibility in procurement procedures. Officially adopt IPv6 within > your government agencies. > - Broadband Access Providers: Your customers want access to the > entire Internet, and this means IPv4 and IPv6 websites. Offering full > access requires running IPv4/IPv6 transition services and is a > significant engineering project. Multiple transition technologies are > available, and each provider needs to make their own architectural decisions. > - Internet Service Providers:?Implement a plan that will allow your > customers to connect to the Internet via IPv6 and IPv6/IPv4, not just IPv4. > Businesses are beginning to ask for IPv6 over their existing Internet > connections and for their co-located servers. Communicate with your > peers and vendors about IPv6, and confirm their timelines for > production IPv6 services. > - Internet Content Providers: Content must be reachable to future > Internet customers. Plan on serving content via IPv6 in addition to > IPv4 as soon as possible. > - Enterprise Customers: Email, web, and application servers must be > reachable via IPv6 in addition to IPv4. Open a dialogue with your ISP > about providing IPv6 services. Each organization must decide on > timelines, and investment level will vary. > > What is the role of Internet Service Providers (ISPs) in deploying > IPv6?This link > https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/afripv6-discuss/attachments/201607 > 10/f7e693ac/attachment-0001.pdf contains some very interesting > statistics and findings on V6 deployments around the world, shared at > the OECD Ministerial Meeting in June2016. One lesson we can learn from > this is work very closely with ISPs. That seems to be the solution in > the success stories. > > *Some statistics on deployments*Belgium 55.11%,Germany 34.50%,United > States 32.83%Greece 28.53%Portugal 25.80%Ecuador 20.8%,Peru > 19.35%,Estonia 17,32%Japan 16.61%,Canada 9.83%Norway 6.65%Bolivia > 3.8%Italy 0.73%Spain 0.7%Denmark 0.61% Some interesting findings is > that deployment depends on the large ISPs uptake of v6 regardless of > economic circumstances. e.g Peru has a lower per capita but has more > deployment than Norway. Portugal with $22,000/capita and Greece > $21,000/capita are outperforming Denmark with $60,000/capita. Canada > $45,000/capita is trailing Estonia with $19,000/capita. > In the success stories, the majority of the commercial access market > products have IPv6 enabled by default, and competing products have > matching features. > > Regards > > ______________________ > Mwendwa Kivuva, Nairobi, Kenya > twitter.com/lordmwesh > > > > On 10 October 2016 at 11:44, Joseph Mucheru via kictanet > wrote: > > That said, do we have any experts on DOA? I personally believe this is > the way forward... > https://www.google.co.kr/url? sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url= > https://www.itu.int/ITU-D/arb/ ARO/2011/CyberSecurityForum- > Eg/Docs/Doc11-Sorene_18-12- 2011.pptx&ved=0ahUKEwjsv8jc3c_ > PAhUU82MKHeXuALIQFggZMAA&usg= AFQjCNGzWEx4VBdgLQYrceW- > eme4GvjaWwThanks On 10 Oct 2016 4:37 PM, "Ali Hussein via kictanet" > wrote: > > Andrew > Thank you so much for that informative response. > So let's paint a scenario. > Say, v4 exhausts in say 3 years. What are the implications for the > continent esp those who will not have migrated? > Ali HusseinPrincipalHussein & Associates+254 0713 601113 > Twitter: @AliHKassimSkype: abu-jomoLinkedIn:?http://ke.linkedin.c > om/in/alihkassim > > "Discovery consists in seeing what everyone else has seen and thinking > what no one else has thought". ?~ Albert Szent-Gy?rgyi Sent from my > iPad On 10 Oct 2016, at 9:25 AM, Andrew Alston > > wrote: > > > Hi Ali,?If I may respond here.??Firstly ? I think we need to be > careful about referring to blanket transition ? what Liquid has said > is, we have to be ready with dual-stack networks.? As v4 runs out ? > that dual-stack becomes more and more critical because it will enable > the full transition when the time comes for it.? How soon that will > come is hard to say ? but it is coming.?What are the major > impediments?? There are 2 or 3 major points > here:?a.)????Lack of will to actually do it ? it takes work, it takes > time, it takes effort ? and the will power to actually move beyond > talking the talk into walking the walk doesn?t seem to be thereb.)???? > Lack of understanding/skill ? The fact is that implementing v6 vs > implementing v4 ? it?s just another protocol, same routing, same > everything.? But there is a fear factor walking into something that is > misunderstood.? That lack of understanding that you can build this > simultaneously in the same way you build v4, creates the fear factor.? > The fear of handling addressing plans in hexadecimal is also > prohibiting growth.? I run into that one a lot ? people having issues > with the address planning.c.)????The last question is the million > dollar one ? because the reality is ? all it takes is will power and a > willingness to actually take some action.?The simple fact is ? we had > a relatively small team on this ? we committed a bunch of hours ? we > stuck our heads down and did it.? We did not spend money ? other than > the cost of the time (which is an OPEX cost admittedly).? We said > ourselves deadlines and we DID it.??There are those who propose that > setting policies to try and force > v6 is workable ? it?s not ? unless the will is there it will achieve > nothing.? People have to WANT this.? It is a matter of desire and a > matter of seeing the benefits ? the benefits are future proofing ? > they are not based on revenue generation, but more revenue retention.? > And if anyone wants to see just how much impact you can have with a > small team that actually has the desire, please see the following > stats out of Zimbabwe (our largest consumer market)? > http://stats.labs.apnic.net/ip > v6/ZW?b=20161001&d=10http://stats.labs.apnic.net/ip > v6/AS30969?b=20161001&d=10http://stats.labs.apnic.net/ip > v6/XB?b=20161001&d=10?(I see things have slightly dropped off today, > these stats tend to fluctuate, but fact is ? it?s out there and it > work?s.?Andrew????From: Ali Hussein > Date: Monday, 10 October 2016 at 09:01 > To: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions , > General Discussions of AFRINIC > Subject: [Community-Discuss] Liquid Telecom warns of looming address > shortage - Daily Nation?Dear listersGreetings and apologies for > cross-posting.Internet service provider Liquid Telecom Kenya has > warned that Africa is set to run out of Internet Protocol (IP) > addresses as early as next year, potentially slowing down digital > growth in the continent.Read on:-http://www.nation.co.ke/busine > ss/Liquid-Telecom-warns-of- > looming-address-shortage/996- 3410850-format-xhtml-aub5sm/ > index.htmlCouple of questions:-1. How involved are we as a community > in ensuring the smooth transition from IPV4 to IPV6?2. What have been > the major impediments to the successful migration?3. How can we move > the needle faster?Ali Hussein > Tel: +254 713 601113 > > ______________________________ _________________ kictanet mailing list > kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/m > ailman/listinfo/kictanet > > Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/m > ailman/options/kictanet/joe%40 mucheru.com > > The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is a multi-stakeholder > platform for people and institutions interested and involved in ICT > policy and regulation. The network aims to act as a catalyst for > reform in the ICT sector in support of the national aim of ICT enabled > growth and development. > > KICTANetiquette : Adhere to the same standards of acceptable behaviors > online that you follow in real life: respect people's times and > bandwidth, share knowledge, don't flame or abuse or personalize, > respect privacy, do not spam, do not market your wares or qualifications. > > > ______________________________ _________________ kictanet mailing list > kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/ > mailman/listinfo/kictanet > > Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/ > mailman/options/kictanet/ kivuva%40transworldafrica.com > > The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is a multi-stakeholder > platform for people and institutions interested and involved in ICT > policy and regulation. The network aims to act as a catalyst for > reform in the ICT sector in support of the national aim of ICT enabled > growth and development. > > KICTANetiquette : Adhere to the same standards of acceptable behaviors > online that you follow in real life: respect people's times and > bandwidth, share knowledge, don't flame or abuse or personalize, > respect privacy, do not spam, do not market your wares or qualifications. > > > > _______________________________________________ > kictanet mailing list > kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke > https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet > > Unsubscribe or change your options at > https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/jwalu%40yahoo.co > m > > The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is a multi-stakeholder > platform for people and institutions interested and involved in ICT > policy and regulation. The network aims to act as a catalyst for > reform in the ICT sector in support of the national aim of ICT enabled > growth and development. > > KICTANetiquette : Adhere to the same standards of acceptable behaviors > online that you follow in real life: respect people's times and > bandwidth, share knowledge, don't flame or abuse or personalize, > respect privacy, do not spam, do not market your wares or qualifications. > > -- Barrack O. Otieno +254721325277 +254733206359 Skype: barrack.otieno PGP ID: 0x2611D86A _______________________________________________ Community-Discuss mailing list Community-Discuss at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss From otieno.barrack at gmail.com Mon Oct 10 11:42:30 2016 From: otieno.barrack at gmail.com (Barrack Otieno) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 14:42:30 +0300 Subject: [Community-Discuss] [kictanet] Liquid Telecom warns of looming address shortage - Daily Nation In-Reply-To: References: <9991EA7C-EEFC-4CBD-8363-5A60EFA8A7AA@hussein.me.ke> <199417367.1174622.1476092310060@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Dear Andrew, Many thanks for the feedback and for sharing the policy which i believe is a good starting point. Maybe we need a couple of town hall meetings with the business/corporate communicate and policy makers to break the resistance. Best Regards On 10/10/16, Andrew Alston wrote: > Hi Barrack, > > We are also running native v6 on our FTTH network and continuing to deploy. > We plan to also shortly enable our public wifi networks in Kenya and are > working towards this (couple of vendor related issues that are being worked > on in this regard) > > We are in a position to roll out IPv6 to any corporate customer and IP > transit customer who wishes it as well, and have some IPT customers actively > using IPv6 - Basically the entire Liquid network, irrespective of which > country we operate in, is fully V6 ready. > > The reason the percentage point indicators in the stats I've given haven't > moved that much though is because convincing corporate customers to take > IPv6 is slightly more challenging, and our consumer rollouts in Kenya are > still relatively new (and as a result not yet large enough to seriously move > the penetration figures for the entire country). We are however working > with our customers to continue to increase the penetration percentages and > get the v6 adopted by the customers. > > Thanks > > Andrew > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Barrack Otieno [mailto:otieno.barrack at gmail.com] > Sent: 10 October 2016 14:29 > To: Walubengo J ; KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions > > Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC > Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] [kictanet] Liquid Telecom warns of looming > address shortage - Daily Nation > > Dear Walu et al? > > Liquid has been on Zimbabwean Media over successfull V6 deployment. > Andrew , what is impeding deployment of the same in Kenya? > > Regards > > On 10/10/16, Walubengo J via kictanet > wrote: >> @Mwendwa,>>> >> What can you do? >> - Government Organizations:?Coordinate with industry to support and >> promote awareness and educational activities. Adopt regulatory and >> economic incentives to encourage IPv6 adoption. Require IPv6 >> compatibility in procurement procedures. Officially adopt IPv6 within >> your government agencies. >>>>>The above text is what we were looking for to include in our revised >>>>>.KE ICT Policy. ?How I wish you had shared this earlier :-) >> walu. >> >> From: Mwendwa Kivuva via kictanet >> >> To: jwalu at yahoo.com >> Cc: Mwendwa Kivuva ; General Discussions >> of AFRINIC >> Sent: Monday, October 10, 2016 11:55 AM >> Subject: Re: [kictanet] [Community-Discuss] Liquid Telecom warns of >> looming address shortage - Daily Nation >> >> This is an extremely important debate for the continent. Thank you Ali >> for that. >> Some of these issues have been debated thoroughly in several forums. >> It's very important we continue debating them until we see an >> exponential growth of IPv6 in the continent.To answer a few questions, >> there is a clear justification on why it is necessary to migrate to IPv6. >> Among them: >> - There are no enough IPv4 remaining for everyone. There are more >> devices, and people on earth than IPv4. Maximum IPv4 addresses are >> 4billion. >> Population of Earth is 7.3Billion. Maximum IPv6 address?3.4?10 38 >> - Migration will not happen overnight since the recommended >> implementation is dual-stacking; that is, running IPv4 and IPv6 in >> parallel. >> We are not telling people to do away with IPv4, but to run the two >> protocols in parallel. >> - To be a producer of information, you cannot use a shared IP, you >> need a dedicated IP. This has been a big challenge in the continent. >> We have stifled innovation by using shared IPs. >> - There are many services now around the world which are IPv6 only >> website and services. If you are not on IPv6, you cannot get to these >> networks. Africa may get into what I can call "Information dark age" >> if we cannot acess some parts of the Internet. >> - IPv6 is necessary for business growth. How? How will your >> business scale when IPv4 has run out? >> What has AFRINIC done to bridge the gap?1. Trainings. This year alone, >> AFRINIC is conducting free IPv6 trainings to over 23 countries across >> the continent. Kenya was among the beneficiaries. Check this link >> http://www.afrinic.net/services/training >> AFRINIC has an extensive training program provides free training to >> over 600 network engineers per year on Internet Number Resources >> Management (INRM) and IPv6 Planning and Deployment. Our training >> courses are always growing to support the technologies related to >> Internet resources, including DNSSEC & RPKI. AFRINIC's IPv6 course are >> IPv6 Forum (Gold) Certified and are fully hands-on, making use of >> extensive IPv6 testbed access which gives participants hands-on >> experience on real equipment to configure, test and troubleshoot IPv6. >> >> 2. AFRINIC has a Government Working Group (AfGWG). Here government >> players are brought together to be sensitized on the need to push for >> IPv6 adoption, and rollout of IXPs, among other. Here is the link >> https://meeting.afrinic.net/afgwg/ >> 3. Issuance of v6 blocks to ISPs. All ISPs have been issued V6 blocks >> by AFRINIC. What we should be seeing now is clients insisting they >> want the ISPs to pass the benefits to the end users. >> What can you do? >> - Government Organizations:?Coordinate with industry to support and >> promote awareness and educational activities. Adopt regulatory and >> economic incentives to encourage IPv6 adoption. Require IPv6 >> compatibility in procurement procedures. Officially adopt IPv6 within >> your government agencies. >> - Broadband Access Providers: Your customers want access to the >> entire Internet, and this means IPv4 and IPv6 websites. Offering full >> access requires running IPv4/IPv6 transition services and is a >> significant engineering project. Multiple transition technologies are >> available, and each provider needs to make their own architectural >> decisions. >> - Internet Service Providers:?Implement a plan that will allow your >> customers to connect to the Internet via IPv6 and IPv6/IPv4, not just >> IPv4. >> Businesses are beginning to ask for IPv6 over their existing Internet >> connections and for their co-located servers. Communicate with your >> peers and vendors about IPv6, and confirm their timelines for >> production IPv6 services. >> - Internet Content Providers: Content must be reachable to future >> Internet customers. Plan on serving content via IPv6 in addition to >> IPv4 as soon as possible. >> - Enterprise Customers: Email, web, and application servers must be >> reachable via IPv6 in addition to IPv4. Open a dialogue with your ISP >> about providing IPv6 services. Each organization must decide on >> timelines, and investment level will vary. >> >> What is the role of Internet Service Providers (ISPs) in deploying >> IPv6?This link >> https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/afripv6-discuss/attachments/201607 >> 10/f7e693ac/attachment-0001.pdf contains some very interesting >> statistics and findings on V6 deployments around the world, shared at >> the OECD Ministerial Meeting in June2016. One lesson we can learn from >> this is work very closely with ISPs. That seems to be the solution in >> the success stories. >> >> *Some statistics on deployments*Belgium 55.11%,Germany 34.50%,United >> States 32.83%Greece 28.53%Portugal 25.80%Ecuador 20.8%,Peru >> 19.35%,Estonia 17,32%Japan 16.61%,Canada 9.83%Norway 6.65%Bolivia >> 3.8%Italy 0.73%Spain 0.7%Denmark 0.61% Some interesting findings is >> that deployment depends on the large ISPs uptake of v6 regardless of >> economic circumstances. e.g Peru has a lower per capita but has more >> deployment than Norway. Portugal with $22,000/capita and Greece >> $21,000/capita are outperforming Denmark with $60,000/capita. Canada >> $45,000/capita is trailing Estonia with $19,000/capita. >> In the success stories, the majority of the commercial access market >> products have IPv6 enabled by default, and competing products have >> matching features. >> >> Regards >> >> ______________________ >> Mwendwa Kivuva, Nairobi, Kenya >> twitter.com/lordmwesh >> >> >> >> On 10 October 2016 at 11:44, Joseph Mucheru via kictanet >> wrote: >> >> That said, do we have any experts on DOA? I personally believe this is >> the way forward... >> https://www.google.co.kr/url? sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url= >> https://www.itu.int/ITU-D/arb/ ARO/2011/CyberSecurityForum- >> Eg/Docs/Doc11-Sorene_18-12- 2011.pptx&ved=0ahUKEwjsv8jc3c_ >> PAhUU82MKHeXuALIQFggZMAA&usg= AFQjCNGzWEx4VBdgLQYrceW- >> eme4GvjaWwThanks On 10 Oct 2016 4:37 PM, "Ali Hussein via kictanet" >> wrote: >> >> Andrew >> Thank you so much for that informative response. >> So let's paint a scenario. >> Say, v4 exhausts in say 3 years. What are the implications for the >> continent esp those who will not have migrated? >> Ali HusseinPrincipalHussein & Associates+254 0713 601113 >> Twitter: @AliHKassimSkype: abu-jomoLinkedIn:?http://ke.linkedin.c >> om/in/alihkassim >> >> "Discovery consists in seeing what everyone else has seen and thinking >> what no one else has thought". ?~ Albert Szent-Gy?rgyi Sent from my >> iPad On 10 Oct 2016, at 9:25 AM, Andrew Alston >> >> wrote: >> >> >> Hi Ali,?If I may respond here.??Firstly ? I think we need to be >> careful about referring to blanket transition ? what Liquid has said >> is, we have to be ready with dual-stack networks.? As v4 runs out ? >> that dual-stack becomes more and more critical because it will enable >> the full transition when the time comes for it.? How soon that will >> come is hard to say ? but it is coming.?What are the major >> impediments?? There are 2 or 3 major points >> here:?a.)????Lack of will to actually do it ? it takes work, it takes >> time, it takes effort ? and the will power to actually move beyond >> talking the talk into walking the walk doesn?t seem to be thereb.) >> Lack of understanding/skill ? The fact is that implementing v6 vs >> implementing v4 ? it?s just another protocol, same routing, same >> everything.? But there is a fear factor walking into something that is >> misunderstood.? That lack of understanding that you can build this >> simultaneously in the same way you build v4, creates the fear factor. >> The fear of handling addressing plans in hexadecimal is also >> prohibiting growth.? I run into that one a lot ? people having issues >> with the address planning.c.)????The last question is the million >> dollar one ? because the reality is ? all it takes is will power and a >> willingness to actually take some action.?The simple fact is ? we had >> a relatively small team on this ? we committed a bunch of hours ? we >> stuck our heads down and did it.? We did not spend money ? other than >> the cost of the time (which is an OPEX cost admittedly).? We said >> ourselves deadlines and we DID it.??There are those who propose that >> setting policies to try and force >> v6 is workable ? it?s not ? unless the will is there it will achieve >> nothing.? People have to WANT this.? It is a matter of desire and a >> matter of seeing the benefits ? the benefits are future proofing ? >> they are not based on revenue generation, but more revenue retention. >> And if anyone wants to see just how much impact you can have with a >> small team that actually has the desire, please see the following >> stats out of Zimbabwe (our largest consumer market) >> http://stats.labs.apnic.net/ip >> v6/ZW?b=20161001&d=10http://stats.labs.apnic.net/ip >> v6/AS30969?b=20161001&d=10http://stats.labs.apnic.net/ip >> v6/XB?b=20161001&d=10?(I see things have slightly dropped off today, >> these stats tend to fluctuate, but fact is ? it?s out there and it >> work?s.?Andrew????From: Ali Hussein >> Date: Monday, 10 October 2016 at 09:01 >> To: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions , >> General Discussions of AFRINIC >> Subject: [Community-Discuss] Liquid Telecom warns of looming address >> shortage - Daily Nation?Dear listersGreetings and apologies for >> cross-posting.Internet service provider Liquid Telecom Kenya has >> warned that Africa is set to run out of Internet Protocol (IP) >> addresses as early as next year, potentially slowing down digital >> growth in the continent.Read on:-http://www.nation.co.ke/busine >> ss/Liquid-Telecom-warns-of- >> looming-address-shortage/996- 3410850-format-xhtml-aub5sm/ >> index.htmlCouple of questions:-1. How involved are we as a community >> in ensuring the smooth transition from IPV4 to IPV6?2. What have been >> the major impediments to the successful migration?3. How can we move >> the needle faster?Ali Hussein >> Tel: +254 713 601113 >> >> ______________________________ _________________ kictanet mailing list >> kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/m >> ailman/listinfo/kictanet >> >> Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/m >> ailman/options/kictanet/joe%40 mucheru.com >> >> The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is a multi-stakeholder >> platform for people and institutions interested and involved in ICT >> policy and regulation. The network aims to act as a catalyst for >> reform in the ICT sector in support of the national aim of ICT enabled >> growth and development. >> >> KICTANetiquette : Adhere to the same standards of acceptable behaviors >> online that you follow in real life: respect people's times and >> bandwidth, share knowledge, don't flame or abuse or personalize, >> respect privacy, do not spam, do not market your wares or qualifications. >> >> >> ______________________________ _________________ kictanet mailing list >> kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/ >> mailman/listinfo/kictanet >> >> Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/ >> mailman/options/kictanet/ kivuva%40transworldafrica.com >> >> The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is a multi-stakeholder >> platform for people and institutions interested and involved in ICT >> policy and regulation. The network aims to act as a catalyst for >> reform in the ICT sector in support of the national aim of ICT enabled >> growth and development. >> >> KICTANetiquette : Adhere to the same standards of acceptable behaviors >> online that you follow in real life: respect people's times and >> bandwidth, share knowledge, don't flame or abuse or personalize, >> respect privacy, do not spam, do not market your wares or qualifications. >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> kictanet mailing list >> kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke >> https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet >> >> Unsubscribe or change your options at >> https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/jwalu%40yahoo.co >> m >> >> The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is a multi-stakeholder >> platform for people and institutions interested and involved in ICT >> policy and regulation. The network aims to act as a catalyst for >> reform in the ICT sector in support of the national aim of ICT enabled >> growth and development. >> >> KICTANetiquette : Adhere to the same standards of acceptable behaviors >> online that you follow in real life: respect people's times and >> bandwidth, share knowledge, don't flame or abuse or personalize, >> respect privacy, do not spam, do not market your wares or qualifications. >> >> > > > -- > Barrack O. Otieno > +254721325277 > +254733206359 > Skype: barrack.otieno > PGP ID: 0x2611D86A > > _______________________________________________ > Community-Discuss mailing list > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss > -- Barrack O. Otieno +254721325277 +254733206359 Skype: barrack.otieno PGP ID: 0x2611D86A From mje at posix.co.za Mon Oct 10 13:45:13 2016 From: mje at posix.co.za (Mark Elkins) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 15:45:13 +0200 Subject: [Community-Discuss] [NomCom2016] Call for Nominations - AFRINIC Governance Committee (GC) Members Message-ID: <0e509029-f3ca-0382-ea9d-a43fc09efc3b@posix.co.za> *** Reminder - Nominations close tomorrow (Tuesday) at 20:00 UTC *** Cross posting is intentional Call for Nominations - AFRINIC Governance Committee (GC) Members ---------------------------------------------------------------- The AFRINIC Governance Committee is a standing committee whose purpose is to advise the AFRINIC Board, AFRINIC Membership, and the community, on matters of governance. NOMCOM is hereby calling for nominations from the community for three individuals to be elected by AFRINIC Membership to serve on the GC as provided for in the GC. NOMCOM would like to receive Nominations from all six of the AFRINIC sub-regions and are explicitly looking for both Gender and Language diversity although a working understanding of the English language would be highly beneficial. The GC Charter is available at http://www.afrinic.net/en/about/governance-committee/1891-afrinic-governance-committee-terms-of-reference The nomination and election process is available at http://www.afrinic.net/en/about/governance-committee/1889-election-and-nomination-process Nomination Requirements: - GC members shall be resident in the AFRINIC service region. - None of the elected members may be an AFRINIC Director, or an AFRINIC employee. - A valid nomination must originate from or be submitted by an authorized and registered contact person of the nominating member organization. The nomination must also be seconded/endorsed by at least one additional AFRINIC member, different from the nominating member organization. Nominators and seconders/endorsers must all be AFRINIC members in good standing. - Self-nominations are permitted and must be endorsed by 2 distinct AFRINIC members in good standing. For the purposes of clarity, a Nominator can only nominate one person, a principal inherited from the BoD nomination process. To nominate yourself or a candidate of your choice, please complete the nomination form at: https://registration.afrinic.net/events/node/25/ Nomination deadline is 11 October 2016 at 2000UTC NOMCOM -- Mark James ELKINS - NomCom Chair 2016 - nomcom2016 at afrinic.net mje at posix.co.za Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ NomCom2016 mailing list NomCom2016 at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/nomcom2016 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 4230 bytes Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature URL: From ali at hussein.me.ke Mon Oct 10 17:08:01 2016 From: ali at hussein.me.ke (Ali Hussein) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 20:08:01 +0300 Subject: [Community-Discuss] [NomCom2016] Call for Nominations - AFRINIC Governance Committee (GC) Members In-Reply-To: <0e509029-f3ca-0382-ea9d-a43fc09efc3b@posix.co.za> References: <0e509029-f3ca-0382-ea9d-a43fc09efc3b@posix.co.za> Message-ID: <2F2C7179-8182-4603-86A9-3F4AA33B13FA@hussein.me.ke> Mark Any particular reason that this call for nominations is announced today and closing tomorrow? Or is this just a reminder and the call went out much earlier? Ali Hussein Principal Hussein & Associates +254 0713 601113 Twitter: @AliHKassim Skype: abu-jomo LinkedIn: http://ke.linkedin.com/in/alihkassim "Discovery consists in seeing what everyone else has seen and thinking what no one else has thought". ~ Albert Szent-Gy?rgyi Sent from my iPad > On 10 Oct 2016, at 4:45 PM, Mark Elkins wrote: > > *** Reminder - Nominations close tomorrow (Tuesday) at 20:00 UTC *** > > Cross posting is intentional > > Call for Nominations - AFRINIC Governance Committee (GC) Members > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > The AFRINIC Governance Committee is a standing committee whose > purpose is to advise the AFRINIC Board, AFRINIC Membership, and the > community, on matters of governance. > > NOMCOM is hereby calling for nominations from the community for > three individuals to be elected by AFRINIC Membership to serve on > the GC as provided for in the GC. NOMCOM would like to receive > Nominations from all six of the AFRINIC sub-regions and are explicitly > looking for both Gender and Language diversity although a working > understanding of the English language would be highly beneficial. > > The GC Charter is available at > http://www.afrinic.net/en/about/governance-committee/1891-afrinic-governance-committee-terms-of-reference > > The nomination and election process is available at > http://www.afrinic.net/en/about/governance-committee/1889-election-and-nomination-process > > Nomination Requirements: > > - GC members shall be resident in the AFRINIC service region. > - None of the elected members may be an AFRINIC Director, or an > AFRINIC employee. > - A valid nomination must originate from or be submitted by an > authorized and registered contact person of the nominating member > organization. The nomination must also be seconded/endorsed by at > least one additional AFRINIC member, different from the nominating > member organization. Nominators and seconders/endorsers must all be > AFRINIC members in good standing. > - Self-nominations are permitted and must be endorsed by 2 distinct > AFRINIC members in good standing. > > For the purposes of clarity, a Nominator can only nominate one person, a > principal inherited from the BoD nomination process. > > To nominate yourself or a candidate of your choice, please complete > the nomination form at: > > https://registration.afrinic.net/events/node/25/ > > Nomination deadline is 11 October 2016 at 2000UTC > > NOMCOM > -- > Mark James ELKINS - NomCom Chair 2016 - nomcom2016 at afrinic.net > mje at posix.co.za Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mje at posix.co.za Mon Oct 10 18:53:07 2016 From: mje at posix.co.za (Mark Elkins) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 20:53:07 +0200 Subject: [Community-Discuss] [NomCom2016] Call for Nominations - AFRINIC Governance Committee (GC) Members In-Reply-To: <2F2C7179-8182-4603-86A9-3F4AA33B13FA@hussein.me.ke> References: <0e509029-f3ca-0382-ea9d-a43fc09efc3b@posix.co.za> <2F2C7179-8182-4603-86A9-3F4AA33B13FA@hussein.me.ke> Message-ID: This is a final reminder. The first call was 14/09/2016, a two weeks to go reminder on 26/09/2016 and a one week reminder 6 days ago. On 10/10/2016 19:08, Ali Hussein wrote: > Mark > > Any particular reason that this call for nominations is announced today > and closing tomorrow? Or is this just a reminder and the call went out > much earlier? > > *Ali Hussein* > *Principal* > *Hussein & Associates* > +254 0713 601113 > > Twitter: @AliHKassim > > Skype: abu-jomo > > LinkedIn: http://ke.linkedin.com/in/alihkassim > > > > "Discovery consists in seeing what everyone else has seen and thinking > what no one else has thought". ~ Albert Szent-Gy?rgyi > > Sent from my iPad > > On 10 Oct 2016, at 4:45 PM, Mark Elkins > wrote: > >> *** Reminder - Nominations close tomorrow (Tuesday) at 20:00 UTC *** >> >> Cross posting is intentional >> >> Call for Nominations - AFRINIC Governance Committee (GC) Members >> ---------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> The AFRINIC Governance Committee is a standing committee whose >> purpose is to advise the AFRINIC Board, AFRINIC Membership, and the >> community, on matters of governance. >> >> NOMCOM is hereby calling for nominations from the community for >> three individuals to be elected by AFRINIC Membership to serve on >> the GC as provided for in the GC. NOMCOM would like to receive >> Nominations from all six of the AFRINIC sub-regions and are explicitly >> looking for both Gender and Language diversity although a working >> understanding of the English language would be highly beneficial. >> >> The GC Charter is available at >> http://www.afrinic.net/en/about/governance-committee/1891-afrinic-governance-committee-terms-of-reference >> >> The nomination and election process is available at >> http://www.afrinic.net/en/about/governance-committee/1889-election-and-nomination-process >> >> Nomination Requirements: >> >> - GC members shall be resident in the AFRINIC service region. >> - None of the elected members may be an AFRINIC Director, or an >> AFRINIC employee. >> - A valid nomination must originate from or be submitted by an >> authorized and registered contact person of the nominating member >> organization. The nomination must also be seconded/endorsed by at >> least one additional AFRINIC member, different from the nominating >> member organization. Nominators and seconders/endorsers must all be >> AFRINIC members in good standing. >> - Self-nominations are permitted and must be endorsed by 2 distinct >> AFRINIC members in good standing. >> >> For the purposes of clarity, a Nominator can only nominate one person, a >> principal inherited from the BoD nomination process. >> >> To nominate yourself or a candidate of your choice, please complete >> the nomination form at: >> >> https://registration.afrinic.net/events/node/25/ >> >> Nomination deadline is 11 October 2016 at 2000UTC >> >> NOMCOM >> -- >> Mark James ELKINS - NomCom Chair 2016 - nomcom2016 at afrinic.net >> >> mje at posix.co.za Tel: +27.128070590 >> Cell: +27.826010496 >> >> >> >> -- Mark James ELKINS - Posix Systems - (South) Africa mje at posix.co.za Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: https://ftth.posix.co.za -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 4230 bytes Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature URL: From ali at hussein.me.ke Mon Oct 10 19:23:27 2016 From: ali at hussein.me.ke (Ali Hussein) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 22:23:27 +0300 Subject: [Community-Discuss] [NomCom2016] Call for Nominations - AFRINIC Governance Committee (GC) Members In-Reply-To: References: <0e509029-f3ca-0382-ea9d-a43fc09efc3b@posix.co.za> <2F2C7179-8182-4603-86A9-3F4AA33B13FA@hussein.me.ke> Message-ID: <1484D253-F63D-49BD-94E5-8A2CB78A11AD@hussein.me.ke> Thanks Mark. I must have missed the previous calls. Ali Hussein Principal Hussein & Associates +254 0713 601113 Twitter: @AliHKassim Skype: abu-jomo LinkedIn: http://ke.linkedin.com/in/alihkassim "Discovery consists in seeing what everyone else has seen and thinking what no one else has thought". ~ Albert Szent-Gy?rgyi Sent from my iPad > On 10 Oct 2016, at 9:53 PM, Mark Elkins wrote: > > This is a final reminder. > The first call was 14/09/2016, a two weeks to go reminder on 26/09/2016 > and a one week reminder 6 days ago. > >> On 10/10/2016 19:08, Ali Hussein wrote: >> Mark >> >> Any particular reason that this call for nominations is announced today >> and closing tomorrow? Or is this just a reminder and the call went out >> much earlier? >> >> *Ali Hussein* >> *Principal* >> *Hussein & Associates* >> +254 0713 601113 >> >> Twitter: @AliHKassim >> >> Skype: abu-jomo >> >> LinkedIn: http://ke.linkedin.com/in/alihkassim >> >> >> >> "Discovery consists in seeing what everyone else has seen and thinking >> what no one else has thought". ~ Albert Szent-Gy?rgyi >> >> Sent from my iPad >> >> On 10 Oct 2016, at 4:45 PM, Mark Elkins > > wrote: >> >>> *** Reminder - Nominations close tomorrow (Tuesday) at 20:00 UTC *** >>> >>> Cross posting is intentional >>> >>> Call for Nominations - AFRINIC Governance Committee (GC) Members >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> The AFRINIC Governance Committee is a standing committee whose >>> purpose is to advise the AFRINIC Board, AFRINIC Membership, and the >>> community, on matters of governance. >>> >>> NOMCOM is hereby calling for nominations from the community for >>> three individuals to be elected by AFRINIC Membership to serve on >>> the GC as provided for in the GC. NOMCOM would like to receive >>> Nominations from all six of the AFRINIC sub-regions and are explicitly >>> looking for both Gender and Language diversity although a working >>> understanding of the English language would be highly beneficial. >>> >>> The GC Charter is available at >>> http://www.afrinic.net/en/about/governance-committee/1891-afrinic-governance-committee-terms-of-reference >>> >>> The nomination and election process is available at >>> http://www.afrinic.net/en/about/governance-committee/1889-election-and-nomination-process >>> >>> Nomination Requirements: >>> >>> - GC members shall be resident in the AFRINIC service region. >>> - None of the elected members may be an AFRINIC Director, or an >>> AFRINIC employee. >>> - A valid nomination must originate from or be submitted by an >>> authorized and registered contact person of the nominating member >>> organization. The nomination must also be seconded/endorsed by at >>> least one additional AFRINIC member, different from the nominating >>> member organization. Nominators and seconders/endorsers must all be >>> AFRINIC members in good standing. >>> - Self-nominations are permitted and must be endorsed by 2 distinct >>> AFRINIC members in good standing. >>> >>> For the purposes of clarity, a Nominator can only nominate one person, a >>> principal inherited from the BoD nomination process. >>> >>> To nominate yourself or a candidate of your choice, please complete >>> the nomination form at: >>> >>> https://registration.afrinic.net/events/node/25/ >>> >>> Nomination deadline is 11 October 2016 at 2000UTC >>> >>> NOMCOM >>> -- >>> Mark James ELKINS - NomCom Chair 2016 - nomcom2016 at afrinic.net >>> >>> mje at posix.co.za Tel: +27.128070590 >>> Cell: +27.826010496 >>> >>> >>> >>> > > -- > Mark James ELKINS - Posix Systems - (South) Africa > mje at posix.co.za Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 > For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: https://ftth.posix.co.za > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From otieno.barrack at gmail.com Tue Oct 11 15:38:43 2016 From: otieno.barrack at gmail.com (Barrack Otieno) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2016 18:38:43 +0300 Subject: [Community-Discuss] IPv6 Chapter 254 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Good answers and history Kevin, Best Regards On Oct 11, 2016 3:17 PM, "Kevin Kamonye" wrote: > As always, thanks Ali and team for breathing some life into this one. > > My story with IPv6 started much longer than I can remember. The key > moment, however, came in 2010/2011 when the hype hit its peak due to the > then projected exhaustion of IANA's central pool (officially announced in > 3/02/2011). I was working at KDN at the time and being the largest IP > transit provider in the region, a decision was agreed by all that we had to > move quick - I think mostly to avoid potential embarrassment :) Our then > HOD David W. K., and I sincerely applaud him for the work he has put into > building the Telecom Industry in the region, got wind of an Afrinic IPv6 > Workshop in Ghana and 13 days later another very commendable colleague and > myself were in that class and it all went superbly well. > > The problem for me started a few weeks after I got back because I realised > that there really wasn't a particular motivation for us to get the other > providers to respond (though the hard-core techies like us did some 'test' > peering here and there). We even conducted a major upgrade on KDN's > infrastructure at KIXP to ensure that all ISPs could get at least 1Gbps > capacity ( though this was mostly driven by the Google Youtube Cache that > we deployed to handle the post-Seacom Internet traffic explosion in 254 and > region). We also pursued ISPs in the region through forums such as AfPIF, > ISOC etc. but the matter collapsed mostly due to natural causes. > > In short, I would say that there will never be a major crisis as regards > to IPv4 exhaustion. Techies will do their thing of patching networks until > they can't do it anymore and then they will switch the rest of the > population to IPv6. > > What we can do for now is to follow in the example of formulating the > policies, which I can volunteer some of my time as would be needed. > > Lastly, I will quote from this > article > by one of the guys that led us through the training at NIITA back in 2011 > (and I advise going it through in full if you want to learn more of IPv6 in > Africa) > > *Implication #3: Driving Complacency in Africa Towards IPv6 Adoption* > > > *[image: Inline images 1]* > *So long as it is still possible and easy to get IPv4 addresses, 95% of > network operators will do so; humans (and the organisations that they make > up) don't change easily. Particularly, organisations fixated on short term > results will fail to realise that using every every single IPv4 address > available to AFRINIC is not enough for us to catch up with the rest of the > world. Not being able to look beyond a the proverbial tree to the forest, > it is easy to totally be blind to drastic change in resource availability > that will result if one of Africa's large mobile telecommunications > companies (say MTN) decides to remove NAT on their mobile networks and give > each mobile user a true Internet access experience using public IP > addresses (I didn't think it was possible until experienced it for myself > in Dar es Salaam last year with Airtel).* > *Networks will move to deploy IPv6 under the following influences:* > *a) The cost of getting IPv4 addresses becomes un-bearable (as would be if > they have to be acquired from the Transfer market) * > > *b) There are no IPv4 addresses to be gotten, anywhere (even if you have > money to buy them)* > *c) The network's owners have this blinding insight of the obvious that > the IPv4 game is an un-winable one and IPv6 is the only sustainable way* > *d) Some powerful entity forces them (by mandates or by incentives) to > deploy IPv6 (like gov't IT regulators)* > *For most African companies, scenarios (a & b) are unlikely to happen in > next 2 ? 3 years (unless the shell companies increase and succeed in > getting addresses which depletes AFRINIC's current space). Only a few > network operators to my knowledge pay anything other that lip service to > scenario (c) and the only party that can make scenario (d) happen (gov't > regulators) still largely don't know how to go about it (if you are an > African gov't IT leader and need help with this, I might be able to help). > Therefore, we have ourselves an IPv4 address resource curse!* > > Good afternoon, > > *Kevin K.? K.?* > *+254720789158 <%2B254720789158>* > > On 10 October 2016 at 14:42, Barrack Otieno via kictanet < > kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote: > >> Dear Andrew, >> >> Many thanks for the feedback and for sharing the policy which i >> believe is a good starting point. Maybe we need a couple of town hall >> meetings with the business/corporate communicate and policy makers to >> break the resistance. >> >> Best Regards >> >> On 10/10/16, Andrew Alston wrote: >> > Hi Barrack, >> > >> > We are also running native v6 on our FTTH network and continuing to >> deploy. >> > We plan to also shortly enable our public wifi networks in Kenya and are >> > working towards this (couple of vendor related issues that are being >> worked >> > on in this regard) >> > >> > We are in a position to roll out IPv6 to any corporate customer and IP >> > transit customer who wishes it as well, and have some IPT customers >> actively >> > using IPv6 - Basically the entire Liquid network, irrespective of which >> > country we operate in, is fully V6 ready. >> > >> > The reason the percentage point indicators in the stats I've given >> haven't >> > moved that much though is because convincing corporate customers to take >> > IPv6 is slightly more challenging, and our consumer rollouts in Kenya >> are >> > still relatively new (and as a result not yet large enough to seriously >> move >> > the penetration figures for the entire country). We are however >> working >> > with our customers to continue to increase the penetration percentages >> and >> > get the v6 adopted by the customers. >> > >> > Thanks >> > >> > Andrew >> > >> > >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: Barrack Otieno [mailto:otieno.barrack at gmail.com] >> > Sent: 10 October 2016 14:29 >> > To: Walubengo J ; KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions >> > >> > Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC >> > Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] [kictanet] Liquid Telecom warns of >> looming >> > address shortage - Daily Nation >> > >> > Dear Walu et al? >> > >> > Liquid has been on Zimbabwean Media over successfull V6 deployment. >> > Andrew , what is impeding deployment of the same in Kenya? >> > >> > Regards >> > >> > On 10/10/16, Walubengo J via kictanet >> > wrote: >> >> @Mwendwa,>>> >> >> What can you do? >> >> - Government Organizations: Coordinate with industry to support and >> >> promote awareness and educational activities. Adopt regulatory and >> >> economic incentives to encourage IPv6 adoption. Require IPv6 >> >> compatibility in procurement procedures. Officially adopt IPv6 within >> >> your government agencies. >> >>>>>The above text is what we were looking for to include in our revised >> >>>>>.KE ICT Policy. How I wish you had shared this earlier :-) >> >> walu. >> >> >> >> From: Mwendwa Kivuva via kictanet >> >> >> >> To: jwalu at yahoo.com >> >> Cc: Mwendwa Kivuva ; General Discussions >> >> of AFRINIC >> >> Sent: Monday, October 10, 2016 11:55 AM >> >> Subject: Re: [kictanet] [Community-Discuss] Liquid Telecom warns of >> >> looming address shortage - Daily Nation >> >> >> >> This is an extremely important debate for the continent. Thank you Ali >> >> for that. >> >> Some of these issues have been debated thoroughly in several forums. >> >> It's very important we continue debating them until we see an >> >> exponential growth of IPv6 in the continent.To answer a few questions, >> >> there is a clear justification on why it is necessary to migrate to >> IPv6. >> >> Among them: >> >> - There are no enough IPv4 remaining for everyone. There are more >> >> devices, and people on earth than IPv4. Maximum IPv4 addresses are >> >> 4billion. >> >> Population of Earth is 7.3Billion. Maximum IPv6 address 3.4?10 38 >> >> - Migration will not happen overnight since the recommended >> >> implementation is dual-stacking; that is, running IPv4 and IPv6 in >> >> parallel. >> >> We are not telling people to do away with IPv4, but to run the two >> >> protocols in parallel. >> >> - To be a producer of information, you cannot use a shared IP, you >> >> need a dedicated IP. This has been a big challenge in the continent. >> >> We have stifled innovation by using shared IPs. >> >> - There are many services now around the world which are IPv6 only >> >> website and services. If you are not on IPv6, you cannot get to these >> >> networks. Africa may get into what I can call "Information dark age" >> >> if we cannot acess some parts of the Internet. >> >> - IPv6 is necessary for business growth. How? How will your >> >> business scale when IPv4 has run out? >> >> What has AFRINIC done to bridge the gap?1. Trainings. This year alone, >> >> AFRINIC is conducting free IPv6 trainings to over 23 countries across >> >> the continent. Kenya was among the beneficiaries. Check this link >> >> http://www.afrinic.net/services/training >> >> AFRINIC has an extensive training program provides free training to >> >> over 600 network engineers per year on Internet Number Resources >> >> Management (INRM) and IPv6 Planning and Deployment. Our training >> >> courses are always growing to support the technologies related to >> >> Internet resources, including DNSSEC & RPKI. AFRINIC's IPv6 course are >> >> IPv6 Forum (Gold) Certified and are fully hands-on, making use of >> >> extensive IPv6 testbed access which gives participants hands-on >> >> experience on real equipment to configure, test and troubleshoot IPv6. >> >> >> >> 2. AFRINIC has a Government Working Group (AfGWG). Here government >> >> players are brought together to be sensitized on the need to push for >> >> IPv6 adoption, and rollout of IXPs, among other. Here is the link >> >> https://meeting.afrinic.net/afgwg/ >> >> 3. Issuance of v6 blocks to ISPs. All ISPs have been issued V6 blocks >> >> by AFRINIC. What we should be seeing now is clients insisting they >> >> want the ISPs to pass the benefits to the end users. >> >> What can you do? >> >> - Government Organizations: Coordinate with industry to support and >> >> promote awareness and educational activities. Adopt regulatory and >> >> economic incentives to encourage IPv6 adoption. Require IPv6 >> >> compatibility in procurement procedures. Officially adopt IPv6 within >> >> your government agencies. >> >> - Broadband Access Providers: Your customers want access to the >> >> entire Internet, and this means IPv4 and IPv6 websites. Offering full >> >> access requires running IPv4/IPv6 transition services and is a >> >> significant engineering project. Multiple transition technologies are >> >> available, and each provider needs to make their own architectural >> >> decisions. >> >> - Internet Service Providers: Implement a plan that will allow your >> >> customers to connect to the Internet via IPv6 and IPv6/IPv4, not just >> >> IPv4. >> >> Businesses are beginning to ask for IPv6 over their existing Internet >> >> connections and for their co-located servers. Communicate with your >> >> peers and vendors about IPv6, and confirm their timelines for >> >> production IPv6 services. >> >> - Internet Content Providers: Content must be reachable to future >> >> Internet customers. Plan on serving content via IPv6 in addition to >> >> IPv4 as soon as possible. >> >> - Enterprise Customers: Email, web, and application servers must be >> >> reachable via IPv6 in addition to IPv4. Open a dialogue with your ISP >> >> about providing IPv6 services. Each organization must decide on >> >> timelines, and investment level will vary. >> >> >> >> What is the role of Internet Service Providers (ISPs) in deploying >> >> IPv6?This link >> >> https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/afripv6-discuss/attachments/201607 >> >> 10/f7e693ac/attachment-0001.pdf contains some very interesting >> >> statistics and findings on V6 deployments around the world, shared at >> >> the OECD Ministerial Meeting in June2016. One lesson we can learn from >> >> this is work very closely with ISPs. That seems to be the solution in >> >> the success stories. >> >> >> >> *Some statistics on deployments*Belgium 55.11%,Germany 34.50%,United >> >> States 32.83%Greece 28.53%Portugal 25.80%Ecuador 20.8%,Peru >> >> 19.35%,Estonia 17,32%Japan 16.61%,Canada 9.83%Norway 6.65%Bolivia >> >> 3.8%Italy 0.73%Spain 0.7%Denmark 0.61% Some interesting findings is >> >> that deployment depends on the large ISPs uptake of v6 regardless of >> >> economic circumstances. e.g Peru has a lower per capita but has more >> >> deployment than Norway. Portugal with $22,000/capita and Greece >> >> $21,000/capita are outperforming Denmark with $60,000/capita. Canada >> >> $45,000/capita is trailing Estonia with $19,000/capita. >> >> In the success stories, the majority of the commercial access market >> >> products have IPv6 enabled by default, and competing products have >> >> matching features. >> >> >> >> Regards >> >> >> >> ______________________ >> >> Mwendwa Kivuva, Nairobi, Kenya >> >> twitter.com/lordmwesh >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 10 October 2016 at 11:44, Joseph Mucheru via kictanet >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> That said, do we have any experts on DOA? I personally believe this is >> >> the way forward... >> >> https://www.google.co.kr/url? sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url= >> >> https://www.itu.int/ITU-D/arb/ ARO/2011/CyberSecurityForum- >> >> Eg/Docs/Doc11-Sorene_18-12- 2011.pptx&ved=0ahUKEwjsv8jc3c_ >> >> PAhUU82MKHeXuALIQFggZMAA&usg= AFQjCNGzWEx4VBdgLQYrceW- >> >> eme4GvjaWwThanks On 10 Oct 2016 4:37 PM, "Ali Hussein via kictanet" >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> Andrew >> >> Thank you so much for that informative response. >> >> So let's paint a scenario. >> >> Say, v4 exhausts in say 3 years. What are the implications for the >> >> continent esp those who will not have migrated? >> >> Ali HusseinPrincipalHussein & Associates+254 0713 601113 >> >> Twitter: @AliHKassimSkype: abu-jomoLinkedIn: http://ke.linkedin.c >> >> om/in/alihkassim >> >> >> >> "Discovery consists in seeing what everyone else has seen and thinking >> >> what no one else has thought". ~ Albert Szent-Gy?rgyi Sent from my >> >> iPad On 10 Oct 2016, at 9:25 AM, Andrew Alston >> >> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> Hi Ali, If I may respond here. Firstly ? I think we need to be >> >> careful about referring to blanket transition ? what Liquid has said >> >> is, we have to be ready with dual-stack networks. As v4 runs out ? >> >> that dual-stack becomes more and more critical because it will enable >> >> the full transition when the time comes for it. How soon that will >> >> come is hard to say ? but it is coming. What are the major >> >> impediments? There are 2 or 3 major points >> >> here: a.) Lack of will to actually do it ? it takes work, it takes >> >> time, it takes effort ? and the will power to actually move beyond >> >> talking the talk into walking the walk doesn?t seem to be thereb.) >> >> Lack of understanding/skill ? The fact is that implementing v6 vs >> >> implementing v4 ? it?s just another protocol, same routing, same >> >> everything. But there is a fear factor walking into something that is >> >> misunderstood. That lack of understanding that you can build this >> >> simultaneously in the same way you build v4, creates the fear factor. >> >> The fear of handling addressing plans in hexadecimal is also >> >> prohibiting growth. I run into that one a lot ? people having issues >> >> with the address planning.c.) The last question is the million >> >> dollar one ? because the reality is ? all it takes is will power and a >> >> willingness to actually take some action. The simple fact is ? we had >> >> a relatively small team on this ? we committed a bunch of hours ? we >> >> stuck our heads down and did it. We did not spend money ? other than >> >> the cost of the time (which is an OPEX cost admittedly). We said >> >> ourselves deadlines and we DID it. There are those who propose that >> >> setting policies to try and force >> >> v6 is workable ? it?s not ? unless the will is there it will achieve >> >> nothing. People have to WANT this. It is a matter of desire and a >> >> matter of seeing the benefits ? the benefits are future proofing ? >> >> they are not based on revenue generation, but more revenue retention. >> >> And if anyone wants to see just how much impact you can have with a >> >> small team that actually has the desire, please see the following >> >> stats out of Zimbabwe (our largest consumer market) >> >> http://stats.labs.apnic.net/ip >> >> v6/ZW?b=20161001&d=10http://stats.labs.apnic.net/ip >> >> v6/AS30969?b=20161001&d=10http://stats.labs.apnic.net/ip >> >> v6/XB?b=20161001&d=10 (I see things have slightly dropped off today, >> >> these stats tend to fluctuate, but fact is ? it?s out there and it >> >> work?s. Andrew From: Ali Hussein >> >> Date: Monday, 10 October 2016 at 09:01 >> >> To: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions , >> >> General Discussions of AFRINIC >> >> Subject: [Community-Discuss] Liquid Telecom warns of looming address >> >> shortage - Daily Nation Dear listersGreetings and apologies for >> >> cross-posting.Internet service provider Liquid Telecom Kenya has >> >> warned that Africa is set to run out of Internet Protocol (IP) >> >> addresses as early as next year, potentially slowing down digital >> >> growth in the continent.Read on:-http://www.nation.co.ke/busine >> >> ss/Liquid-Telecom-warns-of- >> >> looming-address-shortage/996- 3410850-format-xhtml-aub5sm/ >> >> index.htmlCouple of questions:-1. How involved are we as a community >> >> in ensuring the smooth transition from IPV4 to IPV6?2. What have been >> >> the major impediments to the successful migration?3. How can we move >> >> the needle faster?Ali Hussein >> >> Tel: +254 713 601113 >> >> >> >> ______________________________ _________________ kictanet mailing list >> >> kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/m >> >> ailman/listinfo/kictanet >> >> >> >> Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/m >> >> ailman/options/kictanet/joe%40 mucheru.com >> >> >> >> The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is a multi-stakeholder >> >> platform for people and institutions interested and involved in ICT >> >> policy and regulation. The network aims to act as a catalyst for >> >> reform in the ICT sector in support of the national aim of ICT enabled >> >> growth and development. >> >> >> >> KICTANetiquette : Adhere to the same standards of acceptable behaviors >> >> online that you follow in real life: respect people's times and >> >> bandwidth, share knowledge, don't flame or abuse or personalize, >> >> respect privacy, do not spam, do not market your wares or >> qualifications. >> >> >> >> >> >> ______________________________ _________________ kictanet mailing list >> >> kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/ >> >> mailman/listinfo/kictanet >> >> >> >> Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/ >> >> mailman/options/kictanet/ kivuva%40transworldafrica.com >> >> >> >> The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is a multi-stakeholder >> >> platform for people and institutions interested and involved in ICT >> >> policy and regulation. The network aims to act as a catalyst for >> >> reform in the ICT sector in support of the national aim of ICT enabled >> >> growth and development. >> >> >> >> KICTANetiquette : Adhere to the same standards of acceptable behaviors >> >> online that you follow in real life: respect people's times and >> >> bandwidth, share knowledge, don't flame or abuse or personalize, >> >> respect privacy, do not spam, do not market your wares or >> qualifications. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> kictanet mailing list >> >> kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke >> >> https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet >> >> >> >> Unsubscribe or change your options at >> >> https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/jwalu%40yahoo.co >> >> m >> >> >> >> The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is a multi-stakeholder >> >> platform for people and institutions interested and involved in ICT >> >> policy and regulation. The network aims to act as a catalyst for >> >> reform in the ICT sector in support of the national aim of ICT enabled >> >> growth and development. >> >> >> >> KICTANetiquette : Adhere to the same standards of acceptable behaviors >> >> online that you follow in real life: respect people's times and >> >> bandwidth, share knowledge, don't flame or abuse or personalize, >> >> respect privacy, do not spam, do not market your wares or >> qualifications. >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Barrack O. Otieno >> > +254721325277 >> > +254733206359 >> > Skype: barrack.otieno >> > PGP ID: 0x2611D86A >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Community-Discuss mailing list >> > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net >> > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss >> > >> >> >> -- >> Barrack O. Otieno >> +254721325277 >> +254733206359 >> Skype: barrack.otieno >> PGP ID: 0x2611D86A >> >> _______________________________________________ >> kictanet mailing list >> kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke >> https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet >> >> Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/m >> ailman/options/kictanet/kevin.kamonye%40gmail.com >> >> The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is a multi-stakeholder platform >> for people and institutions interested and involved in ICT policy and >> regulation. The network aims to act as a catalyst for reform in the ICT >> sector in support of the national aim of ICT enabled growth and development. >> >> KICTANetiquette : Adhere to the same standards of acceptable behaviors >> online that you follow in real life: respect people's times and bandwidth, >> share knowledge, don't flame or abuse or personalize, respect privacy, do >> not spam, do not market your wares or qualifications. >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image.png Type: image/png Size: 370083 bytes Desc: not available URL: From kevin.kamonye at gmail.com Tue Oct 11 12:16:38 2016 From: kevin.kamonye at gmail.com (Kevin Kamonye) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2016 15:16:38 +0300 Subject: [Community-Discuss] IPv6 Chapter 254 Message-ID: As always, thanks Ali and team for breathing some life into this one. My story with IPv6 started much longer than I can remember. The key moment, however, came in 2010/2011 when the hype hit its peak due to the then projected exhaustion of IANA's central pool (officially announced in 3/02/2011). I was working at KDN at the time and being the largest IP transit provider in the region, a decision was agreed by all that we had to move quick - I think mostly to avoid potential embarrassment :) Our then HOD David W. K., and I sincerely applaud him for the work he has put into building the Telecom Industry in the region, got wind of an Afrinic IPv6 Workshop in Ghana and 13 days later another very commendable colleague and myself were in that class and it all went superbly well. The problem for me started a few weeks after I got back because I realised that there really wasn't a particular motivation for us to get the other providers to respond (though the hard-core techies like us did some 'test' peering here and there). We even conducted a major upgrade on KDN's infrastructure at KIXP to ensure that all ISPs could get at least 1Gbps capacity ( though this was mostly driven by the Google Youtube Cache that we deployed to handle the post-Seacom Internet traffic explosion in 254 and region). We also pursued ISPs in the region through forums such as AfPIF, ISOC etc. but the matter collapsed mostly due to natural causes. In short, I would say that there will never be a major crisis as regards to IPv4 exhaustion. Techies will do their thing of patching networks until they can't do it anymore and then they will switch the rest of the population to IPv6. What we can do for now is to follow in the example of formulating the policies, which I can volunteer some of my time as would be needed. Lastly, I will quote from this article by one of the guys that led us through the training at NIITA back in 2011 (and I advise going it through in full if you want to learn more of IPv6 in Africa) *Implication #3: Driving Complacency in Africa Towards IPv6 Adoption* *[image: Inline images 1]* *So long as it is still possible and easy to get IPv4 addresses, 95% of network operators will do so; humans (and the organisations that they make up) don't change easily. Particularly, organisations fixated on short term results will fail to realise that using every every single IPv4 address available to AFRINIC is not enough for us to catch up with the rest of the world. Not being able to look beyond a the proverbial tree to the forest, it is easy to totally be blind to drastic change in resource availability that will result if one of Africa's large mobile telecommunications companies (say MTN) decides to remove NAT on their mobile networks and give each mobile user a true Internet access experience using public IP addresses (I didn't think it was possible until experienced it for myself in Dar es Salaam last year with Airtel).* *Networks will move to deploy IPv6 under the following influences:* *a) The cost of getting IPv4 addresses becomes un-bearable (as would be if they have to be acquired from the Transfer market) * *b) There are no IPv4 addresses to be gotten, anywhere (even if you have money to buy them)* *c) The network's owners have this blinding insight of the obvious that the IPv4 game is an un-winable one and IPv6 is the only sustainable way* *d) Some powerful entity forces them (by mandates or by incentives) to deploy IPv6 (like gov't IT regulators)* *For most African companies, scenarios (a & b) are unlikely to happen in next 2 ? 3 years (unless the shell companies increase and succeed in getting addresses which depletes AFRINIC's current space). Only a few network operators to my knowledge pay anything other that lip service to scenario (c) and the only party that can make scenario (d) happen (gov't regulators) still largely don't know how to go about it (if you are an African gov't IT leader and need help with this, I might be able to help). Therefore, we have ourselves an IPv4 address resource curse!* Good afternoon, *Kevin K.? K.?* *+254720789158* On 10 October 2016 at 14:42, Barrack Otieno via kictanet < kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote: > Dear Andrew, > > Many thanks for the feedback and for sharing the policy which i > believe is a good starting point. Maybe we need a couple of town hall > meetings with the business/corporate communicate and policy makers to > break the resistance. > > Best Regards > > On 10/10/16, Andrew Alston wrote: > > Hi Barrack, > > > > We are also running native v6 on our FTTH network and continuing to > deploy. > > We plan to also shortly enable our public wifi networks in Kenya and are > > working towards this (couple of vendor related issues that are being > worked > > on in this regard) > > > > We are in a position to roll out IPv6 to any corporate customer and IP > > transit customer who wishes it as well, and have some IPT customers > actively > > using IPv6 - Basically the entire Liquid network, irrespective of which > > country we operate in, is fully V6 ready. > > > > The reason the percentage point indicators in the stats I've given > haven't > > moved that much though is because convincing corporate customers to take > > IPv6 is slightly more challenging, and our consumer rollouts in Kenya are > > still relatively new (and as a result not yet large enough to seriously > move > > the penetration figures for the entire country). We are however working > > with our customers to continue to increase the penetration percentages > and > > get the v6 adopted by the customers. > > > > Thanks > > > > Andrew > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Barrack Otieno [mailto:otieno.barrack at gmail.com] > > Sent: 10 October 2016 14:29 > > To: Walubengo J ; KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions > > > > Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC > > Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] [kictanet] Liquid Telecom warns of > looming > > address shortage - Daily Nation > > > > Dear Walu et al? > > > > Liquid has been on Zimbabwean Media over successfull V6 deployment. > > Andrew , what is impeding deployment of the same in Kenya? > > > > Regards > > > > On 10/10/16, Walubengo J via kictanet > > wrote: > >> @Mwendwa,>>> > >> What can you do? > >> - Government Organizations: Coordinate with industry to support and > >> promote awareness and educational activities. Adopt regulatory and > >> economic incentives to encourage IPv6 adoption. Require IPv6 > >> compatibility in procurement procedures. Officially adopt IPv6 within > >> your government agencies. > >>>>>The above text is what we were looking for to include in our revised > >>>>>.KE ICT Policy. How I wish you had shared this earlier :-) > >> walu. > >> > >> From: Mwendwa Kivuva via kictanet > >> > >> To: jwalu at yahoo.com > >> Cc: Mwendwa Kivuva ; General Discussions > >> of AFRINIC > >> Sent: Monday, October 10, 2016 11:55 AM > >> Subject: Re: [kictanet] [Community-Discuss] Liquid Telecom warns of > >> looming address shortage - Daily Nation > >> > >> This is an extremely important debate for the continent. Thank you Ali > >> for that. > >> Some of these issues have been debated thoroughly in several forums. > >> It's very important we continue debating them until we see an > >> exponential growth of IPv6 in the continent.To answer a few questions, > >> there is a clear justification on why it is necessary to migrate to > IPv6. > >> Among them: > >> - There are no enough IPv4 remaining for everyone. There are more > >> devices, and people on earth than IPv4. Maximum IPv4 addresses are > >> 4billion. > >> Population of Earth is 7.3Billion. Maximum IPv6 address 3.4?10 38 > >> - Migration will not happen overnight since the recommended > >> implementation is dual-stacking; that is, running IPv4 and IPv6 in > >> parallel. > >> We are not telling people to do away with IPv4, but to run the two > >> protocols in parallel. > >> - To be a producer of information, you cannot use a shared IP, you > >> need a dedicated IP. This has been a big challenge in the continent. > >> We have stifled innovation by using shared IPs. > >> - There are many services now around the world which are IPv6 only > >> website and services. If you are not on IPv6, you cannot get to these > >> networks. Africa may get into what I can call "Information dark age" > >> if we cannot acess some parts of the Internet. > >> - IPv6 is necessary for business growth. How? How will your > >> business scale when IPv4 has run out? > >> What has AFRINIC done to bridge the gap?1. Trainings. This year alone, > >> AFRINIC is conducting free IPv6 trainings to over 23 countries across > >> the continent. Kenya was among the beneficiaries. Check this link > >> http://www.afrinic.net/services/training > >> AFRINIC has an extensive training program provides free training to > >> over 600 network engineers per year on Internet Number Resources > >> Management (INRM) and IPv6 Planning and Deployment. Our training > >> courses are always growing to support the technologies related to > >> Internet resources, including DNSSEC & RPKI. AFRINIC's IPv6 course are > >> IPv6 Forum (Gold) Certified and are fully hands-on, making use of > >> extensive IPv6 testbed access which gives participants hands-on > >> experience on real equipment to configure, test and troubleshoot IPv6. > >> > >> 2. AFRINIC has a Government Working Group (AfGWG). Here government > >> players are brought together to be sensitized on the need to push for > >> IPv6 adoption, and rollout of IXPs, among other. Here is the link > >> https://meeting.afrinic.net/afgwg/ > >> 3. Issuance of v6 blocks to ISPs. All ISPs have been issued V6 blocks > >> by AFRINIC. What we should be seeing now is clients insisting they > >> want the ISPs to pass the benefits to the end users. > >> What can you do? > >> - Government Organizations: Coordinate with industry to support and > >> promote awareness and educational activities. Adopt regulatory and > >> economic incentives to encourage IPv6 adoption. Require IPv6 > >> compatibility in procurement procedures. Officially adopt IPv6 within > >> your government agencies. > >> - Broadband Access Providers: Your customers want access to the > >> entire Internet, and this means IPv4 and IPv6 websites. Offering full > >> access requires running IPv4/IPv6 transition services and is a > >> significant engineering project. Multiple transition technologies are > >> available, and each provider needs to make their own architectural > >> decisions. > >> - Internet Service Providers: Implement a plan that will allow your > >> customers to connect to the Internet via IPv6 and IPv6/IPv4, not just > >> IPv4. > >> Businesses are beginning to ask for IPv6 over their existing Internet > >> connections and for their co-located servers. Communicate with your > >> peers and vendors about IPv6, and confirm their timelines for > >> production IPv6 services. > >> - Internet Content Providers: Content must be reachable to future > >> Internet customers. Plan on serving content via IPv6 in addition to > >> IPv4 as soon as possible. > >> - Enterprise Customers: Email, web, and application servers must be > >> reachable via IPv6 in addition to IPv4. Open a dialogue with your ISP > >> about providing IPv6 services. Each organization must decide on > >> timelines, and investment level will vary. > >> > >> What is the role of Internet Service Providers (ISPs) in deploying > >> IPv6?This link > >> https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/afripv6-discuss/attachments/201607 > >> 10/f7e693ac/attachment-0001.pdf contains some very interesting > >> statistics and findings on V6 deployments around the world, shared at > >> the OECD Ministerial Meeting in June2016. One lesson we can learn from > >> this is work very closely with ISPs. That seems to be the solution in > >> the success stories. > >> > >> *Some statistics on deployments*Belgium 55.11%,Germany 34.50%,United > >> States 32.83%Greece 28.53%Portugal 25.80%Ecuador 20.8%,Peru > >> 19.35%,Estonia 17,32%Japan 16.61%,Canada 9.83%Norway 6.65%Bolivia > >> 3.8%Italy 0.73%Spain 0.7%Denmark 0.61% Some interesting findings is > >> that deployment depends on the large ISPs uptake of v6 regardless of > >> economic circumstances. e.g Peru has a lower per capita but has more > >> deployment than Norway. Portugal with $22,000/capita and Greece > >> $21,000/capita are outperforming Denmark with $60,000/capita. Canada > >> $45,000/capita is trailing Estonia with $19,000/capita. > >> In the success stories, the majority of the commercial access market > >> products have IPv6 enabled by default, and competing products have > >> matching features. > >> > >> Regards > >> > >> ______________________ > >> Mwendwa Kivuva, Nairobi, Kenya > >> twitter.com/lordmwesh > >> > >> > >> > >> On 10 October 2016 at 11:44, Joseph Mucheru via kictanet > >> wrote: > >> > >> That said, do we have any experts on DOA? I personally believe this is > >> the way forward... > >> https://www.google.co.kr/url? sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url= > >> https://www.itu.int/ITU-D/arb/ ARO/2011/CyberSecurityForum- > >> Eg/Docs/Doc11-Sorene_18-12- 2011.pptx&ved=0ahUKEwjsv8jc3c_ > >> PAhUU82MKHeXuALIQFggZMAA&usg= AFQjCNGzWEx4VBdgLQYrceW- > >> eme4GvjaWwThanks On 10 Oct 2016 4:37 PM, "Ali Hussein via kictanet" > >> wrote: > >> > >> Andrew > >> Thank you so much for that informative response. > >> So let's paint a scenario. > >> Say, v4 exhausts in say 3 years. What are the implications for the > >> continent esp those who will not have migrated? > >> Ali HusseinPrincipalHussein & Associates+254 0713 601113 > >> Twitter: @AliHKassimSkype: abu-jomoLinkedIn: http://ke.linkedin.c > >> om/in/alihkassim > >> > >> "Discovery consists in seeing what everyone else has seen and thinking > >> what no one else has thought". ~ Albert Szent-Gy?rgyi Sent from my > >> iPad On 10 Oct 2016, at 9:25 AM, Andrew Alston > >> > >> wrote: > >> > >> > >> Hi Ali, If I may respond here. Firstly ? I think we need to be > >> careful about referring to blanket transition ? what Liquid has said > >> is, we have to be ready with dual-stack networks. As v4 runs out ? > >> that dual-stack becomes more and more critical because it will enable > >> the full transition when the time comes for it. How soon that will > >> come is hard to say ? but it is coming. What are the major > >> impediments? There are 2 or 3 major points > >> here: a.) Lack of will to actually do it ? it takes work, it takes > >> time, it takes effort ? and the will power to actually move beyond > >> talking the talk into walking the walk doesn?t seem to be thereb.) > >> Lack of understanding/skill ? The fact is that implementing v6 vs > >> implementing v4 ? it?s just another protocol, same routing, same > >> everything. But there is a fear factor walking into something that is > >> misunderstood. That lack of understanding that you can build this > >> simultaneously in the same way you build v4, creates the fear factor. > >> The fear of handling addressing plans in hexadecimal is also > >> prohibiting growth. I run into that one a lot ? people having issues > >> with the address planning.c.) The last question is the million > >> dollar one ? because the reality is ? all it takes is will power and a > >> willingness to actually take some action. The simple fact is ? we had > >> a relatively small team on this ? we committed a bunch of hours ? we > >> stuck our heads down and did it. We did not spend money ? other than > >> the cost of the time (which is an OPEX cost admittedly). We said > >> ourselves deadlines and we DID it. There are those who propose that > >> setting policies to try and force > >> v6 is workable ? it?s not ? unless the will is there it will achieve > >> nothing. People have to WANT this. It is a matter of desire and a > >> matter of seeing the benefits ? the benefits are future proofing ? > >> they are not based on revenue generation, but more revenue retention. > >> And if anyone wants to see just how much impact you can have with a > >> small team that actually has the desire, please see the following > >> stats out of Zimbabwe (our largest consumer market) > >> http://stats.labs.apnic.net/ip > >> v6/ZW?b=20161001&d=10http://stats.labs.apnic.net/ip > >> v6/AS30969?b=20161001&d=10http://stats.labs.apnic.net/ip > >> v6/XB?b=20161001&d=10 (I see things have slightly dropped off today, > >> these stats tend to fluctuate, but fact is ? it?s out there and it > >> work?s. Andrew From: Ali Hussein > >> Date: Monday, 10 October 2016 at 09:01 > >> To: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions , > >> General Discussions of AFRINIC > >> Subject: [Community-Discuss] Liquid Telecom warns of looming address > >> shortage - Daily Nation Dear listersGreetings and apologies for > >> cross-posting.Internet service provider Liquid Telecom Kenya has > >> warned that Africa is set to run out of Internet Protocol (IP) > >> addresses as early as next year, potentially slowing down digital > >> growth in the continent.Read on:-http://www.nation.co.ke/busine > >> ss/Liquid-Telecom-warns-of- > >> looming-address-shortage/996- 3410850-format-xhtml-aub5sm/ > >> index.htmlCouple of questions:-1. How involved are we as a community > >> in ensuring the smooth transition from IPV4 to IPV6?2. What have been > >> the major impediments to the successful migration?3. How can we move > >> the needle faster?Ali Hussein > >> Tel: +254 713 601113 > >> > >> ______________________________ _________________ kictanet mailing list > >> kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/m > >> ailman/listinfo/kictanet > >> > >> Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/m > >> ailman/options/kictanet/joe%40 mucheru.com > >> > >> The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is a multi-stakeholder > >> platform for people and institutions interested and involved in ICT > >> policy and regulation. The network aims to act as a catalyst for > >> reform in the ICT sector in support of the national aim of ICT enabled > >> growth and development. > >> > >> KICTANetiquette : Adhere to the same standards of acceptable behaviors > >> online that you follow in real life: respect people's times and > >> bandwidth, share knowledge, don't flame or abuse or personalize, > >> respect privacy, do not spam, do not market your wares or > qualifications. > >> > >> > >> ______________________________ _________________ kictanet mailing list > >> kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/ > >> mailman/listinfo/kictanet > >> > >> Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/ > >> mailman/options/kictanet/ kivuva%40transworldafrica.com > >> > >> The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is a multi-stakeholder > >> platform for people and institutions interested and involved in ICT > >> policy and regulation. The network aims to act as a catalyst for > >> reform in the ICT sector in support of the national aim of ICT enabled > >> growth and development. > >> > >> KICTANetiquette : Adhere to the same standards of acceptable behaviors > >> online that you follow in real life: respect people's times and > >> bandwidth, share knowledge, don't flame or abuse or personalize, > >> respect privacy, do not spam, do not market your wares or > qualifications. > >> > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> kictanet mailing list > >> kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke > >> https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet > >> > >> Unsubscribe or change your options at > >> https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/jwalu%40yahoo.co > >> m > >> > >> The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is a multi-stakeholder > >> platform for people and institutions interested and involved in ICT > >> policy and regulation. The network aims to act as a catalyst for > >> reform in the ICT sector in support of the national aim of ICT enabled > >> growth and development. > >> > >> KICTANetiquette : Adhere to the same standards of acceptable behaviors > >> online that you follow in real life: respect people's times and > >> bandwidth, share knowledge, don't flame or abuse or personalize, > >> respect privacy, do not spam, do not market your wares or > qualifications. > >> > >> > > > > > > -- > > Barrack O. Otieno > > +254721325277 > > +254733206359 > > Skype: barrack.otieno > > PGP ID: 0x2611D86A > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Community-Discuss mailing list > > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss > > > > > -- > Barrack O. Otieno > +254721325277 > +254733206359 > Skype: barrack.otieno > PGP ID: 0x2611D86A > > _______________________________________________ > kictanet mailing list > kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke > https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet > > Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/ > mailman/options/kictanet/kevin.kamonye%40gmail.com > > The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is a multi-stakeholder platform > for people and institutions interested and involved in ICT policy and > regulation. The network aims to act as a catalyst for reform in the ICT > sector in support of the national aim of ICT enabled growth and development. > > KICTANetiquette : Adhere to the same standards of acceptable behaviors > online that you follow in real life: respect people's times and bandwidth, > share knowledge, don't flame or abuse or personalize, respect privacy, do > not spam, do not market your wares or qualifications. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image.png Type: image/png Size: 370083 bytes Desc: not available URL: From Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com Wed Oct 12 11:31:54 2016 From: Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com (Andrew Alston) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2016 11:31:54 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] IPv6 Chapter 254 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Kevin, Thanks for the email and insights. A few comments. Firstly ? one of the things we also need to realize, is that much of the IPv6 push has been towards provided and academia. If we truly want v6 adoption, I?d argue we are going about it the wrong way, we have to promote it into the corporate and home user market. Only when these markets start demanding IPv6 will we get true movement from the majority of providers. End of the day, what matters to providers is the bottom line, and if we can get the corporates to start to select their ISP?s based on IPv6 availability, the ISP?s WILL follow. So, that is where the outreach has to be focused. For years we have sort the proverbial IPv6 business case ? it doesn?t exist in the sense that people were looking for, because those who were trying to find it, were looking at IPv6 as a revenue making opportunity. If we attempt to sell V6 as a way to make money, we?ll never succeed. The trick to promoting IPv6 is to prove that it is not about revenue generation, it is about revenue retention. If you can make the case that the lack of IPv6 will eventually hurt the entity you are promoting to on their bottom line, you will get uptake. That case isn?t actually all that hard to make, considering that corporates rely on the Internet in almost everything they do, and when you can prove near imminent depletion of v4, it?s not hard to make this case. With regards to policies and procedures ? I have long taken the (admittedly controversial) view that the only real policy within the address allocation sector that will promote v6, is the one that promotes the depletion of IPv4. As Africa sits with unused v4 inside its registry, V6 growth will be slow. We will continue to be a dumping ground for legacy hardware that does not support V6, and we will fall further and further behind the rest of the world. There is substantial evidence of the fact that V4 depletion does promote the growth of V6. I point to the Google IPv6 penetration map at https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html#tab=per-country-ipv6-adoption&tab=per-country-ipv6-adoption as case in point. On this map, you will see there are only two countries in Africa that have in excess of half a percent v6 penetration levels. One is Sudan, and one in Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe currently runs at 4.76% penetration and climbing ? beyond that the rest of Africa has effectively no real penetration. Now, compare that to the rest of the world where v4 is depleted, and you see a vastly different picture. The global average deployment rate is sitting at 12% and climbing, whereas all it took to *double* the aggregate penetration rate in Africa was the v6 enabling of 10 or 15 thousand FTTH users in Zimbabwe. This speaks volumes, we have v4, and its slowing us down in getting v6 deployed. This is in line with what you said here: a) The cost of getting IPv4 addresses becomes un-bearable (as would be if they have to be acquired from the Transfer market) b) There are no IPv4 addresses to be gotten, anywhere (even if you have money to buy them) c) The network's owners have this blinding insight of the obvious that the IPv4 game is an un-winable one and IPv6 is the only sustainable way This is why in the policy proposals before AfriNIC at the moment, there is a policy that is designed to effectively repeal most of the aspects of the IPv4 soft landing policy. Because to do anything else, and to extend the life of v4, is not helping the continent, it is hurting us, and it is leaving us further and further behind the rest of the world ? the proof is plain to see on the global IPv6 adoption maps, and cannot be disputed. There are those that would argue that preserving some v4 for new comers is the ?fair? thing to do, I would argue that let the v4 be used by those who can use it today, to enable their customers, and when it runs out, let us progress forward. For people who argue that holding v4 space back for some unknown future when people will be ready to use it, is simply not a valid argument, especially when there are entities who can use the remaining v4 to actually get rid of NAT and service end users. To extend the soft landing policies and artificially slow the depletion of v4 at this stage may help some ISP?s in the future ? but it damages the continent and it damages Internet deployment going forward ? in short, in my view it is drastically short sighted. For reference purposes, the following blog which was published by AfriNIC based on content from my facebook page may be of interest: http://www.afrinic.net/blog/159-getting-africa-s-ipv6-deployment-on-track With regards to the policy about depletion of v4 space, I refer to the following URL. This is the policy that is still under discussion as authorised by myself, Kris Seeburn, Mark Elkins, Michele McCann and John Walubengo. http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposals/1623-soft-landing-overhaul Anyway ? happy to continue the discussion. Thanks Andrew From: Kevin Kamonye [mailto:kevin.kamonye at gmail.com] Sent: 11 October 2016 15:17 To: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC ; Barrack Otieno Subject: [Community-Discuss] IPv6 Chapter 254 As always, thanks Ali and team for breathing some life into this one. My story with IPv6 started much longer than I can remember. The key moment, however, came in 2010/2011 when the hype hit its peak due to the then projected exhaustion of IANA's central pool (officially announced in 3/02/2011). I was working at KDN at the time and being the largest IP transit provider in the region, a decision was agreed by all that we had to move quick - I think mostly to avoid potential embarrassment :) Our then HOD David W. K., and I sincerely applaud him for the work he has put into building the Telecom Industry in the region, got wind of an Afrinic IPv6 Workshop in Ghana and 13 days later another very commendable colleague and myself were in that class and it all went superbly well. The problem for me started a few weeks after I got back because I realised that there really wasn't a particular motivation for us to get the other providers to respond (though the hard-core techies like us did some 'test' peering here and there). We even conducted a major upgrade on KDN's infrastructure at KIXP to ensure that all ISPs could get at least 1Gbps capacity ( though this was mostly driven by the Google Youtube Cache that we deployed to handle the post-Seacom Internet traffic explosion in 254 and region). We also pursued ISPs in the region through forums such as AfPIF, ISOC etc. but the matter collapsed mostly due to natural causes. In short, I would say that there will never be a major crisis as regards to IPv4 exhaustion. Techies will do their thing of patching networks until they can't do it anymore and then they will switch the rest of the population to IPv6. What we can do for now is to follow in the example of formulating the policies, which I can volunteer some of my time as would be needed. Lastly, I will quote from this article by one of the guys that led us through the training at NIITA back in 2011 (and I advise going it through in full if you want to learn more of IPv6 in Africa) Implication #3: Driving Complacency in Africa Towards IPv6 Adoption [Inline images 1] So long as it is still possible and easy to get IPv4 addresses, 95% of network operators will do so; humans (and the organisations that they make up) don't change easily. Particularly, organisations fixated on short term results will fail to realise that using every every single IPv4 address available to AFRINIC is not enough for us to catch up with the rest of the world. Not being able to look beyond a the proverbial tree to the forest, it is easy to totally be blind to drastic change in resource availability that will result if one of Africa's large mobile telecommunications companies (say MTN) decides to remove NAT on their mobile networks and give each mobile user a true Internet access experience using public IP addresses (I didn't think it was possible until experienced it for myself in Dar es Salaam last year with Airtel). Networks will move to deploy IPv6 under the following influences: a) The cost of getting IPv4 addresses becomes un-bearable (as would be if they have to be acquired from the Transfer market) b) There are no IPv4 addresses to be gotten, anywhere (even if you have money to buy them) c) The network's owners have this blinding insight of the obvious that the IPv4 game is an un-winable one and IPv6 is the only sustainable way d) Some powerful entity forces them (by mandates or by incentives) to deploy IPv6 (like gov't IT regulators) For most African companies, scenarios (a & b) are unlikely to happen in next 2 ? 3 years (unless the shell companies increase and succeed in getting addresses which depletes AFRINIC's current space). Only a few network operators to my knowledge pay anything other that lip service to scenario (c) and the only party that can make scenario (d) happen (gov't regulators) still largely don't know how to go about it (if you are an African gov't IT leader and need help with this, I might be able to help). Therefore, we have ourselves an IPv4 address resource curse! Good afternoon, Kevin K. ? K.? +254720789158 On 10 October 2016 at 14:42, Barrack Otieno via kictanet > wrote: Dear Andrew, Many thanks for the feedback and for sharing the policy which i believe is a good starting point. Maybe we need a couple of town hall meetings with the business/corporate communicate and policy makers to break the resistance. Best Regards On 10/10/16, Andrew Alston > wrote: > Hi Barrack, > > We are also running native v6 on our FTTH network and continuing to deploy. > We plan to also shortly enable our public wifi networks in Kenya and are > working towards this (couple of vendor related issues that are being worked > on in this regard) > > We are in a position to roll out IPv6 to any corporate customer and IP > transit customer who wishes it as well, and have some IPT customers actively > using IPv6 - Basically the entire Liquid network, irrespective of which > country we operate in, is fully V6 ready. > > The reason the percentage point indicators in the stats I've given haven't > moved that much though is because convincing corporate customers to take > IPv6 is slightly more challenging, and our consumer rollouts in Kenya are > still relatively new (and as a result not yet large enough to seriously move > the penetration figures for the entire country). We are however working > with our customers to continue to increase the penetration percentages and > get the v6 adopted by the customers. > > Thanks > > Andrew > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Barrack Otieno [mailto:otieno.barrack at gmail.com] > Sent: 10 October 2016 14:29 > To: Walubengo J >; KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions > > > Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC > > Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] [kictanet] Liquid Telecom warns of looming > address shortage - Daily Nation > > Dear Walu et al? > > Liquid has been on Zimbabwean Media over successfull V6 deployment. > Andrew , what is impeding deployment of the same in Kenya? > > Regards > > On 10/10/16, Walubengo J via kictanet > > wrote: >> @Mwendwa,>>> >> What can you do? >> - Government Organizations: Coordinate with industry to support and >> promote awareness and educational activities. Adopt regulatory and >> economic incentives to encourage IPv6 adoption. Require IPv6 >> compatibility in procurement procedures. Officially adopt IPv6 within >> your government agencies. >>>>>The above text is what we were looking for to include in our revised >>>>>.KE ICT Policy. How I wish you had shared this earlier :-) >> walu. >> >> From: Mwendwa Kivuva via kictanet >> > >> To: jwalu at yahoo.com >> Cc: Mwendwa Kivuva >; General Discussions >> of AFRINIC > >> Sent: Monday, October 10, 2016 11:55 AM >> Subject: Re: [kictanet] [Community-Discuss] Liquid Telecom warns of >> looming address shortage - Daily Nation >> >> This is an extremely important debate for the continent. Thank you Ali >> for that. >> Some of these issues have been debated thoroughly in several forums. >> It's very important we continue debating them until we see an >> exponential growth of IPv6 in the continent.To answer a few questions, >> there is a clear justification on why it is necessary to migrate to IPv6. >> Among them: >> - There are no enough IPv4 remaining for everyone. There are more >> devices, and people on earth than IPv4. Maximum IPv4 addresses are >> 4billion. >> Population of Earth is 7.3Billion. Maximum IPv6 address 3.4?10 38 >> - Migration will not happen overnight since the recommended >> implementation is dual-stacking; that is, running IPv4 and IPv6 in >> parallel. >> We are not telling people to do away with IPv4, but to run the two >> protocols in parallel. >> - To be a producer of information, you cannot use a shared IP, you >> need a dedicated IP. This has been a big challenge in the continent. >> We have stifled innovation by using shared IPs. >> - There are many services now around the world which are IPv6 only >> website and services. If you are not on IPv6, you cannot get to these >> networks. Africa may get into what I can call "Information dark age" >> if we cannot acess some parts of the Internet. >> - IPv6 is necessary for business growth. How? How will your >> business scale when IPv4 has run out? >> What has AFRINIC done to bridge the gap?1. Trainings. This year alone, >> AFRINIC is conducting free IPv6 trainings to over 23 countries across >> the continent. Kenya was among the beneficiaries. Check this link >> http://www.afrinic.net/services/training >> AFRINIC has an extensive training program provides free training to >> over 600 network engineers per year on Internet Number Resources >> Management (INRM) and IPv6 Planning and Deployment. Our training >> courses are always growing to support the technologies related to >> Internet resources, including DNSSEC & RPKI. AFRINIC's IPv6 course are >> IPv6 Forum (Gold) Certified and are fully hands-on, making use of >> extensive IPv6 testbed access which gives participants hands-on >> experience on real equipment to configure, test and troubleshoot IPv6. >> >> 2. AFRINIC has a Government Working Group (AfGWG). Here government >> players are brought together to be sensitized on the need to push for >> IPv6 adoption, and rollout of IXPs, among other. Here is the link >> https://meeting.afrinic.net/afgwg/ >> 3. Issuance of v6 blocks to ISPs. All ISPs have been issued V6 blocks >> by AFRINIC. What we should be seeing now is clients insisting they >> want the ISPs to pass the benefits to the end users. >> What can you do? >> - Government Organizations: Coordinate with industry to support and >> promote awareness and educational activities. Adopt regulatory and >> economic incentives to encourage IPv6 adoption. Require IPv6 >> compatibility in procurement procedures. Officially adopt IPv6 within >> your government agencies. >> - Broadband Access Providers: Your customers want access to the >> entire Internet, and this means IPv4 and IPv6 websites. Offering full >> access requires running IPv4/IPv6 transition services and is a >> significant engineering project. Multiple transition technologies are >> available, and each provider needs to make their own architectural >> decisions. >> - Internet Service Providers: Implement a plan that will allow your >> customers to connect to the Internet via IPv6 and IPv6/IPv4, not just >> IPv4. >> Businesses are beginning to ask for IPv6 over their existing Internet >> connections and for their co-located servers. Communicate with your >> peers and vendors about IPv6, and confirm their timelines for >> production IPv6 services. >> - Internet Content Providers: Content must be reachable to future >> Internet customers. Plan on serving content via IPv6 in addition to >> IPv4 as soon as possible. >> - Enterprise Customers: Email, web, and application servers must be >> reachable via IPv6 in addition to IPv4. Open a dialogue with your ISP >> about providing IPv6 services. Each organization must decide on >> timelines, and investment level will vary. >> >> What is the role of Internet Service Providers (ISPs) in deploying >> IPv6?This link >> https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/afripv6-discuss/attachments/201607 >> 10/f7e693ac/attachment-0001.pdf contains some very interesting >> statistics and findings on V6 deployments around the world, shared at >> the OECD Ministerial Meeting in June2016. One lesson we can learn from >> this is work very closely with ISPs. That seems to be the solution in >> the success stories. >> >> *Some statistics on deployments*Belgium 55.11%,Germany 34.50%,United >> States 32.83%Greece 28.53%Portugal 25.80%Ecuador 20.8%,Peru >> 19.35%,Estonia 17,32%Japan 16.61%,Canada 9.83%Norway 6.65%Bolivia >> 3.8%Italy 0.73%Spain 0.7%Denmark 0.61% Some interesting findings is >> that deployment depends on the large ISPs uptake of v6 regardless of >> economic circumstances. e.g Peru has a lower per capita but has more >> deployment than Norway. Portugal with $22,000/capita and Greece >> $21,000/capita are outperforming Denmark with $60,000/capita. Canada >> $45,000/capita is trailing Estonia with $19,000/capita. >> In the success stories, the majority of the commercial access market >> products have IPv6 enabled by default, and competing products have >> matching features. >> >> Regards >> >> ______________________ >> Mwendwa Kivuva, Nairobi, Kenya >> twitter.com/lordmwesh >> >> >> >> On 10 October 2016 at 11:44, Joseph Mucheru via kictanet >> > wrote: >> >> That said, do we have any experts on DOA? I personally believe this is >> the way forward... >> https://www.google.co.kr/url? sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url= >> https://www.itu.int/ITU-D/arb/ ARO/2011/CyberSecurityForum- >> Eg/Docs/Doc11-Sorene_18-12- 2011.pptx&ved=0ahUKEwjsv8jc3c_ >> PAhUU82MKHeXuALIQFggZMAA&usg= AFQjCNGzWEx4VBdgLQYrceW- >> eme4GvjaWwThanks On 10 Oct 2016 4:37 PM, "Ali Hussein via kictanet" >> > wrote: >> >> Andrew >> Thank you so much for that informative response. >> So let's paint a scenario. >> Say, v4 exhausts in say 3 years. What are the implications for the >> continent esp those who will not have migrated? >> Ali HusseinPrincipalHussein & Associates+254 0713 601113 >> Twitter: @AliHKassimSkype: abu-jomoLinkedIn: http://ke.linkedin.c >> om/in/alihkassim >> >> "Discovery consists in seeing what everyone else has seen and thinking >> what no one else has thought". ~ Albert Szent-Gy?rgyi Sent from my >> iPad On 10 Oct 2016, at 9:25 AM, Andrew Alston >> > >> wrote: >> >> >> Hi Ali, If I may respond here. Firstly ? I think we need to be >> careful about referring to blanket transition ? what Liquid has said >> is, we have to be ready with dual-stack networks. As v4 runs out ? >> that dual-stack becomes more and more critical because it will enable >> the full transition when the time comes for it. How soon that will >> come is hard to say ? but it is coming. What are the major >> impediments? There are 2 or 3 major points >> here: a.) Lack of will to actually do it ? it takes work, it takes >> time, it takes effort ? and the will power to actually move beyond >> talking the talk into walking the walk doesn?t seem to be thereb.) >> Lack of understanding/skill ? The fact is that implementing v6 vs >> implementing v4 ? it?s just another protocol, same routing, same >> everything. But there is a fear factor walking into something that is >> misunderstood. That lack of understanding that you can build this >> simultaneously in the same way you build v4, creates the fear factor. >> The fear of handling addressing plans in hexadecimal is also >> prohibiting growth. I run into that one a lot ? people having issues >> with the address planning.c.) The last question is the million >> dollar one ? because the reality is ? all it takes is will power and a >> willingness to actually take some action. The simple fact is ? we had >> a relatively small team on this ? we committed a bunch of hours ? we >> stuck our heads down and did it. We did not spend money ? other than >> the cost of the time (which is an OPEX cost admittedly). We said >> ourselves deadlines and we DID it. There are those who propose that >> setting policies to try and force >> v6 is workable ? it?s not ? unless the will is there it will achieve >> nothing. People have to WANT this. It is a matter of desire and a >> matter of seeing the benefits ? the benefits are future proofing ? >> they are not based on revenue generation, but more revenue retention. >> And if anyone wants to see just how much impact you can have with a >> small team that actually has the desire, please see the following >> stats out of Zimbabwe (our largest consumer market) >> http://stats.labs.apnic.net/ip >> v6/ZW?b=20161001&d=10http://stats.labs.apnic.net/ip >> v6/AS30969?b=20161001&d=10http://stats.labs.apnic.net/ip >> v6/XB?b=20161001&d=10 (I see things have slightly dropped off today, >> these stats tend to fluctuate, but fact is ? it?s out there and it >> work?s. Andrew From: Ali Hussein > >> Date: Monday, 10 October 2016 at 09:01 >> To: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions >, >> General Discussions of AFRINIC > >> Subject: [Community-Discuss] Liquid Telecom warns of looming address >> shortage - Daily Nation Dear listersGreetings and apologies for >> cross-posting.Internet service provider Liquid Telecom Kenya has >> warned that Africa is set to run out of Internet Protocol (IP) >> addresses as early as next year, potentially slowing down digital >> growth in the continent.Read on:-http://www.nation.co.ke/busine >> ss/Liquid-Telecom-warns-of- >> looming-address-shortage/996- 3410850-format-xhtml-aub5sm/ >> index.htmlCouple of questions:-1. How involved are we as a community >> in ensuring the smooth transition from IPV4 to IPV6?2. What have been >> the major impediments to the successful migration?3. How can we move >> the needle faster?Ali Hussein >> Tel: +254 713 601113 >> >> ______________________________ _________________ kictanet mailing list >> kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/m >> ailman/listinfo/kictanet >> >> Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/m >> ailman/options/kictanet/joe%40 mucheru.com >> >> The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is a multi-stakeholder >> platform for people and institutions interested and involved in ICT >> policy and regulation. The network aims to act as a catalyst for >> reform in the ICT sector in support of the national aim of ICT enabled >> growth and development. >> >> KICTANetiquette : Adhere to the same standards of acceptable behaviors >> online that you follow in real life: respect people's times and >> bandwidth, share knowledge, don't flame or abuse or personalize, >> respect privacy, do not spam, do not market your wares or qualifications. >> >> >> ______________________________ _________________ kictanet mailing list >> kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/ >> mailman/listinfo/kictanet >> >> Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/ >> mailman/options/kictanet/ kivuva%40transworldafrica.com >> >> The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is a multi-stakeholder >> platform for people and institutions interested and involved in ICT >> policy and regulation. The network aims to act as a catalyst for >> reform in the ICT sector in support of the national aim of ICT enabled >> growth and development. >> >> KICTANetiquette : Adhere to the same standards of acceptable behaviors >> online that you follow in real life: respect people's times and >> bandwidth, share knowledge, don't flame or abuse or personalize, >> respect privacy, do not spam, do not market your wares or qualifications. >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> kictanet mailing list >> kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke >> https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet >> >> Unsubscribe or change your options at >> https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/jwalu%40yahoo.co >> m >> >> The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is a multi-stakeholder >> platform for people and institutions interested and involved in ICT >> policy and regulation. The network aims to act as a catalyst for >> reform in the ICT sector in support of the national aim of ICT enabled >> growth and development. >> >> KICTANetiquette : Adhere to the same standards of acceptable behaviors >> online that you follow in real life: respect people's times and >> bandwidth, share knowledge, don't flame or abuse or personalize, >> respect privacy, do not spam, do not market your wares or qualifications. >> >> > > > -- > Barrack O. Otieno > +254721325277 > +254733206359 > Skype: barrack.otieno > PGP ID: 0x2611D86A > > _______________________________________________ > Community-Discuss mailing list > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss > -- Barrack O. Otieno +254721325277 +254733206359 Skype: barrack.otieno PGP ID: 0x2611D86A _______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/kevin.kamonye%40gmail.com The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is a multi-stakeholder platform for people and institutions interested and involved in ICT policy and regulation. The network aims to act as a catalyst for reform in the ICT sector in support of the national aim of ICT enabled growth and development. KICTANetiquette : Adhere to the same standards of acceptable behaviors online that you follow in real life: respect people's times and bandwidth, share knowledge, don't flame or abuse or personalize, respect privacy, do not spam, do not market your wares or qualifications. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.png Type: image/png Size: 279733 bytes Desc: image002.png URL: From mark.tinka at seacom.mu Wed Oct 12 12:54:49 2016 From: mark.tinka at seacom.mu (Mark Tinka) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2016 14:54:49 +0200 Subject: [Community-Discuss] IPv6 Chapter 254 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1fb910e4-e2e4-792d-ef64-b1f06a4c68f6@seacom.mu> On 12/Oct/16 13:31, Andrew Alston wrote: > > > On this map, you will see there are only two countries in Africa that > have in excess of half a percent v6 penetration levels. One is Sudan, > and one in Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe currently runs at 4.76% penetration and > climbing ? beyond that the rest of Africa has effectively no real > penetration. Now, compare that to the rest of the world where v4 is > depleted, and you see a vastly different picture. The global average > deployment rate is sitting at 12% and climbing, whereas all it took to > **double** the aggregate penetration rate in Africa was the v6 > enabling of 10 or 15 thousand FTTH users in Zimbabwe. This speaks > volumes, we have v4, and its slowing us down in getting v6 deployed. > Given that consumers don't generally get a say in when IPv6 can be enabled, that helps a lot. Much of Europe, North America and Asia-Pac have sufficient broadband into people's homes that makes all the difference. A number of major mobile operators in that part of the world have also turned on IPv6. The majority of Internet access in Africa happens in the mobile space today. If we want to see the needle shift even a hair's width, mobile operators in Africa need to enable IPv6. As of today, I have neither seen nor heard of any plans from any major or small mobile network operator in Africa re: turning on IPv6, never mind have a strategy or plan. If wire-line and non-GSM wireless service providers in Africa were to enable IPv6 for their broadband customers, there would be an improvement in the outlook (by your own experience in Zimbabwe), but not as much as if the mobile operators came to the party. It is absurd that there is no interest from this group, considering that the thinking is that it is cheaper to spend millions of $$ to sustain NAT444444444 than it is to roll out IPv6. Mark. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com Wed Oct 12 13:22:16 2016 From: Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com (Andrew Alston) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2016 13:22:16 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] IPv6 Chapter 254 In-Reply-To: <1fb910e4-e2e4-792d-ef64-b1f06a4c68f6@seacom.mu> References: <1fb910e4-e2e4-792d-ef64-b1f06a4c68f6@seacom.mu> Message-ID: Hi Mark, In the mobile space (LTE), and in the wireless space - while I can't comment on specifics, watch this space. In particular in KE and ZM dependent on which technology you're referring to. Thanks Andrew From: Mark Tinka [mailto:mark.tinka at seacom.mu] Sent: 12 October 2016 15:55 To: Andrew Alston ; Kevin Kamonye ; KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC ; Barrack Otieno Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] IPv6 Chapter 254 On 12/Oct/16 13:31, Andrew Alston wrote: On this map, you will see there are only two countries in Africa that have in excess of half a percent v6 penetration levels. One is Sudan, and one in Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe currently runs at 4.76% penetration and climbing - beyond that the rest of Africa has effectively no real penetration. Now, compare that to the rest of the world where v4 is depleted, and you see a vastly different picture. The global average deployment rate is sitting at 12% and climbing, whereas all it took to *double* the aggregate penetration rate in Africa was the v6 enabling of 10 or 15 thousand FTTH users in Zimbabwe. This speaks volumes, we have v4, and its slowing us down in getting v6 deployed. Given that consumers don't generally get a say in when IPv6 can be enabled, that helps a lot. Much of Europe, North America and Asia-Pac have sufficient broadband into people's homes that makes all the difference. A number of major mobile operators in that part of the world have also turned on IPv6. The majority of Internet access in Africa happens in the mobile space today. If we want to see the needle shift even a hair's width, mobile operators in Africa need to enable IPv6. As of today, I have neither seen nor heard of any plans from any major or small mobile network operator in Africa re: turning on IPv6, never mind have a strategy or plan. If wire-line and non-GSM wireless service providers in Africa were to enable IPv6 for their broadband customers, there would be an improvement in the outlook (by your own experience in Zimbabwe), but not as much as if the mobile operators came to the party. It is absurd that there is no interest from this group, considering that the thinking is that it is cheaper to spend millions of $$ to sustain NAT444444444 than it is to roll out IPv6. Mark. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From leo.vegoda at icann.org Wed Oct 12 13:51:24 2016 From: leo.vegoda at icann.org (Leo Vegoda) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2016 13:51:24 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] IPv6 Chapter 254 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Andrew Alston wrote: [...] > If we truly want v6 adoption, I?d argue we are going about it the wrong way, > we have to promote it into the corporate and home user market. Only when > these markets start demanding IPv6 will we get true movement from the > majority of providers I disagree. If the home user market needs to know or care about which version of the Internet Protocol is being used, or even know what the Internet Protocol is, things have gone wrong. Some parts of the corporate market do need to know but not most small and medium sized businesses. They just buy packaged services and can legitimately expect them to work as expected. The providers on the list at http://www.worldipv6launch.org/measurements/ with the big IPv6 deployments didn't survey their residential customers and ask them which version of IP they'd prefer. They made IPv6 an integral component of their systematic network upgrade. Regards, Leo Vegoda -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 4968 bytes Desc: not available URL: From Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com Wed Oct 12 14:02:54 2016 From: Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com (Andrew Alston) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2016 14:02:54 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] IPv6 Chapter 254 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Leo, There is one problem with your argument here - and I agree with you in one sense. In the home user market the users don't need to know - and that?s what we did in our rollout in the home user market. The corporate side is NOT like that - you HAVE to communicate with them for simple reasons: A.) In many corporates you don't control the CPE - unless you're doing fully managed service. This means they have to change things on their CPE to route the v6 through. B.) Corporates run firewalls - firewalls have to have v6 rulesets and have to be configured C.) Corporates run internal network infrastructure - often with multiple vlans etc - this requires configuration. So yes - home user you can turn on and off it can go - this is *exactly* what we did to turn Zimbabwe green on the v6 map. Corporates are a far far more tricky story, and there you actually have to put in some work. Andrew -----Original Message----- From: Leo Vegoda [mailto:leo.vegoda at icann.org] Sent: 12 October 2016 16:51 To: Andrew Alston Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC Subject: RE: [Community-Discuss] IPv6 Chapter 254 Andrew Alston wrote: [...] > If we truly want v6 adoption, I?d argue we are going about it the wrong way, > we have to promote it into the corporate and home user market. Only when > these markets start demanding IPv6 will we get true movement from the > majority of providers I disagree. If the home user market needs to know or care about which version of the Internet Protocol is being used, or even know what the Internet Protocol is, things have gone wrong. Some parts of the corporate market do need to know but not most small and medium sized businesses. They just buy packaged services and can legitimately expect them to work as expected. The providers on the list at http://www.worldipv6launch.org/measurements/ with the big IPv6 deployments didn't survey their residential customers and ask them which version of IP they'd prefer. They made IPv6 an integral component of their systematic network upgrade. Regards, Leo Vegoda From leo.vegoda at icann.org Wed Oct 12 14:42:02 2016 From: leo.vegoda at icann.org (Leo Vegoda) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2016 14:42:02 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] IPv6 Chapter 254 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Andrew Alston wrote: [...] > There is one problem with your argument here - and I agree with you in > one sense. In the home user market the users don't need to know - and > that?s what we did in our rollout in the home user market. > > The corporate side is NOT like that - you HAVE to communicate with them > for simple reasons: > > A.) In many corporates you don't control the CPE - unless you're doing fully > managed service. This means they have to change things on their CPE to > route the v6 through. > > B.) Corporates run firewalls - firewalls have to have v6 rulesets and have > to be configured > > C.) Corporates run internal network infrastructure - often with multiple > vlans etc - this requires configuration. I think the only thing we disagree on is where the transition happens. In my experience, the overwhelming proportion of businesses are genuinely tiny, ranging from an individual to a dozen people. And even when businesses grow larger they can often buy packaged hosted services and tie everything together with the cheapest Internet access they can buy. Lots of businesses buy and use services designed for the residential market instead of higher quality "corporate" services. Regards, Leo Vegoda -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 4968 bytes Desc: not available URL: From Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com Thu Oct 13 06:45:26 2016 From: Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com (Andrew Alston) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 06:45:26 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] IPv6 Chapter 254 In-Reply-To: References: <1fb910e4-e2e4-792d-ef64-b1f06a4c68f6@seacom.mu> Message-ID: Hi Kevin, I don?t think completely stopping v4 allocations right now would have the impact we?re looking for. If you look at the policy proposal I?ve put forward, I propose a /13 reserved entirely for new comers, people who had zero space from anywhere before this. I think this is still an adequate number and sufficient, but it is also critical. The reason for this is that it allows sufficient space for entities to do NAT64 / DNS64 for translation to legacy equipment in a single-stack v6 environment. I still believe this will be necessary for a few years to come ? and I think the /13 reservation is sufficient. I also think that at the rate of depletion ? we won?t actually be gaining much time by stopping, and as you say, there are other considerations we have to keep in mind. Rather than focusing on the financial considerations, we have to consider the fact that the space that was given to AfriNIC by IANA was meant to the serve the people, and I?m pretty sure that if AfriNIC decided to just stop allocating and hold onto all of it they would run foul of the agreements under which they were given that space. (I could be wrong here, perhaps someone with more insight can comment). What I?d like to see is a situation where those who need the v4 space today, for use on the continent, can get it, use it, and we deplete naturally. There is a lot of evidence that there is plenty of demand on the continent, and while some would say that large allocations indicate space flowing off the continent, I have yet to see any concrete evidence of this and in fact the allocation statistics seem to dispute this fact. (The majority of the really large allocations in recent months looking at the publically available data are tending to go to African countries that traditionally had far less space than other places, and an analysis of the BGP surrounding those allocations gives no indication that they have been moved off continent, though of course I say that BGP analysis and latency analysis of space to determine actual geographic location is a bit hit and miss and far from an exact science). If we repeal the current soft landing policy and maintain a limited reservation strictly for new-comers (and I do believe a /13 is sufficient), this will achieve the necessary in my opinion. It will ensure the rapid depletion of v4 space on the continent, it will ensure that the space that is currently within AfriNIC is actually used for proper benefit, it will ensure that there is still space available for people who have absolutely none to use for single-stack v6 to v4 translation as necessary, and all in all, I believe that?s the best solution. Thanks Andrew From: Kevin Kamonye [mailto:kevin.kamonye at gmail.com] Sent: 12 October 2016 18:36 To: Andrew Alston Cc: Mark Tinka ; KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions ; General Discussions of AFRINIC ; Barrack Otieno Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] IPv6 Chapter 254 Hi Andrew, Solid points all round. I had really not grasped it properly before, but I can now see how the concept of actually encouraging the rapid exhaustion of v4 would certainly be a game changer. To take it further, would you say that STOPPING the allocation of v4 starting NOW would have more impact? Of course this would have several downsides that would need to be mitigated. For instance, I can see that this would translate into financial challenges for Afrinic as they do rely (not sure about this) on the revenue from the sale of IPs to fund their operations. No one likes to lose money, not even a non-profit :) I would really like to hear your thoughts on this. Hi Mark, very true. v6 on mobile should be pretty much done by now. Also, I can already hear that the other big service providers are starting to stir due to this challenge from Liquid. Perhaps it will even turn into a race that makes us all winners. @ Barrack - cheers mate. Regards, Kevin K. +254720789158 On 12 October 2016 at 16:22, Andrew Alston > wrote: Hi Mark, In the mobile space (LTE), and in the wireless space ? while I can?t comment on specifics, watch this space. In particular in KE and ZM dependent on which technology you?re referring to. Thanks Andrew From: Mark Tinka [mailto:mark.tinka at seacom.mu] Sent: 12 October 2016 15:55 To: Andrew Alston >; Kevin Kamonye >; KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions > Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC >; Barrack Otieno > Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] IPv6 Chapter 254 On 12/Oct/16 13:31, Andrew Alston wrote: On this map, you will see there are only two countries in Africa that have in excess of half a percent v6 penetration levels. One is Sudan, and one in Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe currently runs at 4.76% penetration and climbing ? beyond that the rest of Africa has effectively no real penetration. Now, compare that to the rest of the world where v4 is depleted, and you see a vastly different picture. The global average deployment rate is sitting at 12% and climbing, whereas all it took to *double* the aggregate penetration rate in Africa was the v6 enabling of 10 or 15 thousand FTTH users in Zimbabwe. This speaks volumes, we have v4, and its slowing us down in getting v6 deployed. Given that consumers don't generally get a say in when IPv6 can be enabled, that helps a lot. Much of Europe, North America and Asia-Pac have sufficient broadband into people's homes that makes all the difference. A number of major mobile operators in that part of the world have also turned on IPv6. The majority of Internet access in Africa happens in the mobile space today. If we want to see the needle shift even a hair's width, mobile operators in Africa need to enable IPv6. As of today, I have neither seen nor heard of any plans from any major or small mobile network operator in Africa re: turning on IPv6, never mind have a strategy or plan. If wire-line and non-GSM wireless service providers in Africa were to enable IPv6 for their broadband customers, there would be an improvement in the outlook (by your own experience in Zimbabwe), but not as much as if the mobile operators came to the party. It is absurd that there is no interest from this group, considering that the thinking is that it is cheaper to spend millions of $$ to sustain NAT444444444 than it is to roll out IPv6. Mark. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com Thu Oct 13 07:00:36 2016 From: Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com (Andrew Alston) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 07:00:36 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] IPv6 Chapter 254 In-Reply-To: References: <1fb910e4-e2e4-792d-ef64-b1f06a4c68f6@seacom.mu> Message-ID: Hi Kevin, Just another further note on what I said below. To quote from Dave Michaud from Rogers Communications yesterday on another list (used with kind permission of the author who waived Chatham house rules that exist on the list it was posted to allow me to quote this): Once we are done with this phase, we will start migrating some phones to IPv6-only operation. The transition will be executed per phone model by a logic implemented in a AAA server that is queried by the PGW when the PDP/PDN is established. The AAA decides based on IMEI if the phone should connect to the network using dual-stack or using IPv6-only with DNS64/CGN64. He further sent me the following: To clarify the v6-only service, we will be cherry picking devices for this service. Initially, it will be Samsung Galaxy S4, LG G4 and Nexus 5. After that, once we are comfortable, we will move more devices to IPv6-only operation (likely all newer Samsung, LG and Google/Nexus/Pixel devices). Moving forward, all new devices that we start selling will also be launched with IPv6-only. Now ? what does this mean. Firstly, the days of dual-stack as the only means are over. There *IS* a move towards single-stack v6 with only translation to v4. I believe (but am open to correction) that t-mobile is doing the same thing. Secondly ? it emphasises the point of reserving a small block of space for new-comers that don?t have in order to facilitate the v6 -> v4 translation referred to above. Thirdly ? the implications of the above are? quite mind blowing ? because while NAT has certain ways to transverse back through it (UPNP etc) to enable certain applications to work ok behind standard v4 NAT, I am far from convinced the same will work with v6 to v4 NAT in the same manner. (Open to correction and would love to hear from someone more knowledgeable in this area). But what this means is ? if people aren?t running v6 and pretty fast ? life on the Internet is going to start getting really interesting ? because v6 single stack isn?t a thing for tomorrow ? it?s already happening. Thanks Andrew From: Andrew Alston [mailto:Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com] Sent: 13 October 2016 09:45 To: Kevin Kamonye Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC ; KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions ; Barrack Otieno Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] IPv6 Chapter 254 Hi Kevin, I don?t think completely stopping v4 allocations right now would have the impact we?re looking for. If you look at the policy proposal I?ve put forward, I propose a /13 reserved entirely for new comers, people who had zero space from anywhere before this. I think this is still an adequate number and sufficient, but it is also critical. The reason for this is that it allows sufficient space for entities to do NAT64 / DNS64 for translation to legacy equipment in a single-stack v6 environment. I still believe this will be necessary for a few years to come ? and I think the /13 reservation is sufficient. I also think that at the rate of depletion ? we won?t actually be gaining much time by stopping, and as you say, there are other considerations we have to keep in mind. Rather than focusing on the financial considerations, we have to consider the fact that the space that was given to AfriNIC by IANA was meant to the serve the people, and I?m pretty sure that if AfriNIC decided to just stop allocating and hold onto all of it they would run foul of the agreements under which they were given that space. (I could be wrong here, perhaps someone with more insight can comment). What I?d like to see is a situation where those who need the v4 space today, for use on the continent, can get it, use it, and we deplete naturally. There is a lot of evidence that there is plenty of demand on the continent, and while some would say that large allocations indicate space flowing off the continent, I have yet to see any concrete evidence of this and in fact the allocation statistics seem to dispute this fact. (The majority of the really large allocations in recent months looking at the publically available data are tending to go to African countries that traditionally had far less space than other places, and an analysis of the BGP surrounding those allocations gives no indication that they have been moved off continent, though of course I say that BGP analysis and latency analysis of space to determine actual geographic location is a bit hit and miss and far from an exact science). If we repeal the current soft landing policy and maintain a limited reservation strictly for new-comers (and I do believe a /13 is sufficient), this will achieve the necessary in my opinion. It will ensure the rapid depletion of v4 space on the continent, it will ensure that the space that is currently within AfriNIC is actually used for proper benefit, it will ensure that there is still space available for people who have absolutely none to use for single-stack v6 to v4 translation as necessary, and all in all, I believe that?s the best solution. Thanks Andrew From: Kevin Kamonye [mailto:kevin.kamonye at gmail.com] Sent: 12 October 2016 18:36 To: Andrew Alston > Cc: Mark Tinka >; KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions >; General Discussions of AFRINIC >; Barrack Otieno > Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] IPv6 Chapter 254 Hi Andrew, Solid points all round. I had really not grasped it properly before, but I can now see how the concept of actually encouraging the rapid exhaustion of v4 would certainly be a game changer. To take it further, would you say that STOPPING the allocation of v4 starting NOW would have more impact? Of course this would have several downsides that would need to be mitigated. For instance, I can see that this would translate into financial challenges for Afrinic as they do rely (not sure about this) on the revenue from the sale of IPs to fund their operations. No one likes to lose money, not even a non-profit :) I would really like to hear your thoughts on this. Hi Mark, very true. v6 on mobile should be pretty much done by now. Also, I can already hear that the other big service providers are starting to stir due to this challenge from Liquid. Perhaps it will even turn into a race that makes us all winners. @ Barrack - cheers mate. Regards, Kevin K. +254720789158 On 12 October 2016 at 16:22, Andrew Alston > wrote: Hi Mark, In the mobile space (LTE), and in the wireless space ? while I can?t comment on specifics, watch this space. In particular in KE and ZM dependent on which technology you?re referring to. Thanks Andrew From: Mark Tinka [mailto:mark.tinka at seacom.mu] Sent: 12 October 2016 15:55 To: Andrew Alston >; Kevin Kamonye >; KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions > Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC >; Barrack Otieno > Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] IPv6 Chapter 254 On 12/Oct/16 13:31, Andrew Alston wrote: On this map, you will see there are only two countries in Africa that have in excess of half a percent v6 penetration levels. One is Sudan, and one in Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe currently runs at 4.76% penetration and climbing ? beyond that the rest of Africa has effectively no real penetration. Now, compare that to the rest of the world where v4 is depleted, and you see a vastly different picture. The global average deployment rate is sitting at 12% and climbing, whereas all it took to *double* the aggregate penetration rate in Africa was the v6 enabling of 10 or 15 thousand FTTH users in Zimbabwe. This speaks volumes, we have v4, and its slowing us down in getting v6 deployed. Given that consumers don't generally get a say in when IPv6 can be enabled, that helps a lot. Much of Europe, North America and Asia-Pac have sufficient broadband into people's homes that makes all the difference. A number of major mobile operators in that part of the world have also turned on IPv6. The majority of Internet access in Africa happens in the mobile space today. If we want to see the needle shift even a hair's width, mobile operators in Africa need to enable IPv6. As of today, I have neither seen nor heard of any plans from any major or small mobile network operator in Africa re: turning on IPv6, never mind have a strategy or plan. If wire-line and non-GSM wireless service providers in Africa were to enable IPv6 for their broadband customers, there would be an improvement in the outlook (by your own experience in Zimbabwe), but not as much as if the mobile operators came to the party. It is absurd that there is no interest from this group, considering that the thinking is that it is cheaper to spend millions of $$ to sustain NAT444444444 than it is to roll out IPv6. Mark. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alan.barrett at afrinic.net Thu Oct 13 13:11:35 2016 From: alan.barrett at afrinic.net (Alan Barrett) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 15:11:35 +0200 Subject: [Community-Discuss] IPv6 Chapter 254 In-Reply-To: References: <1fb910e4-e2e4-792d-ef64-b1f06a4c68f6@seacom.mu> Message-ID: > On 13 Oct 2016, at 08:45, Andrew Alston wrote: > we have to consider the fact that the space that was given to AfriNIC by IANA was meant to the serve the people, and I?m pretty sure that if AfriNIC decided to just stop allocating and hold onto all of it they would run foul of the agreements under which they were given that space. (I could be wrong here, perhaps someone with more insight can comment). Some might think that the IANA tells the RIRs what to do, and others might think that the IANA numbering services are provided under a contract in which the RIRs decide what to do. I would not like to find out what happens if AFRINIC decides to stop allocating IPv4 space and an aggrieved party takes a dispute to court. I?d much prefer to see AFRINIC continue to allocate IPv4 space under policies developed by the community. At present, the soft landing policy (section 5.4 of the conslidated policy manual reserves a /12 of IPv4 space that will never be allocated unless either the policy changes, or the Board takes action: [[[ 5.4.7 IPv4 Address Space Reserve 5.4.7.1 A /12 IPv4 address block will be in reserve out of the final /8. This /12 IPv4 address block shall be preserved by AFRINIC for some future uses, as yet unforeseen. The Internet is innovative and we cannot predict with certainty what might happen. Therefore, it is prudent to keep this block in reserve, just in case some future requirement creates a demand for IPv4 addresses. 5.4.7.2 When AFRINIC, can no longer meet any more requests for address space (from the Final /8 or from any other available address space), the Board may at its discretion and considering the demand and other factors at the time replenish the exhaustion pool with whatever address space (or part thereof) that may be available to AFRINIC at the time, in a manner that is in the best interest of the community. ]]] Alan Barrett From owen at delong.com Thu Oct 13 18:09:56 2016 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 11:09:56 -0700 Subject: [Community-Discuss] IPv6 Chapter 254 In-Reply-To: References: <1fb910e4-e2e4-792d-ef64-b1f06a4c68f6@seacom.mu> Message-ID: I certainly support modifying this provision at this point. I think that the idea that ?innovation? will occur (or should be encouraged) in IPv4 at this point is counterproductive at best. I?ve always felt that 5.4.7.2 was at best a harmless and useless provision unlikely to ever be used and at worst a misleading pipe dream that the life of IPv4 can somehow be artificially extended by the AfriNIC board. In terms of 5.4.7.1, I would support a proposal to return that /12 to the general free pool. Owen > On Oct 13, 2016, at 6:11 AM, Alan Barrett wrote: > > >> On 13 Oct 2016, at 08:45, Andrew Alston wrote: >> we have to consider the fact that the space that was given to AfriNIC by IANA was meant to the serve the people, and I?m pretty sure that if AfriNIC decided to just stop allocating and hold onto all of it they would run foul of the agreements under which they were given that space. (I could be wrong here, perhaps someone with more insight can comment). > > Some might think that the IANA tells the RIRs what to do, and others might think that the IANA numbering services are provided under a contract in which the RIRs decide what to do. I would not like to find out what happens if AFRINIC decides to stop allocating IPv4 space and an aggrieved party takes a dispute to court. I?d much prefer to see AFRINIC continue to allocate IPv4 space under policies developed by the community. > > At present, the soft landing policy (section 5.4 of the conslidated policy manual reserves a /12 of IPv4 space that will never be allocated unless either the policy changes, or the Board takes action: > > [[[ > 5.4.7 IPv4 Address Space Reserve > > 5.4.7.1 A /12 IPv4 address block will be in reserve out of the final /8. This /12 IPv4 address block shall be preserved by AFRINIC for some future uses, as yet unforeseen. The Internet is innovative and we cannot predict with certainty what might happen. Therefore, it is prudent to keep this block in reserve, just in case some future requirement creates a demand for IPv4 addresses. > > 5.4.7.2 When AFRINIC, can no longer meet any more requests for address space (from the Final /8 or from any other available address space), the Board may at its discretion and considering the demand and other factors at the time replenish the exhaustion pool with whatever address space (or part thereof) that may be available to AFRINIC at the time, in a manner that is in the best interest of the community. > ]]] > > Alan Barrett > > > _______________________________________________ > Community-Discuss mailing list > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss From Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com Fri Oct 14 06:10:24 2016 From: Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com (Andrew Alston) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2016 06:10:24 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] IPv6 Chapter 254 In-Reply-To: References: <1fb910e4-e2e4-792d-ef64-b1f06a4c68f6@seacom.mu> Message-ID: <00FECC85-83D0-4432-B3A9-9C2F4BF115D0@liquidtelecom.com> Looking at other posts from elsewhere, There was an idea proposed which I REALLY liked ? which would achieve multiple objectives: Basically ? we could look at creating an ?African Internet Fund? that does not have MONEY in it ? but does have a large block of IP space in it (potentially as much as a /9 ? sufficient to deplete the pool enough that it changes the dynamics in the region while still ensuring that the space stays available). At that point, the African Internet Fund is run by a group of individuals, elected and/or appointed ? and they are tasked with deciding how this space will be used and granted. Basically, individuals can apply to the access fund for projects that need v4 space that will directly benefit the continent, they would have to prove v6 deployment alongside it (not just plans to take a v6 block and announce it, actual deployment plans, which would be monitored), and the project would have to provide KPI?s etc etc. Basically the same way that funding from donor organizations work, just with IP space. The primary task of the AIF would be to determine that the application met developmental objectives for the continent and was a worthwhile project, and benefitted end users ? rather than just ISP?s. This ensures that a.) space stays on the continent b.) we don?t sit with large amounts of v4 space that is taking forever to deplete c.) the space is being used by worthy causes and d.) it promotes v6 through depletion of v4. Very curious to hear community thoughts on something like this ? personally I love the idea. Thanks Andrew On 13/10/2016, 16:11, "Alan Barrett" wrote: > On 13 Oct 2016, at 08:45, Andrew Alston wrote: > we have to consider the fact that the space that was given to AfriNIC by IANA was meant to the serve the people, and I?m pretty sure that if AfriNIC decided to just stop allocating and hold onto all of it they would run foul of the agreements under which they were given that space. (I could be wrong here, perhaps someone with more insight can comment). Some might think that the IANA tells the RIRs what to do, and others might think that the IANA numbering services are provided under a contract in which the RIRs decide what to do. I would not like to find out what happens if AFRINIC decides to stop allocating IPv4 space and an aggrieved party takes a dispute to court. I?d much prefer to see AFRINIC continue to allocate IPv4 space under policies developed by the community. At present, the soft landing policy (section 5.4 of the conslidated policy manual reserves a /12 of IPv4 space that will never be allocated unless either the policy changes, or the Board takes action: [[[ 5.4.7 IPv4 Address Space Reserve 5.4.7.1 A /12 IPv4 address block will be in reserve out of the final /8. This /12 IPv4 address block shall be preserved by AFRINIC for some future uses, as yet unforeseen. The Internet is innovative and we cannot predict with certainty what might happen. Therefore, it is prudent to keep this block in reserve, just in case some future requirement creates a demand for IPv4 addresses. 5.4.7.2 When AFRINIC, can no longer meet any more requests for address space (from the Final /8 or from any other available address space), the Board may at its discretion and considering the demand and other factors at the time replenish the exhaustion pool with whatever address space (or part thereof) that may be available to AFRINIC at the time, in a manner that is in the best interest of the community. ]]] Alan Barrett _______________________________________________ Community-Discuss mailing list Community-Discuss at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss From noah at neo.co.tz Fri Oct 14 06:49:27 2016 From: noah at neo.co.tz (Noah) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2016 09:49:27 +0300 Subject: [Community-Discuss] IPv6 Chapter 254 In-Reply-To: References: <1fb910e4-e2e4-792d-ef64-b1f06a4c68f6@seacom.mu> Message-ID: On 13 Oct 2016 21:18, "Owen DeLong" wrote: > > > In terms of 5.4.7.1, I would support a proposal to return that /12 to the general free pool. > I would leave it alone as is. > Owen > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kevin.kamonye at gmail.com Thu Oct 13 12:03:23 2016 From: kevin.kamonye at gmail.com (Kevin Kamonye) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 15:03:23 +0300 Subject: [Community-Discuss] IPv6 Chapter 254 In-Reply-To: References: <1fb910e4-e2e4-792d-ef64-b1f06a4c68f6@seacom.mu> Message-ID: Hi Andrew, Your apparent passion and commitment to the migration reminds me of *Plato's Cave *:) You have clearly seen the promised land of a native v6 world and it is beautiful. Now, am hardly poet but am forced to say the above in appreciation of the amount of work that you have clearly put into this. You have also raised some very high level points that I will need some more time to fully research on. I do not have the answers at the moment. First, I agree that the proposal of having a reserve block for new entrants is the most rational way forward. Still, some of the reasons why I would consider stopping the allocation of v4 are below. 1. These v4 IPs will eventually be exhausted anyway and the final goal is to stop using the current addressing scheme completely 2. Every single v4 IP that is currently/ to be allocated will have to be swapped eventually - more time and resources will be required 3. To expand on the above, this challenge grows exponentially with every v4-only device that is sold (and this mostly happens in developing countries) 4. There are RIRs that have long stopped v4 allocations (certainly not by choice) and I believe there are still new entrants into those markets and they still find a way to survive. Let us not underestimate human nature. A good point in case is that the exhaustion of v4 has been *imminent* for a long long long time. ?5. For consumers( I include users, developers, Systems/IP guys - all of us), the costs also include the lost opportunities for better connections ( logical and social) and I can also add that we are also restricting innovation. Consider the below especially as regards to 4 & 5. ( I do not necessarily agree with the simplistic opinions given by the author re ISPs as I know we all have different values and priorities - but then again I did not want to create any perception as being subjective on what content to highlight from the article, being in the industry myself) ?? ?"A lot of CGNs are being deployed. Some recent work I have been doing shows that upward of 3% of IPv4 users present on a different source IPv4 address within 10 seconds?i.e. a minimum of 3% of users lie behind CGNs with relatively aggressive address lease timeouts. Secondly, a lot of shared Web hosting is being deployed. It is evidently commonplace to see upward of *10,000* Web host environments co-existing on a *single host IP* server address."? ??ISPs are playing their cards close to the vest, but it looks like many of the ones that are planning to start rolling out IPv6 soon will be deploying IPv6 along with CGN-based IPv4 for new users. They're reluctant to change anything for existing users, because the first rule of being an ISP is "don't generate support calls." Providing broadband Internet access is a very profitable business, but the profit generated by a customer evaporates faster than you can say "have you tried rebooting your router?" when said customer calls for support. ISPs that started deploying IPv6 in past years had access to enough IPv4 addresses to give users their own along with a range of IPv6 addresses. That is no longer true, or will no longer be true as soon as ISPs use up their own stashes of IPv4 addresses. The downside of NAT is that it only works well in one direction: from the inside to the outside. When connections must be set up from the outside to the inside, such as in the case of peer-to-peer audio or video conferencing, additional logic is necessary to find a way to the right internal system through the NAT. This is bad enough when two users are both behind their own home NATs so that two NATs must be bypassed, but it gets much worse as ISPs deploy CGNs, so now four NATs can be in the path. CGNs also can't open up ports as easily as home NATs. As long as it's not firewalled too severely, IPv6 has none of these issues; with 2^128 addresses there is no need for NAT. So it makes sense for ISPs to deploy IPv6 along with CGN-based IPv4. However, there are still ISPs that pooh-pooh IPv6. Huston again: "The pessimistic view is that so far nothing much has broken in IPv4-land, so there is still some more time left to do nothing!" Unless the ISPs that have been ignoring IPv6 plan to just keep their existing customers and not sign up any new ones, those ISPs are still going to be bitten by the IPv4 address exhaustion and will almost certainly be forced to deploy CGN at some point. With no pressure relief valve in the form of IPv6, all user traffic will have to flow through the CGN, which can then easily become a bottleneck and a single point of failure. As a result,* the quality of service delivered by different ISPs will diverge more and more*, with the ones providing unshared public IPv4 addresses as well as IPv6 doing the best and the ones using CGNs with relatively many users per public IPv4 address and no IPv6 doing the worst. The good news is that so far, the Internet has always managed to adapt just before collapse was imminent. In the late 1980s, TCP congestion control saved the Internet from massive congestion. In the 1990s, classless interdomain routing and route flap damping kept the routers going. This time we only have to turn on a feature that's been in our operating systems for a decade and maybe replace an aging modem or two. Call me an optimist, but I think it can be done. But only at the very last moment, of course. (Source ) ?So yes v6 will happen with/out any drastic measures. On the other hand, Africa finally has a chance to make a bold message that I can consider to be at the scale of the burning of Ivory in Kenya.? Before, stopping all allocations was impossible as the RIRs would never have been able to convince their customers or even each other to do so. But now that we are the only ones left with a substantive reserve of these (potentially toxic) IPv4 resources, we could agree to start moving in the other direction and let all the others follow this time. I would really be pained to hear the inevitable statements (with very correct language of course) that the reason v4 still exists is to accommodate the developing world. Regards, *Kevin K.* *+254720789158* On 13 October 2016 at 10:00, Andrew Alston wrote: > Hi Kevin, > > > > Just another further note on what I said below. > > > > To quote from Dave Michaud from Rogers Communications yesterday on another > list (used with kind permission of the author who waived Chatham house > rules that exist on the list it was posted to allow me to quote this): > > > > *Once we are done with this phase, we will start migrating some phones to > IPv6-only operation. The transition will be executed per phone model by a > logic implemented in a AAA server that is queried by the PGW when the > PDP/PDN is established. The AAA decides based on IMEI if the phone should > connect to the network using dual-stack or using IPv6-only with > DNS64/CGN64.* > > > > He further sent me the following: > > > > *To clarify the v6-only service, we will be cherry picking devices for > this service. Initially, it will be Samsung Galaxy S4, LG G4 and Nexus 5. > After that, once we are comfortable, we will move more devices to IPv6-only > operation (likely all newer Samsung, LG and Google/Nexus/Pixel devices). > Moving forward, all new devices that we start selling will also be launched > with IPv6-only.* > > > > > > Now ? what does this mean. Firstly, the days of dual-stack as the only > means are over. There **IS** a move towards single-stack v6 with only > translation to v4. I believe (but am open to correction) that t-mobile is > doing the same thing. Secondly ? it emphasises the point of reserving a > small block of space for new-comers that don?t have in order to facilitate > the v6 -> v4 translation referred to above. Thirdly ? the implications of > the above are? quite mind blowing ? because while NAT has certain ways to > transverse back through it (UPNP etc) to enable certain applications to > work ok behind standard v4 NAT, I am far from convinced the same will work > with v6 to v4 NAT in the same manner. (Open to correction and would love > to hear from someone more knowledgeable in this area). But what this means > is ? if people aren?t running v6 and pretty fast ? life on the Internet is > going to start getting really interesting ? because v6 single stack isn?t a > thing for tomorrow ? it?s already happening. > > > > Thanks > > > > Andrew > > > > *From:* Andrew Alston [mailto:Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com] > *Sent:* 13 October 2016 09:45 > *To:* Kevin Kamonye > *Cc:* General Discussions of AFRINIC ; > KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions ; Barrack > Otieno > > *Subject:* Re: [Community-Discuss] IPv6 Chapter 254 > > > > Hi Kevin, > > > > I don?t think completely stopping v4 allocations right now would have the > impact we?re looking for. If you look at the policy proposal I?ve put > forward, I propose a /13 reserved entirely for new comers, people who had > zero space from anywhere before this. I think this is still an adequate > number and sufficient, but it is also critical. The reason for this is > that it allows sufficient space for entities to do NAT64 / DNS64 for > translation to legacy equipment in a single-stack v6 environment. I still > believe this will be necessary for a few years to come ? and I think the > /13 reservation is sufficient. > > > > I also think that at the rate of depletion ? we won?t actually be gaining > much time by stopping, and as you say, there are other considerations we > have to keep in mind. Rather than focusing on the financial > considerations, we have to consider the fact that the space that was given > to AfriNIC by IANA was meant to the serve the people, and I?m pretty sure > that if AfriNIC decided to just stop allocating and hold onto all of it > they would run foul of the agreements under which they were given that > space. (I could be wrong here, perhaps someone with more insight can > comment). > > > > What I?d like to see is a situation where those who need the v4 space > today, for use on the continent, can get it, use it, and we deplete > naturally. There is a lot of evidence that there is plenty of demand on > the continent, and while some would say that large allocations indicate > space flowing off the continent, I have yet to see any concrete evidence of > this and in fact the allocation statistics seem to dispute this fact. (The > majority of the really large allocations in recent months looking at the > publically available data are tending to go to African countries that > traditionally had far less space than other places, and an analysis of the > BGP surrounding those allocations gives no indication that they have been > moved off continent, though of course I say that BGP analysis and latency > analysis of space to determine actual geographic location is a bit hit and > miss and far from an exact science). > > > > If we repeal the current soft landing policy and maintain a limited > reservation strictly for new-comers (and I do believe a /13 is sufficient), > this will achieve the necessary in my opinion. It will ensure the rapid > depletion of v4 space on the continent, it will ensure that the space that > is currently within AfriNIC is actually used for proper benefit, it will > ensure that there is still space available for people who have absolutely > none to use for single-stack v6 to v4 translation as necessary, and all in > all, I believe that?s the best solution. > > > > Thanks > > > > Andrew > > > > > > *From:* Kevin Kamonye [mailto:kevin.kamonye at gmail.com > ] > *Sent:* 12 October 2016 18:36 > *To:* Andrew Alston > *Cc:* Mark Tinka ; KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions < > kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke>; General Discussions of AFRINIC < > community-discuss at afrinic.net>; Barrack Otieno > *Subject:* Re: [Community-Discuss] IPv6 Chapter 254 > > > > Hi Andrew, > > > > Solid points all round. > > > > I had really not grasped it properly before, but I can now see how the > concept of actually encouraging the rapid exhaustion of v4 would certainly > be a game changer. > > > > To take it further, would you say that STOPPING the allocation of v4 > starting NOW would have more impact? Of course this would have several > downsides that would need to be mitigated. For instance, I can see that > this would translate into financial challenges for Afrinic as they do rely > (not sure about this) on the revenue from the sale of IPs to fund their > operations. No one likes to lose money, not even a non-profit :) > > > > I would really like to hear your thoughts on this. > > > > Hi Mark, very true. v6 on mobile should be pretty much done by now. Also, > I can already hear that the other big service providers are starting to > stir due to this challenge from Liquid. Perhaps it will even turn into a > race that makes us all winners. > > > > @ Barrack - cheers mate. > > > > Regards, > > > > *Kevin K.* > > *+254720789158* > > > > On 12 October 2016 at 16:22, Andrew Alston com> wrote: > > Hi Mark, > > > > In the mobile space (LTE), and in the wireless space ? while I can?t > comment on specifics, watch this space. > > > > In particular in KE and ZM dependent on which technology you?re referring > to. > > > > Thanks > > > > Andrew > > > > > > *From:* Mark Tinka [mailto:mark.tinka at seacom.mu] > *Sent:* 12 October 2016 15:55 > *To:* Andrew Alston ; Kevin Kamonye < > kevin.kamonye at gmail.com>; KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions < > kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke> > *Cc:* General Discussions of AFRINIC ; > Barrack Otieno > *Subject:* Re: [Community-Discuss] IPv6 Chapter 254 > > > > > > On 12/Oct/16 13:31, Andrew Alston wrote: > > > > On this map, you will see there are only two countries in Africa that have > in excess of half a percent v6 penetration levels. One is Sudan, and one > in Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe currently runs at 4.76% penetration and climbing ? > beyond that the rest of Africa has effectively no real penetration. Now, > compare that to the rest of the world where v4 is depleted, and you see a > vastly different picture. The global average deployment rate is sitting at > 12% and climbing, whereas all it took to **double** the aggregate > penetration rate in Africa was the v6 enabling of 10 or 15 thousand FTTH > users in Zimbabwe. This speaks volumes, we have v4, and its slowing us > down in getting v6 deployed. > > > Given that consumers don't generally get a say in when IPv6 can be > enabled, that helps a lot. Much of Europe, North America and Asia-Pac have > sufficient broadband into people's homes that makes all the difference. > > A number of major mobile operators in that part of the world have also > turned on IPv6. > > The majority of Internet access in Africa happens in the mobile space > today. If we want to see the needle shift even a hair's width, mobile > operators in Africa need to enable IPv6. As of today, I have neither seen > nor heard of any plans from any major or small mobile network operator in > Africa re: turning on IPv6, never mind have a strategy or plan. > > If wire-line and non-GSM wireless service providers in Africa were to > enable IPv6 for their broadband customers, there would be an improvement in > the outlook (by your own experience in Zimbabwe), but not as much as if the > mobile operators came to the party. It is absurd that there is no interest > from this group, considering that the thinking is that it is cheaper to > spend millions of $$ to sustain NAT444444444 than it is to roll out IPv6. > > Mark. > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From noah at neo.co.tz Fri Oct 14 10:20:43 2016 From: noah at neo.co.tz (Noah) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2016 13:20:43 +0300 Subject: [Community-Discuss] IPv6 Chapter 254 In-Reply-To: <00FECC85-83D0-4432-B3A9-9C2F4BF115D0@liquidtelecom.com> References: <1fb910e4-e2e4-792d-ef64-b1f06a4c68f6@seacom.mu> <00FECC85-83D0-4432-B3A9-9C2F4BF115D0@liquidtelecom.com> Message-ID: On 14 Oct 2016 09:17, "Andrew Alston" wrote: > > Basically, individuals can apply to the access fund for projects that need v4 space that will directly benefit the continent, they would have to prove v6 deployment alongside it (not just plans to take a v6 block and announce it, actual deployment plans, which would be monitored), and the project would have to provide KPI?s etc etc. > > +1 Andrew and I totally agree with you. Similarly there is a policy whose text proposes the same narrative... http://afrinic.net/fr/community/policy-development/policy-proposals/1815-ipv4-soft-landing-bis I believe this covers pretty much what we are so far discusssing. Noah -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From honest1989 at gmail.com Fri Oct 14 10:55:23 2016 From: honest1989 at gmail.com (Honest Ornella GANKPA) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2016 11:55:23 +0100 Subject: [Community-Discuss] IPv6 Chapter 254 In-Reply-To: References: <1fb910e4-e2e4-792d-ef64-b1f06a4c68f6@seacom.mu> <00FECC85-83D0-4432-B3A9-9C2F4BF115D0@liquidtelecom.com> Message-ID: +1 Noah I will add that rather than discussing random topics uncoordinated, this discussion should be moved to rpd list. The sooner we reach concensus and adopt this soft landing policy, the sooner we can move forward / focus on ipv6 deployment. The status quo benefits no one in my opinion Honest Ornella GANKPA 2016-10-14 11:20 GMT+01:00 Noah : > On 14 Oct 2016 09:17, "Andrew Alston" > wrote: > > > > Basically, individuals can apply to the access fund for projects that > need v4 space that will directly benefit the continent, they would have to > prove v6 deployment alongside it (not just plans to take a v6 block and > announce it, actual deployment plans, which would be monitored), and the > project would have to provide KPI?s etc etc. > > > > > > +1 Andrew and I totally agree with you. > > Similarly there is a policy whose text proposes the same narrative... > > http://afrinic.net/fr/community/policy-development/ > policy-proposals/1815-ipv4-soft-landing-bis > > I believe this covers pretty much what we are so far discusssing. > > Noah > > _______________________________________________ > Community-Discuss mailing list > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kevin.kamonye at gmail.com Fri Oct 14 11:20:42 2016 From: kevin.kamonye at gmail.com (Kevin Kamonye) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2016 14:20:42 +0300 Subject: [Community-Discuss] IPv6 Chapter 254 In-Reply-To: References: <1fb910e4-e2e4-792d-ef64-b1f06a4c68f6@seacom.mu> <00FECC85-83D0-4432-B3A9-9C2F4BF115D0@liquidtelecom.com> Message-ID: Hi Andrew, This new idea looks promising. It seems to be within Afrinic's obligations as defined by the community(if passed)/IANA, and it also accelerates the 'exhaustion' of our v4 resources in a manner that does not create unnecessary delays. Noah, yes, the soft-landing policy you are referring leans heavily in this direction and I would fully support it if its gains a clear majority. My understanding of it, however, is that it is not pretty much the same thing. It is still very open-ended and provides a chance for us to be stuck with v4 much longer than need be. Following the extreme idea of stopping allocations now, perhaps the already allocated resources could sustain the continent say for at least two years - a long time considering for instance, how many v4-only devices are being sold to knowing/unknowing consumers every single day. So, whose soft landing are we referring to here. Placing a majority of the remaining address space into the fund (trust) means that they are not easily available for allocation to commercial parties (OUR requirements could be served within a community-defined and extensively communicated time frame of which I will say even just 6 months would be enough) and we therefore do not have to all wait on the others to provide the required impetus. Regards, *Kevin K.