[AfriNIC-rpd] Consensus call on Section 3.8 ofAFPUB-2010-v4-005-draft-02 - IPv4 Soft Landing

[Andrew Alston]

<Snip>

 

I think you are aware, but, removal of this clause would constitute
consent.

 

Even if you don't believe that the clause will make a difference, why
consent to their

action?

 

I dispute this, acknowledging something is going to happen does not mean
you consent to it.  It also does not mean you have to support a policy
that I believe damages the interests of African companies. I do not
consent, and I take exception to anyone who suggests that I do.  I also
however will say my peace when I believe something is not in the best
interests of the African community.

 

<Snip> 

 

Your proposal is not what is currently being discussed. Make that case
in that debate.

At the moment, the question is the consensus call on this sentence in
this proposal.

Removing it is an invitation to those companies to engage in additional
plunder.

At the very least, I think it is worth saying "We do not consent", even
if it cannot actually

prevent the plundering.

 

Write a statement that protests the actions then, do not place a limit
on African companies that could hurt their interests in order to make
this statement.

 

I have very little faith in the international community. What I do have
faith in is the

idea that the largest of the large companies will not see enough value
in taking

/12 and larger chunks out of AfriNICs last /8 to justify their PR risk
if this policy is

in place.

 

For them, the addresses, while valuable, will not be enough to justify
the risks.

It will be enough to drive them to their more localized transfer markets
as a likely

lower risk solution.

 

Having read this policy, this argument is actually completely fallacious
in nature.  The policy EXPLICITLY prohibits allocations of larger than
/22 in size.  Hence, grabs of /12s out of the last /8 are already
prohibited by the policy and the argument you are attempting to make
falls flat.  If companies wish to grab such large blocks, they would
have to do it BEFORE the policy kick in, and if that were to happen,
this paragraph in question that we are disputing here would not apply to
those allocations in any case. 

 

If your policy gains consensus, sure. However, removing this clause from
this

policy without that happening simply means that the AfriNIC community
has

consented to this pillaging without recourse.

 

Again, I do not consent, I am also however a realist and as stated
before, I long ago abandoned idealism in the face of reality.
Furthermore, since it has already been acknowledged by many people that
this policy is almost impossible to enforce and monitor, there is no
resource available anyway, therefore this argument again is fallacious.

 

 

Thanks

 

Andrew 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20110506/4f92e9b7/attachment.html>