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

Tue Jan 9 12:44:31 UTC 2018

Ornella,

As one of the people who is actively voicing concerns – they have _NOT_ all been addressed – or are you telling me that once again – you are dictating who’s concerns are important and who’s aren’t?

Myself – and others – are still raising concerns – many of us are – so how can you sit and say that our concerns are any less valid than any other concern that has been addressed?

Andrew

From: Ornella GANKPA [mailto:honest1989 at gmail.com]
Sent: 09 January 2018 14:44
To: Dabu Sifiso <dabu.sifiso at yandex.com>; community-discuss at afrinic.net
Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Identity of people on RPD list (was Re: [rpd] Appeal against softlanding-bisdeclaration of consensus)

Hi Dabu

Comments are inline

Le 08/01/2018 à 17:15, Dabu Sifiso a écrit :
>
> Hello Honest,
>
> I am not a sockpuppet, and seeing the recent incident with someone stealing an identity on from the RPD to show support to comments made by someone else, I understand your concerns.
>
> As for my personal background I will make it short, I am from Durban, I moved to Pretoria and have been a bit of an all around computer man at my employer, we are a small accounting company, I am the one who knows computers and Internet at the office.
>
> Now, you know more about me than what I know about you.
Thank you for your introduction. I'm too a network admin but that is
beside the point.
We are in a critical phase of our policy development. Please understand
my concern when people who have not participated in previous
discussions, jump in now and have such strong objections.

> [sip]
> 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.
This is not conservatism for the sake of conservatism. Everyone still
gets the resource to provide services to their customers while
distributing that last /8 between african players (big and small LIRs).
It has also been said many times that most here believe those resources
must be mainly used to transition towards IPv6.

In my opinion, all major concerns have been addressed by this policy
proposal and as you mentionned people should go through the archives and
read all the discussions and versions of the policy (which was modify
many times to accomodate the community)

Regards

Honest Ornella GANKPA

>
>
>
>
>
> 05.01.2018, 07:54, "Ornella GANKPA" <honest1989 at gmail.com<mailto: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<mailto: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<https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> RPD mailing list
>>>> RPD at afrinic.net<mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>
>>>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd<https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd>
>> Garanti sans virus. www.avast.com<http://www.avast.com>
> _______________________________________________
> Community-Discuss mailing list
> Community-Discuss at afrinic.net<mailto:Community-Discuss at afrinic.net>
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss<https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss>

---
L'absence de virus dans ce courrier électronique a été vérifiée par le logiciel antivirus Avast.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus<https://www.avast.com/antivirus>

_______________________________________________
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss at afrinic.net<mailto:Community-Discuss at afrinic.net>
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss<https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/community-discuss/attachments/20180109/504c121b/attachment.html>