* *+254720789158* On 14 October 2016 at 13:20, Noah wrote: > On 14 Oct 2016 09:17, "Andrew Alston" > wrote: > > > > Basically, individuals can apply to the access fund for projects that > need v4 space that will directly benefit the continent, they would have to > prove v6 deployment alongside it (not just plans to take a v6 block and > announce it, actual deployment plans, which would be monitored), and the > project would have to provide KPI?s etc etc. > > > > > > +1 Andrew and I totally agree with you. > > Similarly there is a policy whose text proposes the same narrative... > > http://afrinic.net/fr/community/policy-development/ > policy-proposals/1815-ipv4-soft-landing-bis > > I believe this covers pretty much what we are so far discusssing. > > Noah > > _______________________________________________ > Community-Discuss mailing list > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com Fri Oct 14 11:35:34 2016 From: Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com (Andrew Alston) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2016 11:35:34 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] IPv6 Chapter 254 In-Reply-To: References: <1fb910e4-e2e4-792d-ef64-b1f06a4c68f6@seacom.mu> <00FECC85-83D0-4432-B3A9-9C2F4BF115D0@liquidtelecom.com> Message-ID: Noah, What I was proposing below is *VERY* far from what ipv4-soft-landing-bis does. I have, and continue to, oppose this policy. Because it will extend the life of v4 while we languish behind in terms of v6 deployment. I?ve already stated in previous emails on this thread that there is a clear correlation between v6 deployment and v4 depletion ? and this proposal you reference slows v4 depletion. I?ve also already stated there are organizations out there going v6 only with CGN64 / DNS64 to talk to the v4 internet ? and that has big implications for people not running any v6 in the long term, negative implications. Slowly the depletion of v4 does not help this continent ? it hurts it ? badly. Look at the global v6 deployment map ? Africa?s v6 penetration levels by the latest APNIC reports are at 0.15% compared to a global average of 7.94% (And google puts global average at closer to 12%). The difference? The rest of the world depleted v4 ? Africa hasn?t ? and the motivation isn?t there to deploy. Every day we hold v4 space for general allocation is another day this continent falls further and further behind. We need to be doing everything we can to *accelerate* v4 depletion ? not slowing it down. Btw ? the reason I haven?t moved this discussion onto the policy list is because there are wider areas than just specific policies. If we get into policy specific issues I?d rather go to the RPD list ? but I do think ideas as to the acceleration of v4 depletion and the benefits and drawbacks behind it are very much a topic for discussion by the community. Andrew From: Noah Date: Friday, 14 October 2016 at 13:20 To: Andrew Alston Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC , Alan Barrett Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] IPv6 Chapter 254 On 14 Oct 2016 09:17, "Andrew Alston" > wrote: > > Basically, individuals can apply to the access fund for projects that need v4 space that will directly benefit the continent, they would have to prove v6 deployment alongside it (not just plans to take a v6 block and announce it, actual deployment plans, which would be monitored), and the project would have to provide KPI?s etc etc. > > +1 Andrew and I totally agree with you. Similarly there is a policy whose text proposes the same narrative... http://afrinic.net/fr/community/policy-development/policy-proposals/1815-ipv4-soft-landing-bis I believe this covers pretty much what we are so far discusssing. Noah -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From saul at enetworks.co.za Fri Oct 14 12:22:52 2016 From: saul at enetworks.co.za (Saul Stein) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2016 14:22:52 +0200 (SAST) Subject: [Community-Discuss] IPv6 Chapter 254 In-Reply-To: References: <1fb910e4-e2e4-792d-ef64-b1f06a4c68f6@seacom.mu> <00FECC85-83D0-4432-B3A9-9C2F4BF115D0@liquidtelecom.com> Message-ID: <0bfa01d22615$af3e2560$0dba7020$@enetworks.co.za> Hi, Here are some interesting points. As things stand: 1) AFRINIC makes money from assigning v4 space 2) If you had to stop allocating v4 space today, there?d be a political uprising by many (and refer to above, AFRINIC would need to update its financial model ASAP 3) As long as there is v4 space, people, due to human nature aren?t going to do extra work and migrate to v6 4) We know that v4 exhaustion as per other regions forces v6 adoption So why not let v4 be used up naturally? Why when asking for v4 space (and justifying it) to the afrinic staff reply with: ?and in consideration to the policy principle of conservation? The policy for allocations is for another topic) If the ISP/LIR has a requirement for the v4 space to be used on the continent, give it to them: a) Its earns AFRINIC much needed revenue (this enables training, research and other important project) b) Facilitates the natural rundown of v4 space c) Ultimately will employ more people on the continent as Kevin points out, you?ll now be duplicating work Basically a win-win situation. Let the v4 space go to LIRs who want/need it. From: Andrew Alston [mailto:Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com] Sent: 14 October 2016 01:36 PM To: Noah Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC ; KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] IPv6 Chapter 254 Noah, What I was proposing below is *VERY* far from what ipv4-soft-landing-bis does. I have, and continue to, oppose this policy. Because it will extend the life of v4 while we languish behind in terms of v6 deployment. I?ve already stated in previous emails on this thread that there is a clear correlation between v6 deployment and v4 depletion ? and this proposal you reference slows v4 depletion. I?ve also already stated there are organizations out there going v6 only with CGN64 / DNS64 to talk to the v4 internet ? and that has big implications for people not running any v6 in the long term, negative implications. Slowly the depletion of v4 does not help this continent ? it hurts it ? badly. Look at the global v6 deployment map ? Africa?s v6 penetration levels by the latest APNIC reports are at 0.15% compared to a global average of 7.94% (And google puts global average at closer to 12%). The difference? The rest of the world depleted v4 ? Africa hasn?t ? and the motivation isn?t there to deploy. Every day we hold v4 space for general allocation is another day this continent falls further and further behind. We need to be doing everything we can to *accelerate* v4 depletion ? not slowing it down. Btw ? the reason I haven?t moved this discussion onto the policy list is because there are wider areas than just specific policies. If we get into policy specific issues I?d rather go to the RPD list ? but I do think ideas as to the acceleration of v4 depletion and the benefits and drawbacks behind it are very much a topic for discussion by the community. Andrew From: Noah < noah at neo.co.tz> Date: Friday, 14 October 2016 at 13:20 To: Andrew Alston < Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com> Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC < community-discuss at afrinic.net>, Alan Barrett < alan.barrett at afrinic.net> Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] IPv6 Chapter 254 On 14 Oct 2016 09:17, "Andrew Alston" < Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com> wrote: > > Basically, individuals can apply to the access fund for projects that > need v4 space that will directly benefit the continent, they would have to > prove v6 deployment alongside it (not just plans to take a v6 block and > announce it, actual deployment plans, which would be monitored), and the > project would have to provide KPI?s etc etc. > > +1 Andrew and I totally agree with you. Similarly there is a policy whose text proposes the same narrative... http://afrinic.net/fr/community/policy-development/policy-proposals/1815-ipv4-soft-landing-bisI believe this covers pretty much what we are so far discusssing.Noah -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From noah at neo.co.tz Fri Oct 14 12:39:32 2016 From: noah at neo.co.tz (Noah) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2016 15:39:32 +0300 Subject: [Community-Discuss] IPv6 Chapter 254 In-Reply-To: <0bfa01d22615$af3e2560$0dba7020$@enetworks.co.za> References: <1fb910e4-e2e4-792d-ef64-b1f06a4c68f6@seacom.mu> <00FECC85-83D0-4432-B3A9-9C2F4BF115D0@liquidtelecom.com> <0bfa01d22615$af3e2560$0dba7020$@enetworks.co.za> Message-ID: On 14 Oct 2016 15:23, "Saul Stein" wrote: > > Hi, > Hi Saul > As things stand: > > 1) AFRINIC makes money from assigning v4 space > I doubt AFRINIC is in the business of making money. What i understand is that for the organisation to sustain itself and continue with its mandate, it needs to collect membership fees from those who use number resources to run its operations and maily the machinery/human capital. What is also clear to me is that in the eventual deletion on IPv4 space, those holding and using resources will still pay the price for them. IPv6 allocations which is currently not billed shall be valued post IPv4 era. So in terms of organisation sustainability, number resources usage IPv4/IPv6 and ASN coupled with cost cutting will come in handy. > 2) If you had to stop allocating v4 space today, there?d be a political uprising by many (and refer to above, AFRINIC would need to update its financial model ASAP > Sounds like propaganda to me. > 3) As long as there is v4 space, people, due to human nature aren?t going to do extra work and migrate to v6 > True story. > 4) We know that v4 exhaustion as per other regions forces v6 adoption > True story. > > Basically a win-win situation. Let the v4 space go to LIRs who want/need it. > No, we need to be careful here especially when we hit softlanding. There is a looming IPv$ tranfer market and fake cloud companies out there. Noah -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Omo.Oaiya at wacren.net Fri Oct 14 15:39:38 2016 From: Omo.Oaiya at wacren.net (Omo Oaiya) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2016 15:39:38 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] IPv6 Chapter 254 In-Reply-To: References: <1fb910e4-e2e4-792d-ef64-b1f06a4c68f6@seacom.mu> <00FECC85-83D0-4432-B3A9-9C2F4BF115D0@liquidtelecom.com> <0bfa01d22615$af3e2560$0dba7020$@enetworks.co.za> Message-ID: On 14 October 2016 at 12:39, Noah wrote: > > 4) We know that v4 exhaustion as per other regions forces v6 > adoption > > > > True story. > > > > > Basically a win-win situation. Let the v4 space go to LIRs who want/need > it. > > > > No, we need to be careful here especially when we hit softlanding. > > There is a looming IPv$ tranfer market and fake cloud companies out there. > > Noah > I don't understand the hoohah about depletion. Even apparently real cloud companies are depleting what's left pretty fast. According to September stats, Cloud Innovation just got another /11 so now has a total of 3 /11 with zero IPv6 and no ASN. Go figure! -Omo -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com Fri Oct 14 17:34:07 2016 From: Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com (Andrew Alston) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2016 17:34:07 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] IPv6 Chapter 254 In-Reply-To: References: <1fb910e4-e2e4-792d-ef64-b1f06a4c68f6@seacom.mu> <00FECC85-83D0-4432-B3A9-9C2F4BF115D0@liquidtelecom.com> <0bfa01d22615$af3e2560$0dba7020$@enetworks.co.za> Message-ID: Heh, We all have our worries about Cloud Innovation ? but if you?re going to give stats to the list ? at least make them accurate. Cloud innovation according to the AfriNIC database has 2 /12s and 1 /11, which is 33% below what you claim in your email below. Some interesting things about this space though. The majority of it (shockingly) is announced out of South Africa and visible via the South African internet exchanges. *Shrug* If they could meet the policy requirements to get the space ? and we the community don?t like the fact that they have it ? we have only one group of people to blame, ourselves, because we didn?t change the policies. The community has no place to complain if someone meets the policy that they did not change. I still stand by my opposition of the soft-landing-biz policy, if we want to make changes to the actual ip allocation policies to ensure space is used adequately, great, but I oppose anything that stops organizations that legitimately need the space getting whatever space they can *legitimately use on the continent* And quite frankly ? if the AfriNIC pool depletes ? we?re all better off because we?ll get off our asses and do what we should be doing ? deploying IPv6. It is sickening that there is *ONE* country on the continent with a V6 penetration level higher than 0.6% (Zimbabwe, 4.92% as of latest stats), two that are higher than 0.4% (Sudan is after Zimbabwe, at 0.59%), and only 7 other countries on the entire continent in the top 100 in terms of penetration rates worldwide (Botswana (0.38%), Egypt (0.26%), South Africa (0.23%), Tanzania (0.10%), Cameroon (0.06%), Rwanda (0.05%) and Kenya (0.02%)). Africa?s V6 penetration levels as a combined total sit at 0.15%. And the argument about lack of infrastructure and lack of normal internet penetration holds negative water ? because the lower the amount of infrastructure and internet penetration in the country the easier it is to swing the pendulum for v6 as percentage of penetration. While we sit and watch *massive* providers (T-Mobile and Rogers to name two) going *v6 only* other than for translation purposes to v4 ? which will cause huge problems for people who have no v6 for various reasons, we sit and worry about depleting v4? While the global stats CLEARLY demonstrate that v4 depletion = accelerated v6 deployment (using APNIC stats: Americas = 17.19%, Europe = 11.87%, Oceania = 6.49%, Asia = 4.02%, ALL have run out, Africa which still has v4 = 0.16%) And lets look at those stats above, Americas, the majority is in North America with no soft landing and a hard run out = 17.19%, Europe, which had a soft landing and is still handing out /22 under it = 11.87%, Oceania/Asia (both under APNIC rules) at 6.49% and 4.02% have limited allocations because of restrictions in place since 15th April 2011 and additional space since 27th May 2014. What does this indicate ? no v4 space = v6 deployment. And yeah, I know, we can argue that well, soft landing has helped spur it in Europe and Asia to a degree ? that?s true, and soft landing in Africa may help us spur it ? but spur it is not what we need right now ? we are already running at a penetration level of 0.16% as against a global average of 12% - what we need is a flat out end of space and people to wake up and go and do v6 instead of talking about it. I?ve also heard the argument that the bigger providers can worry about v6 and the smaller ones can have the v4 ? that?s been stated at meetings many times. Well, guess what, speaking from a bigger provider perspective, we?ve *DONE* that, and it?s actually far more difficult for a large provider to do that than it is for a small provider because the amount of infrastructure change and network modification to retro-fit v6 to a large network is well? larger. So, I want to issue a challenge for every single person who is supporting tightening the rules on IPv4 and putting the soft landing policy in place. What are the ASN?s *YOU* are running IPv6 on, put them on the list, and let us see you leading by example in V6 rollouts before attempting to change the rules for v4 for the rest of the continent. I?ll start, our primary ASN with v6 behind it is AS30969. It has over 10 thousand /48s in the whois database, and according to APNIC statistics pushes in excess of 20% v6 penetration levels. Who?s going to stand up next? Andrew From: Omo Oaiya Date: Friday, 14 October 2016 at 18:39 To: Noah Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] IPv6 Chapter 254 On 14 October 2016 at 12:39, Noah > wrote: > 4) We know that v4 exhaustion as per other regions forces v6 adoption > True story. > > Basically a win-win situation. Let the v4 space go to LIRs who want/need it. > No, we need to be careful here especially when we hit softlanding. There is a looming IPv$ tranfer market and fake cloud companies out there. Noah I don't understand the hoohah about depletion. Even apparently real cloud companies are depleting what's left pretty fast. According to September stats, Cloud Innovation just got another /11 so now has a total of 3 /11 with zero IPv6 and no ASN. Go figure! -Omo -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Omo.Oaiya at wacren.net Fri Oct 14 18:25:58 2016 From: Omo.Oaiya at wacren.net (Omo Oaiya) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2016 18:25:58 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] IPv6 Chapter 254 In-Reply-To: References: <1fb910e4-e2e4-792d-ef64-b1f06a4c68f6@seacom.mu> <00FECC85-83D0-4432-B3A9-9C2F4BF115D0@liquidtelecom.com> <0bfa01d22615$af3e2560$0dba7020$@enetworks.co.za> Message-ID: On 14 October 2016 at 17:34, Andrew Alston wrote: > Heh, > > > > We all have our worries about Cloud Innovation ? but if you?re going to > give stats to the list ? at least make them accurate. > > > > Cloud innovation according to the AfriNIC database has 2 /12s and 1 /11, > which is 33% below what you claim in your email below. > > > Is it? whois -B -h whois.afrinic.net -r -T aut-num -T inet6num -T inetnum -i og 'ORG-CIL1-AFRINIC' > Some interesting things about this space though. The majority of it > (shockingly) is announced out of South Africa and visible via the South > African internet exchanges. **Shrug** > > > I wonder how correct that is if you got the numbers wrong. The point however was that the addresses are being depleted so the noise is not necessary. I'd also like to remind you that you are a board member and your commentary is often inappropriate and unbecoming .... regardless of disclaimers. -Omo -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com Fri Oct 14 18:44:25 2016 From: Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com (Andrew Alston) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2016 18:44:25 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] IPv6 Chapter 254 In-Reply-To: References: <1fb910e4-e2e4-792d-ef64-b1f06a4c68f6@seacom.mu> <00FECC85-83D0-4432-B3A9-9C2F4BF115D0@liquidtelecom.com> <0bfa01d22615$af3e2560$0dba7020$@enetworks.co.za> Message-ID: <6506F008-6D15-40B2-ABDF-0B522191B275@liquidtelecom.com> Hi Omo, I apologise, I missed one in the database. My mistake and I?m willing to admit when I make a mistake and I?m wrong ? in this case I surely was. The rest of the email though stands ? and you?re welcome to verify all the other percentages. They can be verified at: https://www.vyncke.org/ipv6status/ https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html#tab=per-country-ipv6-adoption and http://stats.labs.apnic.net/ipv6 Sorry for the mistake though above, I was doing a manual search on the database file that I?d ftp?d and some how missed something ? Hope to hear from you on the challenge though! Would love to see you leading by example on the v6! Andrew From: Omo Oaiya Date: Friday, 14 October 2016 at 21:25 To: Andrew Alston Cc: Omo Oaiya , Noah , General Discussions of AFRINIC Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] IPv6 Chapter 254 On 14 October 2016 at 17:34, Andrew Alston > wrote: Heh, We all have our worries about Cloud Innovation ? but if you?re going to give stats to the list ? at least make them accurate. Cloud innovation according to the AfriNIC database has 2 /12s and 1 /11, which is 33% below what you claim in your email below. Is it? whois -B -h whois.afrinic.net -r -T aut-num -T inet6num -T inetnum -i og 'ORG-CIL1-AFRINIC' Some interesting things about this space though. The majority of it (shockingly) is announced out of South Africa and visible via the South African internet exchanges. *Shrug* I wonder how correct that is if you got the numbers wrong. The point however was that the addresses are being depleted so the noise is not necessary. I'd also like to remind you that you are a board member and your commentary is often inappropriate and unbecoming .... regardless of disclaimers. -Omo -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kevin.kamonye at gmail.com Fri Oct 14 19:39:51 2016 From: kevin.kamonye at gmail.com (Kevin Kamonye) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2016 22:39:51 +0300 Subject: [Community-Discuss] IPv6 Chapter 254 In-Reply-To: References: <1fb910e4-e2e4-792d-ef64-b1f06a4c68f6@seacom.mu> <00FECC85-83D0-4432-B3A9-9C2F4BF115D0@liquidtelecom.com> <0bfa01d22615$af3e2560$0dba7020$@enetworks.co.za> Message-ID: Omo, if it is noise to you then just ignore the thread. Perhaps you really need to get that every single v4 IP that is issued potentially means *10-10000 users behind NAT and CGNs. And since am not a part of the BoD I will tell you freely that I don't like people who are not challenged by the image of Africa always being last. Sent on mobile On Oct 14, 2016 9:27 PM, "Omo Oaiya" wrote: > > On 14 October 2016 at 17:34, Andrew Alston om> wrote: > >> Heh, >> >> >> >> We all have our worries about Cloud Innovation ? but if you?re going to >> give stats to the list ? at least make them accurate. >> >> >> >> Cloud innovation according to the AfriNIC database has 2 /12s and 1 /11, >> which is 33% below what you claim in your email below. >> >> >> > > Is it? > > whois -B -h whois.afrinic.net -r -T aut-num -T inet6num -T inetnum -i og > 'ORG-CIL1-AFRINIC' > > >> Some interesting things about this space though. The majority of it >> (shockingly) is announced out of South Africa and visible via the South >> African internet exchanges. **Shrug** >> >> >> > > I wonder how correct that is if you got the numbers wrong. The point > however was that the addresses are being depleted so the noise is not > necessary. > > I'd also like to remind you that you are a board member and your > commentary is often inappropriate and unbecoming .... regardless of > disclaimers. > > -Omo > > > _______________________________________________ > Community-Discuss mailing list > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jbmillogo at gmail.com Fri Oct 14 20:14:55 2016 From: jbmillogo at gmail.com (Jean-Baptiste MILLOGO) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2016 20:14:55 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] IPv6 Chapter 254 In-Reply-To: References: <1fb910e4-e2e4-792d-ef64-b1f06a4c68f6@seacom.mu> <00FECC85-83D0-4432-B3A9-9C2F4BF115D0@liquidtelecom.com> <0bfa01d22615$af3e2560$0dba7020$@enetworks.co.za> Message-ID: Thank a lot Omo. Audit policy will helps us to figure out where the numbers end Le 14 oct. 2016 18:27, "Omo Oaiya" a ?crit : > > > On 14 October 2016 at 17:34, Andrew Alston < Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com> wrote: >> >> Heh, >> >> >> >> We all have our worries about Cloud Innovation ? but if you?re going to give stats to the list ? at least make them accurate. >> >> >> >> Cloud innovation according to the AfriNIC database has 2 /12s and 1 /11, which is 33% below what you claim in your email below. >> >> > > > Is it? > > whois -B -h whois.afrinic.net -r -T aut-num -T inet6num -T inetnum -i og 'ORG-CIL1-AFRINIC' > > >> >> Some interesting things about this space though. The majority of it (shockingly) is announced out of South Africa and visible via the South African internet exchanges. *Shrug* >> >> > > > I wonder how correct that is if you got the numbers wrong. The point however was that the addresses are being depleted so the noise is not necessary. > > I'd also like to remind you that you are a board member and your commentary is often inappropriate and unbecoming .... regardless of disclaimers. > > -Omo > > > _______________________________________________ > Community-Discuss mailing list > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com Fri Oct 14 20:17:09 2016 From: Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com (Andrew Alston) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2016 20:17:09 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] IPv6 Chapter 254 In-Reply-To: References: <1fb910e4-e2e4-792d-ef64-b1f06a4c68f6@seacom.mu> <00FECC85-83D0-4432-B3A9-9C2F4BF115D0@liquidtelecom.com> <0bfa01d22615$af3e2560$0dba7020$@enetworks.co.za> Message-ID: <6CD63506-7191-401B-8553-AAD8C6E5784D@liquidtelecom.com> Just a question about the audit policy?. Is it agreed that if we have such a policy, we should also audit the v6 assignments people are holding that should be announced under the needs based policy rules? Thanks Andrew From: Jean-Baptiste MILLOGO Date: Friday, 14 October 2016 at 23:14 To: Omo Oaiya Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC , Andrew Alston Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] IPv6 Chapter 254 Thank a lot Omo. Audit policy will helps us to figure out where the numbers end Le 14 oct. 2016 18:27, "Omo Oaiya" > a ?crit : > > > On 14 October 2016 at 17:34, Andrew Alston > wrote: >> >> Heh, >> >> >> >> We all have our worries about Cloud Innovation ? but if you?re going to give stats to the list ? at least make them accurate. >> >> >> >> Cloud innovation according to the AfriNIC database has 2 /12s and 1 /11, which is 33% below what you claim in your email below. >> >> > > > Is it? > > whois -B -h whois.afrinic.net -r -T aut-num -T inet6num -T inetnum -i og 'ORG-CIL1-AFRINIC' > > >> >> Some interesting things about this space though. The majority of it (shockingly) is announced out of South Africa and visible via the South African internet exchanges. *Shrug* >> >> > > > I wonder how correct that is if you got the numbers wrong. The point however was that the addresses are being depleted so the noise is not necessary. > > I'd also like to remind you that you are a board member and your commentary is often inappropriate and unbecoming .... regardless of disclaimers. > > -Omo > > > _______________________________________________ > Community-Discuss mailing list > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From geier at geier.ne.tz Sat Oct 15 05:22:33 2016 From: geier at geier.ne.tz (Frank Habicht) Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2016 08:22:33 +0300 Subject: [Community-Discuss] IPv6 Chapter 254 In-Reply-To: References: <1fb910e4-e2e4-792d-ef64-b1f06a4c68f6@seacom.mu> <00FECC85-83D0-4432-B3A9-9C2F4BF115D0@liquidtelecom.com> <0bfa01d22615$af3e2560$0dba7020$@enetworks.co.za> Message-ID: <4ebf3b8e-9103-252d-34d8-9bf290996448@geier.ne.tz> On 10/14/2016 3:39 PM, Noah wrote: > On 14 Oct 2016 15:23, "Saul Stein" > wrote: >> As things stand: >> >> 1) AFRINIC makes money from assigning v4 space > > I doubt AFRINIC is in the business of making money. and nobody said that. Frank From Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com Sun Oct 16 08:37:04 2016 From: Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com (Andrew Alston) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2016 08:37:04 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Let's chat about unannounced v6 space! Message-ID: So, I was interested to see - how much v6 was allocated by AfriNIC that was not announced into the tables and who was it allocated to, and decided to write something to take a look. Now - some notes about the stuff on the page below - firstly this is generated by processing the routing tables from only one global view - there is a possibility that something is announced that for some reason is not in the table I'm checking on generation - but I'd say its pretty unlikely. Secondly, there are IXP prefix's on this page because there is no way to easily identify an Internet Exchange Point and remove them. If there are IXP's on that list that would like me to put a manual whitelist to remove their prefix's from that page in entirety - let me know what the IXP is and what the prefix is and I can do that. Thirdly - While I've done what I can to retrieve the allocation dates from the delegated file, for some reason certain things are in the whois database but not in the delegated file - this may be because of sub-allocations though I'm not 100% certain, once I figure this out I might be able to fix this as well - call it a bug right now. Forth - ALL THIS INFORMATION WAS DERIVED FROM PUBLICALLY AVAILABLE DATA AND THE GLOBAL TABLE With all that said - I present to you the list of people who have IPv6 but aren't even announcing it: http://server.alstonnetworks.net/unannounced.html NOTE: I've still got to put cron entries etc in - will hopefully get that done later today, at which point the page will update at midnight GMT+3 every day. Also please note that I give no guarantees as to the availability of this page or if I will maintain it in the long term - it's probably best moved to another more stable location host, but because of how it works that's not the easiest thing to do. I'm working on another one for IPv4 at the moment - though that is more complicated and requires some pretty huge processing power to work it all out, especially if I want to figure out which allocations are only partially announced and work out percentage of block announcement. This will hopefully come out in the next week time dependent. Thanks Andrew -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com Sun Oct 16 08:56:10 2016 From: Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com (Andrew Alston) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2016 08:56:10 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Let's chat about unannounced v6 space! Message-ID: <2F0299E2-D757-41EE-9D1F-7CBB02BF4EBC@liquidtelecom.com> Just as another note ? I am also working on something that will take the rest of the allocated prefixes (the ones that are announced), and tie them back to the originating ASN and then pull the actual percentage penetration for that particular ASN from other collector sites that work out penetration per ASN. That way we will be able to see the ASN?s who are announcing and actually doing something with their v6, vs those that are announcing purely to put it in the same with no real use of it. Hopefully will have code ready to do that in the next 2 weeks as well. Thanks Andrew From: Andrew Alston Date: Sunday, 16 October 2016 at 11:37 To: General Discussions of AFRINIC Subject: [Community-Discuss] Let's chat about unannounced v6 space! So, I was interested to see ? how much v6 was allocated by AfriNIC that was not announced into the tables and who was it allocated to, and decided to write something to take a look. Now ? some notes about the stuff on the page below ? firstly this is generated by processing the routing tables from only one global view ? there is a possibility that something is announced that for some reason is not in the table I?m checking on generation ? but I?d say its pretty unlikely. Secondly, there are IXP prefix?s on this page because there is no way to easily identify an Internet Exchange Point and remove them. If there are IXP?s on that list that would like me to put a manual whitelist to remove their prefix?s from that page in entirety ? let me know what the IXP is and what the prefix is and I can do that. Thirdly ? While I?ve done what I can to retrieve the allocation dates from the delegated file, for some reason certain things are in the whois database but not in the delegated file ? this may be because of sub-allocations though I?m not 100% certain, once I figure this out I might be able to fix this as well ? call it a bug right now. Forth ? ALL THIS INFORMATION WAS DERIVED FROM PUBLICALLY AVAILABLE DATA AND THE GLOBAL TABLE With all that said ? I present to you the list of people who have IPv6 but aren?t even announcing it: http://server.alstonnetworks.net/unannounced.html NOTE: I?ve still got to put cron entries etc in ? will hopefully get that done later today, at which point the page will update at midnight GMT+3 every day. Also please note that I give no guarantees as to the availability of this page or if I will maintain it in the long term ? it?s probably best moved to another more stable location host, but because of how it works that?s not the easiest thing to do. I?m working on another one for IPv4 at the moment ? though that is more complicated and requires some pretty huge processing power to work it all out, especially if I want to figure out which allocations are only partially announced and work out percentage of block announcement. This will hopefully come out in the next week time dependent. Thanks Andrew -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mathias at houngbo.net Sun Oct 16 12:23:29 2016 From: mathias at houngbo.net (Mathias HOUNGBO) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2016 13:23:29 +0100 Subject: [Community-Discuss] =?utf-8?q?Successful_Conclusion_of_second_edi?= =?utf-8?q?tion_of_B=C3=A9nin_DNS_Forum_in_Cotonou=2C_B=C3=A9nin=2E?= Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 819 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From jnoulaye at gmail.com Mon Oct 17 12:15:03 2016 From: jnoulaye at gmail.com (Janvier NGNOULAYE) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2016 13:15:03 +0100 Subject: [Community-Discuss] =?utf-8?q?Successful_Conclusion_of_second_edi?= =?utf-8?q?tion_of_B=C3=A9nin_DNS_Forum_in_Cotonou=2C_B=C3=A9nin=2E?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Mathias, I'm really very happy for the great & successful outcomes of your project. I will like to run the same activities to reinforce my local IT community. Congratulations for all the work you and the Isoc Benin Chapter are doing for the development of the DNS and other IP stuff for the benefit of the tech guys of your country and your subRegion. Just go ahead and good continuation. I hope the support of the OIF to be extended also today to support other French speaking regions in Africa as they did in the past. As ISOC Chapters, let's continue to work hard to develop our local Internet ecosystem for the sake of our africa community. Warm regards, Janvier Ngnoulaye ISOC Cameroon Chapter Yaounde -Cameroon. Le 16 oct. 2016 13:24, "Mathias HOUNGBO" a ?crit : > Dear Colleagues, > > Last saturday, we has just concluded the second session on > DNS Forum in Africa with support of Organisation Internationale de la Francophonie (OIF). > The sessions were conducted by the B?nin Chapter of ISOC, NGO IGB at NET, NGO FGI and NGO FemTicDev at B?nin Royal Hotel, Cotonou - B?nin. > > > More information: http://www.dnsforum.bj > > Thanks > > > Il n'y a pas de raccourci pour atteindre le d?veloppement. > Open source is not limited to software and it is not limited to english either! > Mefies toi de la m?diocrit?, c'est la moisissure de l'esprit > > -- > My blog - http://mathias.houngbo.net > > > _______________________________________________ > Community-Discuss mailing list > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kmw.elitcha at gmail.com Mon Oct 17 12:19:43 2016 From: kmw.elitcha at gmail.com (abel ELITCHA) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2016 12:19:43 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] =?utf-8?q?Successful_Conclusion_of_second_edi?= =?utf-8?q?tion_of_B=C3=A9nin_DNS_Forum_in_Cotonou=2C_B=C3=A9nin=2E?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Janvier, Indeed, OIF is a french organization. Aren't we supposed to speak french? Juste pour rire... F?licitations Matthias et tout le m?rite ? ISOC-BENIN. Abel. 2016-10-17 12:15 GMT+00:00 Janvier NGNOULAYE : > Dear Mathias, > I'm really very happy for the great & successful outcomes of your project. > I will like to run the same activities to reinforce my local IT community. > Congratulations for all the work you and the Isoc Benin Chapter are doing > for the development of the DNS and other IP stuff for the benefit of the > tech guys of your country and your subRegion. Just go ahead and good > continuation. > I hope the support of the OIF to be extended also today to support other > French speaking regions in Africa as they did in the past. > As ISOC Chapters, let's continue to work hard to develop our local > Internet ecosystem for the sake of our africa community. > > Warm regards, > > Janvier Ngnoulaye > ISOC Cameroon Chapter > Yaounde -Cameroon. > > Le 16 oct. 2016 13:24, "Mathias HOUNGBO" a ?crit : > >> Dear Colleagues, >> >> Last saturday, we has just concluded the second session on >> DNS Forum in Africa with support of Organisation Internationale de la Francophonie (OIF). >> The sessions were conducted by the B?nin Chapter of ISOC, NGO IGB at NET, NGO FGI and NGO FemTicDev at B?nin Royal Hotel, Cotonou - B?nin. >> >> >> More information: http://www.dnsforum.bj >> >> Thanks >> >> >> Il n'y a pas de raccourci pour atteindre le d?veloppement. >> Open source is not limited to software and it is not limited to english either! >> Mefies toi de la m?diocrit?, c'est la moisissure de l'esprit >> >> -- >> My blog - http://mathias.houngbo.net >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Community-Discuss mailing list >> Community-Discuss at afrinic.net >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss >> >> > _______________________________________________ > Community-Discuss mailing list > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss > > -- Best regards, --Komi A. Elitcha -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From patrickouobou at gmail.com Mon Oct 17 14:38:12 2016 From: patrickouobou at gmail.com (PATRICK KOUOBOU) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2016 15:38:12 +0100 Subject: [Community-Discuss] =?utf-8?q?=5BAfrIPv6-Discuss=5D_Successful_Co?= =?utf-8?q?nclusion_of_second_edition_of_B=C3=A9nin_DNS_Forum_in_Co?= =?utf-8?b?dG9ub3UsIELDqW5pbi4=?= In-Reply-To: References: <27f370a4-4ca7-6d06-9d83-46ef64897289@houngbo.net> Message-ID: +1000 Mathias, Congratulations for this great Job. Keep walking. regards!! 2016-10-17 15:32 GMT+01:00 Alassane MAMADOU : > Hi Mathias, > > Good Job. > > Best Regards. > > 2016-10-16 13:23 GMT+01:00 Mathias HOUNGBO : > >> Dear Colleagues, >> >> Last saturday, we has just concluded the second session on >> DNS Forum in Africa with support of Organisation Internationale de la Francophonie (OIF). >> The sessions were conducted by the B?nin Chapter of ISOC, NGO IGB at NET, NGO FGI and NGO FemTicDev at B?nin Royal Hotel, Cotonou - B?nin. >> >> >> More information: http://www.dnsforum.bj >> >> Thanks >> >> >> Il n'y a pas de raccourci pour atteindre le d?veloppement. >> Open source is not limited to software and it is not limited to english either! >> Mefies toi de la m?diocrit?, c'est la moisissure de l'esprit >> >> -- >> My blog - http://mathias.houngbo.net >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> AfrIPv6-Discuss mailing list >> AfrIPv6-Discuss at afrinic.net >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/afripv6-discuss >> >> > > > -- > Alassane Robert Servais MAMADOU > Consultant Expert r?seaux ,s?curit? et Optimisation > PMI Member > IIBA Member > Tel:(229) 21 14 24 19/ 96 47 84 86 > > _______________________________________________ > AfrIPv6-Discuss mailing list > AfrIPv6-Discuss at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/afripv6-discuss > > -- *Patrick KOUOBOU* *IT Manager * *Ingenieur MIAGE* Senior System and Network Administrator *CCNA, LPIC-2, MCITP, MTCNA, MTCWE* *www.cisformation.com * *(+237) 676760710* *(+237) 694339330* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nishal at controlfreak.co.za Mon Oct 17 16:09:47 2016 From: nishal at controlfreak.co.za (Nishal Goburdhan) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2016 18:09:47 +0200 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Let's chat about unannounced v6 space! In-Reply-To: <2F0299E2-D757-41EE-9D1F-7CBB02BF4EBC@liquidtelecom.com> References: <2F0299E2-D757-41EE-9D1F-7CBB02BF4EBC@liquidtelecom.com> Message-ID: <79A93607-3FF6-49D0-A9C8-EA8CD67A6460@controlfreak.co.za> On 16 Oct 2016, at 10:56, Andrew Alston wrote: > Just as another note ? > > I am also working on something that will take the rest of the > allocated prefixes (the ones that are announced), and tie them back to > the originating ASN hi andrew, doesn?t afrinic do this already (they used to, with the AIRRS report, but i haven?t looked in a long time). that said, it?s always nice to see initiative, and perhaps you can do something new, so, by way of assistance, i offer: * since you?re doing this from one ?full-view?, do you need another? * i can assist you quite easily with identifying the IXP peering prefixes, if you?d like (i.e those that should not be visible. for bonus points, perhaps you can flag those, that should *not* be, but are ;-)) ?n. From Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com Mon Oct 17 17:47:13 2016 From: Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com (Andrew Alston) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2016 17:47:13 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Let's chat about unannounced v6 space! In-Reply-To: <79A93607-3FF6-49D0-A9C8-EA8CD67A6460@controlfreak.co.za> References: <2F0299E2-D757-41EE-9D1F-7CBB02BF4EBC@liquidtelecom.com> <79A93607-3FF6-49D0-A9C8-EA8CD67A6460@controlfreak.co.za> Message-ID: <771DDEF9-71C3-4E81-870C-AE65959242AF@liquidtelecom.com> Hi Nishal, Not as far as I know, but I could be wrong ? I don?t think I?ve seen a single page output of stuff not announced and who it was allocated to ? could be wrong though. As regards another full view ? I could use another full view that is in IOS-XR format (from a show route ipv6) and accessible via ssh ? the current code connects to the router and does an ssh2_exec with no PTY allocation to pull the table. (save me writing more code to read other formats and change the methods ? so if you got anything like that it would be useful! ? Otherwise if you can send me off list some output from whatever routers you have that have full table that aren?t XR when I have time I can take a look at how to match against formatting) If you can send me the list of IXP prefixes that shouldn?t be visible that would be awesome ? I can write a whitelist fairly easily, and yes, its potentially possible for me to flag visible that shouldn?t be. As a note ? the v4 processing code is almost done ? I was playing with this last night and I can already see partial announcements against the delegation file ? the next step is tying that back to org-id?s and organisations and then publishing in similar format. There are a coupla caveats behind that in the fact that the delegation file in AfriNIC for some strange reason is not on natural CIDR boundaries and the whois database also doesn?t store CIDR masks so some rather painful processing and aggregation has to happen before you actually do the comparison, but there should be a similar page for v4 out in the next few days. If you have a list of v4 IXP prefix?s as a result, this would be useful as well. Chat later Andrew On 17/10/2016, 19:09, "Nishal Goburdhan" wrote: On 16 Oct 2016, at 10:56, Andrew Alston wrote: > Just as another note ? > > I am also working on something that will take the rest of the > allocated prefixes (the ones that are announced), and tie them back to > the originating ASN hi andrew, doesn?t afrinic do this already (they used to, with the AIRRS report, but i haven?t looked in a long time). that said, it?s always nice to see initiative, and perhaps you can do something new, so, by way of assistance, i offer: * since you?re doing this from one ?full-view?, do you need another? * i can assist you quite easily with identifying the IXP peering prefixes, if you?d like (i.e those that should not be visible. for bonus points, perhaps you can flag those, that should *not* be, but are ;-)) ?n. From daniel at afrinic.net Mon Oct 17 18:55:19 2016 From: daniel at afrinic.net (Daniel Shaw) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2016 22:55:19 +0400 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Let's chat about unannounced v6 space! In-Reply-To: <771DDEF9-71C3-4E81-870C-AE65959242AF@liquidtelecom.com> References: <2F0299E2-D757-41EE-9D1F-7CBB02BF4EBC@liquidtelecom.com> <79A93607-3FF6-49D0-A9C8-EA8CD67A6460@controlfreak.co.za> <771DDEF9-71C3-4E81-870C-AE65959242AF@liquidtelecom.com> Message-ID: > On 17 Oct 2016, at 9:47 PM, Andrew Alston wrote: > > There are a coupla caveats behind that in the fact that the delegation file in AfriNIC for some strange reason is not on natural CIDR boundaries Hi Andrew, The spec/format of the delegated stats file is common among RIRs, and the latest definition is here: https://www.nro.net/wp-content/uploads/nro-extended-stats-readme5.txt (see section 1.2.3 ?Records?). It may also interest some that a global delegation/stats files combining the data from all RIRs is also generated daily: https://www.nro.net/news/new-global-extended-statistics-report Cheers, Daniel From aalain at trstech.net Tue Oct 18 08:38:50 2016 From: aalain at trstech.net (ALAIN AINA) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2016 12:38:50 +0400 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Let's chat about unannounced v6 space! In-Reply-To: <771DDEF9-71C3-4E81-870C-AE65959242AF@liquidtelecom.com> References: <2F0299E2-D757-41EE-9D1F-7CBB02BF4EBC@liquidtelecom.com> <79A93607-3FF6-49D0-A9C8-EA8CD67A6460@controlfreak.co.za> <771DDEF9-71C3-4E81-870C-AE65959242AF@liquidtelecom.com> Message-ID: <5A1AC9BC-83A1-470A-AAD1-8695883951BA@trstech.net> Hi, AIRRS(African Internet Ressources and Routing Statistics) can be seen at the URL below. http://airrs.afrinic.net/bgp/reports.html/bgp.reports.2016-10-17-197.0.0.0.html http://airrs.afrinic.net/bgp/reports.html/bgp.reports.2016-10-17-41.0.0.0.html http://airrs.afrinic.net/bgp/reports.html/bgp.reports.2016-10-17-196.0.0.0.html http://airrs.afrinic.net/bgp/reports6.html/bgp.reports.2016-10-17-2001-4200.html http://airrs.afrinic.net/bgp/reports6.html/bgp.reports.2016-10-17-2c00.html They are no longer maintained. For the v4 space there is another initiative at http://www.trstech.net/africa-bgp/ Hope this helps ?Alain > On Oct 17, 2016, at 9:47 PM, Andrew Alston wrote: > > Hi Nishal, > > Not as far as I know, but I could be wrong ? I don?t think I?ve seen a single page output of stuff not announced and who it was allocated to ? could be wrong though. > > As regards another full view ? I could use another full view that is in IOS-XR format (from a show route ipv6) and accessible via ssh ? the current code connects to the router and does an ssh2_exec with no PTY allocation to pull the table. (save me writing more code to read other formats and change the methods ? so if you got anything like that it would be useful! ? Otherwise if you can send me off list some output from whatever routers you have that have full table that aren?t XR when I have time I can take a look at how to match against formatting) > > If you can send me the list of IXP prefixes that shouldn?t be visible that would be awesome ? I can write a whitelist fairly easily, and yes, its potentially possible for me to flag visible that shouldn?t be. > > As a note ? the v4 processing code is almost done ? I was playing with this last night and I can already see partial announcements against the delegation file ? the next step is tying that back to org-id?s and organisations and then publishing in similar format. There are a coupla caveats behind that in the fact that the delegation file in AfriNIC for some strange reason is not on natural CIDR boundaries and the whois database also doesn?t store CIDR masks so some rather painful processing and aggregation has to happen before you actually do the comparison, but there should be a similar page for v4 out in the next few days. > > If you have a list of v4 IXP prefix?s as a result, this would be useful as well. > > Chat later > > Andrew > > On 17/10/2016, 19:09, "Nishal Goburdhan" wrote: > > On 16 Oct 2016, at 10:56, Andrew Alston wrote: > >> Just as another note ? >> >> I am also working on something that will take the rest of the >> allocated prefixes (the ones that are announced), and tie them back to >> the originating ASN > > > hi andrew, > > doesn?t afrinic do this already (they used to, with the AIRRS report, > but i haven?t looked in a long time). > > that said, it?s always nice to see initiative, and perhaps you can do > something new, so, by way of assistance, i offer: > * since you?re doing this from one ?full-view?, do you need > another? > * i can assist you quite easily with identifying the IXP peering > prefixes, if you?d like (i.e those that should not be visible. for > bonus points, perhaps you can flag those, that should *not* be, but are > ;-)) > > ?n. