[Community-Discuss] Identity of people on RPD list (was Re: [rpd] Appeal against softlanding-bisdeclaration of consensus)

Mon Jan 8 18:54:09 UTC 2018

> I know that I do not really belong, as I have no place in those meetings being an Internet user and not being paid to be an Internet person.

This is absolutely false. You absolutely belong every bit as much as any of the rest of us belong here.

There are those who have claimed I do not belong, but they are wrong too. Anyone is welcome and anyone belongs if they choose to be here.

> I am not representing a member of AFRINIC and we do not hold any resources, I never saw the need to actually speak out loud as a Telkom user.
> The recent events drew me out to express my opinions, maybe a continued silence would had been better, but I am glad that my first response did sound like strong views.

I’m glad you responded and expressed your opinion(s) and hope you will continue to do so in the future. IMHO, we need more participation from end users on these lists, not less.

> I do not like the cascades of +1s seen on the various groups and discussions from the many internet discussion groups I have seen, as those look like votes and do not express any sense of knowledge or understanding of the topics.
> An opinion right or wrong stands on its own ground and does not require to be repeated to be valid, it only needs to be stated once to be out there, if unheard or deliberately ignored, then yes it should be repeated by whoever agrees, but it must be proven wrong by those who rejects the idea, once proven wrong, no need to bring it up again. If not proven wrong it must be processed in to the line of thought of the discussions.
> AS an example, I used to believe being conservative in the distribution of IPv4 was a good choice, I now look at it and believe it may have been counter productive all this time, and may have been so since IPv6 was being conceived long before even AFRINIC was created, voices were there long ago, they were discarded as well.
> I would place the first mistake in creating CIDR and NAT, we have been conservative in IPv4 copying what Europe and the US did and we still do not have IPv6, we are even further behind, while being the strictest in our IPv4 policies, this is why I previously mentioned that it had become a running gag, but we still do not see it getting out there.
> 
> I like people who state an opinion in agreement or disagreement, a worded opinion at least helps to form new ideas.

Very well said. I applaud your participation and hope you will continue.

Owen

> 
> 
> 
> 
> 05.01.2018, 07:54, "Ornella GANKPA" <honest1989 at gmail.com>:
>> Hi Dabu,
>> 
>> Please forgive me but I'm surprised to see unknown people with russian freemail suddenly surface on rpd and have strong views. No offence meant but we need to ensure we have real people participate in policy development.
>> 
>> I would not want the working group to spend time replying to sockpuppets so perhaps others know you or could you introduce yourself?
>> 
>> Regards
>> 
>> Honest Ornella GANKPA
>> Le 04/01/2018 à 16:24, Dabu Sifiso a écrit :
>>> 04.01.2018, 08:00, "Ornella GANKPA" <honest1989 at gmail.com>:
>>>> Hi Mark
>>>> 
>>>> Again this is not true. It is explicitely said in the policy that any
>>>> organization (regardless of its size) can be allocated /18 within a 24
>>>> month period during exhaustion phase 1 and /22 during exhaustion phase
>>>> 2. Anyone can always get more allocation as long as they justify 90%
>>>> utilization. I fail to see how it prevents growth for anyone. However it
>>>> does ensure good management of our ressources.
>>> 
>>> "it does ensure good management of our ressources."
>>> 
>>> Isn't that just what people are debating what is good and what is bad and cannot agree on it?
>>> If you needs more than a /18 or even a /22 in phase 2 for 24 months, transfers will be your only option once you have received that /22 or /18 from AFRINIC, is that good management, maybe?
>>> 
>>> We hear of larger and smaller allocations being underutilized today, like a /12 being very much empty. but some people want limiting access of AFRINIC IPs in a way that AFRINIC's own IPs given to AFRINIC for distribution will be underutilized even when the demand and need is there by bigger networks.
>>> The refusal to see this makes me think!
>>> 
>>> Are people trying to force IPv4 transfers to happen in AFRINIC just to raise prices by limiting access to the IPv4 address space owned by AFRINIC?
>>> Are those the ones who are sitting on those smaller and larger underutilized allocations?
>>> Creating a premature scarcity to unload what they are sitting on and do not need at high price to the large ISPs with money but with no possibility to get more IP address from AFRINIC?
>>> Are those the same people that rejected having one way transfer into Africa, so that prices and availability could at least be matched with the current global market?
>>> 
>>> If this is true then the people against the changes to softlanding policy are for the whole of Africa and are acting in our best interest not against!
>>> I hope the appeal committee shed some light into this.
>>> 
>>> Maybe all these private Skype conversations will be made public and make us understand!
>>> 
>>>> The policy doesn't punish success. In any case, it encourages carefully
>>>> planned growth
>>> How?
>>> It encourages CGNAT and IPv4 transfer by not giving AFRINIC IPv4 that is needed to those who need it.
>>>> Why would anyone disagree with that?
>>> 
>>> People did, we didn't listen and believed those saying they were acting for the good of Africa, we were duped.
>>> 
>>>> Is IPv6 not the common sense optionfor any growth plan?
>>> 
>>> It stopped being a realistic alternative in 1999, turned into a running gag by 2009, and will only be revived once there is no IPv4 to distribute, could it be happening in 2019, or do we have to wait until 2029!
>>>> Regards
>>>> 
>>>> Honest Ornella GANKPA
>>>> 
>>>> Le 04/01/2018 à 11:36, Mark Elkins a écrit :
>>>>>  Thus, by extension, the revised policy is generally harmful to larger
>>>>>  LIR's. They need larger blocks in order to grow, which this revision
>>>>>  of the policy does not allow. This policy is therefore discriminatory
>>>>>  against larger (which probably implies more successful) LIR's. Thus,
>>>>>  the policy harms success (and larger LIR's who need more space).
>>>> 
>>>> ---
>>>> L'absence de virus dans ce courrier électronique a été vérifiée par le logiciel antivirus Avast.
>>>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> RPD mailing list
>>>> RPD at afrinic.net
>>>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
>> 
>> Garanti sans virus. www.avast.com
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Community-Discuss mailing list
> Community-Discuss at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss