[AfriNIC-rpd] IPv4 Soft Landing Policy

[SM]

Hi McTim,
At 12:58 27-05-10, McTim wrote:
>Yes, but then each of the 1000 plus LIRs wouldn't be able to get a /18
>out of the last /8.  /19 might work better, as then there would be a
>bit of "locked-up" space available to play with once we figure out how
>the community wants to allocate the very last dregs (besides the /12
>in reserve).

The questions surrounding this proposal might shed some light on why 
policies are developed in such a manner.  Graham provided a view of 
the numbers.  This discussion should have happened a long time 
ago.  I would not call it "locked-up" space unless any attempt to 
update the policy goes through the same path as this proposal.

>Who knows, maybe their will be folks so desperate in the "market" at
>that point that the NIC could flog off the last few bits for billions
>of USD, I think the community would be hard pressed to say no that
>that kind of cash ;-)

The fishing industry could be tasked to distribute the proceeds to 
nationals on other continents. :-)

>My sense is that the intent of the policy is to lengthen the lifetime
>of v4.  It also aims to protect "African" IP space for Africans, which
>is a laudable goal.

Yes.

>As I have said before, I wish that these two goals were not co-mingled
>in one policy proposal.

The two goals are intertwined.  There should have been a debate about 
what you said.

The second goal raises larger questions.  The other RIR communities 
have been more than fair to this region.  I hope that this community 
will take into account what is in the interest of the Internet 
Community, should that question arise, instead of being guided solely 
by self-interest.

Regards,
-sm