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Community-Discuss mailing list > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com Tue Oct 18 08:45:17 2016 From: Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com (Andrew Alston) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2016 08:45:17 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Let's chat about unannounced v6 space! In-Reply-To: <5A1AC9BC-83A1-470A-AAD1-8695883951BA@trstech.net> References: <2F0299E2-D757-41EE-9D1F-7CBB02BF4EBC@liquidtelecom.com> <79A93607-3FF6-49D0-A9C8-EA8CD67A6460@controlfreak.co.za> <771DDEF9-71C3-4E81-870C-AE65959242AF@liquidtelecom.com> <5A1AC9BC-83A1-470A-AAD1-8695883951BA@trstech.net> Message-ID: That trstech page needs to clarify what it means by routed outside of the AfriNIC region. Because I see subnets on that page that are 100% for certain inside the AfriNIC region and always have been. If they mean originated under a RIPE assigned ASN ? that is no indication of use outside of Africa. Some useful stats there though ? thanks. As said ? I will have the code to tie back partial announcements and non-existent announcements to org-id?s and organisations for v4 done shortly, and I?ll run a comparison against what is seeing by airrs. Thanks Andrew From: ALAIN AINA [mailto:aalain at trstech.net] Sent: 18 October 2016 11:39 To: General Discussions of AFRINIC Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Let's chat about unannounced v6 space! Hi, AIRRS(African Internet Ressources and Routing Statistics) can be seen at the URL below. http://airrs.afrinic.net/bgp/reports.html/bgp.reports.2016-10-17-197.0.0.0.html http://airrs.afrinic.net/bgp/reports.html/bgp.reports.2016-10-17-41.0.0.0.html http://airrs.afrinic.net/bgp/reports.html/bgp.reports.2016-10-17-196.0.0.0.html http://airrs.afrinic.net/bgp/reports6.html/bgp.reports.2016-10-17-2001-4200.html http://airrs.afrinic.net/bgp/reports6.html/bgp.reports.2016-10-17-2c00.html They are no longer maintained. For the v4 space there is another initiative at http://www.trstech.net/africa-bgp/ Hope this helps ?Alain On Oct 17, 2016, at 9:47 PM, Andrew Alston > wrote: Hi Nishal, Not as far as I know, but I could be wrong ? I don?t think I?ve seen a single page output of stuff not announced and who it was allocated to ? could be wrong though. As regards another full view ? I could use another full view that is in IOS-XR format (from a show route ipv6) and accessible via ssh ? the current code connects to the router and does an ssh2_exec with no PTY allocation to pull the table. (save me writing more code to read other formats and change the methods ? so if you got anything like that it would be useful! ? Otherwise if you can send me off list some output from whatever routers you have that have full table that aren?t XR when I have time I can take a look at how to match against formatting) If you can send me the list of IXP prefixes that shouldn?t be visible that would be awesome ? I can write a whitelist fairly easily, and yes, its potentially possible for me to flag visible that shouldn?t be. As a note ? the v4 processing code is almost done ? I was playing with this last night and I can already see partial announcements against the delegation file ? the next step is tying that back to org-id?s and organisations and then publishing in similar format. There are a coupla caveats behind that in the fact that the delegation file in AfriNIC for some strange reason is not on natural CIDR boundaries and the whois database also doesn?t store CIDR masks so some rather painful processing and aggregation has to happen before you actually do the comparison, but there should be a similar page for v4 out in the next few days. If you have a list of v4 IXP prefix?s as a result, this would be useful as well. Chat later Andrew On 17/10/2016, 19:09, "Nishal Goburdhan" > wrote: On 16 Oct 2016, at 10:56, Andrew Alston wrote: Just as another note ? I am also working on something that will take the rest of the allocated prefixes (the ones that are announced), and tie them back to the originating ASN hi andrew, doesn?t afrinic do this already (they used to, with the AIRRS report, but i haven?t looked in a long time). that said, it?s always nice to see initiative, and perhaps you can do something new, so, by way of assistance, i offer: * since you?re doing this from one ?full-view?, do you need another? * i can assist you quite easily with identifying the IXP peering prefixes, if you?d like (i.e those that should not be visible. for bonus points, perhaps you can flag those, that should *not* be, but are ;-)) ?n. _______________________________________________ Community-Discuss mailing list Community-Discuss at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Omo.Oaiya at wacren.net Tue Oct 18 10:32:46 2016 From: Omo.Oaiya at wacren.net (Omo Oaiya) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2016 10:32:46 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] [rpd] Policy changes introduced by the Board In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20160922015749.0bf3c7b8@elandnews.com> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20160922015749.0bf3c7b8@elandnews.com> Message-ID: <66D7AD0B-023E-45B4-8959-57F2BFF2871D@wacren.net> > On 22 Sep 2016, at 10:09, sm+afrinic at elandsys.com wrote: > > Hi Alan, > > There was an accountability assessment in 2015/2016. One of the issues identified was about the following in the Bylaws: > > "11.4 Notwithstanding, the provisions of Article 11.2 the Board may adopt > such policies regarding the management of internet number resources > where it considers that the same is necessary and urgent, having > regard to the proper and responsible usage of these resources. > > 11.5 Any policy adopted by the Board under the provisions of Article 11.4 > shall be submitted to the community for endorsement at the next > public policy meeting." > > And the following was suggested as an improvement: > > "Consider giving the community the right to reject such policy changes > introduced by the Board." > > The proposed implementation is to submit any policy adopted by the Board under Article 11.4 to the next Policy Development Working Group for endorsement. > > In my opinion, the existing Policy Development Process already takes into account issues which Articles 11.4 and 11.5 attempt to cover. Given those provisions in the Bylaws, Afrinic Ltd cannot claim that it has to follow the existing Policy Development Process to adopt a policy. Furthermore, why have the Board adopt a policy when it can be rejected at the next public policy meeting? Yes, it makes no sense. To avoid this situation, we should remove and rely on the PDP. I pointed this out in June - https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/community-discuss/2016-June/000343.html > >> >> On 28 June 2016 at 13:20, Omo Oaiya > wrote: >> >> >>>12- Policies introduced by the Board: In terms of the Bylaws section 11.4, the Board may adopt policy changes that did not go through the normal PDP. Consider giving the community the right to reject such policy changes introduced by the Board. >> >> Section 11.5 seems to give this right to the community but endorsement may be open to misinterpretation so we shall just remove this. In case of emergency, section 8 of PDP on varying the policy process applies. >> >> 11.5: Any policy adopted by the Board under the provisions of Article 11.4 shall be submitted to the community for endorsement at the next public policy meeting. It is the same case with the soft landing policy where the board is given the discretion over address space. This is a matter for the community and addressed in the Soft Landing-BIS proposal in 3.9.3 http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposals/1609-soft-landing-bis -Omo -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 801 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From sergekbk at gmail.com Tue Oct 18 11:47:13 2016 From: sergekbk at gmail.com (sergekbk) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2016 12:47:13 +0100 Subject: [Community-Discuss] IPv6 Chapter 254 Message-ID: <1sp2u7fgrmbjdwf5xwvi13sx.1476791233160@email.android.com> Yes Andrew.?"The Internet Number Resources review by AFRINIC? policy covers all allocated/assigned resources. See http://www.afrinic.net/community/policy-development/policy-proposals/1827-internet-number-resources-review-by-afrinic" With Regards. Serge IlungaCell: +243814443160Skype: sergekbkR.D.Congo-------- Original message --------From: Andrew Alston Date: 10/14/2016 21:17 (GMT+01:00) To: Jean-Baptiste MILLOGO , Omo Oaiya Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] IPv6 Chapter 254 Just a question about the audit policy?. ? Is it agreed that if we have such a policy, we should also audit the v6 assignments people are holding that should be announced under the needs based policy rules? ? Andrew ? ? From: Jean-Baptiste MILLOGO Date: Friday, 14 October 2016 at 23:14 To: Omo Oaiya Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC , Andrew Alston Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] IPv6 Chapter 254 ? Thank a lot Omo. Audit policy? will helps us to figure out where the numbers end Le?14 oct. 2016 18:27, "Omo Oaiya" a ?crit?: > > > On 14 October 2016 at 17:34, Andrew Alston wrote: >> >> Heh, >> >> ? >> >> We all have our worries about Cloud Innovation ? but if you?re going to give stats to the list ? at least make them accurate. >> >> ? >> >> Cloud innovation according to the AfriNIC database has 2 /12s and 1 /11, which is 33% below what you claim in your email below. >> >> ? > > > Is it?? > > whois -B -h whois.afrinic.net -r -T aut-num -T inet6num -T inetnum -i og 'ORG-CIL1-AFRINIC' > > ? >> >> Some interesting things about this space though.? The majority of it (shockingly) is announced out of South Africa and visible via the South African internet exchanges.? *Shrug* >> >> ? > > > I wonder how correct that is if you got the numbers wrong.? The point however was that the addresses are being depleted so the noise is not necessary.? > > I'd also like to remind you that you are a board member and your commentary is often inappropriate and unbecoming .... regardless of disclaimers. > > -Omo > > > _______________________________________________ > Community-Discuss mailing list > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com Tue Oct 18 18:11:49 2016 From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2016 19:11:49 +0100 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Let's chat about unannounced v6 space! In-Reply-To: References: <2F0299E2-D757-41EE-9D1F-7CBB02BF4EBC@liquidtelecom.com> <79A93607-3FF6-49D0-A9C8-EA8CD67A6460@controlfreak.co.za> <771DDEF9-71C3-4E81-870C-AE65959242AF@liquidtelecom.com> <5A1AC9BC-83A1-470A-AAD1-8695883951BA@trstech.net> Message-ID: Thanks Andrew and Alain for the various stats. I think a wholesome view presented in readable format as this would help encourage and challenge those who have the means to summon the required "will"(vice versa) to do the needful. That said I like to state a personal scenario which hopefully would help point out why at times just the "will" doesn't lit the candle especially in relation to v6. Here are a few QA to enumerate my point: 1. Do I support non-NATED Internet? Sure I do. 2. Do I run a NATED network on the internet? No I don't 3. Have I advertised my v6 space? No i haven't because while I have the "will" and the "means" to do so, I do not yet have the means to serve my users with it. Anyone who knows how mikrotik hotspot can work on v6 (with accounting) could give me a hint. 4. Why not just advertise the space? Well I can do that but I don't believe it make sense when I know I won't use it. 5. Do I feel concerned that the space would be retrieved from me if not used? Yes I am because I have not been able to meet my originally proposed plan and would not mind letting the space go for now if #AFRINIC wants to do that. I can always go back for the space once my platform supports the services I intend to deliver to my users. Or when my clients no longer enjoy some of the services I currently provide. 6. Why did I get it initially when I wasn't ready? Because it was a good to have, almost cost free and most importantly I got it on the hope that things would change with my platform ;-). I know quite a number of PI users may fall within the scenario posited above. Nevertheless, this is not to give "flimsy" excuses, it's to share valid excuses and the reality. I hope that I would be able to contribute to v6 stats in our region in near future. I remain an advocate of the protocol. Regards Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 18 Oct 2016 9:45 a.m., "Andrew Alston" wrote: That trstech page needs to clarify what it means by routed outside of the AfriNIC region. Because I see subnets on that page that are 100% for certain inside the AfriNIC region and always have been. If they mean originated under a RIPE assigned ASN ? that is no indication of use outside of Africa. Some useful stats there though ? thanks. As said ? I will have the code to tie back partial announcements and non-existent announcements to org-id?s and organisations for v4 done shortly, and I?ll run a comparison against what is seeing by airrs. Thanks Andrew *From:* ALAIN AINA [mailto:aalain at trstech.net] *Sent:* 18 October 2016 11:39 *To:* General Discussions of AFRINIC *Subject:* Re: [Community-Discuss] Let's chat about unannounced v6 space! Hi, AIRRS(African Internet Ressources and Routing Statistics) can be seen at the URL below. http://airrs.afrinic.net/bgp/reports.html/bgp.reports.2016- 10-17-197.0.0.0.html http://airrs.afrinic.net/bgp/reports.html/bgp.reports.2016- 10-17-41.0.0.0.html http://airrs.afrinic.net/bgp/reports.html/bgp.reports.2016- 10-17-196.0.0.0.html http://airrs.afrinic.net/bgp/reports6.html/bgp.reports. 2016-10-17-2001-4200.html http://airrs.afrinic.net/bgp/reports6.html/bgp.reports.2016-10-17-2c00.html They are no longer maintained. For the v4 space there is another initiative at http://www.trstech.net/ africa-bgp/ Hope this helps ?Alain On Oct 17, 2016, at 9:47 PM, Andrew Alston wrote: Hi Nishal, Not as far as I know, but I could be wrong ? I don?t think I?ve seen a single page output of stuff not announced and who it was allocated to ? could be wrong though. As regards another full view ? I could use another full view that is in IOS-XR format (from a show route ipv6) and accessible via ssh ? the current code connects to the router and does an ssh2_exec with no PTY allocation to pull the table. (save me writing more code to read other formats and change the methods ? so if you got anything like that it would be useful! ? Otherwise if you can send me off list some output from whatever routers you have that have full table that aren?t XR when I have time I can take a look at how to match against formatting) If you can send me the list of IXP prefixes that shouldn?t be visible that would be awesome ? I can write a whitelist fairly easily, and yes, its potentially possible for me to flag visible that shouldn?t be. As a note ? the v4 processing code is almost done ? I was playing with this last night and I can already see partial announcements against the delegation file ? the next step is tying that back to org-id?s and organisations and then publishing in similar format. There are a coupla caveats behind that in the fact that the delegation file in AfriNIC for some strange reason is not on natural CIDR boundaries and the whois database also doesn?t store CIDR masks so some rather painful processing and aggregation has to happen before you actually do the comparison, but there should be a similar page for v4 out in the next few days. If you have a list of v4 IXP prefix?s as a result, this would be useful as well. Chat later Andrew On 17/10/2016, 19:09, "Nishal Goburdhan" wrote: On 16 Oct 2016, at 10:56, Andrew Alston wrote: Just as another note ? I am also working on something that will take the rest of the allocated prefixes (the ones that are announced), and tie them back to the originating ASN hi andrew, doesn?t afrinic do this already (they used to, with the AIRRS report, but i haven?t looked in a long time). that said, it?s always nice to see initiative, and perhaps you can do something new, so, by way of assistance, i offer: * since you?re doing this from one ?full-view?, do you need another? * i can assist you quite easily with identifying the IXP peering prefixes, if you?d like (i.e those that should not be visible. for bonus points, perhaps you can flag those, that should *not* be, but are ;-)) ?n. _______________________________________________ Community-Discuss mailing list Community-Discuss at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss _______________________________________________ Community-Discuss mailing list Community-Discuss at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From saul at enetworks.co.za Wed Oct 19 06:17:19 2016 From: saul at enetworks.co.za (Saul Stein) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2016 08:17:19 +0200 (SAST) Subject: [Community-Discuss] Let's chat about unannounced v6 space! In-Reply-To: References: <2F0299E2-D757-41EE-9D1F-7CBB02BF4EBC@liquidtelecom.com> <79A93607-3FF6-49D0-A9C8-EA8CD67A6460@controlfreak.co.za> <771DDEF9-71C3-4E81-870C-AE65959242AF@liquidtelecom.com> <5A1AC9BC-83A1-470A-AAD1-8695883951BA@trstech.net> Message-ID: <0c4b01d229d0$72416370$56c42a50$@enetworks.co.za> Hi Seun, >4. Why not just advertise the space? Well I can do that but I don't believe >it make sense when I know I won't use it. I understand that you have a technical limitation currently to use it for your customers, but why not announce it and at least get your Mikrotik on a v6 address and any other infrastructure equipment that you have? That way when you know how to do what you need, your equipment is ready and you know that your upstream v6 is working. That is how we started. Saul -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From honest1989 at gmail.com Wed Oct 19 09:20:38 2016 From: honest1989 at gmail.com (Honest Ornella GANKPA) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2016 10:20:38 +0100 Subject: [Community-Discuss] IPv6 Chapter 254 In-Reply-To: <1sp2u7fgrmbjdwf5xwvi13sx.1476791233160@email.android.com> References: <1sp2u7fgrmbjdwf5xwvi13sx.1476791233160@email.android.com> Message-ID: It is good to see that Liquid Telecom has joined Seacom and others who have been doing their best to advance IPv6 deployment in the continent without waiting for IPv4 depletion. This is the way to go because from recent research I read on the Internet which makes it clear that IPv4 depletion does not lead to IPv6 uptake. In fact, I am surprised that Owen Delong continues to advise that this is the way because the data was from Akamai which I hear he works for. Please see attached slide. The presentation on the study was given at a recent LACNIC meeting - http://slides.lacnic.net/lacnic26/ - https://www.dropbox.com/s/zxmygx5djtj6cxl/4%20-%20IPv6-GDP.pptx?dl=0 In the Afrinic meeting in Botswana, I learned from the Softlanding-BIS proposal presentation that almost 90% of those with resources are in the micro to very small category. This means that these people are unlikely to prioritise IPv6 so we need to find the motivation for IPv6 growth elsewhere. Even when they get allocations, they depend on their upstreams to route these addresses. My suggestion is that the Afrinic community organises itself better and builds on the small successes in the region. We can target more key stakeholders like bigger ISPs and telcos, regulators, NRENs, government networks who can make the difference. It is not about Africa being last. We need to look at the realities honestly and act as a community. Honest Ornella GANKPA 2016-10-18 12:47 GMT+01:00 sergekbk : > Yes Andrew. > "The Internet Number Resources review by AFRINIC? policy covers all > allocated/assigned resources. > > See http://www.afrinic.net/community/policy-development/ > policy-proposals/1827-internet-number-resources-review-by-afrinic" > > With Regards. > > *Serge Ilunga* > *Cell: +243814443160 <%2B243814443160>* > *Skype: sergekbk* > *R.D.Congo* > -------- Original message -------- > From: Andrew Alston > Date: 10/14/2016 21:17 (GMT+01:00) > To: Jean-Baptiste MILLOGO , Omo Oaiya < > Omo.Oaiya at wacren.net> > Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC > Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] IPv6 Chapter 254 > > Just a question about the audit policy?. > > > > Is it agreed that if we have such a policy, we should also audit the v6 > assignments people are holding that should be announced under the needs > based policy rules? > > > > Andrew > > > > > > *From: *Jean-Baptiste MILLOGO > *Date: *Friday, 14 October 2016 at 23:14 > *To: *Omo Oaiya > *Cc: *General Discussions of AFRINIC , > Andrew Alston > *Subject: *Re: [Community-Discuss] IPv6 Chapter 254 > > > > Thank a lot Omo. > Audit policy will helps us to figure out where the numbers end > > Le 14 oct. 2016 18:27, "Omo Oaiya" a ?crit : > > > > > > On 14 October 2016 at 17:34, Andrew Alston com> wrote: > >> > >> Heh, > >> > >> > >> > >> We all have our worries about Cloud Innovation ? but if you?re going to > give stats to the list ? at least make them accurate. > >> > >> > >> > >> Cloud innovation according to the AfriNIC database has 2 /12s and 1 > /11, which is 33% below what you claim in your email below. > >> > >> > > > > > > Is it? > > > > whois -B -h whois.afrinic.net -r -T aut-num -T inet6num -T inetnum -i > og 'ORG-CIL1-AFRINIC' > > > > > >> > >> Some interesting things about this space though. The majority of it > (shockingly) is announced out of South Africa and visible via the South > African internet exchanges. *Shrug* > >> > >> > > > > > > I wonder how correct that is if you got the numbers wrong. The point > however was that the addresses are being depleted so the noise is not > necessary. > > > > I'd also like to remind you that you are a board member and your > commentary is often inappropriate and unbecoming .... regardless of > disclaimers. > > > > -Omo > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Community-Discuss mailing list > > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss > > > > _______________________________________________ > Community-Discuss mailing list > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: icann_presentation.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 1163226 bytes Desc: not available URL: From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com Wed Oct 19 11:24:36 2016 From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2016 12:24:36 +0100 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Let's chat about unannounced v6 space! In-Reply-To: <0c4b01d229d0$72416370$56c42a50$@enetworks.co.za> References: <2F0299E2-D757-41EE-9D1F-7CBB02BF4EBC@liquidtelecom.com> <79A93607-3FF6-49D0-A9C8-EA8CD67A6460@controlfreak.co.za> <771DDEF9-71C3-4E81-870C-AE65959242AF@liquidtelecom.com> <5A1AC9BC-83A1-470A-AAD1-8695883951BA@trstech.net> <0c4b01d229d0$72416370$56c42a50$@enetworks.co.za> Message-ID: On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 7:17 AM, Saul Stein wrote: > Hi Seun, > > > > >4. Why not just advertise the space? Well I can do that but I don't > believe it make sense when I know I won't use it. > > I understand that you have a technical limitation currently to use it for > your customers, but why not announce it and at least get your Mikrotik on a > v6 address and any other infrastructure equipment that you have? That way > when you know how to do what you need, your equipment is ready and you know > that your upstream v6 is working. > SO: Well you have a point and I actually do have v6 running on my box (just that its not the one assigned by AFRINIC ;-) ), its the one I got from my broker just for my testing purposes. My broker requires some documentation in order to advertise my actual prefix and while its not a significant requirement I do not want to go through such paper work for now especially since I am not using it anyway. My intention is that once my platform supports the feature i require and if by that time my upstream provider still doesn't provide native v6, then i will have to go through that process. Bottom line is that there isn't enough motivation for me to go that far for now. Regards That is how we started. > > Saul > -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng * Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com Wed Oct 19 12:14:48 2016 From: Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com (Andrew Alston) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2016 12:14:48 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] IPv6 Chapter 254 In-Reply-To: References: <1sp2u7fgrmbjdwf5xwvi13sx.1476791233160@email.android.com> Message-ID: <6A7CFD91-E0C4-47EF-9386-FE95800CDD8C@liquidtelecom.com> Honest ? Firstly, Liquid has done V6 and been V6 capable to provide to every client for the last 4 years ? the only thing that changed was we enabled it to the mass consumer market, and in that regard, I believe we were first ? That being said, can you explain to me how you draw from that research that v4 depletion has no impact on v6 update ? because that is not stated in that slide deck at all. What that slide deck does is look at a comparison of v6 update by country GDP?.. and this is where it gets interesting: a.) You can very safely assume that countries with higher GDP have higher penetration rates ? therefore higher address utilization demands. Which explains why by and large, higher GDP equates to higher v6 usage rates ? which ? by corollary indicates that v4 depletion combined with demand *does* have an impact on v6 deployment. Basically the conclusions I get from that data are the complete opposite of what you are saying, and I would really like to understand how you get to your conclusions. b.) The global maps clearly show that areas of run out have higher v6 deployment rates ? so again ? that does not correlate with what you are saying. c.) The size of an ISP should have no impact on their prioritization of V6 ? in fact it is significantly easier for smaller organizations to deploy v6 than it is for larger ones, due to far less infrastructure changes and far less single change impact ? and I do not believe for one second that the size of an organization is an excuse for lack of v6 deployment ? nor do I believe we should act as enablers for this behavior by accepting that excuse. I?m open to hearing how I have mis-read the slide deck you gave me ? but right now ? as I say, I cannot for a second fathom how you came to your conclusions because in my mind, that data strongly contradicts what you have said. Andrew From: Honest Ornella GANKPA Date: Wednesday, 19 October 2016 at 12:20 To: General Discussions of AFRINIC Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] IPv6 Chapter 254 It is good to see that Liquid Telecom has joined Seacom and others who have been doing their best to advance IPv6 deployment in the continent without waiting for IPv4 depletion. This is the way to go because from recent research I read on the Internet which makes it clear that IPv4 depletion does not lead to IPv6 uptake. In fact, I am surprised that Owen Delong continues to advise that this is the way because the data was from Akamai which I hear he works for. Please see attached slide. The presentation on the study was given at a recent LACNIC meeting - http://slides.lacnic.net/lacnic26/ - https://www.dropbox.com/s/zxmygx5djtj6cxl/4%20-%20IPv6-GDP.pptx?dl=0 In the Afrinic meeting in Botswana, I learned from the Softlanding-BIS proposal presentation that almost 90% of those with resources are in the micro to very small category. This means that these people are unlikely to prioritise IPv6 so we need to find the motivation for IPv6 growth elsewhere. Even when they get allocations, they depend on their upstreams to route these addresses. My suggestion is that the Afrinic community organises itself better and builds on the small successes in the region. We can target more key stakeholders like bigger ISPs and telcos, regulators, NRENs, government networks who can make the difference. It is not about Africa being last. We need to look at the realities honestly and act as a community. Honest Ornella GANKPA 2016-10-18 12:47 GMT+01:00 sergekbk >: Yes Andrew. "The Internet Number Resources review by AFRINIC? policy covers all allocated/assigned resources. See http://www.afrinic.net/community/policy-development/policy-proposals/1827-internet-number-resources-review-by-afrinic" With Regards. Serge Ilunga Cell: +243814443160 Skype: sergekbk R.D.Congo -------- Original message -------- From: Andrew Alston > Date: 10/14/2016 21:17 (GMT+01:00) To: Jean-Baptiste MILLOGO >, Omo Oaiya > Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC > Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] IPv6 Chapter 254 Just a question about the audit policy?. Is it agreed that if we have such a policy, we should also audit the v6 assignments people are holding that should be announced under the needs based policy rules? Andrew From: Jean-Baptiste MILLOGO > Date: Friday, 14 October 2016 at 23:14 To: Omo Oaiya > Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC >, Andrew Alston > Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] IPv6 Chapter 254 Thank a lot Omo. Audit policy will helps us to figure out where the numbers end Le 14 oct. 2016 18:27, "Omo Oaiya" > a ?crit : > > > On 14 October 2016 at 17:34, Andrew Alston > wrote: >> >> Heh, >> >> >> >> We all have our worries about Cloud Innovation ? but if you?re going to give stats to the list ? at least make them accurate. >> >> >> >> Cloud innovation according to the AfriNIC database has 2 /12s and 1 /11, which is 33% below what you claim in your email below. >> >> > > > Is it? > > whois -B -h whois.afrinic.net -r -T aut-num -T inet6num -T inetnum -i og 'ORG-CIL1-AFRINIC' > > >> >> Some interesting things about this space though. The majority of it (shockingly) is announced out of South Africa and visible via the South African internet exchanges. *Shrug* >> >> > > > I wonder how correct that is if you got the numbers wrong. The point however was that the addresses are being depleted so the noise is not necessary. > > I'd also like to remind you that you are a board member and your commentary is often inappropriate and unbecoming .... regardless of disclaimers. > > -Omo > > > _______________________________________________ > Community-Discuss mailing list > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss > _______________________________________________ Community-Discuss mailing list Community-Discuss at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jacksonmuthi at gmail.com Wed Oct 19 12:27:02 2016 From: jacksonmuthi at gmail.com (Jackson Muthili) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2016 15:27:02 +0300 Subject: [Community-Discuss] IPv6 Chapter 254 In-Reply-To: <6A7CFD91-E0C4-47EF-9386-FE95800CDD8C@liquidtelecom.com> References: <1sp2u7fgrmbjdwf5xwvi13sx.1476791233160@email.android.com> <6A7CFD91-E0C4-47EF-9386-FE95800CDD8C@liquidtelecom.com> Message-ID: > c.) The size of an ISP should have no impact on their prioritization of V6 ? in fact it is significantly easier for smaller organizations to deploy v6 than it is for larger ones, due to far less infrastructure changes and far less single change impact ? and I do not believe for one second that the size of an organization is an excuse for lack of v6 deployment ? nor do I believe we should act as enablers for this behavior by accepting that excuse. A very good point. Smaller ISPs are at a better advantage and should waste no time moving to v6 up to last mile. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mangawilly at gmail.com Thu Oct 20 21:56:07 2016 From: mangawilly at gmail.com (Willy MANGA) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2016 22:56:07 +0100 Subject: [Community-Discuss] IPv6 Chapter 254 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <57ac3366-1e04-b698-0a05-2a349de7eaef@gmail.com> Hi Kevin, Le 11/10/2016 ? 13:16, Kevin Kamonye a ?crit : > [...] > *Networks will move to deploy IPv6 under the following influences:* > *a) The cost of getting IPv4 addresses becomes un-bearable (as would be if > they have to be acquired from the Transfer market) * > > *b) There are no IPv4 addresses to be gotten, anywhere (even if you have > money to buy them)* > *c) The network's owners have this blinding insight of the obvious that the > IPv4 game is an un-winable one and IPv6 is the only sustainable way* > *d) Some powerful entity forces them (by mandates or by incentives) to > deploy IPv6 (like gov't IT regulators)* *e) Universities (through REN ?) will realise that they can't deploy on their networks only IPv4. It's a shame (in my humble opinion) that our universities don't see the need of IPv6. What about their research ? what about study of new network behavior ? protocols ? How can they rely on this deprecated protocol ? :-\ We forget that universities are the main place of research and innovation ... -- Willy Manga freenode: ongolaBoy Ubuntu Cameroonian Loco Team https://launchpad.net/~manga-willy -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 819 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com Fri Oct 21 07:57:05 2016 From: Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com (Andrew Alston) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 07:57:05 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] IPv6 Chapter 254 In-Reply-To: <57ac3366-1e04-b698-0a05-2a349de7eaef@gmail.com> References: <57ac3366-1e04-b698-0a05-2a349de7eaef@gmail.com> Message-ID: <6B4422C3-C131-40AE-926E-76AB7FEA9A29@liquidtelecom.com> Hi Willy, Just as a matter of interest. I deployed IPv6 to a university a few years ago (I think this was around 4 years ago?) ? end to end ? every single host on the network with v6, and connecting to the outside world via a proxy server that was also v6 enabled. Today ? their v6 utilization by measurement of APNIC on that ASN is close to 100% (Because they hit every single measurement point with v6). It took a week to deploy the entire lot ? but it does show what can be done. See http://stats.labs.apnic.net/ipv6/AS37501 Thanks Andrew On 21/10/2016, 00:56, "Willy MANGA" wrote: Hi Kevin, Le 11/10/2016 ? 13:16, Kevin Kamonye a ?crit : > [...] > *Networks will move to deploy IPv6 under the following influences:* > *a) The cost of getting IPv4 addresses becomes un-bearable (as would be if > they have to be acquired from the Transfer market) * > > *b) There are no IPv4 addresses to be gotten, anywhere (even if you have > money to buy them)* > *c) The network's owners have this blinding insight of the obvious that the > IPv4 game is an un-winable one and IPv6 is the only sustainable way* > *d) Some powerful entity forces them (by mandates or by incentives) to > deploy IPv6 (like gov't IT regulators)* *e) Universities (through REN ?) will realise that they can't deploy on their networks only IPv4. It's a shame (in my humble opinion) that our universities don't see the need of IPv6. What about their research ? what about study of new network behavior ? protocols ? How can they rely on this deprecated protocol ? :-\ We forget that universities are the main place of research and innovation ... -- Willy Manga freenode: ongolaBoy Ubuntu Cameroonian Loco Team https://launchpad.net/~manga-willy From mark.tinka at seacom.mu Tue Oct 25 05:39:46 2016 From: mark.tinka at seacom.mu (Mark Tinka) Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2016 07:39:46 +0200 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Fwd: [apops] APRICOT 2017 Call for Presentations In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: [apops] APRICOT 2017 Call for Presentations Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2016 17:34:19 +0600 From: Philip Smith To: apops at apops.net Hi everyone, Asia Pacific Regional Internet Conference on Operational Technologies (APRICOT) 27th February - 2nd March 2017, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam https://2017.apricot.net CALL FOR PAPERS =============== The APRICOT 2017 Programme Committee is now seeking contributions for Presentations and Tutorials for the APRICOT 2017 Conference. We are looking for presenters who would: - Offer a technical tutorial on an appropriate topic; - Participate in the technical conference sessions as a speaker; - Convene and chair panel sessions of relevant topics. Please submit on-line at: http://papers.apricot.net/user/login.php?event=48 CONFERENCE MILESTONES --------------------- Call for Papers Opens: Now Draft Program Published: As Papers Confirmed Final Deadline for Submissions: 30 January 2016 Final Program Published: 6 February 2017 Final Slides Received: 13 February 2017 *NOTE THAT REGARDLESS OF DEADLINES SLOTS ARE FILLED ON A FIRST COME, FIRST SERVED BASIS* PROGRAMME MATERIAL ------------------ The APRICOT Conference Programme consists of three parts, these being the Peering Forum, Tutorials, and Conference Tracks. Topics proposed must be relevant to Internet Operations and Technologies: - IPv4 / IPv6 Routing and operations - IPv6 deployment and transition technologies - Internet backbone operations - ISP and Carrier services - IXPs and Peering - Research on Internet Operations and Deployment - Software Defined Networking / Network Function Virtualisaton - Network security issues (NSP-SEC, DDoS, Anti-Spam, Anti-Malware) - DNS / DNSSEC - Internet policy (Security, Regulation, Content Management, Addressing, etc) - Access and Transport Technologies, including Cable/DSL, 3G/LTE, wireless, metro ethernet, fibre, MPLS - Content & Service Delivery (Multicast, Voice, Video, "telepresence", Gaming) and Cloud Computing CfP SUBMISSION -------------- Draft slides for both tutorials and conference sessions MUST be provided with CfP submissions otherwise the Programme Committee will be unable to review the submission. For avoidance of doubt this means that submissions which do not include slides will be rejected immediately. For work in progress, the most current information available at time of submission is acceptable. All draft and complete slides must be submitted in PDF format only. Final slides are to be provided by the specified deadline for publication on the APRICOT website. Prospective presenters should note that the majority of speaking slots will be filled well before the final submission deadline. The PC may, at their discretion, retain a limited number of slots up to the final submission deadline for presentations that are exceptionally timely, important, or of critical operational importance. Every year we turn away submissions, due to filling up all available programme slots before the deadline. Presenters should endeavour to get material into the PC sooner rather than later. Any questions or concerns should be addressed to the Programme Committee by e-mail at: pc-chairs at apricot.net We look forward to receiving your presentation proposals. Mark Tinka & Philip Smith Co-Chairs, APRICOT 2017 Programme Committee -- _______________________________________________ apops mailing list apops at apops.net https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/apops Website: www.apops.net . -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Omo.Oaiya at wacren.net Tue Oct 25 07:05:30 2016 From: Omo.Oaiya at wacren.net (Omo Oaiya) Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2016 08:05:30 +0100 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - PDP review? Message-ID: Dear Community, I am not suggesting there is a problem with the PDP per se or criticising the co-chairs, past or present, but recent discussions on accountability and co-authoring a policy proposal has resulted in my taking a closer look at the PDP and its requirements. The current PDP ( http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/251-policy-development-process-in-the-afrinic-service-region-afpub-2010-gen-005) adopted in 2010 specified improvements from its predecessor. It lists fixing the following issues amongst others as incentive: 1. the case of PDP moderators inability to attend public policy meetings 2. the lack of appeal mechanisms against moderators actions 3. issues fixed on mailing list being reopened at face to face meetings weakening the decision making process. 4. consensus building process leading to scenario where opinions expressed at face to face have more weight that the ones expressed on mailing list While the new PDP succeeded in addressing #1 and #2, it has not addressed #3 and #4. The current PDP introduced the PDWG with co-chairs to perform the "administrative functions? of the group. - It did not describe what these administrative functions were. - It did not prescribe criteria for co-chairs selection or an election mechanism. - It also did not describe the process for determining ?rough consensus?. As a result, we have seen: - co-chairs candidates who could be more familiar with PDP and Internet Number Resource management. - insufficient moderation of policy proposal discussions on the mailing list and at face to face meetings leading to endless repetitive discussions - inability of co-chairs to determine consensus encouraging abuse of the process with some people persistently opposing proposals and stalling progress with insubstantial arguments causing unnecessary delay and frustration The policy discussions at AFRINIC-24 is a perfect illustration. Another easy example is that since AFRINIC-24, there has been little discussion on proposals which were sent back on mailing list for further discussions as per meeting minutes ( http://www.afrinic.net/en/library/policies/archive/ppm-minutes/1847-afrinic-24-pdwgpdp-minutes) and no action from the working group co-chairs. **Some questions for the community and co-chairs** - How do we fix issues #3 and #4? - Will the proposals returned to the list be presented in AFRINIC-25? if yes, what will be the discussion points be and for which expected outcomes? -Omo -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From badru.ntege at nftconsult.com Tue Oct 25 07:58:47 2016 From: badru.ntege at nftconsult.com (Badru Ntege) Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2016 10:58:47 +0300 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - PDP review? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3F521DC4-E46F-4BDE-8A95-B26AF5F70BA5@nftconsult.com> Hi Omo You raise very pertinent issues. I might want to add that we should also look into the capabilities of the candidates. Historically we tend to vote for any willing candidate but as you well note bellow ability to objectively perform the role and manage the process is also needed. Regards On 10/25/16, 10:05 AM, "Omo Oaiya" wrote: Dear Community, I am not suggesting there is a problem with the PDP per se or criticising the co-chairs, past or present, but recent discussions on accountability and co-authoring a policy proposal has resulted in my taking a closer look at the PDP and its requirements. The current PDP (http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/251-policy-development-process-in-the-afrinic-service-region-afpub-2010-gen-005) adopted in 2010 specified improvements from its predecessor. It lists fixing the following issues amongst others as incentive: the case of PDP moderators inability to attend public policy meetings the lack of appeal mechanisms against moderators actions issues fixed on mailing list being reopened at face to face meetings weakening the decision making process. consensus building process leading to scenario where opinions expressed at face to face have more weight that the ones expressed on mailing list While the new PDP succeeded in addressing #1 and #2, it has not addressed #3 and #4 The current PDP introduced the PDWG with co-chairs to perform the "administrative functions? of the group. - It did not describe what these administrative functions were. - It did not prescribe criteria for co-chairs selection or an election mechanism. - It also did not describe the process for determining ?rough consensus?. As a result, we have seen: - co-chairs candidates who could be more familiar with PDP and Internet Number Resource management. - insufficient moderation of policy proposal discussions on the mailing list and at face to face meetings leading to endless repetitive discussions - inability of co-chairs to determine consensus encouraging abuse of the process with some people persistently opposing proposals and stalling progress with insubstantial arguments causing unnecessary delay and frustration The policy discussions at AFRINIC-24 is a perfect illustration. Another easy example is that since AFRINIC-24, there has been little discussion on proposals which were sent back on mailing list for further discussions as per meeting minutes (http://www.afrinic.net/en/library/policies/archive/ppm-minutes/1847-afrinic-24-pdwgpdp-minutes) and no action from the working group co-chairs. **Some questions for the community and co-chairs** - How do we fix issues #3 and #4? - Will the proposals returned to the list be presented in AFRINIC-25? if yes, what will be the discussion points be and for which expected outcomes? -Omo _______________________________________________ Community-Discuss mailing list Community-Discuss at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From amelnaud at gmail.com Tue Oct 25 11:06:52 2016 From: amelnaud at gmail.com (Arnaud AMELINA) Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2016 11:06:52 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - PDP review? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: +1 @Omo and @Badru Regards Le 25 oct. 2016 07:07, "Omo Oaiya" a ?crit : > Dear Community, > > I am not suggesting there is a problem with the PDP per se or criticising > the co-chairs, past or present, but recent discussions on accountability > and co-authoring a policy proposal has resulted in my taking a closer look > at the PDP and its requirements. > > The current PDP (http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/ > 251-policy-development-process-in-the-afrinic- > service-region-afpub-2010-gen-005) adopted in 2010 specified improvements > from its predecessor. > > It lists fixing the following issues amongst others as incentive: > > > 1. the case of PDP moderators inability to attend public policy > meetings > 2. the lack of appeal mechanisms against moderators actions > 3. issues fixed on mailing list being reopened at face to face > meetings weakening the decision making process. > 4. consensus building process leading to scenario where opinions > expressed at face to face have more weight that the ones expressed on > mailing list > > While the new PDP succeeded in addressing #1 and #2, it has not addressed > #3 and #4. > > The current PDP introduced the PDWG with co-chairs to perform the > "administrative functions? of the group. > > - It did not describe what these administrative functions were. > > - It did not prescribe criteria for co-chairs selection or an election > mechanism. > > - It also did not describe the process for determining ?rough consensus?. > > As a result, we have seen: > > - co-chairs candidates who could be more familiar with PDP and Internet > Number Resource management. > > - insufficient moderation of policy proposal discussions on the mailing > list and at face to face meetings leading to endless repetitive discussions > > - inability of co-chairs to determine consensus encouraging abuse of the > process with some people persistently opposing proposals and stalling > progress with insubstantial arguments causing unnecessary delay and > frustration > > The policy discussions at AFRINIC-24 is a perfect illustration. Another > easy example is that since AFRINIC-24, there has been little discussion on > proposals which were sent back on mailing list for further discussions as > per meeting minutes (http://www.afrinic.net/en/ > library/policies/archive/ppm-minutes/1847-afrinic-24-pdwgpdp-minutes) and > no action from the working group co-chairs. > > **Some questions for the community and co-chairs** > > - How do we fix issues #3 and #4? > > - Will the proposals returned to the list be presented in AFRINIC-25? if > yes, what will be the discussion points be and for which expected outcomes? > > -Omo > > _______________________________________________ > Community-Discuss mailing list > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com Tue Oct 25 12:36:36 2016 From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji) Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2016 13:36:36 +0100 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - PDP review? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hello, Speaking on my personal behalf and as a former Co-Chair of PDWG, do find a few comments inline: On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 8:05 AM, Omo Oaiya wrote: > > While the new PDP succeeded in addressing #1 and #2, it has not addressed > #3 and #4. > > The current PDP introduced the PDWG with co-chairs to perform the > "administrative functions? of the group. > > - It did not describe what these administrative functions were. > SO: The overall "administrative" roles and responsibilities of the co-chairs can be found at the PDWG homepage. Does it need to be further broken down than it currently is or does it need to be expanded? I will leave that to the community to discuss and determine. I put the current roles below: *Roles and Responsibilities of the PDWG Chairs* - Determining whether there is consensus during open policy discussions. - Publishing minutes of the proceedings of public policy meetings. - Initiation and termination of final review of proposals (Last Call). - Sending a report of the outcomes of policy discussions at public policy meetings to the Board of Directors. ref: http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/pdwg > - It did not prescribe criteria for co-chairs selection or an election > mechanism. > SO: Hmm...for every election/selection, there has always been election/selection criteria[1]. Although the nomcom leads this process, a quick look at the Bylaw seem to imply that nomcom scope is within Board/Board related elections alone[2] (that may also be something to fix). However the Bylaw was clear on the fact that the Election committee coordinates all election processes[3] which I believe includes that of the Co-Chairs. The question I think the community may need to address is whether the current criteria set is sufficient, if not, should the community recommend more criteria to nomcom or an AFRINIC member propose hard-coding a requirement into the Bylaw which must then be adhered to by nomcom in addition to their own criteria. > - It also did not describe the process for determining ?rough consensus?. > SO: This is indeed one of the challenges that Co-Chairs have had to wrestle with, while the PDP indicated events that will happen before consensus (+rough) is observed, the actual gauging was left to the Co-Chairs and while it has been a difficult task, I believe the Co-Chairs have all made effort to uphold the principles highlighted in section 4 of the PDP in determining consensus. That said, during my time as Co-Chair, myself and my colleagues (yeah colleagues because I welcomed at least 2 co-chair while I was still Co-Chair) and the Policy manager did put up a draft consensus building document which we also presented to the community a couple of times. It may be good to revisit and refine that document... Nevertheless, I believe this may indeed be a point to consider in other to better assist the Co-Chairs in their voluntary work. > As a result, we have seen: > > - co-chairs candidates who could be more familiar with PDP and Internet > Number Resource management. > > - insufficient moderation of policy proposal discussions on the mailing > list and at face to face meetings leading to endless repetitive discussions. > SO: This is indeed one of the things Co-Chairs find challenging; the current PDP requires that comments on the list and that of the face 2 face should be the basis for checking consensus to last call. It would indeed be helpful if all comments that comes in on the list are addressed (as much as possible) by the author(s) and it will also be good if people use the mailing list to raise their concerns as much as possible. However that is usually not the case, hence the challenge. While the Co-Chairs moderation may not have been perfect (depending on our individual standards). I think it would also be good to recognise that we are in a very unique community and environment where effective moderation is not just by skills alone but also by Grace ;-) - inability of co-chairs to determine consensus encouraging abuse of the > process with some people persistently opposing proposals and stalling > progress with insubstantial arguments causing unnecessary delay and > frustration > SO: I am not sure what the above means but I believe "draft policies" always have a consensus status declared at the end of the PPM. Though yes i understand the frustration it could cause if the expectation is different from what the co-chairs declared. That said, I believe that is why we have section 7 of the PDP which can be used to resolve these issues when they arise. > The policy discussions at AFRINIC-24 is a perfect illustration. Another > easy example is that since AFRINIC-24, there has been little discussion on > proposals which were sent back on mailing list for further discussions as > per meeting minutes (http://www.afrinic.net/en/ > library/policies/archive/ppm-minutes/1847-afrinic-24-pdwgpdp-minutes) and > no action from the working group co-chairs. > SO: The current PDP "DOES NOT" permit the co-chairs to discard a proposed policy within 12months of the proposal/edits of such policy, irrespective of whether there is comment or not. However Co-Chairs makes effort to encourage the author(s) to voluntarily withdraw their proposals having observed the community's stand/direction about it. Regards 1. http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/elections/pdwg-election?start=3 2. http://www.afrinic.net/en/about/bylaws?start=8 3. http://www.afrinic.net/en/about/bylaws?start=9 > **Some questions for the community and co-chairs** > > - How do we fix issues #3 and #4? > > - Will the proposals returned to the list be presented in AFRINIC-25? if > yes, what will be the discussion points be and for which expected outcomes? > > -Omo > > _______________________________________________ > Community-Discuss mailing list > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss > > -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng * Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From owen at delong.com Tue Oct 25 17:55:27 2016 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2016 10:55:27 -0700 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - PDP review? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > It lists fixing the following issues amongst others as incentive: > > > the case of PDP moderators inability to attend public policy meetings > the lack of appeal mechanisms against moderators actions > issues fixed on mailing list being reopened at face to face meetings weakening the decision making process. > consensus building process leading to scenario where opinions expressed at face to face have more weight that the ones expressed on mailing list > > While the new PDP succeeded in addressing #1 and #2, it has not addressed #3 and #4. > > - How do we fix issues #3 and #4? > I am not convinced that #3 remains an issue. I?m don?t accept your premise that additional fixing is needed here. Likewise, it?s not clear to me that #4 is actually occurring. I have not seen anything that goes substantially against the mailing list opinion go to last call. If you believe this has occurred, please cite an example. > - Will the proposals returned to the list be presented in AFRINIC-25? if yes, what will be the discussion points be and for which expected outcomes? > If the process is working, wouldn?t that necessarily depend on the outcome of the discussion on the list? While it should be possible to answer the first portion of your question (and as I understand the process, the answer must surely be ?Yes, unless the authors withdraw them?), the answer to the latter half almost certainly cannot yet be determined without undermining the process. Owen -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com Tue Oct 25 19:34:17 2016 From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji) Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2016 20:34:17 +0100 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - PDP review? In-Reply-To: <3F521DC4-E46F-4BDE-8A95-B26AF5F70BA5@nftconsult.com> References: <3F521DC4-E46F-4BDE-8A95-B26AF5F70BA5@nftconsult.com> Message-ID: Hello Badru, Kindly find inline: Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 25 Oct 2016 08:59, "Badru Ntege" wrote: > > Hi Omo > > You raise very pertinent issues. I might want to add that we should also look into the capabilities of the candidates. Historically we tend to vote for any willing candidate but as you well note bellow ability to objectively perform the role and manage the process is also needed. > SO: You raise a point above that I cannot help but comment upon, as you seem to imply that is what Omo meant by his mail as well. I do not believe that the community votes for just any willing candidate, while willingness to serve is indeed a +1 for a candidate, the community does elect/select those who they believe have the ability to serve in such capacity. If there are people within the community who are willing to serve in that role, they should also make themselves available when the call is made and it's up to the community to determine if they have the "ability to objectively perform". Perhaps I should also note that there are clearly stated process to follow if anyone believes that a/the Co-Chair(s) has not acted and adhered to the principal of the PDWG stated in section 4 of the PDP or any other part of the PDP. Let me be very emphatic about this; the sustainability/success of the AFRINIC PDWG is dependent on the community and NOT just the Co-Chairs alone so I encourage us to make the work of the Co-Chairs easier by discussing issues constructively both on the floor, and on the mailing list. One of the former Co-Chair said, maybe we should change the sitting arrangement of the PPM as most of the time, we talk "at" the folks seated on the high-table and not "talking to one another". ;-) Again speaking on my personal behalf (and as a former Co-Chair). Regards > Regards > > > > On 10/25/16, 10:05 AM, "Omo Oaiya" wrote: > >> Dear Community, >> >> I am not suggesting there is a problem with the PDP per se or criticising the co-chairs, past or present, but recent discussions on accountability and co-authoring a policy proposal has resulted in my taking a closer look at the PDP and its requirements. >> >> The current PDP ( http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/251-policy-development-process-in-the-afrinic-service-region-afpub-2010-gen-005) adopted in 2010 specified improvements from its predecessor. >> >> It lists fixing the following issues amongst others as incentive: >> >> the case of PDP moderators inability to attend public policy meetings >> the lack of appeal mechanisms against moderators actions >> issues fixed on mailing list being reopened at face to face meetings weakening the decision making process. >> consensus building process leading to scenario where opinions expressed at face to face have more weight that the ones expressed on mailing list >> >> While the new PDP succeeded in addressing #1 and #2, it has not addressed #3 and #4 >> >> The current PDP introduced the PDWG with co-chairs to perform the "administrative functions? of the group. >> >> - It did not describe what these administrative functions were. >> >> - It did not prescribe criteria for co-chairs selection or an election mechanism. >> >> - It also did not describe the process for determining ?rough consensus?. >> >> As a result, we have seen: >> >> - co-chairs candidates who could be more familiar with PDP and Internet Number Resource management. >> >> - insufficient moderation of policy proposal discussions on the mailing list and at face to face meetings leading to endless repetitive discussions >> >> - inability of co-chairs to determine consensus encouraging abuse of the process with some people persistently opposing proposals and stalling progress with insubstantial arguments causing unnecessary delay and frustration >> >> The policy discussions at AFRINIC-24 is a perfect illustration. Another easy example is that since AFRINIC-24, there has been little discussion on proposals which were sent back on mailing list for further discussions as per meeting minutes ( http://www.afrinic.net/en/library/policies/archive/ppm-minutes/1847-afrinic-24-pdwgpdp-minutes) and no action from the working group co-chairs. >> >> **Some questions for the community and co-chairs** >> >> - How do we fix issues #3 and #4? >> >> - Will the proposals returned to the list be presented in AFRINIC-25? if yes, what will be the discussion points be and for which expected outcomes? >> >> -Omo >> >> _______________________________________________ Community-Discuss mailing list Community-Discuss at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss > > > _______________________________________________ > Community-Discuss mailing list > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dewole at forum.org.ng Wed Oct 26 07:57:07 2016 From: dewole at forum.org.ng (Dewole Ajao) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2016 09:57:07 +0200 Subject: [Community-Discuss] [rpd] Accountability assessment - PDP review? