[Community-Discuss] Identity of people on RPD list (was Re: [rpd] Appeal against softlanding-bisdeclaration of consensus)
owen at delong.com
Tue Jan 9 20:50:02 UTC 2018
> On Jan 9, 2018, at 03:43 , Ornella GANKPA <honest1989 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
Do you really need to reiterate this again? He’s not a sock puppet and he’s voicing valid concerns. Welcome him to the process and accept his contribution. Better late than never. (Yes, I would say this even if I didn’t like what he had to say).
>> 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.
You know, no matter how many times you repeat this fiction, it’s still fiction.
Putting a 24 month limit on returning to the line means that this proposal places an unfair barrier to resource acquisition in front of larger providers in order to protect smaller ones.
> 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)
So either you are referring to the unaddressed concerns as minor (and why do you get to make that judgment?) or you believe that abject dismissal constitutes addressing them (it doesn’t). See above… In addition to all the others, the fact remains that the unfairness of this policy in the form described in my previous paragraph above is still an unaddressed major issue with this policy.
More information about the Community-Discuss