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <19d9d112-f037-cd4c-7afd-893b0a151521@forum.org.ng> Thank you for your inputs, Omo (and others). Each of the draft policy proposals at http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposals is a solution to an existing or foreseen problem as observed from the authors' viewpoint(s). To my knowledge, all proposals updated by their authors after the last public policy meeting have been duly returned to the mailing list by the co-chairs for further discussion. The quality of the resulting discourse is however dependent on the authors, the rest of the PDWG, and willingness to engage on the (granular) substance of the proposals rather than personal or ideological differences. At any point in time, the Policy Development Working Group (i.e. all who CHOOSE to participate on the RPD mailing list and/or in person at the public meetings) has the opportunity to provide feedback on the policy proposals. Authors of policy proposals can choose to incorporate the feedback received to produce an improved proposal that the majority of the community is (more) amenable to. I recommend that as a community, we should: seek solutions that are (roughly) acceptable rather than seek to impose our point of view (no matter how correct they may be) on everyone else. ALL OF US (policy authors or not) should channel our input toward solutions that build consensus rather than simplistically adding +1s and -1s on completely divergent points of view. Since we (supposedly) all have the best interests of the AFRINIC community at heart, we should seek to unite rather than divide. Operating in this manner, we would find that #3 and #4 as listed in the preceding emails are actually non-issues. Regards, Dewole Ajao. PDWG co-Chair On 25/10/2016 09:05, Omo Oaiya wrote: > > Dear Community, > > I am not suggesting there is a problem with the PDP per se or > criticising the co-chairs, past or present, but recent discussions on > accountability and co-authoring a policy proposal has resulted in my > taking a closer look at the PDP and its requirements. > > The current PDP > (http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/251-policy-development-process-in-the-afrinic-service-region-afpub-2010-gen-005) > adopted in 2010 specified improvements from its predecessor. > > It lists fixing the following issues amongst others as incentive: > > 1. the case of PDP moderators inability to attend public policy meetings > 2. the lack of appeal mechanisms against moderators actions > 3. issues fixed on mailing list being reopened at face to face > meetings weakening the decision making process. > 4. consensus building process leading to scenario where opinions > expressed at face to face have more weight that the ones expressed > on mailing list > > While the new PDP succeeded in addressing #1 and #2, it has not > addressed #3 and #4. > > The current PDP introduced the PDWG with co-chairs to perform the > "administrative functions? of the group. > > - It did not describe what these administrative functions were. > > - It did not prescribe criteria for co-chairs selection or an election > mechanism. > > - It also did not describe the process for determining ?rough consensus?. > > As a result, we have seen: > > - co-chairs candidates who could be more familiar with PDP and > Internet Number Resource management. > > - insufficient moderation of policy proposal discussions on the > mailing list and at face to face meetings leading to endless > repetitive discussions > > - inability of co-chairs to determine consensus encouraging abuse of > the process with some people persistently opposing proposals and > stalling progress with insubstantial arguments causing unnecessary > delay and frustration > > The policy discussions at AFRINIC-24 is a perfect illustration. > Another easy example is that since AFRINIC-24, there has been little > discussion on proposals which were sent back on mailing list for > further discussions as per meeting minutes > (http://www.afrinic.net/en/library/policies/archive/ppm-minutes/1847-afrinic-24-pdwgpdp-minutes) > and no action from the working group co-chairs. > > **Some questions for the community and co-chairs** > > - How do we fix issues #3 and #4? > > - Will the proposals returned to the list be presented in AFRINIC-25? > if yes, what will be the discussion points be and for which expected > outcomes? > > -Omo > > > > _______________________________________________ > RPD mailing list > RPD at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From madomey at hotmail.com Wed Oct 26 09:01:08 2016 From: madomey at hotmail.com (Marcus K. G. Adomey) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2016 09:01:08 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - PDP review? In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: Hi Seun, You wrote, SO: This is indeed one of the challenges that Co-Chairs have had to wrestle with, while the PDP indicated events that will happen before consensus (+rough) is observed, the actual gauging was left to the Co-Chairs and while it has been a difficult task, I believe the Co-Chairs have all made effort to uphold the principles highlighted in section 4 of the PDP in determining consensus. That said, during my time as Co-Chair, myself and my colleagues (yeah colleagues because I welcomed at least 2 co-chair while I was still Co-Chair) and the Policy manager did put up a draft consensus building document which we also presented to the community a couple of times. It may be good to revisit and refine that document... Nevertheless, I believe this may indeed be a point to consider in other to better assist the Co-Chairs in their voluntary work. Thanks for acknowledging the issues and your challenges as former Co-chair. Can you please provide links to the document or discussion in archive? Thank you, Marcus ________________________________ From: Seun Ojedeji Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2016 12:36:36 PM To: Omo Oaiya Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC; AfriNIC RPD MList. Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - PDP review? Hello, Speaking on my personal behalf and as a former Co-Chair of PDWG, do find a few comments inline: On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 8:05 AM, Omo Oaiya > wrote: While the new PDP succeeded in addressing #1 and #2, it has not addressed #3 and #4. The current PDP introduced the PDWG with co-chairs to perform the "administrative functions? of the group. - It did not describe what these administrative functions were. SO: The overall "administrative" roles and responsibilities of the co-chairs can be found at the PDWG homepage. Does it need to be further broken down than it currently is or does it need to be expanded? I will leave that to the community to discuss and determine. I put the current roles below: Roles and Responsibilities of the PDWG Chairs * Determining whether there is consensus during open policy discussions. * Publishing minutes of the proceedings of public policy meetings. * Initiation and termination of final review of proposals (Last Call). * Sending a report of the outcomes of policy discussions at public policy meetings to the Board of Directors. ref: http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/pdwg - It did not prescribe criteria for co-chairs selection or an election mechanism. SO: Hmm...for every election/selection, there has always been election/selection criteria[1]. Although the nomcom leads this process, a quick look at the Bylaw seem to imply that nomcom scope is within Board/Board related elections alone[2] (that may also be something to fix). However the Bylaw was clear on the fact that the Election committee coordinates all election processes[3] which I believe includes that of the Co-Chairs. The question I think the community may need to address is whether the current criteria set is sufficient, if not, should the community recommend more criteria to nomcom or an AFRINIC member propose hard-coding a requirement into the Bylaw which must then be adhered to by nomcom in addition to their own criteria. - It also did not describe the process for determining ?rough consensus?. SO: This is indeed one of the challenges that Co-Chairs have had to wrestle with, while the PDP indicated events that will happen before consensus (+rough) is observed, the actual gauging was left to the Co-Chairs and while it has been a difficult task, I believe the Co-Chairs have all made effort to uphold the principles highlighted in section 4 of the PDP in determining consensus. That said, during my time as Co-Chair, myself and my colleagues (yeah colleagues because I welcomed at least 2 co-chair while I was still Co-Chair) and the Policy manager did put up a draft consensus building document which we also presented to the community a couple of times. It may be good to revisit and refine that document... Nevertheless, I believe this may indeed be a point to consider in other to better assist the Co-Chairs in their voluntary work. As a result, we have seen: - co-chairs candidates who could be more familiar with PDP and Internet Number Resource management. - insufficient moderation of policy proposal discussions on the mailing list and at face to face meetings leading to endless repetitive discussions. SO: This is indeed one of the things Co-Chairs find challenging; the current PDP requires that comments on the list and that of the face 2 face should be the basis for checking consensus to last call. It would indeed be helpful if all comments that comes in on the list are addressed (as much as possible) by the author(s) and it will also be good if people use the mailing list to raise their concerns as much as possible. However that is usually not the case, hence the challenge. While the Co-Chairs moderation may not have been perfect (depending on our individual standards). I think it would also be good to recognise that we are in a very unique community and environment where effective moderation is not just by skills alone but also by Grace ;-) - inability of co-chairs to determine consensus encouraging abuse of the process with some people persistently opposing proposals and stalling progress with insubstantial arguments causing unnecessary delay and frustration SO: I am not sure what the above means but I believe "draft policies" always have a consensus status declared at the end of the PPM. Though yes i understand the frustration it could cause if the expectation is different from what the co-chairs declared. That said, I believe that is why we have section 7 of the PDP which can be used to resolve these issues when they arise. The policy discussions at AFRINIC-24 is a perfect illustration. Another easy example is that since AFRINIC-24, there has been little discussion on proposals which were sent back on mailing list for further discussions as per meeting minutes (http://www.afrinic.net/en/library/policies/archive/ppm-minutes/1847-afrinic-24-pdwgpdp-minutes) and no action from the working group co-chairs. SO: The current PDP "DOES NOT" permit the co-chairs to discard a proposed policy within 12months of the proposal/edits of such policy, irrespective of whether there is comment or not. However Co-Chairs makes effort to encourage the author(s) to voluntarily withdraw their proposals having observed the community's stand/direction about it. Regards 1. http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/elections/pdwg-election?start=3 2. http://www.afrinic.net/en/about/bylaws?start=8 3. http://www.afrinic.net/en/about/bylaws?start=9 **Some questions for the community and co-chairs** - How do we fix issues #3 and #4? - Will the proposals returned to the list be presented in AFRINIC-25? if yes, what will be the discussion points be and for which expected outcomes? -Omo _______________________________________________ Community-Discuss mailing list Community-Discuss at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Seun Ojedeji, Federal University Oye-Ekiti web: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535 alt email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com Wed Oct 26 09:29:34 2016 From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2016 10:29:34 +0100 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - PDP review? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 10:01 AM, Marcus K. G. Adomey wrote: > Hi Seun, > > > You wrote, > > > *SO: This is indeed one of the challenges that Co-Chairs have had to > wrestle with, while the PDP indicated events that will happen before > consensus (+rough) is observed, the actual gauging was left to the > Co-Chairs and while it has been a difficult task, I believe the Co-Chairs > have all made effort to uphold the principles highlighted in section 4 of > the PDP in determining consensus. That said, during my time as Co-Chair, > myself and my colleagues (yeah colleagues because I welcomed at least 2 > co-chair while I was still Co-Chair) and the Policy manager did put up a > draft consensus building document which we also presented to the community > a couple of times. It may be good to revisit and refine that document... > Nevertheless, I believe this may indeed be a point to consider in other to > better assist the Co-Chairs in their voluntary work.* > > *Thanks for acknowledging the issues and your challenges as former > Co-chair. * > SO: I hope you also *READ* my comment within context and i quote the relevant sections below: "...the actual gauging was left to the Co-Chairs and while it has been a difficult task, I believe the Co-Chairs have all made effort to uphold the principles highlighted in section 4 of the PDP in determining consensus..." The point is that because consensus building is not documented, it makes some parts of the community (or a community member) often cry foul on the decision of the Co-Chair and that is the challenge. Perhaps, I should note that AFRINIC is not the only RIR that doesn't have a consensus building document and while consensus building isn't really documented within AFRINIC the Co-Chairs do make attempt to gauge consensus(+rough) in a manner similar to that of the IETF. Nevertheless, due to the uniqueness of our community I think it may be a good thing to document even though irrespective of what we finally put on paper, we still require that the community have faith and trust in their elected Co-Chairs as that can't be documented. > * Can you please provide links to the document or discussion in archive?* > SO: I do not know what the current status of the document is but here is the url to the version on my drive which may/may not be the latest version.: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wOQTSXAr_HzKP8jqrOYKESzyubA680JUsV57yBmfBNU/edit?usp=sharing Regards > > *Thank you,* > > > Marcus > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Seun Ojedeji > *Sent:* Tuesday, October 25, 2016 12:36:36 PM > *To:* Omo Oaiya > *Cc:* General Discussions of AFRINIC; AfriNIC RPD MList. > *Subject:* Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - PDP review? > > Hello, > > Speaking on my personal behalf and as a former Co-Chair of PDWG, do find a > few comments inline: > > On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 8:05 AM, Omo Oaiya wrote: > >> >> While the new PDP succeeded in addressing #1 and #2, it has not addressed >> #3 and #4. >> >> The current PDP introduced the PDWG with co-chairs to perform the >> "administrative functions? of the group. >> >> - It did not describe what these administrative functions were. >> > SO: The overall "administrative" roles and responsibilities of the > co-chairs can be found at the PDWG homepage. Does it need to be further > broken down than it currently is or does it need to be expanded? I will > leave that to the community to discuss and determine. I put the current > roles below: > > *Roles and Responsibilities of the PDWG Chairs* > > - Determining whether there is consensus during open policy > discussions. > - Publishing minutes of the proceedings of public policy meetings. > - Initiation and termination of final review of proposals (Last Call). > - Sending a report of the outcomes of policy discussions at public > policy meetings to the Board of Directors. > > ref: http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/pdwg > > >> - It did not prescribe criteria for co-chairs selection or an election >> mechanism. >> > SO: Hmm...for every election/selection, there has always been > election/selection criteria[1]. Although the nomcom leads this process, a > quick look at the Bylaw seem to imply that nomcom scope is within > Board/Board related elections alone[2] (that may also be something to fix). > However the Bylaw was clear on the fact that the Election committee > coordinates all election processes[3] which I believe includes that of the > Co-Chairs. > > The question I think the community may need to address is whether the > current criteria set is sufficient, if not, should the community recommend > more criteria to nomcom or an AFRINIC member propose hard-coding a > requirement into the Bylaw which must then be adhered to by nomcom in > addition to their own criteria. > >> - It also did not describe the process for determining ?rough consensus?. >> >> > SO: This is indeed one of the challenges that Co-Chairs have had to > wrestle with, while the PDP indicated events that will happen before > consensus (+rough) is observed, the actual gauging was left to the > Co-Chairs and while it has been a difficult task, I believe the Co-Chairs > have all made effort to uphold the principles highlighted in section 4 of > the PDP in determining consensus. That said, during my time as Co-Chair, > myself and my colleagues (yeah colleagues because I welcomed at least 2 > co-chair while I was still Co-Chair) and the Policy manager did put up a > draft consensus building document which we also presented to the community > a couple of times. It may be good to revisit and refine that document... > Nevertheless, I believe this may indeed be a point to consider in other to > better assist the Co-Chairs in their voluntary work. > >> As a result, we have seen: >> >> - co-chairs candidates who could be more familiar with PDP and Internet >> Number Resource management. >> >> - insufficient moderation of policy proposal discussions on the mailing >> list and at face to face meetings leading to endless repetitive discussions. >> > SO: This is indeed one of the things Co-Chairs find challenging; the > current PDP requires that comments on the list and that of the face 2 face > should be the basis for checking consensus to last call. It would indeed be > helpful if all comments that comes in on the list are addressed (as much as > possible) by the author(s) and it will also be good if people use the > mailing list to raise their concerns as much as possible. However that is > usually not the case, hence the challenge. While the Co-Chairs moderation > may not have been perfect (depending on our individual standards). I think > it would also be good to recognise that we are in a very unique community > and environment where effective moderation is not just by skills alone but > also by Grace ;-) > > - inability of co-chairs to determine consensus encouraging abuse of the >> process with some people persistently opposing proposals and stalling >> progress with insubstantial arguments causing unnecessary delay and >> frustration >> > SO: I am not sure what the above means but I believe "draft policies" > always have a consensus status declared at the end of the PPM. Though yes i > understand the frustration it could cause if the expectation is different > from what the co-chairs declared. That said, I believe that is why we have > section 7 of the PDP which can be used to resolve these issues when they > arise. > >> The policy discussions at AFRINIC-24 is a perfect illustration. Another >> easy example is that since AFRINIC-24, there has been little discussion on >> proposals which were sent back on mailing list for further discussions as >> per meeting minutes (http://www.afrinic.net/en/lib >> rary/policies/archive/ppm-minutes/1847-afrinic-24-pdwgpdp-minutes) and >> no action from the working group co-chairs. >> > SO: The current PDP "DOES NOT" permit the co-chairs to discard a proposed > policy within 12months of the proposal/edits of such policy, irrespective > of whether there is comment or not. However Co-Chairs makes effort to > encourage the author(s) to voluntarily withdraw their proposals having > observed the community's stand/direction about it. > > > Regards > 1. http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/elections/pdwg-election?start=3 > 2. http://www.afrinic.net/en/about/bylaws?start=8 > 3. http://www.afrinic.net/en/about/bylaws?start=9 > >> **Some questions for the community and co-chairs** >> >> - How do we fix issues #3 and #4? >> >> - Will the proposals returned to the list be presented in AFRINIC-25? if >> yes, what will be the discussion points be and for which expected outcomes? >> >> -Omo >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Community-Discuss mailing list >> Community-Discuss at afrinic.net >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss >> >> > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > > *Seun Ojedeji, Federal University Oye-Ekiti web: > http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535 **alt > email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng > * > > Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action! > > > -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng * Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sergekbk at gmail.com Wed Oct 26 10:23:13 2016 From: sergekbk at gmail.com (sergekbk) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2016 11:23:13 +0100 Subject: [Community-Discuss] [rpd] Accountability assessment - PDP review? Message-ID: Hello Dewole, Don?t you think that? it is the role of the co-chairs to tavoid? the +1 and -1 and drive the process? to consensus? With Regards. Serge IlungaCell: +243814443160Skype: sergekbkR.D.Congo-------- Original message --------From: Dewole Ajao Date: 10/26/2016 08:57 (GMT+01:00) To: Omo Oaiya , General Discussions of AFRINIC Cc: "AfriNIC RPD MList." Subject: Re: [rpd] Accountability assessment - PDP review? Thank you for your inputs, Omo (and others). Each of the draft policy proposals at http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposals is a solution to an existing or foreseen problem as observed from the authors' viewpoint(s). To my knowledge, all proposals updated by their authors after the last public policy meeting have been duly returned to the mailing list by the co-chairs for further discussion. The quality of the resulting discourse is however dependent on the authors, the rest of the PDWG, and willingness to engage on the (granular) substance of the proposals rather than personal or ideological differences. At any point in time, the Policy Development Working Group (i.e. all who CHOOSE to participate on the RPD mailing list and/or in person at the public meetings) has the opportunity to provide feedback on the policy proposals. Authors of policy proposals can choose to incorporate the feedback received to produce an improved proposal that the majority of the community is (more) amenable to. I recommend that as a community, we should: seek solutions that are (roughly) acceptable rather than seek to impose our point of view (no matter how correct they may be) on everyone else. ALL OF US (policy authors or not) should channel our input toward solutions that build consensus rather than simplistically adding +1s and -1s on completely divergent points of view. Since we (supposedly) all have the best interests of the AFRINIC community at heart, we should seek to unite rather than divide. Operating in this manner, we would find that #3 and #4 as listed in the preceding emails are actually non-issues. Regards, Dewole Ajao. PDWG co-Chair On 25/10/2016 09:05, Omo Oaiya wrote: Dear Community, I am not suggesting there is a problem with the PDP per se or criticising the co-chairs, past or present, but recent discussions on accountability and co-authoring a policy proposal has resulted in my taking a closer look at the PDP and its requirements. The current PDP (http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/251-policy-development-process-in-the-afrinic-service-region-afpub-2010-gen-005) adopted in 2010 specified improvements from its predecessor. It lists fixing the following issues amongst others as incentive: the case of PDP moderators inability to attend public policy meetings the lack of appeal mechanisms against moderators actions ?issues fixed on mailing list being reopened at face to face meetings weakening the decision making process. ? consensus building process leading to scenario where opinions expressed at face to face have more weight that the ones expressed on mailing list While the new PDP succeeded in addressing #1 and #2, it has not addressed #3 and #4. The current PDP introduced the PDWG with co-chairs to perform the "administrative functions? of the group. ? - It did not describe what these administrative functions were. ? - It did not prescribe criteria for co-chairs selection or an election mechanism.? - It also did not describe the process for determining ?rough consensus?. ? As a result, we have seen:? - co-chairs candidates who could be more familiar with PDP and Internet Number Resource management. ? - insufficient moderation of policy proposal discussions on the mailing list and at face to face meetings leading to endless repetitive discussions - inability of co-chairs to determine consensus encouraging abuse of the process with some people persistently opposing proposals and stalling progress with insubstantial arguments causing unnecessary delay and frustration The policy discussions at AFRINIC-24 is a perfect illustration.? Another easy example is that since AFRINIC-24, there has been little discussion on proposals which were sent back on mailing list for further discussions as per meeting minutes (http://www.afrinic.net/en/library/policies/archive/ppm-minutes/1847-afrinic-24-pdwgpdp-minutes) and no action from the working group co-chairs.? **Some questions for the community and co-chairs** - How do we fix issues #3 and #4? ? ? - Will the proposals returned to the list be presented in AFRINIC-25? if yes, what will be the discussion points be and for which expected outcomes? -Omo _______________________________________________ RPD mailing list RPD at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jacksonmuthi at gmail.com Wed Oct 26 10:33:15 2016 From: jacksonmuthi at gmail.com (Jackson Muthili) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2016 13:33:15 +0300 Subject: [Community-Discuss] [rpd] Accountability assessment - PDP review? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 1:23 PM, sergekbk wrote: > Hello Dewole, > > Don?t you think that it is the role of the co-chairs to tavoid the +1 and > -1 and drive the process to consensus? is this not what he just wrote about? > > With Regards. > > Serge Ilunga > Cell: +243814443160 > Skype: sergekbk > R.D.Congo > -------- Original message -------- > From: Dewole Ajao > Date: 10/26/2016 08:57 (GMT+01:00) > To: Omo Oaiya , General Discussions of AFRINIC > > Cc: "AfriNIC RPD MList." > Subject: Re: [rpd] Accountability assessment - PDP review? > > Thank you for your inputs, Omo (and others). > > Each of the draft policy proposals at > http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposals is a > solution to an existing or foreseen problem as observed from the authors' > viewpoint(s). > > To my knowledge, all proposals updated by their authors after the last > public policy meeting have been duly returned to the mailing list by the > co-chairs for further discussion. The quality of the resulting discourse is > however dependent on the authors, the rest of the PDWG, and willingness to > engage on the (granular) substance of the proposals rather than personal or > ideological differences. > > At any point in time, the Policy Development Working Group (i.e. all who > CHOOSE to participate on the RPD mailing list and/or in person at the public > meetings) has the opportunity to provide feedback on the policy proposals. > Authors of policy proposals can choose to incorporate the feedback received > to produce an improved proposal that the majority of the community is (more) > amenable to. > > I recommend that as a community, we should: > seek solutions that are (roughly) acceptable > rather than > seek to impose our point of view (no matter how correct they may be) on > everyone else. > > ALL OF US (policy authors or not) should channel our input toward solutions > that build consensus rather than simplistically adding +1s and -1s on > completely divergent points of view. Since we (supposedly) all have the best > interests of the AFRINIC community at heart, we should seek to unite rather > than divide. Operating in this manner, we would find that #3 and #4 as > listed in the preceding emails are actually non-issues. > > Regards, > Dewole Ajao. > PDWG co-Chair > > On 25/10/2016 09:05, Omo Oaiya wrote: > > Dear Community, > > I am not suggesting there is a problem with the PDP per se or criticising > the co-chairs, past or present, but recent discussions on accountability and > co-authoring a policy proposal has resulted in my taking a closer look at > the PDP and its requirements. > > The current PDP > (http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/251-policy-development-process-in-the-afrinic-service-region-afpub-2010-gen-005) > adopted in 2010 specified improvements from its predecessor. > > It lists fixing the following issues amongst others as incentive: > > the case of PDP moderators inability to attend public policy meetings > the lack of appeal mechanisms against moderators actions > issues fixed on mailing list being reopened at face to face meetings > weakening the decision making process. > consensus building process leading to scenario where opinions expressed at > face to face have more weight that the ones expressed on mailing list > > While the new PDP succeeded in addressing #1 and #2, it has not addressed #3 > and #4. > > The current PDP introduced the PDWG with co-chairs to perform the > "administrative functions? of the group. > > - It did not describe what these administrative functions were. > > - It did not prescribe criteria for co-chairs selection or an election > mechanism. > > - It also did not describe the process for determining ?rough consensus?. > > As a result, we have seen: > > - co-chairs candidates who could be more familiar with PDP and Internet > Number Resource management. > > - insufficient moderation of policy proposal discussions on the mailing list > and at face to face meetings leading to endless repetitive discussions > > - inability of co-chairs to determine consensus encouraging abuse of the > process with some people persistently opposing proposals and stalling > progress with insubstantial arguments causing unnecessary delay and > frustration > > The policy discussions at AFRINIC-24 is a perfect illustration. Another > easy example is that since AFRINIC-24, there has been little discussion on > proposals which were sent back on mailing list for further discussions as > per meeting minutes > (http://www.afrinic.net/en/library/policies/archive/ppm-minutes/1847-afrinic-24-pdwgpdp-minutes) > and no action from the working group co-chairs. > > **Some questions for the community and co-chairs** > > - How do we fix issues #3 and #4? > > - Will the proposals returned to the list be presented in AFRINIC-25? if > yes, what will be the discussion points be and for which expected outcomes? > > -Omo > > > > _______________________________________________ > RPD mailing list > RPD at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd > > > > _______________________________________________ > Community-Discuss mailing list > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss > From Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com Wed Oct 26 11:44:09 2016 From: Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com (Andrew Alston) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2016 11:44:09 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] [rpd] Accountability assessment - PDP review? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <026154E2-31C7-4808-A859-435CB8117421@liquidtelecom.com> I actually question this stance, and perhaps what I will be saying may be controversial, but this is how I see it. It is not ? and cannot be ? the job of the co-chairs to drive a process towards consensus. It is the job of the authors of the policy to strive to read the communities wishes and adjust accordingly to gain the consensus (providing that they do not have to adjust to the point where they feel the proposal is mute, and if they do get to that point and that is the requirement to get the policy passed, it is up to the proposers discretion to withdraw or not). Why do I say that the co-chair?s cannot strive towards consensus: To do so implies that the co-chair?s have taken a position on the policy ? and that they should ever do ? it compromises neutrality. If the community by and large rejects a policy proposal because they disagree with the vast majority of its contents, it is certainly not the job of the co-chair?s to drive towards a consensus and to influence that view point in favor of finding consensus for something which should (by the very fact that the community has rejected the majority of it) never reach consensus and should die as a result. The moment that we put it in the hands of the co-chair?s to start driving towards consensus, rather than simply gauging it, we are on a slippery slope where the neutrality mandate given to the chair?s becomes a moot point. I don?t think we want to be in that situation personally. Andrew From: sergekbk Date: Wednesday, 26 October 2016 at 13:23 To: Dewole Ajao , Omo Oaiya , General Discussions of AFRINIC Cc: "AfriNIC RPD MList." Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] [rpd] Accountability assessment - PDP review? Hello Dewole, Don?t you think that it is the role of the co-chairs to tavoid the +1 and -1 and drive the process to consensus? With Regards. Serge Ilunga Cell: +243814443160 Skype: sergekbk R.D.Congo -------- Original message -------- From: Dewole Ajao Date: 10/26/2016 08:57 (GMT+01:00) To: Omo Oaiya , General Discussions of AFRINIC Cc: "AfriNIC RPD MList." Subject: Re: [rpd] Accountability assessment - PDP review? Thank you for your inputs, Omo (and others). Each of the draft policy proposals at http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposals is a solution to an existing or foreseen problem as observed from the authors' viewpoint(s). To my knowledge, all proposals updated by their authors after the last public policy meeting have been duly returned to the mailing list by the co-chairs for further discussion. The quality of the resulting discourse is however dependent on the authors, the rest of the PDWG, and willingness to engage on the (granular) substance of the proposals rather than personal or ideological differences. At any point in time, the Policy Development Working Group (i.e. all who CHOOSE to participate on the RPD mailing list and/or in person at the public meetings) has the opportunity to provide feedback on the policy proposals. Authors of policy proposals can choose to incorporate the feedback received to produce an improved proposal that the majority of the community is (more) amenable to. I recommend that as a community, we should: seek solutions that are (roughly) acceptable rather than seek to impose our point of view (no matter how correct they may be) on everyone else. ALL OF US (policy authors or not) should channel our input toward solutions that build consensus rather than simplistically adding +1s and -1s on completely divergent points of view. Since we (supposedly) all have the best interests of the AFRINIC community at heart, we should seek to unite rather than divide. Operating in this manner, we would find that #3 and #4 as listed in the preceding emails are actually non-issues. Regards, Dewole Ajao. PDWG co-Chair On 25/10/2016 09:05, Omo Oaiya wrote: Dear Community, I am not suggesting there is a problem with the PDP per se or criticising the co-chairs, past or present, but recent discussions on accountability and co-authoring a policy proposal has resulted in my taking a closer look at the PDP and its requirements. The current PDP (http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/251-policy-development-process-in-the-afrinic-service-region-afpub-2010-gen-005) adopted in 2010 specified improvements from its predecessor. It lists fixing the following issues amongst others as incentive: 1. the case of PDP moderators inability to attend public policy meetings 2. the lack of appeal mechanisms against moderators actions 3. issues fixed on mailing list being reopened at face to face meetings weakening the decision making process. 4. consensus building process leading to scenario where opinions expressed at face to face have more weight that the ones expressed on mailing list While the new PDP succeeded in addressing #1 and #2, it has not addressed #3 and #4. The current PDP introduced the PDWG with co-chairs to perform the "administrative functions? of the group. - It did not describe what these administrative functions were. - It did not prescribe criteria for co-chairs selection or an election mechanism. - It also did not describe the process for determining ?rough consensus?. As a result, we have seen: - co-chairs candidates who could be more familiar with PDP and Internet Number Resource management. - insufficient moderation of policy proposal discussions on the mailing list and at face to face meetings leading to endless repetitive discussions - inability of co-chairs to determine consensus encouraging abuse of the process with some people persistently opposing proposals and stalling progress with insubstantial arguments causing unnecessary delay and frustration The policy discussions at AFRINIC-24 is a perfect illustration. Another easy example is that since AFRINIC-24, there has been little discussion on proposals which were sent back on mailing list for further discussions as per meeting minutes (http://www.afrinic.net/en/library/policies/archive/ppm-minutes/1847-afrinic-24-pdwgpdp-minutes) and no action from the working group co-chairs. **Some questions for the community and co-chairs** - How do we fix issues #3 and #4? - Will the proposals returned to the list be presented in AFRINIC-25? if yes, what will be the discussion points be and for which expected outcomes? -Omo _______________________________________________ RPD mailing list RPD at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jacksonmuthi at gmail.com Wed Oct 26 12:08:16 2016 From: jacksonmuthi at gmail.com (Jackson Muthili) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2016 15:08:16 +0300 Subject: [Community-Discuss] [rpd] Accountability assessment - PDP review? In-Reply-To: <026154E2-31C7-4808-A859-435CB8117421@liquidtelecom.com> References: <026154E2-31C7-4808-A859-435CB8117421@liquidtelecom.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 2:44 PM, Andrew Alston wrote: > I actually question this stance, and perhaps what I will be saying may be > controversial, but this is how I see it. > > It is not ? and cannot be ? the job of the co-chairs to drive a process > towards consensus. english not everyones 1st language and i doubt this is what serge meant. off-course chairs cannot shove consensus down peoples throats > It is the job of the authors of the policy to strive to > read the communities wishes and adjust accordingly to gain the consensus > (providing that they do not have to adjust to the point where they feel the > proposal is mute, and if they do get to that point and that is the > requirement to get the policy passed, it is up to the proposers discretion > to withdraw or not). > > Why do I say that the co-chair?s cannot strive towards consensus: > > To do so implies that the co-chair?s have taken a position on the policy ? > and that they should ever do ? it compromises neutrality. If the community > by and large rejects a policy proposal because they disagree with the vast > majority of its contents, it is certainly not the job of the co-chair?s to > drive towards a consensus and to influence that view point in favor of > finding consensus for something which should (by the very fact that the > community has rejected the majority of it) never reach consensus and should > die as a result. > > The moment that we put it in the hands of the co-chair?s to start driving > towards consensus, rather than simply gauging it, we are on a slippery slope > where the neutrality mandate given to the chair?s becomes a moot point. I > don?t think we want to be in that situation personally. > > Andrew From amelnaud at gmail.com Wed Oct 26 18:56:55 2016 From: amelnaud at gmail.com (Arnaud AMELINA) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2016 18:56:55 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] [rpd] Accountability assessment - PDP review? In-Reply-To: <026154E2-31C7-4808-A859-435CB8117421@liquidtelecom.com> References: <026154E2-31C7-4808-A859-435CB8117421@liquidtelecom.com> Message-ID: I do not agree with your opinion Andrew, since Co-Chaires have the responsibility to lead the process, they automatically have the responsibility to ensure its completion, and the only way is to determine the rough consensus. If I stand to your opinion, how do we determine the "large" number of members approval or rejecting the draft of the Policy? Regards Arnaud Le 26 oct. 2016 11:45, "Andrew Alston" a ?crit : > I actually question this stance, and perhaps what I will be saying may be > controversial, but this is how I see it. > > > > It is not ? and cannot be ? the job of the co-chairs to drive a process > towards consensus. It is the job of the authors of the policy to strive to > read the communities wishes and adjust accordingly to gain the consensus > (providing that they do not have to adjust to the point where they feel the > proposal is mute, and if they do get to that point and that is the > requirement to get the policy passed, it is up to the proposers discretion > to withdraw or not). > > > > Why do I say that the co-chair?s cannot strive towards consensus: > > > > To do so implies that the co-chair?s have taken a position on the policy ? > and that they should ever do ? it compromises neutrality. If the community > by and large rejects a policy proposal because they disagree with the vast > majority of its contents, it is certainly not the job of the co-chair?s to > drive towards a consensus and to influence that view point in favor of > finding consensus for something which should (by the very fact that the > community has rejected the majority of it) never reach consensus and should > die as a result. > > > > The moment that we put it in the hands of the co-chair?s to start driving > towards consensus, rather than simply gauging it, we are on a slippery > slope where the neutrality mandate given to the chair?s becomes a moot > point. I don?t think we want to be in that situation personally. > > > > Andrew > > > > > > *From: *sergekbk > *Date: *Wednesday, 26 October 2016 at 13:23 > *To: *Dewole Ajao , Omo Oaiya , > General Discussions of AFRINIC > *Cc: *"AfriNIC RPD MList." > *Subject: *Re: [Community-Discuss] [rpd] Accountability assessment - PDP > review? > > > > Hello Dewole, > > Don?t you think that it is the role of the co-chairs to tavoid the +1 > and -1 and drive the process to consensus? > > With Regards. > > > > *Serge Ilunga* > > *Cell: +243814443160 <%2B243814443160>* > > *Skype: sergekbk* > > *R.D.Congo* > > -------- Original message -------- > > From: Dewole Ajao > > Date: 10/26/2016 08:57 (GMT+01:00) > > To: Omo Oaiya , General Discussions of AFRINIC < > community-discuss at afrinic.net> > > Cc: "AfriNIC RPD MList." > > Subject: Re: [rpd] Accountability assessment - PDP review? > > > > Thank you for your inputs, Omo (and others). > > Each of the draft policy proposals at http://www.afrinic.net/en/ > community/policy-development/policy-proposals is a solution to an > existing or foreseen problem as observed from the authors' viewpoint(s). > > To my knowledge, all proposals updated by their authors after the last > public policy meeting have been duly returned to the mailing list by the > co-chairs for further discussion. The quality of the resulting discourse is > however dependent on the authors, the rest of the PDWG, and willingness to > engage on the (granular) substance of the proposals rather than personal or > ideological differences. > > At any point in time, the Policy Development Working Group (i.e. all who > CHOOSE to participate on the RPD mailing list and/or in person at the > public meetings) has the opportunity to provide feedback on the policy > proposals. Authors of policy proposals can choose to incorporate the > feedback received to produce an improved proposal that the majority of the > community is (more) amenable to. > > I recommend that as a community, we should: > seek solutions that are (roughly) acceptable > rather than > seek to impose our point of view (no matter how correct they may be) on > everyone else. > > ALL OF US (policy authors or not) should channel our input toward > solutions that build consensus rather than simplistically adding +1s and > -1s on completely divergent points of view. Since we (supposedly) all have > the best interests of the AFRINIC community at heart, we should seek to > unite rather than divide. Operating in this manner, we would find that #3 > and #4 as listed in the preceding emails are actually non-issues. > > Regards, > Dewole Ajao. > PDWG co-Chair > > On 25/10/2016 09:05, Omo Oaiya wrote: > > Dear Community, > > I am not suggesting there is a problem with the PDP per se or criticising > the co-chairs, past or present, but recent discussions on accountability > and co-authoring a policy proposal has resulted in my taking a closer look > at the PDP and its requirements. > > The current PDP (http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/ > 251-policy-development-process-in-the-afrinic- > service-region-afpub-2010-gen-005) adopted in 2010 specified improvements > from its predecessor. > > It lists fixing the following issues amongst others as incentive: > > 1. the case of PDP moderators inability to attend public policy > meetings > 2. the lack of appeal mechanisms against moderators actions > 3. issues fixed on mailing list being reopened at face to face > meetings weakening the decision making process. > 4. consensus building process leading to scenario where opinions > expressed at face to face have more weight that the ones expressed on > mailing list > > While the new PDP succeeded in addressing #1 and #2, it has not addressed > #3 and #4. > > The current PDP introduced the PDWG with co-chairs to perform the > "administrative functions? of the group. > > - It did not describe what these administrative functions were. > > - It did not prescribe criteria for co-chairs selection or an election > mechanism. > > - It also did not describe the process for determining ?rough consensus?. > > As a result, we have seen: > > - co-chairs candidates who could be more familiar with PDP and Internet > Number Resource management. > > - insufficient moderation of policy proposal discussions on the mailing > list and at face to face meetings leading to endless repetitive discussions > > - inability of co-chairs to determine consensus encouraging abuse of the > process with some people persistently opposing proposals and stalling > progress with insubstantial arguments causing unnecessary delay and > frustration > > The policy discussions at AFRINIC-24 is a perfect illustration. Another > easy example is that since AFRINIC-24, there has been little discussion on > proposals which were sent back on mailing list for further discussions as > per meeting minutes (http://www.afrinic.net/en/ > library/policies/archive/ppm-minutes/1847-afrinic-24-pdwgpdp-minutes) and > no action from the working group co-chairs. > > **Some questions for the community and co-chairs** > > - How do we fix issues #3 and #4? > > - Will the proposals returned to the list be presented in AFRINIC-25? if > yes, what will be the discussion points be and for which expected outcomes? > > -Omo > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > RPD mailing list > > RPD at afrinic.net > > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Community-Discuss mailing list > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com Wed Oct 26 19:20:17 2016 From: Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com (Andrew Alston) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2016 19:20:17 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] [rpd] Accountability assessment - PDP review? In-Reply-To: References: <026154E2-31C7-4808-A859-435CB8117421@liquidtelecom.com> Message-ID: <7B5F3DED-C095-425B-9DA0-1D304EC8B2FD@liquidtelecom.com> Arnaud, I argue that it is there job to *gauge* consensus, if there is no consensus, then it is the responsibility of the authors to go and find the consensus or withdraw. It is not the job of the chairs to push to find that consensus, the authors of policy need to take responsibility Andrew From: Arnaud AMELINA Date: Wednesday, 26 October 2016 at 21:56 To: Andrew Alston Cc: "rpd >> AfriNIC Resource Policy" , Omo Oaiya , Dewole Ajao , General Discussions of AFRINIC , sergekbk Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] [rpd] Accountability assessment - PDP review? I do not agree with your opinion Andrew, since Co-Chaires have the responsibility to lead the process, they automatically have the responsibility to ensure its completion, and the only way is to determine the rough consensus. If I stand to your opinion, how do we determine the "large" number of members approval or rejecting the draft of the Policy? Regards Arnaud Le 26 oct. 2016 11:45, "Andrew Alston" > a ?crit : I actually question this stance, and perhaps what I will be saying may be controversial, but this is how I see it. It is not ? and cannot be ? the job of the co-chairs to drive a process towards consensus. It is the job of the authors of the policy to strive to read the communities wishes and adjust accordingly to gain the consensus (providing that they do not have to adjust to the point where they feel the proposal is mute, and if they do get to that point and that is the requirement to get the policy passed, it is up to the proposers discretion to withdraw or not). Why do I say that the co-chair?s cannot strive towards consensus: To do so implies that the co-chair?s have taken a position on the policy ? and that they should ever do ? it compromises neutrality. If the community by and large rejects a policy proposal because they disagree with the vast majority of its contents, it is certainly not the job of the co-chair?s to drive towards a consensus and to influence that view point in favor of finding consensus for something which should (by the very fact that the community has rejected the majority of it) never reach consensus and should die as a result. The moment that we put it in the hands of the co-chair?s to start driving towards consensus, rather than simply gauging it, we are on a slippery slope where the neutrality mandate given to the chair?s becomes a moot point. I don?t think we want to be in that situation personally. Andrew From: sergekbk > Date: Wednesday, 26 October 2016 at 13:23 To: Dewole Ajao >, Omo Oaiya >, General Discussions of AFRINIC > Cc: "AfriNIC RPD MList." > Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] [rpd] Accountability assessment - PDP review? Hello Dewole, Don?t you think that it is the role of the co-chairs to tavoid the +1 and -1 and drive the process to consensus? With Regards. Serge Ilunga Cell: +243814443160 Skype: sergekbk R.D.Congo -------- Original message -------- From: Dewole Ajao > Date: 10/26/2016 08:57 (GMT+01:00) To: Omo Oaiya >, General Discussions of AFRINIC > Cc: "AfriNIC RPD MList." > Subject: Re: [rpd] Accountability assessment - PDP review? Thank you for your inputs, Omo (and others). Each of the draft policy proposals at http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposals is a solution to an existing or foreseen problem as observed from the authors' viewpoint(s). To my knowledge, all proposals updated by their authors after the last public policy meeting have been duly returned to the mailing list by the co-chairs for further discussion. The quality of the resulting discourse is however dependent on the authors, the rest of the PDWG, and willingness to engage on the (granular) substance of the proposals rather than personal or ideological differences. At any point in time, the Policy Development Working Group (i.e. all who CHOOSE to participate on the RPD mailing list and/or in person at the public meetings) has the opportunity to provide feedback on the policy proposals. Authors of policy proposals can choose to incorporate the feedback received to produce an improved proposal that the majority of the community is (more) amenable to. I recommend that as a community, we should: seek solutions that are (roughly) acceptable rather than seek to impose our point of view (no matter how correct they may be) on everyone else. ALL OF US (policy authors or not) should channel our input toward solutions that build consensus rather than simplistically adding +1s and -1s on completely divergent points of view. Since we (supposedly) all have the best interests of the AFRINIC community at heart, we should seek to unite rather than divide. Operating in this manner, we would find that #3 and #4 as listed in the preceding emails are actually non-issues. Regards, Dewole Ajao. PDWG co-Chair On 25/10/2016 09:05, Omo Oaiya wrote: Dear Community, I am not suggesting there is a problem with the PDP per se or criticising the co-chairs, past or present, but recent discussions on accountability and co-authoring a policy proposal has resulted in my taking a closer look at the PDP and its requirements. The current PDP (http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/251-policy-development-process-in-the-afrinic-service-region-afpub-2010-gen-005) adopted in 2010 specified improvements from its predecessor. It lists fixing the following issues amongst others as incentive: 1. the case of PDP moderators inability to attend public policy meetings 2. the lack of appeal mechanisms against moderators actions 3. issues fixed on mailing list being reopened at face to face meetings weakening the decision making process. 4. consensus building process leading to scenario where opinions expressed at face to face have more weight that the ones expressed on mailing list While the new PDP succeeded in addressing #1 and #2, it has not addressed #3 and #4. The current PDP introduced the PDWG with co-chairs to perform the "administrative functions? of the group. - It did not describe what these administrative functions were. - It did not prescribe criteria for co-chairs selection or an election mechanism. - It also did not describe the process for determining ?rough consensus?. As a result, we have seen: - co-chairs candidates who could be more familiar with PDP and Internet Number Resource management. - insufficient moderation of policy proposal discussions on the mailing list and at face to face meetings leading to endless repetitive discussions - inability of co-chairs to determine consensus encouraging abuse of the process with some people persistently opposing proposals and stalling progress with insubstantial arguments causing unnecessary delay and frustration The policy discussions at AFRINIC-24 is a perfect illustration. Another easy example is that since AFRINIC-24, there has been little discussion on proposals which were sent back on mailing list for further discussions as per meeting minutes (http://www.afrinic.net/en/library/policies/archive/ppm-minutes/1847-afrinic-24-pdwgpdp-minutes) and no action from the working group co-chairs. **Some questions for the community and co-chairs** - How do we fix issues #3 and #4? - Will the proposals returned to the list be presented in AFRINIC-25? if yes, what will be the discussion points be and for which expected outcomes? -Omo _______________________________________________ RPD mailing list RPD at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd _______________________________________________ Community-Discuss mailing list Community-Discuss at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From amelnaud at gmail.com Wed Oct 26 20:16:56 2016 From: amelnaud at gmail.com (Arnaud AMELINA) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2016 20:16:56 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] [rpd] Accountability assessment - PDP review? In-Reply-To: <7B5F3DED-C095-425B-9DA0-1D304EC8B2FD@liquidtelecom.com> References: <026154E2-31C7-4808-A859-435CB8117421@liquidtelecom.com> <7B5F3DED-C095-425B-9DA0-1D304EC8B2FD@liquidtelecom.com> Message-ID: Ok, Andrew. But I am not arguing. I hope you read and now understand better from RFC, from Alain and Alan, on Co-Chair role and gauging consensus. Regards Arnaud Le 26 oct. 2016 19:20, "Andrew Alston" a ?crit : > Arnaud, > > > > I argue that it is there job to **gauge** consensus, if there is no > consensus, then it is the responsibility of the authors to go and find the > consensus or withdraw. > > > > It is not the job of the chairs to push to find that consensus, the > authors of policy need to take responsibility > > > > Andrew > > > > > > *From: *Arnaud AMELINA > *Date: *Wednesday, 26 October 2016 at 21:56 > *To: *Andrew Alston > *Cc: *"rpd >> AfriNIC Resource Policy" , Omo Oaiya < > Omo.Oaiya at wacren.net>, Dewole Ajao , General > Discussions of AFRINIC , sergekbk < > sergekbk at gmail.com> > *Subject: *Re: [Community-Discuss] [rpd] Accountability assessment - PDP > review? > > > > I do not agree with your opinion Andrew, since Co-Chaires have the > responsibility to lead the process, they automatically have the > responsibility to ensure its completion, and the only way is to determine > the rough consensus. > > If I stand to your opinion, how do we determine the "large" > number of members approval or rejecting the draft of the Policy? > > Regards > > Arnaud > > > > Le 26 oct. 2016 11:45, "Andrew Alston" > a ?crit : > > I actually question this stance, and perhaps what I will be saying may be > controversial, but this is how I see it. > > > > It is not ? and cannot be ? the job of the co-chairs to drive a process > towards consensus. It is the job of the authors of the policy to strive to > read the communities wishes and adjust accordingly to gain the consensus > (providing that they do not have to adjust to the point where they feel the > proposal is mute, and if they do get to that point and that is the > requirement to get the policy passed, it is up to the proposers discretion > to withdraw or not). > > > > Why do I say that the co-chair?s cannot strive towards consensus: > > > > To do so implies that the co-chair?s have taken a position on the policy ? > and that they should ever do ? it compromises neutrality. If the community > by and large rejects a policy proposal because they disagree with the vast > majority of its contents, it is certainly not the job of the co-chair?s to > drive towards a consensus and to influence that view point in favor of > finding consensus for something which should (by the very fact that the > community has rejected the majority of it) never reach consensus and should > die as a result. > > > > The moment that we put it in the hands of the co-chair?s to start driving > towards consensus, rather than simply gauging it, we are on a slippery > slope where the neutrality mandate given to the chair?s becomes a moot > point. I don?t think we want to be in that situation personally. > > > > Andrew > > > > > > *From: *sergekbk > *Date: *Wednesday, 26 October 2016 at 13:23 > *To: *Dewole Ajao , Omo Oaiya , > General Discussions of AFRINIC > *Cc: *"AfriNIC RPD MList." > *Subject: *Re: [Community-Discuss] [rpd] Accountability assessment - PDP > review? > > > > Hello Dewole, > > Don?t you think that it is the role of the co-chairs to tavoid the +1 > and -1 and drive the process to consensus? > > With Regards. > > > > *Serge Ilunga* > > *Cell: +243814443160 <%2B243814443160>* > > *Skype: sergekbk* > > *R.D.Congo* > > -------- Original message -------- > > From: Dewole Ajao > > Date: 10/26/2016 08:57 (GMT+01:00) > > To: Omo Oaiya , General Discussions of AFRINIC < > community-discuss at afrinic.net> > > Cc: "AfriNIC RPD MList." > > Subject: Re: [rpd] Accountability assessment - PDP review? > > > > Thank you for your inputs, Omo (and others). > > Each of the draft policy proposals at http://www.afrinic.net/en/ > community/policy-development/policy-proposals is a solution to an > existing or foreseen problem as observed from the authors' viewpoint(s). > > To my knowledge, all proposals updated by their authors after the last > public policy meeting have been duly returned to the mailing list by the > co-chairs for further discussion. The quality of the resulting discourse is > however dependent on the authors, the rest of the PDWG, and willingness to > engage on the (granular) substance of the proposals rather than personal or > ideological differences. > > At any point in time, the Policy Development Working Group (i.e. all who > CHOOSE to participate on the RPD mailing list and/or in person at the > public meetings) has the opportunity to provide feedback on the policy > proposals. Authors of policy proposals can choose to incorporate the > feedback received to produce an improved proposal that the majority of the > community is (more) amenable to. > > I recommend that as a community, we should: > seek solutions that are (roughly) acceptable > rather than > seek to impose our point of view (no matter how correct they may be) on > everyone else. > > ALL OF US (policy authors or not) should channel our input toward > solutions that build consensus rather than simplistically adding +1s and > -1s on completely divergent points of view. Since we (supposedly) all have > the best interests of the AFRINIC community at heart, we should seek to > unite rather than divide. Operating in this manner, we would find that #3 > and #4 as listed in the preceding emails are actually non-issues. > > Regards, > Dewole Ajao. > PDWG co-Chair > > On 25/10/2016 09:05, Omo Oaiya wrote: > > Dear Community, > > I am not suggesting there is a problem with the PDP per se or criticising > the co-chairs, past or present, but recent discussions on accountability > and co-authoring a policy proposal has resulted in my taking a closer look > at the PDP and its requirements. > > The current PDP (http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/ > 251-policy-development-process-in-the-afrinic- > service-region-afpub-2010-gen-005) adopted in 2010 specified improvements > from its predecessor. > > It lists fixing the following issues amongst others as incentive: > > 1. the case of PDP moderators inability to attend public policy > meetings > 2. the lack of appeal mechanisms against moderators actions > 3. issues fixed on mailing list being reopened at face to face > meetings weakening the decision making process. > 4. consensus building process leading to scenario where opinions > expressed at face to face have more weight that the ones expressed on > mailing list > > While the new PDP succeeded in addressing #1 and #2, it has not addressed > #3 and #4. > > The current PDP introduced the PDWG with co-chairs to perform the > "administrative functions? of the group. > > - It did not describe what these administrative functions were. > > - It did not prescribe criteria for co-chairs selection or an election > mechanism. > > - It also did not describe the process for determining ?rough consensus?. > > As a result, we have seen: > > - co-chairs candidates who could be more familiar with PDP and Internet > Number Resource management. > > - insufficient moderation of policy proposal discussions on the mailing > list and at face to face meetings leading to endless repetitive discussions > > - inability of co-chairs to determine consensus encouraging abuse of the > process with some people persistently opposing proposals and stalling > progress with insubstantial arguments causing unnecessary delay and > frustration > > The policy discussions at AFRINIC-24 is a perfect illustration. Another > easy example is that since AFRINIC-24, there has been little discussion on > proposals which were sent back on mailing list for further discussions as > per meeting minutes (http://www.afrinic.net/en/ > library/policies/archive/ppm-minutes/1847-afrinic-24-pdwgpdp-minutes) and > no action from the working group co-chairs. > > **Some questions for the community and co-chairs** > > - How do we fix issues #3 and #4? > > - Will the proposals returned to the list be presented in AFRINIC-25? if > yes, what will be the discussion points be and for which expected outcomes? > > -Omo > > > > _______________________________________________ > > RPD mailing list > > RPD at afrinic.net > > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Community-Discuss mailing list > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From owen at delong.com Thu Oct 27 00:09:34 2016 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2016 17:09:34 -0700 Subject: [Community-Discuss] [rpd] Accountability assessment - PDP review? In-Reply-To: <026154E2-31C7-4808-A859-435CB8117421@liquidtelecom.com> References: <026154E2-31C7-4808-A859-435CB8117421@liquidtelecom.com> Message-ID: > On Oct 26, 2016, at 04:44 , Andrew Alston wrote: > > I actually question this stance, and perhaps what I will be saying may be controversial, but this is how I see it. > > It is not ? and cannot be ? the job of the co-chairs to drive a process towards consensus. It is the job of the authors of the policy to strive to read the communities wishes and adjust accordingly to gain the consensus (providing that they do not have to adjust to the point where they feel the proposal is mute, and if they do get to that point and that is the requirement to get the policy passed, it is up to the proposers discretion to withdraw or not). I disagree, but in a subtle way. I think it is the job of the co-chairs to help the community achieve consensus one way or the other. It is not and cannot be the job of the co-chairs to choose the direction of that consensus or attempt to steer the community in any particular direction of consensus, but rather to attempt to accommodate the diverse input and help the community in determining a course that is acceptable to all stakeholders or as close to that as reasonably possible. > Why do I say that the co-chair?s cannot strive towards consensus: > > To do so implies that the co-chair?s have taken a position on the policy ? and that they should ever do ? it compromises neutrality. If the community by and large rejects a policy proposal because they disagree with the vast majority of its contents, it is certainly not the job of the co-chair?s to drive towards a consensus and to influence that view point in favor of finding consensus for something which should (by the very fact that the community has rejected the majority of it) never reach consensus and should die as a result. This is a false dichotomy. One can attempt to identify and assist the community in arriving at a point of possible consensus while remaining neutral and accepting input from the community as to which direction leads towards that point. > The moment that we put it in the hands of the co-chair?s to start driving towards consensus, rather than simply gauging it, we are on a slippery slope where the neutrality mandate given to the chair?s becomes a moot point. I don?t think we want to be in that situation personally. If we allow the co-chairs to lose their neutrality and start driving the direction of consensus, you are completely correct. However, if we ask the co-chairs to help try to understand the direction of the community and offer alternatives seeking greater consensus, I think that is exactly what they should be doing. Owen > > Andrew > > > From: sergekbk > > Date: Wednesday, 26 October 2016 at 13:23 > To: Dewole Ajao >, Omo Oaiya >, General Discussions of AFRINIC > > Cc: "AfriNIC RPD MList." > > Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] [rpd] Accountability assessment - PDP review? > > Hello Dewole, > > Don?t you think that it is the role of the co-chairs to tavoid the +1 and -1 and drive the process to consensus? > > With Regards. > > Serge Ilunga > Cell: +243814443160 > Skype: sergekbk > R.D.Congo > -------- Original message -------- > From: Dewole Ajao > > Date: 10/26/2016 08:57 (GMT+01:00) > To: Omo Oaiya >, General Discussions of AFRINIC > > Cc: "AfriNIC RPD MList." > > Subject: Re: [rpd] Accountability assessment - PDP review? > > Thank you for your inputs, Omo (and others). > > Each of the draft policy proposals at http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposals is a solution to an existing or foreseen problem as observed from the authors' viewpoint(s). > > To my knowledge, all proposals updated by their authors after the last public policy meeting have been duly returned to the mailing list by the co-chairs for further discussion. The quality of the resulting discourse is however dependent on the authors, the rest of the PDWG, and willingness to engage on the (granular) substance of the proposals rather than personal or ideological differences. > > At any point in time, the Policy Development Working Group (i.e. all who CHOOSE to participate on the RPD mailing list and/or in person at the public meetings) has the opportunity to provide feedback on the policy proposals. Authors of policy proposals can choose to incorporate the feedback received to produce an improved proposal that the majority of the community is (more) amenable to. > > I recommend that as a community, we should: > seek solutions that are (roughly) acceptable > rather than > seek to impose our point of view (no matter how correct they may be) on everyone else. > > ALL OF US (policy authors or not) should channel our input toward solutions that build consensus rather than simplistically adding +1s and -1s on completely divergent points of view. Since we (supposedly) all have the best interests of the AFRINIC community at heart, we should seek to unite rather than divide. Operating in this manner, we would find that #3 and #4 as listed in the preceding emails are actually non-issues. > > Regards, > Dewole Ajao. > PDWG co-Chair > > On 25/10/2016 09:05, Omo Oaiya wrote: >> Dear Community, >> >> I am not suggesting there is a problem with the PDP per se or criticising the co-chairs, past or present, but recent discussions on accountability and co-authoring a policy proposal has resulted in my taking a closer look at the PDP and its requirements. >> >> The current PDP (http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/251-policy-development-process-in-the-afrinic-service-region-afpub-2010-gen-005 ) adopted in 2010 specified improvements from its predecessor. >> >> It lists fixing the following issues amongst others as incentive: >> >> the case of PDP moderators inability to attend public policy meetings >> the lack of appeal mechanisms against moderators actions >> issues fixed on mailing list being reopened at face to face meetings weakening the decision making process. >> consensus building process leading to scenario where opinions expressed at face to face have more weight that the ones expressed on mailing list >> While the new PDP succeeded in addressing #1 and #2, it has not addressed #3 and #4. >> >> The current PDP introduced the PDWG with co-chairs to perform the "administrative functions? of the group. >> >> - It did not describe what these administrative functions were. >> >> - It did not prescribe criteria for co-chairs selection or an election mechanism. >> >> - It also did not describe the process for determining ?rough consensus?. >> >> As a result, we have seen: >> >> - co-chairs candidates who could be more familiar with PDP and Internet Number Resource management. >> >> - insufficient moderation of policy proposal discussions on the mailing list and at face to face meetings leading to endless repetitive discussions >> >> - inability of co-chairs to determine consensus encouraging abuse of the process with some people persistently opposing proposals and stalling progress with insubstantial arguments causing unnecessary delay and frustration >> >> The policy discussions at AFRINIC-24 is a perfect illustration. Another easy example is that since AFRINIC-24, there has been little discussion on proposals which were sent back on mailing list for further discussions as per meeting minutes (http://www.afrinic.net/en/library/policies/archive/ppm-minutes/1847-afrinic-24-pdwgpdp-minutes ) and no action from the working group co-chairs. >> >> **Some questions for the community and co-chairs** >> >> - How do we fix issues #3 and #4? >> >> - Will the proposals returned to the list be presented in AFRINIC-25? if yes, what will be the discussion points be and for which expected outcomes? >> >> -Omo >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> RPD mailing list >> RPD at afrinic.net >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd > > _______________________________________________ > Community-Discuss mailing list > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Omo.Oaiya at wacren.net Thu Oct 27 21:57:44 2016 From: Omo.Oaiya at wacren.net (Omo Oaiya) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2016 22:57:44 +0100 Subject: [Community-Discuss] [rpd] Accountability assessment - PDP review? In-Reply-To: References: <026154E2-31C7-4808-A859-435CB8117421@liquidtelecom.com> Message-ID: <9C536F62-B83A-4309-AA8E-93294B03EB67@wacren.net> On 27 Oct 2016, at 01:09, Owen DeLong wrote: > > This is a false dichotomy. One can attempt to identify and assist the community in arriving at a point of possible consensus while remaining neutral and accepting input from the community as to which direction leads towards that point. > >> The moment that we put it in the hands of the co-chair?s to start driving towards consensus, rather than simply gauging it, we are on a slippery slope where the neutrality mandate given to the chair?s becomes a moot point. I don?t think we want to be in that situation personally. > > If we allow the co-chairs to lose their neutrality and start driving the direction of consensus, you are completely correct. However, if we ask the co-chairs to help try to understand the direction of the community and offer alternatives seeking greater consensus, I think that is exactly what they should be doing. It is pretty obvious that Serge meant for Co-chairs to "drive the process to consensus" in the same way as Alan intended with ?"guide the discussion to consensus? or if you like, your ?offer alternatives seeking greater consensus? Many thanks to SM for the forthright responses and references to the archives. I found them very useful as well as Alain?s reminder that the PDP was in part adapted from RFC2026. No one should find it productive to have endless repetitive discussion on obscure points. We can stop this with better moderation and consensus calling from the Co-chairs. I hope the exchanges have also been meaningful for them as I believe they genuinely didn?t realise there were any shortages in PDWG administration. Perhaps it is the Co-Chairs responsibilities in http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/pdwg we need to add text to rather than the PDP itself. In any case, I recommend reviewing the suggested RFCs and acting as guided to deal with issues #3 and #4. As next steps and preparation for AFRINIC-25, I will work with co-authors to present an update on our proposal taking in the latest comments. It should be a good opportunity to test our new found awareness of the ?rules" of the process. Many thanks to all for the inputs. -Omo -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 801 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From Omo.Oaiya at wacren.net Thu Oct 27 22:58:46 2016 From: Omo.Oaiya at wacren.net (Omo Oaiya) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2016 23:58:46 +0100 Subject: [Community-Discuss] IPv4 depletion in AFRINIC will speed up IPv6 adoption - myth or fact? Message-ID: On 19 October 2016 at 10:20, Honest Ornella GANKPA wrote: > > This is the way to go because from recent research I read on the Internet > which makes it clear that IPv4 depletion does not lead to IPv6 uptake. In > fact, I am surprised that Owen Delong continues to advise that this is the > way because the data was from Akamai which I hear he works for. Please see > attached slide. The presentation on the study was given at a recent LACNIC > meeting - http://slides.lacnic.net/lacnic26/ - > https://www.dropbox.com/s/zxmygx5djtj6cxl/4%20-%20IPv6-GDP.pptx?dl=0 > Owen, Honest has a point. The author used the Akamai state of internet study as one of the data sources. As a vocal proponent of accelerated IPv4 depletion in AFRINIC, what do you think of the opinions expressed in the study? It certainly doesn't support obsolescence of IPv4 as you promote. Btw, so we can compare, do you have any data that supports your view? Like others, I would like to see widespread v6 adoption but we do need to be careful to explain the stats we provide especially for those who advocate to other stakeholders. -Omo -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From geier at geier.ne.tz Fri Oct 28 04:40:41 2016 From: geier at geier.ne.tz (Frank Habicht) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 07:40:41 +0300 Subject: [Community-Discuss] IPv4 depletion in AFRINIC will speed up IPv6 adoption - myth or fact? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2b615906-8482-5487-c600-5cdbe746007d@geier.ne.tz> On 10/28/2016 1:58 AM, Omo Oaiya wrote: > Like others, I would like to see widespread v6 adoption but we do need > to be careful to explain the stats we provide especially for those who > advocate to other stakeholders. route-views6.routeviews.org> sh bgp ipv6 u 2001:43f8:1d0::/48 % Network not in table route-views6.routeviews.org> From owen at delong.com Fri Oct 28 07:14:28 2016 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 00:14:28 -0700 Subject: [Community-Discuss] IPv4 depletion in AFRINIC will speed up IPv6 adoption - myth or fact? In-Reply-To: <2b615906-8482-5487-c600-5cdbe746007d@geier.ne.tz> References: <2b615906-8482-5487-c600-5cdbe746007d@geier.ne.tz> Message-ID: > On Oct 27, 2016, at 21:40 , Frank Habicht wrote: > > On 10/28/2016 1:58 AM, Omo Oaiya wrote: >> Like others, I would like to see widespread v6 adoption but we do need >> to be careful to explain the stats we provide especially for those who >> advocate to other stakeholders. > > route-views6.routeviews.org> sh bgp ipv6 u 2001:43f8:1d0::/48 > % Network not in table > route-views6.routeviews.org> > Counterpoint? I do, in fact, practice what I preach. 1734 is my home: route-views6.routeviews.org> sh bgp ipv6 u 2620:0:930::/48 BGP routing table entry for 2620:0:930::/48 Paths: (31 available, best #5, table Default-IP-Routing-Table) Not advertised to any peer 20912 6939 1734, (aggregated by 1734 192.124.40.251) 2001:40d0::126 from 2001:40d0::126 (212.66.96.126) Origin IGP, localpref 100, valid, external Community: 20912:65016 Last update: Fri Oct 28 07:10:05 2016 30071 6939 1734, (aggregated by 1734 192.124.40.251) 2001:4830::e from 2001:4830::e (66.55.128.18) Origin IGP, metric 40, localpref 100, valid, external Community: 30071:57022 Last update: Thu Oct 27 08:54:18 2016 3257 11404 8121 1734, (aggregated by 1734 192.124.40.251) 2001:668:0:4::2 from 2001:668:0:4::2 (213.200.87.91) Origin IGP, metric 1497, localpref 100, valid, external Community: 3257:4000 3257:8140 3257:50002 3257:50121 3257:51200 3257:51204 65000:4134 Last update: Thu Oct 27 07:13:09 2016 33437 6939 1734, (aggregated by 1734 192.124.40.251) 2001:4810::1 from 2001:4810::1 (209.222.151.168) (fe80::210:db01:5ff:1002) Origin IGP, localpref 100, valid, external Last update: Tue Oct 25 20:45:21 2016 6939 1734, (aggregated by 1734 192.124.40.251) 2001:470:0:1a::1 from 2001:470:0:1a::1 (216.218.252.164) Origin IGP, localpref 100, valid, external, best Last update: Tue Oct 25 20:45:21 2016 7660 4635 6939 1734, (aggregated by 1734 192.124.40.251) 2001:200:901::5 from 2001:200:901::5 (203.181.248.168) Origin IGP, localpref 100, valid, external Community: 0:12989 0:13335 0:15169 0:20940 0:22822 4635:800 7660:4 7660:6 Last update: Tue Oct 25 21:28:49 2016 37100 6939 1734, (aggregated by 1734 192.124.40.251) 2c0f:feb0:0:1::8 from 2c0f:feb0:0:1::8 (105.16.0.247) Origin IGP, localpref 100, valid, external Community: no-export Last update: Tue Oct 25 20:45:22 2016 7018 6939 1734, (aggregated by 1734 192.124.40.251) 2001:1890:111d:1::63 from 2001:1890:111d:1::63 (12.0.1.63) (fe80::5254:ff:fe61:b8e6) Origin IGP, localpref 100, valid, external Community: 7018:5000 7018:37232 Last update: Tue Oct 25 20:45:21 2016 53364 3257 11404 8121 1734, (aggregated by 1734 192.124.40.251) 2001:668:0:3:ffff:0:adcd:39ea from 2001:668:0:3:ffff:0:adcd:39ea (10.10.10.252) (fe80::8ae0:f3ff:fe78:dc69) Origin IGP, localpref 100, valid, external Community: 3257:4000 3257:8140 3257:50002 3257:50121 3257:51200 3257:51204 65000:4134 Last update: Tue Oct 25 20:59:35 2016 3277 3267 6939 1734, (aggregated by 1734 192.124.40.251) 2001:b08:2:280::4:100 from 2001:b08:2:280::4:100 (194.85.4.4) Origin IGP, localpref 100, valid, external Community: 3277:3267 Last update: Tue Oct 25 20:45:55 2016 1239 6939 1734, (aggregated by 1734 192.124.40.251) 2600:0:1:1239:144:228:241:130 from 2600:0:1:1239:144:228:241:130 (144.228.241.130) Origin IGP, metric 80, localpref 100, valid, external Last update: Tue Oct 25 21:11:03 2016 3741 6939 1734, (aggregated by 1734 192.124.40.251) 2c0f:fc00::2 from 2c0f:fc00::2 (168.209.255.56) Origin IGP, localpref 100, valid, external Last update: Tue Oct 25 20:45:54 2016 2497 6939 1734, (aggregated by 1734 192.124.40.251) 2001:240:100:ff::2497:2 from 2001:240:100:ff::2497:2 (58.138.96.149) Origin IGP, localpref 100, valid, external Last update: Tue Oct 25 20:45:32 2016 57463 6939 1734, (aggregated by 1734 192.124.40.251) 2a00:1728::1f:4 from 2a00:1728::1f:4 (192.168.7.118) Origin IGP, localpref 100, valid, external Community: 64700:6939 Last update: Tue Oct 25 20:45:51 2016 22652 6939 1734, (aggregated by 1734 192.124.40.251) 2607:fad8::1:9 from 2607:fad8::1:9 (68.67.33.99) Origin IGP, localpref 100, valid, external Last update: Tue Oct 25 20:45:35 2016 31019 6939 1734, (aggregated by 1734 192.124.40.251) 2001:67c:22dc:def1::1 from 2001:67c:22dc:def1::1 (91.228.151.1) Origin incomplete, localpref 100, valid, external Last update: Fri Oct 28 06:40:37 2016 34224 6939 1734, (aggregated by 1734 192.124.40.251) 2a00:1728::14:bbbb from 2a00:1728::2d:bbbb (212.73.139.117) Origin IGP, metric 0, localpref 100, valid, external Community: 34224:333 34224:334 34224:2040 Last update: Tue Oct 25 20:45:24 2016 701 6939 1734, (aggregated by 1734 192.124.40.251) 2600:803::15 from 2600:803::15 (137.39.3.55) Origin IGP, localpref 100, valid, external Community: 701:333 701:1020 Last update: Tue Oct 25 20:45:32 2016 209 6939 1734, (aggregated by 1734 192.124.40.251) 2001:428::205:171:203:138 from 2001:428::205:171:203:138 (205.171.203.138) Origin IGP, metric 8000051, localpref 100, valid, external Community: 209:888 Last update: Thu Oct 27 07:28:30 2016 209 6939 1734, (aggregated by 1734 192.124.40.251) 2001:428::205:171:203:141 from 2001:428::205:171:203:141 (205.171.203.141) Origin IGP, metric 8000965, localpref 100, valid, external Community: 209:888 Last update: Tue Oct 25 21:29:23 2016 209 6939 1734, (aggregated by 1734 192.124.40.251) 2001:428::205:171:203:140 from 2001:428::205:171:203:140 (205.171.203.140) Origin IGP, metric 8000029, localpref 100, valid, external Community: 209:888 Last update: Tue Oct 25 21:24:05 2016 2914 174 22937 1734, (aggregated by 1734 192.124.40.251) 2001:418:0:1000::f002 from 2001:418:0:1000::f002 (129.250.0.17) Origin IGP, metric 1005, localpref 100, valid, external Community: 2914:420 2914:1008 2914:2000 2914:3000 65504:174 Last update: Fri Oct 21 01:30:50 2016 2914 174 22937 1734, (aggregated by 1734 192.124.40.251) 2001:418:0:1000::f000 from 2001:418:0:1000::f000 (129.250.0.183) Origin IGP, metric 1005, localpref 100, valid, external Community: 2914:420 2914:1001 2914:2000 2914:3000 Last update: Wed Oct 26 03:31:03 2016 13030 6939 1734, (aggregated by 1734 192.124.40.251) 2001:1620:1::203 from 2001:1620:1::203 (213.144.128.203) Origin IGP, metric 1, localpref 100, valid, external Community: 13030:61 13030:1604 13030:51107 Last update: Tue Oct 25 20:45:22 2016 47872 6939 1734, (aggregated by 1734 192.124.40.251) 2a01:73e0::1 from 2a01:73e0::1 (185.44.116.227) (fe80::223:9c03:9b50:ffc0) Origin IGP, localpref 100, valid, external Community: 47872:6 Last update: Tue Oct 25 20:45:21 2016 202018 6939 1734, (aggregated by 1734 192.124.40.251) 2a03:b0c0:2::2 from 2a03:b0c0:2::2 (5.101.110.2) Origin IGP, localpref 100, valid, external Last update: Tue Oct 25 20:45:22 2016 393406 6939 1734, (aggregated by 1734 192.124.40.251) 2604:a880:800::2 from 2604:a880:800::2 (162.243.188.2) Origin IGP, localpref 100, valid, external Last update: Tue Oct 25 20:45:21 2016 62567 6939 1734, (aggregated by 1734 192.124.40.251) 2604:a880::4 from 2604:a880::4 (192.241.164.4) Origin IGP, localpref 100, valid, external Last update: Tue Oct 25 20:45:21 2016 200130 6939 1734, (aggregated by 1734 192.124.40.251) 2a03:b0c0::2 from 2a03:b0c0::2 (95.85.0.2) Origin IGP, localpref 100, valid, external Last update: Tue Oct 25 20:45:22 2016 18106 6939 1734, (aggregated by 1734 192.124.40.251) 2001:d98::19 from 2001:d98::19 (202.73.40.45) Origin IGP, localpref 100, valid, external Community: 9989:3000 Last update: Tue Oct 25 20:45:21 2016 40191 6939 1734, (aggregated by 1734 192.124.40.251) 2001:668:0:3::8000:1712 from 2001:668:0:3::8000:1712 (10.10.10.11) (fe80::52c5:8dff:fed6:ca8) Origin IGP, localpref 100, valid, external Last update: Tue Oct 25 20:45:21 2016 > > > _______________________________________________ > Community-Discuss mailing list > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com Fri Oct 28 08:01:51 2016 From: Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com (Andrew Alston) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 08:01:51 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] IPv4 depletion in AFRINIC will speed up IPv6 adoption - myth or fact? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: ? Like others, I would like to see widespread v6 adoption but we do need to be careful to explain the stats we provide especially for those who advocate to other stakeholders. I 100% agree? and this is why I asked if it could be explained to me how the correlation between v4 depletion and v6 depletion was drawn from a presentation that refers entirely to GDP correlation on v6 deployment, because I honestly don?t understand that correlation. Sadly, I?ve heard deafening silence since then, and it seems that question is going unanswered. As someone from academia, Omo I am sure you agree with me that any conclusions drawn from a dataset need to be explained by the individual drawing the concerns in order for any weight to be applied to them? Thanks Andrew -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Omo.Oaiya at wacren.net Fri Oct 28 08:18:46 2016 From: Omo.Oaiya at wacren.net (Omo Oaiya) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 09:18:46 +0100 Subject: [Community-Discuss] IPv4 depletion in AFRINIC will speed up IPv6 adoption - myth or fact? In-Reply-To: References: <2b615906-8482-5487-c600-5cdbe746007d@geier.ne.tz> Message-ID: On 28 October 2016 at 08:14, Owen DeLong wrote: > On Oct 27, 2016, at 21:40 , Frank Habicht wrote: > > On 10/28/2016 1:58 AM, Omo Oaiya wrote: > > Like others, I would like to see widespread v6 adoption but we do need > to be careful to explain the stats we provide especially for those who > advocate to other stakeholders. > > > route-views6.routeviews.org> sh bgp ipv6 u 2001:43f8:1d0::/48 > % Network not in table > route-views6.routeviews.org> > > Frank, Cheap shot which does not add to the discussion and is a distraction. Get your facts right http://wacren.net/en/news/africaconnect2-tender-wacren-network-now-open You should try a network that has already been built if regional RENs are the interest - 2001:43f8:0020::/48 > Counterpoint? I do, in fact, practice what I preach. 1734 is my home: Owen, Your point is that you have IPv6 at home in the US? How does that matter to Africa or the discussion? I am baffled. What I'd really like you to do is respond to Honest and the data she provided from the company you work for on IPv6 penetration vs usage. Please also do as suggested and provide the data that supports growth in IPv6 uptake when you deplete IPv4 (crash land) as you and Andrew have campaigned for. Best wishes Omo -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From owen at delong.com Fri Oct 28 08:21:51 2016 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 01:21:51 -0700 Subject: [Community-Discuss] IPv4 depletion in AFRINIC will speed up IPv6 adoption - myth or fact? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5B8BFC2C-1E79-400A-8CE5-88EF30027C26@delong.com> There are a number of flaws in your question, Omo. I neither support nor oppose IPv4 obsolescence. I state it as a fact. It is my considered opinion that when a protocol no longer fully serves the community of users it is intended to serve and/or requires those users to adapt to limitations on their use of the network in order to meet the needs of the protocol, that protocol is, by definition, obsolete and no longer able to meet the full needs of the user community. This is simply fact. IPv4 is no longer able to deliver the full feature set of the internet to the entire user community. It does not have enough addresses to give a unique peer address to every device attached to the internet. If you can disprove this simple fact about IPv4, I welcome you to do so, but if not, then I again say that IPv4 is, by definition, obsolete. There are lots of obsolete things still in widespread use. Some countries still use paper airline tickets. I also don?t favor accelerated runout of IPv4 in the AfriNIC region or anywhere else. What I do favor is allocating addresses to those with need now without protecting those late to the party at the expense of those present at the party. I see no reason to deprive an organization which needs addresses now in order to satisfy some demand from some other organization which may or may not exist at some future time. I will point out that if you work at it hard enough, you can slice and dice almost any raw statistic to support almost any fabrication you wish. This is the art of American politics. Without this ability, Trump would not be able to call himself a success even though adjusted for inflation, his net worth is now less than half of what his father left him. I will also point out that working for Akamai does not mean that I will automatically agree with every conclusion any random person draws from data supplied by Akamai. Now for some more substantive and targeted criticisms: If we look at his slide 23 (IPv6 penetration vs Bandwidth), we see clearly that in some countries, the eyeball penetration vastly exceeds content and vice versa. This is obvious from the ?outliers? on his graph and yet he makes no mention of this possible explanation whatsoever. I suspect that many (possibly all) of the countries on the far left side of that graph are countries not served by Netflix where the primary sources of internet content are not at all unlikely to be IPv4-only which places strong limitations on the ability of deployed IPv6-capable eye-balls to obtain their content overIPv6. At the other end of the graph, it is likely representative of the reverse situation? IPv6 content available while a limited number of eye-balls have IPv6 capabilities at this time. The talk speaks to the relationship of GDP and IPv6 deployment and says nothing about whether or not exhaustion will drive migration. Owen > On Oct 27, 2016, at 3:58 PM, Omo Oaiya wrote: > > > On 19 October 2016 at 10:20, Honest Ornella GANKPA > wrote: > > This is the way to go because from recent research I read on the Internet which makes it clear that IPv4 depletion does not lead to IPv6 uptake. In fact, I am surprised that Owen Delong continues to advise that this is the way because the data was from Akamai which I hear he works for. Please see attached slide. The presentation on the study was given at a recent LACNIC meeting - http://slides.lacnic.net/lacnic26/ - https://www.dropbox.com/s/zxmygx5djtj6cxl/4%20-%20IPv6-GDP.pptx?dl=0 > Owen, > > Honest has a point. The author used the Akamai state of internet study as one of the data sources. As a vocal proponent of accelerated IPv4 depletion in AFRINIC, what do you think of the opinions expressed in the study? > > It certainly doesn't support obsolescence of IPv4 as you promote. Btw, so we can compare, do you have any data that supports your view? > > Like others, I would like to see widespread v6 adoption but we do need to be careful to explain the stats we provide especially for those who advocate to other stakeholders. > > -Omo > > _______________________________________________ > Community-Discuss mailing list > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Omo.Oaiya at wacren.net Fri Oct 28 08:28:11 2016 From: Omo.Oaiya at wacren.net (Omo Oaiya) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 09:28:11 +0100 Subject: [Community-Discuss] IPv4 depletion in AFRINIC will speed up IPv6 adoption - myth or fact? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 28 October 2016 at 09:01, Andrew Alston wrote: > ? Like others, I would like to see widespread v6 adoption but we do > need to be careful to explain the stats we provide especially for those who > advocate to other stakeholders. > > > > I 100% agree? > Great > and this is why I asked if it could be explained to me how the correlation > between v4 depletion and v6 depletion was drawn from a presentation that > refers entirely to GDP correlation on v6 deployment, because I honestly > don?t understand that correlation. > I don't know where you got this from. Honest's point is that there is NO correlation between IPv4 depletion and IPv6 uptake i.e that you and Owen have opinions that are not supported by evidence or data > > > Sadly, I?ve heard deafening silence since then, and it seems that question > is going unanswered. > Perhaps because she was bemused at the lack of understanding? > As someone from academia, Omo I am sure you agree with me that any > conclusions drawn from a dataset need to be explained by the individual > drawing the concerns in order for any weight to be applied to them? > No I don't. She provided an interpretation of the dataset which she argues is at odds with your opinions. From what I can see, she is correct. It is up to you to defend your position with some data or substantiate an argument from what she has provided. -Omo -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From owen at delong.com Fri Oct 28 09:03:13 2016 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 02:03:13 -0700 Subject: [Community-Discuss] IPv4 depletion in AFRINIC will speed up IPv6 adoption - myth or fact? In-Reply-To: References: <2b615906-8482-5487-c600-5cdbe746007d@geier.ne.tz> Message-ID: NDA prevents me from pointing out the list of IPv6 resources serving Africa within the AfriNIC region for 20940, but I suppose if what you want is relevance to Africa, that should also suffice. My point is that both at home and at work, the networks I have responsibility for are dual-stack. I do practice what I preach. Owen > On Oct 28, 2016, at 1:18 AM, Omo Oaiya wrote: > > > On 28 October 2016 at 08:14, Owen DeLong > wrote: >> On Oct 27, 2016, at 21:40 , Frank Habicht > wrote: >> >> On 10/28/2016 1:58 AM, Omo Oaiya wrote: >>> Like others, I would like to see widespread v6 adoption but we do need >>> to be careful to explain the stats we provide especially for those who >>> advocate to other stakeholders. >> >> route-views6.routeviews.org > sh bgp ipv6 u 2001:43f8:1d0::/48 >> % Network not in table >> route-views6.routeviews.org > >> > > Frank, > > Cheap shot which does not add to the discussion and is a distraction. Get your facts right > > http://wacren.net/en/news/africaconnect2-tender-wacren-network-now-open > > You should try a network that has already been built if regional RENs are the interest - 2001:43f8:0020::/48 > > > Counterpoint? I do, in fact, practice what I preach. 1734 is my home: > > Owen, > > Your point is that you have IPv6 at home in the US? How does that matter to Africa or the discussion? I am baffled. > > What I'd really like you to do is respond to Honest and the data she provided from the company you work for on IPv6 penetration vs usage. > > Please also do as suggested and provide the data that supports growth in IPv6 uptake when you deplete IPv4 (crash land) as you and Andrew have campaigned for. > > Best wishes > Omo > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From owen at delong.com Fri Oct 28 09:12:34 2016 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 02:12:34 -0700 Subject: [Community-Discuss] IPv4 depletion in AFRINIC will speed up IPv6 adoption - myth or fact? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > On Oct 28, 2016, at 1:28 AM, Omo Oaiya wrote: > > > > On 28 October 2016 at 09:01, Andrew Alston > wrote: > ? Like others, I would like to see widespread v6 adoption but we do need to be careful to explain the stats we provide especially for those who advocate to other stakeholders. > > > > I 100% agree? > > > Great > > and this is why I asked if it could be explained to me how the correlation between v4 depletion and v6 depletion was drawn from a presentation that refers entirely to GDP correlation on v6 deployment, because I honestly don?t understand that correlation. > > > I don't know where you got this from. Honest's point is that there is NO correlation between IPv4 depletion and IPv6 uptake i.e that you and Owen have opinions that are not supported by evidence or data > You guys are talking across each other. Honest?s point may be that, but the presentation he referenced doesn?t say what Honest said. It says that there is a correlation between GDP and IPv6 uptake, but that there are pretty glaring anomalies even in that conclusion. Andrew is wondering how you equate a correlation in GDP to somehow meaning a lack of correlation in IPv4 depletion. The presentation provided no evidence of any such lack of correlation. > > > Sadly, I?ve heard deafening silence since then, and it seems that question is going unanswered. > > > Perhaps because she was bemused at the lack of understanding? If there is a lack of understanding, then it is among you and Honest because the presentation referenced by Honest does not say what you are now claiming it says. > As someone from academia, Omo I am sure you agree with me that any conclusions drawn from a dataset need to be explained by the individual drawing the concerns in order for any weight to be applied to them? > > > No I don't. She provided an interpretation of the dataset which she argues is at odds with your opinions. From what I can see, she is correct. Which she are we referring to here? The one who gave the presentation at LACNIC? If that is the case, then her conclusion is orthogonal to what we have said about IPv4 depletion. Her conclusion is that there is a correlation between gross domestic product per capita and IPv6 uptake. In other words, the wealthiest nations are more likely to be early adopters of technology. This isn?t exactly startling news. However, it?s completely orthogonal to the question of whether lack of IPv4 resources drives IPv6 adoption. Currently there isn?t a meaningful lack of IPv4 resources anywhere except Asia. Even in Asia, they still remain relatively inexpensive, though costs are rising. We are seeing rising IPv6 adoption rates since APNIC, RIPE, and ARIN ran out of IPv4 addresses in their free pool. There are statistics to support this. IPv6 ? Google For example. > It is up to you to defend your position with some data or substantiate an argument from what she has provided. So, the presentation you and Honest use to ?prove? your point is orthogonal to your point. That?s Andrew?s point. I?ve now provided you with clear statistics showing that IPv6 uptake is accelerating since depletion. Can we now stop arguing over whether IPv4 depletion drives IPv6 adoption or not and get back to the real business at hand? Getting IPv6 deployed before IPv4 melts down into a puddle of NATd scrambled bits with no meaning left? Owen > > -Omo > _______________________________________________ > Community-Discuss mailing list > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Omo.Oaiya at wacren.net Fri Oct 28 09:30:41 2016 From: Omo.Oaiya at wacren.net (Omo Oaiya) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 10:30:41 +0100 Subject: [Community-Discuss] IPv4 depletion in AFRINIC will speed up IPv6 adoption - myth or fact? In-Reply-To: <5B8BFC2C-1E79-400A-8CE5-88EF30027C26@delong.com> References: <5B8BFC2C-1E79-400A-8CE5-88EF30027C26@delong.com> Message-ID: On 28 October 2016 at 09:21, Owen DeLong wrote: > There are a number of flaws in your question, Omo. > > I neither support nor oppose IPv4 obsolescence. I state it as a fact. It > is my considered opinion that when a protocol no longer fully serves the > community of users it is intended to serve and/or requires those users to > adapt to limitations on their use of the network in order to meet the needs > of the protocol, that protocol is, by definition, obsolete and no longer > able to meet the full needs of the user community. > > This is simply fact. > > English is not my native tongue but I understand obsolete to be different from deprecated A protocol that is still more in use than the alternative and commands additional value in a secondary market cannot be referred to as obsolete by definition IPv4 is no longer able to deliver the full feature set of the internet to > the entire user community. It does not have enough addresses to give a > unique peer address to every device attached to the internet. > > If you can disprove this simple fact about IPv4, I welcome you to do so, > but if not, then I again say that IPv4 is, by definition, obsolete. > Deprecated > > There are lots of obsolete things still in widespread use. Some countries > still use paper airline tickets > You use the word obsolete too loosely. > . > > I also don?t favor accelerated runout of IPv4 in the AfriNIC region or > anywhere else. > Good. This is noted. > > What I do favor is allocating addresses to those with need now without > protecting those late to the party at the expense of those present at the > party. > > I see no reason to deprive an organization which needs addresses now in > order to satisfy some demand from some other organization which may or may > not exist at some future time. > > Maybe in ARIN. In AFRINIC, we have a situation where; - most of the numbers are in the hands of a minority - where those transitioning to IPv6 will need some IPv4 so accommodation has to be made for latecomers - a global situation where IPv4 still rules even though IPv6 uptake is now on the rise ....slowly - a local situation where we need to innovate and work collectively to speed up IPv6 uptake I work for NRENs and universities, most of whom predate and will outlive most other organizations so don't agree with you. > I will also point out that working for Akamai does not mean that I will > automatically agree with every conclusion any random person draws from data > supplied by Akamai. > I asked you to refute not necessarily agree. Do you have a view on the data that suggests different? > > Now for some more substantive and targeted criticisms: > > If we look at his slide 23 (IPv6 penetration vs Bandwidth), we see clearly > that in some countries, the eyeball penetration vastly exceeds content and > vice versa. This is obvious from the ?outliers? on his graph and yet he > makes no mention of this possible explanation whatsoever. > This is a fact. Why is an explanation necessary? > > I suspect that many (possibly all) of the countries on the far left side > of that graph are countries not served by Netflix where the primary sources > of internet content are not at all unlikely to be IPv4-only which places > strong limitations on the ability of deployed IPv6-capable eye-balls to > obtain their content overIPv6. > Your suspicion only buttresses the data and authors conclusion i.e that numbers on IPv6 penetration do not correlate with usage and IPv4 is still predominantly in use in these countries. > At the other end of the graph, it is likely representative of the reverse > situation? IPv6 content available while a limited number of eye-balls have > IPv6 capabilities at this time. > > yes, that only a handful of countries globally have the IPv6 capabilities and usage the figures often touted would want us to believe. The talk speaks to the relationship of GDP and IPv6 deployment and says > nothing about whether or not exhaustion will drive migration. > Perhaps the author didn't think he was qualified or had the expertise to make this judgement. Different in your case? > > Owen > > On Oct 27, 2016, at 3:58 PM, Omo Oaiya wrote: > > > On 19 October 2016 at 10:20, Honest Ornella GANKPA > wrote: > >> >> This is the way to go because from recent research I read on the Internet >> which makes it clear that IPv4 depletion does not lead to IPv6 uptake. In >> fact, I am surprised that Owen Delong continues to advise that this is the >> way because the data was from Akamai which I hear he works for. Please see >> attached slide. The presentation on the study was given at a recent LACNIC >> meeting - http://slides.lacnic.net/lacnic26/ - >> https://www.dropbox.com/s/zxmygx5djtj6cxl/4%20-%20IPv6-GDP.pptx?dl=0 >> > > Owen, > > Honest has a point. The author used the Akamai state of internet study as > one of the data sources. As a vocal proponent of accelerated IPv4 > depletion in AFRINIC, what do you think of the opinions expressed in the > study? > > It certainly doesn't support obsolescence of IPv4 as you promote. Btw, so > we can compare, do you have any data that supports your view? > > Like others, I would like to see widespread v6 adoption but we do need to > be careful to explain the stats we provide especially for those who > advocate to other stakeholders. > > -Omo > > > _______________________________________________ > Community-Discuss mailing list > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss > > > -- Omo Oaiya CTO/Directeur Technique, WACREN Mobile: +234 808 888 1571 , +221 784 305 224 Skype: kodion http://www.wacren.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Omo.Oaiya at wacren.net Fri Oct 28 09:51:21 2016 From: Omo.Oaiya at wacren.net (Omo Oaiya) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 10:51:21 +0100 Subject: [Community-Discuss] IPv4 depletion in AFRINIC will speed up IPv6 adoption - myth or fact? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Owen, This is now a distraction and the tangential discussions bound to make this confusing for some so I will conclude. - We know global regions where IPv4 is exhausted - We know that secondary markets have sprung up to make IPv4 more available - We know the rate of IPv6 penetration in those regions - generally low - Now we have data that shows that IPv6 penetration is not necessarily IPv6 usage and is generally less than reported. You don't support accelerated depletion of IPv4 You don't have any data to support opinion that IPv4 depletion correlates with IPv6 uptake Hint: 4 mobile companies and netflix is not the entire internet ...not even in the US. I just needed to make this clear now that we have the attention of the community and co-chairs on how to proceed with the PDP On 28 October 2016 at 10:12, Owen DeLong wrote: > > On Oct 28, 2016, at 1:28 AM, Omo Oaiya wrote: > > > > On 28 October 2016 at 09:01, Andrew Alston com> wrote: > >> ? Like others, I would like to see widespread v6 adoption but we do >> need to be careful to explain the stats we provide especially for those who >> advocate to other stakeholders. >> >> >> >> I 100% agree? >> > > Great > > >> and this is why I asked if it could be explained to me how the >> correlation between v4 depletion and v6 depletion was drawn from a >> presentation that refers entirely to GDP correlation on v6 deployment, >> because I honestly don?t understand that correlation. >> > > I don't know where you got this from. Honest's point is that there is NO > correlation between IPv4 depletion and IPv6 uptake i.e that you and Owen > have opinions that are not supported by evidence or data > > > > You guys are talking across each other. > > Honest?s point may be that, but the presentation he referenced doesn?t say > what Honest said. > > It says that there is a correlation between GDP and IPv6 uptake, but that > there are pretty glaring anomalies even in that conclusion. > > Andrew is wondering how you equate a correlation in GDP to somehow meaning > a lack of correlation in IPv4 depletion. The presentation provided no > evidence of any such lack of correlation. > > > >> >> Sadly, I?ve heard deafening silence since then, and it seems that >> question is going unanswered. >> > > Perhaps because she was bemused at the lack of understanding? > > > If there is a lack of understanding, then it is among you and Honest > because the presentation referenced by Honest does not say what you are now > claiming it says. > > As someone from academia, Omo I am sure you agree with me that any >> conclusions drawn from a dataset need to be explained by the individual >> drawing the concerns in order for any weight to be applied to them? >> > > No I don't. She provided an interpretation of the dataset which she argues > is at odds with your opinions. From what I can see, she is correct. > > > Which she are we referring to here? The one who gave the presentation at > LACNIC? > > If that is the case, then her conclusion is orthogonal to what we have > said about IPv4 depletion. Her conclusion is that there is a correlation > between gross domestic product per capita and IPv6 uptake. In other words, > the wealthiest nations are more likely to be early adopters of technology. > > This isn?t exactly startling news. > > However, it?s completely orthogonal to the question of whether lack of > IPv4 resources drives IPv6 adoption. Currently there isn?t a meaningful > lack of IPv4 resources anywhere except Asia. Even in Asia, they still > remain relatively inexpensive, though costs are rising. We are seeing > rising IPv6 adoption rates since APNIC, RIPE, and ARIN ran out of IPv4 > addresses in their free pool. There are statistics to support this. > > IPv6 ? Google > > > For example. > > > It is up to you to defend your position with some data or substantiate an > argument from what she has provided. > > > So, the presentation you and Honest use to ?prove? your point is > orthogonal to your point. That?s Andrew?s point. > I?ve now provided you with clear statistics showing that IPv6 uptake is > accelerating since depletion. > > Can we now stop arguing over whether IPv4 depletion drives IPv6 adoption > or not and get back to the real business at hand? Getting IPv6 deployed > before IPv4 melts down into a puddle of NATd scrambled bits with no meaning > left? > > Owen > > > -Omo > > _______________________________________________ > Community-Discuss mailing list > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss > > > -- Omo Oaiya CTO/Directeur Technique, WACREN Mobile: +234 808 888 1571 , +221 784 305 224 Skype: kodion http://www.wacren.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From amelnaud at gmail.com Fri Oct 28 11:15:24 2016 From: amelnaud at gmail.com (Arnaud AMELINA) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 11:15:24 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] IPv4 depletion in AFRINIC will speed up IPv6 adoption - myth or fact? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: +1 @Omo Regards Arnaud Le 28 oct. 2016 09:52, "Omo Oaiya" a ?crit : > Owen, > > This is now a distraction and the tangential discussions bound to make > this confusing for some so I will conclude. > > - We know global regions where IPv4 is exhausted > - We know that secondary markets have sprung up to make IPv4 more available > - We know the rate of IPv6 penetration in those regions - generally low > - Now we have data that shows that IPv6 penetration is not necessarily > IPv6 usage and is generally less than reported. > > You don't support accelerated depletion of IPv4 > You don't have any data to support opinion that IPv4 depletion correlates > with IPv6 uptake > > Hint: 4 mobile companies and netflix is not the entire internet ...not > even in the US. > > I just needed to make this clear now that we have the attention of the > community and co-chairs on how to proceed with the PDP > > > On 28 October 2016 at 10:12, Owen DeLong wrote: > >> >> On Oct 28, 2016, at 1:28 AM, Omo Oaiya wrote: >> >> >> >> On 28 October 2016 at 09:01, Andrew Alston > om> wrote: >> >>> ? Like others, I would like to see widespread v6 adoption but we do >>> need to be careful to explain the stats we provide especially for those who >>> advocate to other stakeholders. >>> >>> >>> >>> I 100% agree? >>> >> >> Great >> >> >>> and this is why I asked if it could be explained to me how the >>> correlation between v4 depletion and v6 depletion was drawn from a >>> presentation that refers entirely to GDP correlation on v6 deployment, >>> because I honestly don?t understand that correlation. >>> >> >> I don't know where you got this from. Honest's point is that there is >> NO correlation between IPv4 depletion and IPv6 uptake i.e that you and Owen >> have opinions that are not supported by evidence or data >> >> >> >> You guys are talking across each other. >> >> Honest?s point may be that, but the presentation he referenced doesn?t >> say what Honest said. >> >> It says that there is a correlation between GDP and IPv6 uptake, but that >> there are pretty glaring anomalies even in that conclusion. >> >> Andrew is wondering how you equate a correlation in GDP to somehow >> meaning a lack of correlation in IPv4 depletion. The presentation provided >> no evidence of any such lack of correlation. >> >> >> >>> >>> Sadly, I?ve heard deafening silence since then, and it seems that >>> question is going unanswered. >>> >> >> Perhaps because she was bemused at the lack of understanding? >> >> >> If there is a lack of understanding, then it is among you and Honest >> because the presentation referenced by Honest does not say what you are now >> claiming it says. >> >> As someone from academia, Omo I am sure you agree with me that any >>> conclusions drawn from a dataset need to be explained by the individual >>> drawing the concerns in order for any weight to be applied to them? >>> >> >> No I don't. She provided an interpretation of the dataset which she >> argues is at odds with your opinions. From what I can see, she is correct. >> >> >> Which she are we referring to here? The one who gave the presentation at >> LACNIC? >> >> If that is the case, then her conclusion is orthogonal to what we have >> said about IPv4 depletion. Her conclusion is that there is a correlation >> between gross domestic product per capita and IPv6 uptake. In other words, >> the wealthiest nations are more likely to be early adopters of technology. >> >> This isn?t exactly startling news. >> >> However, it?s completely orthogonal to the question of whether lack of >> IPv4 resources drives IPv6 adoption. Currently there isn?t a meaningful >> lack of IPv4 resources anywhere except Asia. Even in Asia, they still >> remain relatively inexpensive, though costs are rising. We are seeing >> rising IPv6 adoption rates since APNIC, RIPE, and ARIN ran out of IPv4 >> addresses in their free pool. There are statistics to support this. >> >> IPv6 ? Google >> >> >> For example. >> >> >> It is up to you to defend your position with some data or substantiate an >> argument from what she has provided. >> >> >> So, the presentation you and Honest use to ?prove? your point is >> orthogonal to your point. That?s Andrew?s point. >> I?ve now provided you with clear statistics showing that IPv6 uptake is >> accelerating since depletion. >> >> Can we now stop arguing over whether IPv4 depletion drives IPv6 adoption >> or not and get back to the real business at hand? Getting IPv6 deployed >> before IPv4 melts down into a puddle of NATd scrambled bits with no meaning >> left? >> >> Owen >> >> >> -Omo >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Community-Discuss mailing list >> Community-Discuss at afrinic.net >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss >> >> >> > > > -- > Omo Oaiya > CTO/Directeur Technique, WACREN > Mobile: +234 808 888 1571 , +221 784 305 224 > Skype: kodion > http://www.wacren.net > > > _______________________________________________ > Community-Discuss mailing list > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From honest1989 at gmail.com Fri Oct 28 12:34:37 2016 From: honest1989 at gmail.com (Honest Ornella GANKPA) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 13:34:37 +0100 Subject: [Community-Discuss] IPv4 depletion in AFRINIC will speed up IPv6 adoption - myth or fact? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi All, The study in the LACNIC presentation had 2 questions Where are we across the globe with IPv6 adoption? - Is IPv6 deployed uniformly? - Is there a rich country/poor country divide? What can IPv6 adoption numbers tell us about IPv6 as a replacement for IPv4? - How to best measure IPv6 adoption? Penetration or usage? How do they differ? - Are we there yet? (As in, can we retire IPv4?) The study concludes that IPv6 is not a viable replacement for IPv4, that there is some positive news (6 countries in the world have 20+% penetration and bandwidth) and that IPv4 will be relevant for a very long time. It also correlates higher GDP with IPv6 uptake. There is no data which shows that IPv4 depletion accelerates IPv6 deployment. In fact there is actually evidence that the more resources (financial, human resources, infrastructures etc..) you have, the more likely one organisation / country has high penetration of IPv6. And even in those cases, most of these countries with high GDP have limited IPv6 penetration. Canada for example, a top 50 country of GDP per Capita has only 9,5% penetration (usage 5.5%) rate however ARIN has been in softlanding since 2007. Should we conclude that they were lazy or that depletion alone cannot be the only motivation for IPv6 deployment? African ISPs have less means and resources than those in these countries. However we do have the advantage of remaining IPv4 ressources and in my opinion, we should use them carefully and wisely. Those resources allows us a breating room to plan for capacity building and v6 deployment. It might be slow but eventually we will get there. IPv4 depletion has not accelerated IPv4 deployment in richer countries, I do not believe accelerating depletion will accelerate it either in Africa. IPv6 is inevitable and I believe we all agree on that. But how our continent and internet players go about it is also crucial and it will be good if we find a solution that will benefit us all Honest Ornella GANKPA 2016-10-28 9:01 GMT+01:00 Andrew Alston : > ? Like others, I would like to see widespread v6 adoption but we do > need to be careful to explain the stats we provide especially for those who > advocate to other stakeholders. > > > > I 100% agree? and this is why I asked if it could be explained to me how > the correlation between v4 depletion and v6 depletion was drawn from a > presentation that refers entirely to GDP correlation on v6 deployment, > because I honestly don?t understand that correlation. > > > > Sadly, I?ve heard deafening silence since then, and it seems that question > is going unanswered. As someone from academia, Omo I am sure you agree > with me that any conclusions drawn from a dataset need to be explained by > the individual drawing the concerns in order for any weight to be applied > to them? > > > > Thanks > > > > Andrew > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kevin.kamonye at gmail.com Fri Oct 28 15:49:38 2016 From: kevin.kamonye at gmail.com (Kevin Kamonye) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 18:49:38 +0300 Subject: [Community-Discuss] IPv4 depletion in AFRINIC will speed up IPv6 adoption - myth or fact? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: "IPv4 depletion in AFRINIC will speed up IPv6 adoption - myth or fact?" - based on the options given, I say FACT. It would of course not be automatic but it is an important first step. Headline 1: The last v4 IP has been issued Headline 2: We need to start deploying v6 since we are almost (20+ years) running out of v4 Regards, *Kevin* *+254720789158 <%2B254720789158>* On 28 October 2016 at 15:34, Honest Ornella GANKPA wrote: > Hi All, > > The study in the LACNIC presentation had 2 questions > > Where are we across the globe with IPv6 adoption? > - Is IPv6 deployed uniformly? > - Is there a rich country/poor country divide? > > What can IPv6 adoption numbers tell us about IPv6 as a replacement for > IPv4? - How to best measure IPv6 adoption? Penetration or usage? How do > they differ? > - Are we there yet? (As in, can we retire IPv4?) > > The study concludes that IPv6 is not a viable replacement for IPv4, that > there is some positive news (6 countries in the world have 20+% penetration > and bandwidth) and that IPv4 will be relevant for a very long time. > > It also correlates higher GDP with IPv6 uptake. There is no data which > shows that IPv4 depletion accelerates IPv6 deployment. In fact there is > actually evidence that the more resources (financial, human resources, > infrastructures etc..) you have, the more likely one organisation / country > has high penetration of IPv6. And even in those cases, most of these > countries with high GDP have limited IPv6 penetration. Canada for example, > a top 50 country of GDP per Capita has only 9,5% penetration (usage 5.5%) > rate however ARIN has been in softlanding since 2007. Should we conclude > that they were lazy or that depletion alone cannot be the only motivation > for IPv6 deployment? > > African ISPs have less means and resources than those in these countries. > However we do have the advantage of remaining IPv4 ressources and in my > opinion, we should use them carefully and wisely. Those resources allows us > a breating room to plan for capacity building and v6 deployment. It might > be slow but eventually we will get there. IPv4 depletion has not > accelerated IPv4 deployment in richer countries, I do not believe > accelerating depletion will accelerate it either in Africa. > > IPv6 is inevitable and I believe we all agree on that. But how our > continent and internet players go about it is also crucial and it will be > good if we find a solution that will benefit us all > > Honest Ornella GANKPA > > > > 2016-10-28 9:01 GMT+01:00 Andrew Alston : > >> ? Like others, I would like to see widespread v6 adoption but we do >> need to be careful to explain the stats we provide especially for those who >> advocate to other stakeholders. >> >> >> >> I 100% agree? and this is why I asked if it could be explained to me how >> the correlation between v4 depletion and v6 depletion was drawn from a >> presentation that refers entirely to GDP correlation on v6 deployment, >> because I honestly don?t understand that correlation. >> >> >> >> Sadly, I?ve heard deafening silence since then, and it seems that >> question is going unanswered. As someone from academia, Omo I am sure you >> agree with me that any conclusions drawn from a dataset need to be >> explained by the individual drawing the concerns in order for any weight to >> be applied to them? >> >> >> >> Thanks >> >> >> >> Andrew >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Community-Discuss mailing list > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com Fri Oct 28 17:25:23 2016 From: Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com (Andrew Alston) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 17:25:23 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] IPv4 depletion in AFRINIC will speed up IPv6 adoption - myth or fact? In-Reply-To: References: <5B8BFC2C-1E79-400A-8CE5-88EF30027C26@delong.com> Message-ID: - most of the numbers are in the hands of a minority Which minority Omo? That?s a very sweeping claim, care to clarify and back it up? Btw, you say that Frank took a cheap shot?. Allocation policy is pretty clear ? space allocated is meant to be used?. And while you sit and advocate for preservation of IPv4 space, will you lead by example and return the 75% of space your own organisation has had for 6 years and has never announced? I can provide the prefix if you like, and the BGP Play data to back it up. Or are you advocating its ok to stop others getting space to preserve it while you yourself sit on space that is in clear and total violation of the Ipv4 allocation policies? Andrew From: Omo Oaiya [mailto:Omo.Oaiya at wacren.net] Sent: 28 October 2016 12:31 To: Owen DeLong Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] IPv4 depletion in AFRINIC will speed up IPv6 adoption - myth or fact? On 28 October 2016 at 09:21, Owen DeLong > wrote: There are a number of flaws in your question, Omo. I neither support nor oppose IPv4 obsolescence. I state it as a fact. It is my considered opinion that when a protocol no longer fully serves the community of users it is intended to serve and/or requires those users to adapt to limitations on their use of the network in order to meet the needs of the protocol, that protocol is, by definition, obsolete and no longer able to meet the full needs of the user community. This is simply fact. English is not my native tongue but I understand obsolete to be different from deprecated A protocol that is still more in use than the alternative and commands additional value in a secondary market cannot be referred to as obsolete by definition IPv4 is no longer able to deliver the full feature set of the internet to the entire user community. It does not have enough addresses to give a unique peer address to every device attached to the internet. If you can disprove this simple fact about IPv4, I welcome you to do so, but if not, then I again say that IPv4 is, by definition, obsolete. Deprecated There are lots of obsolete things still in widespread use. Some countries still use paper airline tickets You use the word obsolete too loosely. . I also don?t favor accelerated runout of IPv4 in the AfriNIC region or anywhere else. Good. This is noted. What I do favor is allocating addresses to those with need now without protecting those late to the party at the expense of those present at the party. I see no reason to deprive an organization which needs addresses now in order to satisfy some demand from some other organization which may or may not exist at some future time. Maybe in ARIN. In AFRINIC, we have a situation where; - most of the numbers are in the hands of a minority - where those transitioning to IPv6 will need some IPv4 so accommodation has to be made for latecomers - a global situation where IPv4 still rules even though IPv6 uptake is now on the rise ....slowly - a local situation where we need to innovate and work collectively to speed up IPv6 uptake I work for NRENs and universities, most of whom predate and will outlive most other organizations so don't agree with you. I will also point out that working for Akamai does not mean that I will automatically agree with every conclusion any random person draws from data supplied by Akamai. I asked you to refute not necessarily agree. Do you have a view on the data that suggests different? Now for some more substantive and targeted criticisms: If we look at his slide 23 (IPv6 penetration vs Bandwidth), we see clearly that in some countries, the eyeball penetration vastly exceeds content and vice versa. This is obvious from the ?outliers? on his graph and yet he makes no mention of this possible explanation whatsoever. This is a fact. Why is an explanation necessary? I suspect that many (possibly all) of the countries on the far left side of that graph are countries not served by Netflix where the primary sources of internet content are not at all unlikely to be IPv4-only which places strong limitations on the ability of deployed IPv6-capable eye-balls to obtain their content overIPv6. Your suspicion only buttresses the data and authors conclusion i.e that numbers on IPv6 penetration do not correlate with usage and IPv4 is still predominantly in use in these countries. At the other end of the graph, it is likely representative of the reverse situation? IPv6 content available while a limited number of eye-balls have IPv6 capabilities at this time. yes, that only a handful of countries globally have the IPv6 capabilities and usage the figures often touted would want us to believe. The talk speaks to the relationship of GDP and IPv6 deployment and says nothing about whether or not exhaustion will drive migration. Perhaps the author didn't think he was qualified or had the expertise to make this judgement. Different in your case? Owen On Oct 27, 2016, at 3:58 PM, Omo Oaiya > wrote: On 19 October 2016 at 10:20, Honest Ornella GANKPA > wrote: This is the way to go because from recent research I read on the Internet which makes it clear that IPv4 depletion does not lead to IPv6 uptake. In fact, I am surprised that Owen Delong continues to advise that this is the way because the data was from Akamai which I hear he works for. Please see attached slide. The presentation on the study was given at a recent LACNIC meeting - http://slides.lacnic.net/lacnic26/ - https://www.dropbox.com/s/zxmygx5djtj6cxl/4%20-%20IPv6-GDP.pptx?dl=0 Owen, Honest has a point. The author used the Akamai state of internet study as one of the data sources. As a vocal proponent of accelerated IPv4 depletion in AFRINIC, what do you think of the opinions expressed in the study? It certainly doesn't support obsolescence of IPv4 as you promote. Btw, so we can compare, do you have any data that supports your view? Like others, I would like to see widespread v6 adoption but we do need to be careful to explain the stats we provide especially for those who advocate to other stakeholders. -Omo _______________________________________________ Community-Discuss mailing list Community-Discuss at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss -- Omo Oaiya CTO/Directeur Technique, WACREN Mobile: +234 808 888 1571 , +221 784 305 224 Skype: kodion http://www.wacren.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com Fri Oct 28 17:32:28 2016 From: Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com (Andrew Alston) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 17:32:28 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] IPv4 depletion in AFRINIC will speed up IPv6 adoption - myth or fact? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: - We know the rate of IPv6 penetration in those regions - generally low - Huge secondary market in the US for v4, penetration level at 17.94% (PREFERRED AND USED: 16.6%) - Huge secondary market in Europe for v4, penetration level at 11.07% (PREFERRED AND USED: 10.53%) VERY few transfers in Asia by comparison, penetration level at 3.18% (PREFERRED AND USED: 2.53%) Africa ? still has space ? penetration level at 0.07% (PRFERRED AND USED: 0.07%) Sorry ? data does not back up what you are saying ? how about some real facts and figures and statistics please? - Now we have data that shows that IPv6 penetration is not necessarily IPv6 usage and is generally less than reported. The figures above show the actual usage figures I just needed to make this clear now that we have the attention of the community and co-chairs on how to proceed with the PDP - You seem to have a very strange view of the community Omo, there are 1300+ members, I?ve seen less than 20 commenting on this list ? so I don?t know how you can judge that you have the idea of the way the community is going. Andrew On 28 October 2016 at 10:12, Owen DeLong > wrote: On Oct 28, 2016, at 1:28 AM, Omo Oaiya > wrote: On 28 October 2016 at 09:01, Andrew Alston > wrote: > Like others, I would like to see widespread v6 adoption but we do need to be careful to explain the stats we provide especially for those who advocate to other stakeholders. I 100% agree? Great and this is why I asked if it could be explained to me how the correlation between v4 depletion and v6 depletion was drawn from a presentation that refers entirely to GDP correlation on v6 deployment, because I honestly don?t understand that correlation. I don't know where you got this from. Honest's point is that there is NO correlation between IPv4 depletion and IPv6 uptake i.e that you and Owen have opinions that are not supported by evidence or data You guys are talking across each other. Honest?s point may be that, but the presentation he referenced doesn?t say what Honest said. It says that there is a correlation between GDP and IPv6 uptake, but that there are pretty glaring anomalies even in that conclusion. Andrew is wondering how you equate a correlation in GDP to somehow meaning a lack of correlation in IPv4 depletion. The presentation provided no evidence of any such lack of correlation. Sadly, I?ve heard deafening silence since then, and it seems that question is going unanswered. Perhaps because she was bemused at the lack of understanding? If there is a lack of understanding, then it is among you and Honest because the presentation referenced by Honest does not say what you are now claiming it says. As someone from academia, Omo I am sure you agree with me that any conclusions drawn from a dataset need to be explained by the individual drawing the concerns in order for any weight to be applied to them? No I don't. She provided an interpretation of the dataset which she argues is at odds with your opinions. From what I can see, she is correct. Which she are we referring to here? The one who gave the presentation at LACNIC? If that is the case, then her conclusion is orthogonal to what we have said about IPv4 depletion. Her conclusion is that there is a correlation between gross domestic product per capita and IPv6 uptake. In other words, the wealthiest nations are more likely to be early adopters of technology. This isn?t exactly startling news. However, it?s completely orthogonal to the question of whether lack of IPv4 resources drives IPv6 adoption. Currently there isn?t a meaningful lack of IPv4 resources anywhere except Asia. Even in Asia, they still remain relatively inexpensive, though costs are rising. We are seeing rising IPv6 adoption rates since APNIC, RIPE, and ARIN ran out of IPv4 addresses in their free pool. There are statistics to support this. IPv6 ? Google For example. It is up to you to defend your position with some data or substantiate an argument from what she has provided. So, the presentation you and Honest use to ?prove? your point is orthogonal to your point. That?s Andrew?s point. I?ve now provided you with clear statistics showing that IPv6 uptake is accelerating since depletion. Can we now stop arguing over whether IPv4 depletion drives IPv6 adoption or not and get back to the real business at hand? Getting IPv6 deployed before IPv4 melts down into a puddle of NATd scrambled bits with no meaning left? Owen -Omo _______________________________________________ Community-Discuss mailing list Community-Discuss at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss -- Omo Oaiya CTO/Directeur Technique, WACREN Mobile: +234 808 888 1571 , +221 784 305 224 Skype: kodion http://www.wacren.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com Fri Oct 28 17:42:47 2016 From: Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com (Andrew Alston) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 17:42:47 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] IPv4 depletion in AFRINIC will speed up IPv6 adoption - myth or fact? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Sorry where I referred to v4, I meant v6 Andrew From: Andrew Alston [mailto:Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com] Sent: 28 October 2016 20:32 To: Omo Oaiya ; Owen DeLong Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] IPv4 depletion in AFRINIC will speed up IPv6 adoption - myth or fact? - We know the rate of IPv6 penetration in those regions - generally low - Huge secondary market in the US for v4, penetration level at 17.94% (PREFERRED AND USED: 16.6%) - Huge secondary market in Europe for v4, penetration level at 11.07% (PREFERRED AND USED: 10.53%) VERY few transfers in Asia by comparison, penetration level at 3.18% (PREFERRED AND USED: 2.53%) Africa ? still has space ? penetration level at 0.07% (PRFERRED AND USED: 0.07%) Sorry ? data does not back up what you are saying ? how about some real facts and figures and statistics please? - Now we have data that shows that IPv6 penetration is not necessarily IPv6 usage and is generally less than reported. The figures above show the actual usage figures I just needed to make this clear now that we have the attention of the community and co-chairs on how to proceed with the PDP - You seem to have a very strange view of the community Omo, there are 1300+ members, I?ve seen less than 20 commenting on this list ? so I don?t know how you can judge that you have the idea of the way the community is going. Andrew On 28 October 2016 at 10:12, Owen DeLong > wrote: On Oct 28, 2016, at 1:28 AM, Omo Oaiya > wrote: On 28 October 2016 at 09:01, Andrew Alston > wrote: > Like others, I would like to see widespread v6 adoption but we do need to be careful to explain the stats we provide especially for those who advocate to other stakeholders. I 100% agree? Great and this is why I asked if it could be explained to me how the correlation between v4 depletion and v6 depletion was drawn from a presentation that refers entirely to GDP correlation on v6 deployment, because I honestly don?t understand that correlation. I don't know where you got this from. Honest's point is that there is NO correlation between IPv4 depletion and IPv6 uptake i.e that you and Owen have opinions that are not supported by evidence or data You guys are talking across each other. Honest?s point may be that, but the presentation he referenced doesn?t say what Honest said. It says that there is a correlation between GDP and IPv6 uptake, but that there are pretty glaring anomalies even in that conclusion. Andrew is wondering how you equate a correlation in GDP to somehow meaning a lack of correlation in IPv4 depletion. The presentation provided no evidence of any such lack of correlation. Sadly, I?ve heard deafening silence since then, and it seems that question is going unanswered. Perhaps because she was bemused at the lack of understanding? If there is a lack of understanding, then it is among you and Honest because the presentation referenced by Honest does not say what you are now claiming it says. As someone from academia, Omo I am sure you agree with me that any conclusions drawn from a dataset need to be explained by the individual drawing the concerns in order for any weight to be applied to them? No I don't. She provided an interpretation of the dataset which she argues is at odds with your opinions. From what I can see, she is correct. Which she are we referring to here? The one who gave the presentation at LACNIC? If that is the case, then her conclusion is orthogonal to what we have said about IPv4 depletion. Her conclusion is that there is a correlation between gross domestic product per capita and IPv6 uptake. In other words, the wealthiest nations are more likely to be early adopters of technology. This isn?t exactly startling news. However, it?s completely orthogonal to the question of whether lack of IPv4 resources drives IPv6 adoption. Currently there isn?t a meaningful lack of IPv4 resources anywhere except Asia. Even in Asia, they still remain relatively inexpensive, though costs are rising. We are seeing rising IPv6 adoption rates since APNIC, RIPE, and ARIN ran out of IPv4 addresses in their free pool. There are statistics to support this. IPv6 ? Google For example. It is up to you to defend your position with some data or substantiate an argument from what she has provided. So, the presentation you and Honest use to ?prove? your point is orthogonal to your point. That?s Andrew?s point. I?ve now provided you with clear statistics showing that IPv6 uptake is accelerating since depletion. Can we now stop arguing over whether IPv4 depletion drives IPv6 adoption or not and get back to the real business at hand? Getting IPv6 deployed before IPv4 melts down into a puddle of NATd scrambled bits with no meaning left? Owen -Omo _______________________________________________ Community-Discuss mailing list Community-Discuss at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss -- Omo Oaiya CTO/Directeur Technique, WACREN Mobile: +234 808 888 1571 , +221 784 305 224 Skype: kodion http://www.wacren.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From owen at delong.com Fri Oct 28 23:32:46 2016 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 16:32:46 -0700 Subject: [Community-Discuss] IPv4 depletion in AFRINIC will speed up IPv6 adoption - myth or fact? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > On Oct 28, 2016, at 5:34 AM, Honest Ornella GANKPA wrote: > > Hi All, > > The study in the LACNIC presentation had 2 questions > > Where are we across the globe with IPv6 adoption? > - Is IPv6 deployed uniformly? > - Is there a rich country/poor country divide? > > What can IPv6 adoption numbers tell us about IPv6 as a replacement for IPv4? - How to best measure IPv6 adoption? Penetration or usage? How do they differ? > - Are we there yet? (As in, can we retire IPv4?) By my count, that is actually 5 questions. However, by my reading, not one of them is ?Will IPv4 depletion accelerate IPv6 adoption??. > The study concludes that IPv6 is not a viable replacement for IPv4, that there is some positive news (6 countries in the world have 20+% penetration and bandwidth) and that IPv4 will be relevant for a very long time. Yes, but it uses a very narrow and poorly constructed definition for the term ?viable replacement? based on existing deployment without regard to rate of adoption or future state. As such, the conclusion is flawed by the erroneous assumptions put into it from the beginning. > It also correlates higher GDP with IPv6 uptake. There is no data which shows that IPv4 depletion accelerates IPv6 deployment. In fact there is actually evidence that the more resources (financial, human resources, infrastructures etc..) you have, the more likely one organisation / country has high penetration of IPv6. And even in those cases, most of these countries with high GDP have limited IPv6 penetration. Canada for example, a top 50 country of GDP per Capita has only 9,5% penetration (usage 5.5%) rate however ARIN has been in softlanding since 2007. Should we conclude that they were lazy or that depletion alone cannot be the only motivation for IPv6 deployment? Sure? Think of it this way? In the US, if you have vast financial resources, you are more likely to buy a new car just before your existing car starts to require expensive repairs and you will sell your existing car to someone who will pay a relatively good price for it because it is still in relatively good condition. On the other hand, someone with the same vehicle who has very limited financial resources will continue to put as little money as possible into keeping the vehicle barely running for as long as possible. For several years, they will put thousands of dollars into the vehicle far in excess of the cost of a new vehicle over time, but in a way that allows them to spend as little as possible at each step along the way. The same mechanisms drive early adoption of IPv6? You have the resources to do it and as a result you are in a better position to plan ahead and make a financial decision which will be cheaper in the long run, but requires greater investment up front. > African ISPs have less means and resources than those in these countries. However we do have the advantage of remaining IPv4 ressources and in my opinion, we should use them carefully and wisely. Those resources allows us a breating room to plan for capacity building and v6 deployment. It might be slow but eventually we will get there. IPv4 depletion has not accelerated IPv4 deployment in richer countries, I do not believe accelerating depletion will accelerate it either in Africa. Neither Andrew, nor I are arguing against careful and wise USE of IPv4 resources. What we are arguing against is the deprivation of use of addresses by people who need them now so that the lifetime of IPv4 can be artificially extended and there will still be a free pool for some undefined future use which may or may not ever materialize. Imagine if I built an 8-lane freeway between two cities and then kept 3 of the 4 lanes in each direction closed in case someone invented a new wider vehicle requiring wider lanes. The single lane in each direction becomes very congested and everyone wants to ease the traffic by opening the other lanes, but there is a small group that continues to argue that the additional lanes should be preserved in case some future vehicle development requires wider lanes. > IPv6 is inevitable and I believe we all agree on that. But how our continent and internet players go about it is also crucial and it will be good if we find a solution that will benefit us all The only solution that will benefit everyone is to deploy IPv6 as quickly as possible across the board. Any solution other than this simply extends the period of pain which we are already in. The period of pain began with the introduction of NAT into IPv4. It will continue until we can retire IPv4 from the internet backbone. IPv4 will remain relevant in islands for a long time to come. IPv4?s days being relevant as the lingua franca of the internet are limited. The more limited, the less expensive it will be for all of us. The question is how long and to what extent those who have adopted IPv6 will continue to tolerate and absorb the costs imposed by those who have not. Given that Amazon has now made IPv6 available on Route53 and on AWS and Microsoft has now added IPv6 to Azure, I suspect you will soon see some acceleration in content available over IPv6. Cable companies in the US are already doing the math looking at the Per User Per Year revenues vs. the Per User Per Year costs of maintaining IPv4 and considering at what point they can accept the loss of IPv4-dependent subscribers as a lower cost than continuing to support IPv4. I?ll give you a hint? There are definitely versions of this calculation out there which say that point is less than 5 years from now. Owen > > Honest Ornella GANKPA > > > > 2016-10-28 9:01 GMT+01:00 Andrew Alston >: > ? Like others, I would like to see widespread v6 adoption but we do need to be careful to explain the stats we provide especially for those who advocate to other stakeholders. > > > > I 100% agree? and this is why I asked if it could be explained to me how the correlation between v4 depletion and v6 depletion was drawn from a presentation that refers entirely to GDP correlation on v6 deployment, because I honestly don?t understand that correlation. > > > > Sadly, I?ve heard deafening silence since then, and it seems that question is going unanswered. As someone from academia, Omo I am sure you agree with me that any conclusions drawn from a dataset need to be explained by the individual drawing the concerns in order for any weight to be applied to them? > > > > Thanks > > > > Andrew > > > _______________________________________________ > Community-Discuss mailing list > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Omo.Oaiya at wacren.net Sat Oct 29 09:46:41 2016 From: Omo.Oaiya at wacren.net (Omo Oaiya) Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2016 10:46:41 +0100 Subject: [Community-Discuss] IPv4 depletion in AFRINIC will speed up IPv6 adoption - myth or fact? In-Reply-To: References: <5B8BFC2C-1E79-400A-8CE5-88EF30027C26@delong.com> Message-ID: On 28 October 2016 at 18:25, Andrew Alston wrote: > And while you sit and advocate for preservation of IPv4 space, will you > lead by example and return the 75% of space your own organisation has had > for 6 years and has never announced? > > > > I can provide the prefix if you like, and the BGP Play data to back it up. > > > > Or are you advocating its ok to stop others getting space to preserve it > while you yourself sit on space that is in clear and total violation of the > Ipv4 allocation policies? > > > No I am not advocating that. I find your new interest in adhering to policies encouraging. Why stop at my word or interpretation of incomplete information you don't understand? I will submit to a review of any allocations related to me by AFRINIC at any time. I have expressed emphatic support of the Internet Number Resources Audit policy proposal which also covers IPv6 and ASNs - http://www.afrinic.net/ community/policy-development/policy-proposals/1827- internet-number-resources-review-by-afrinic I recall that you were the first to object on grounds that resemble your current line of inquiry. > > I will strongly oppose this policy ? it is impractical, unenforceable and > hugely open to abuse. Organisation X doesn?t like Organisation Y, > Organisation X goes to AfriNIC and goes ?omg I think someone is not using > their space properly?, Organisation Y is now under audit and wasting > valuable time and effort when its entirely possible their space usage is > entirely legitimate. - https://lists.afrinic.net/ > pipermail/rpd/2016/005466.html Are you now able to see that the proposal is useful and why we should all support in passing it through quickly? -- Omo Oaiya CTO/Directeur Technique, WACREN Mobile: +234 808 888 1571 , +221 784 305 224 Skype: kodion http://www.wacren.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com Sat Oct 29 11:03:27 2016 From: Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com (Andrew Alston) Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2016 11:03:27 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] IPv4 depletion in AFRINIC will speed up IPv6 adoption - myth or fact? In-Reply-To: References: <5B8BFC2C-1E79-400A-8CE5-88EF30027C26@delong.com> , Message-ID: No Omo, I still oppose the policy, because unlike those that wrote that policy, I have actually done IP auditing and know how completely impractical it is to do it on any scale. Under that policy if auditing was done the way I checked on your space, I point out that the people we are so quick to say are taking space out of Africa are far more in compliance than people who have have legitimate reasons for not having stuff in the table. With regards to your space - let's look at facts. The space was allocated in 2010, and I believe it the initial money came under the frenia project (which btw had more applications than it could fulfill, and came to an end because if I recall there was not money to continue it). Could be wrong on the frenia thing, would have to go back and check. Since the date of allocation only one /24 out of your /22 has ever showed up on the internet - announced by Sonatel. Now, considering there is a requirement by policy that you can deploy a minimum of 50% immediately - something doesn't add up here. Unless you have a very specific reason why you have a need for globally unique space that is not in the table (as is the case with an IXP), and if you do - it just makes my point about the impossibility of the audits as proposed. If you don't wacren is in violation of the policy and should return the space. That simple Andrew Get Outlook for iOS ________________________________ From: Omo Oaiya Sent: Saturday, October 29, 2016 12:46:41 PM To: Andrew Alston Cc: Omo Oaiya; Owen DeLong; General Discussions of AFRINIC Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] IPv4 depletion in AFRINIC will speed up IPv6 adoption - myth or fact? On 28 October 2016 at 18:25, Andrew Alston > wrote: And while you sit and advocate for preservation of IPv4 space, will you lead by example and return the 75% of space your own organisation has had for 6 years and has never announced? I can provide the prefix if you like, and the BGP Play data to back it up. Or are you advocating its ok to stop others getting space to preserve it while you yourself sit on space that is in clear and total violation of the Ipv4 allocation policies? No I am not advocating that. I find your new interest in adhering to policies encouraging. Why stop at my word or interpretation of incomplete information you don't understand? I will submit to a review of any allocations related to me by AFRINIC at any time. I have expressed emphatic support of the Internet Number Resources Audit policy proposal which also covers IPv6 and ASNs - http://www.afrinic.net/community/policy-development/policy-proposals/1827-internet-number-resources-review-by-afrinic I recall that you were the first to object on grounds that resemble your current line of inquiry. I will strongly oppose this policy - it is impractical, unenforceable and hugely open to abuse. Organisation X doesn't like Organisation Y, Organisation X goes to AfriNIC and goes "omg I think someone is not using their space properly", Organisation Y is now under audit and wasting valuable time and effort when its entirely possible their space usage is entirely legitimate. - https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2016/005466.html Are you now able to see that the proposal is useful and why we should all support in passing it through quickly? -- Omo Oaiya CTO/Directeur Technique, WACREN Mobile: +234 808 888 1571 , +221 784 305 224 Skype: kodion http://www.wacren.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From aalain at trstech.net Sat Oct 29 12:24:44 2016 From: aalain at trstech.net (ALAIN AINA) Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2016 16:24:44 +0400 Subject: [Community-Discuss] IPv4 depletion in AFRINIC will speed up IPv6 adoption - myth or fact? In-Reply-To: References: <5B8BFC2C-1E79-400A-8CE5-88EF30027C26@delong.com> Message-ID: > On Oct 29, 2016, at 3:03 PM, Andrew Alston wrote: > > No Omo, > > I still oppose the policy, because unlike those that wrote that policy, I have actually done IP auditing and know how completely impractical it is to do it on any scale. Yes. the usual story. You only know. Others are either clueless or naive.. Auditing a need-based ressources distribution is impractical ? > > Under that policy if auditing was done the way I checked on your space, I point out that the people we are so quick to say are taking space out of Africa are far more in compliance than people who have have legitimate reasons for not having stuff in the table. Can you please read the policy proposal once again? presence in the global routing table is just one way of checking ressources utilisation All shall be backed by justifications acceptable to the RIR and the community. > > With regards to your space - let's look at facts. > > The space was allocated in 2010, and I believe it the initial money came under the frenia project (which btw had more applications than it could fulfill, and came to an end because if I recall there was not money to continue it). Could be wrong on the frenia thing, would have to go back and check. > > Since the date of allocation only one /24 out of your /22 has ever showed up on the internet - announced by Sonatel. > > Now, considering there is a requirement by policy that you can deploy a minimum of 50% immediately - something doesn't add up here. Unless you have a very specific reason why you have a need for globally unique space that is not in the table (as is the case with an IXP), and if you do - it just makes my point about the impossibility of the audits as proposed. If you don't wacren is in violation of the policy and should return the space. I read below: "I will submit to a review of any allocations related to me by AFRINIC at any time. ? ?Alain > > That simple > > Andrew > > Get Outlook for iOS > From: Omo Oaiya > Sent: Saturday, October 29, 2016 12:46:41 PM > To: Andrew Alston > Cc: Omo Oaiya; Owen DeLong; General Discussions of AFRINIC > Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] IPv4 depletion in AFRINIC will speed up IPv6 adoption - myth or fact? > > > On 28 October 2016 at 18:25, Andrew Alston > wrote: > And while you sit and advocate for preservation of IPv4 space, will you lead by example and return the 75% of space your own organisation has had for 6 years and has never announced? > > > > I can provide the prefix if you like, and the BGP Play data to back it up. > > > > Or are you advocating its ok to stop others getting space to preserve it while you yourself sit on space that is in clear and total violation of the Ipv4 allocation policies? > > > > > No I am not advocating that. I find your new interest in adhering to policies encouraging. > > Why stop at my word or interpretation of incomplete information you don't understand? > > I will submit to a review of any allocations related to me by AFRINIC at any time. > > I have expressed emphatic support of the Internet Number Resources Audit policy proposal which also covers IPv6 and ASNs - http://www.afrinic.net/community/policy-development/policy-proposals/1827-internet-number-resources-review-by-afrinic > > I recall that you were the first to object on grounds that resemble your current line of inquiry. > > I will strongly oppose this policy ? it is impractical, unenforceable and hugely open to abuse. Organisation X doesn?t like Organisation Y, Organisation X goes to AfriNIC and goes ?omg I think someone is not using their space properly?, Organisation Y is now under audit and wasting valuable time and effort when its entirely possible their space usage is entirely legitimate. - https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2016/005466.html > > Are you now able to see that the proposal is useful and why we should all support in passing it through quickly? > > > > -- > Omo Oaiya > CTO/Directeur Technique, WACREN > Mobile: +234 808 888 1571 , +221 784 305 224 > Skype: kodion > http://www.wacren.net > > _______________________________________________ > Community-Discuss mailing list > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com Sat Oct 29 15:18:31 2016 From: Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com (Andrew Alston) Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2016 15:18:31 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] IPv4 depletion in AFRINIC will speed up IPv6 adoption - myth or fact? In-Reply-To: References: <5B8BFC2C-1E79-400A-8CE5-88EF30027C26@delong.com> Message-ID: <81E5C7AC-B7BA-4DA0-865F-5FD4366E581D@liquidtelecom.com> ? Yes. the usual story. You only know. Others are either clueless or naive.. Not at all, I?m sure there are plenty of people who may know better than me. Unfortunately, as of yet, none of them have bothered to provide realistic ways of doing this that contain *detailed* proposals of how this would be accomplished and what the end results are. See Alain, the difference here, I ask for hard facts and data ? and when I?m asked for such I provide it ? but I will not accept vague positions and unsubstantiated nonsense as the grounds for implementing a policy. a.) No one has yet proposed how these audits are meant to be realistically done beyond looking at the routing tables b.) No one has proposed where the resources to do these audits are meant to come from c.) No one has addressed the MASSIVE potential for abuse of this policy d.) No one has addressed the fact that if an audit is needed ? then the original documentation is in question ? and at that point you are by the very nature of requesting the audit saying the hostmasters didn?t do their jobs when verifying the application in the first place ? and if you want to make implications like that ? you need evidence. I am sick and tired of vague statements, vague insinuations, vague claims that everyone is stealing the space and taking it elsewhere, vague claims that presentations that report on one thing some how are actually reporting on other issues they don?t ever reference. Come with real data ? real facts ? real figures ? and then let?s have this discussion. Andrew -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kevin.kamonye at gmail.com Mon Oct 31 13:30:08 2016 From: kevin.kamonye at gmail.com (Kevin Kamonye) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 16:30:08 +0300 Subject: [Community-Discuss] IPv4 depletion in AFRINIC will speed up IPv6 adoption - myth or fact? In-Reply-To: <81E5C7AC-B7BA-4DA0-865F-5FD4366E581D@liquidtelecom.com> References: <5B8BFC2C-1E79-400A-8CE5-88EF30027C26@delong.com> <81E5C7AC-B7BA-4DA0-865F-5FD4366E581D@liquidtelecom.com> Message-ID: ?You cannot carry out fundamental change without a certain amount of madness. In this case, it comes from non-conformity, the courage to turn your back on the old formulas, the courage to invent the future?We must dare to invent the future.? President Thomas Isidore No?l Sankara, 1985. Regards, *Kevin* On 29 October 2016 at 18:18, Andrew Alston wrote: > > > ? Yes. the usual story. You only know. Others are either clueless or > naive.. > > > > Not at all, I?m sure there are plenty of people who may know better than > me. Unfortunately, as of yet, none of them have bothered to provide > realistic ways of doing this that contain **detailed** proposals of how > this would be accomplished and what the end results are. > > > > See Alain, the difference here, I ask for hard facts and data ? and when > I?m asked for such I provide it ? but I will not accept vague positions and > unsubstantiated nonsense as the grounds for implementing a policy. > > > > a.) No one has yet proposed how these audits are meant to be > realistically done beyond looking at the routing tables > > b.) No one has proposed where the resources to do these audits are > meant to come from > > c.) No one has addressed the MASSIVE potential for abuse of this policy > > d.) No one has addressed the fact that if an audit is needed ? then > the original documentation is in question ? and at that point you are by > the very nature of requesting the audit saying the hostmasters didn?t do > their jobs when verifying the application in the first place ? and if you > want to make implications like that ? you need evidence. > > > > I am sick and tired of vague statements, vague insinuations, vague claims > that everyone is stealing the space and taking it elsewhere, vague claims > that presentations that report on one thing some how are actually reporting > on other issues they don?t ever reference. > > > > Come with real data ? real facts ? real figures ? and then let?s have this > discussion. > > > > Andrew > > > > _______________________________________________ > Community-Discuss mailing list > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alan.barrett at afrinic.net Mon Oct 31 16:00:35 2016 From: alan.barrett at afrinic.net (Alan Barrett) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 20:00:35 +0400 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Bylaws changes Message-ID: Dear community, I expect to be able to post the next revision of the bylaws change suggestions on Friday 4 November. Alan Barrett