[AfriNIC-rpd] Last Call: IPv4 Soft Landing Policy - AFPUB-2010-v4-005-draft-03

[Nii Quaynor]

On May 17, 2011, at 12:36, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:

> 
> On May 17, 2011, at 2:38 AM, Martin Millnert wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 1:36 PM, Andrew Alston <aa at tenet.ac.za> wrote:
>>> I object to the policy in its current form for reasons stated in other
>>> posts, but to clarify:
>>> 
>>> I object to the /27 minimum allocation size in section 3.5.2 and I
>>> believe it should be a /24
>>> 
>>> I strongly and vehemently oppose the second paragraph in section 3.8
>>> which limits use of AfriNIC space outside of the region to 10%, and in
>>> turn creates an unenforceable, unrealistic clause which disadvantages
>>> African operators looking to expand into the international arena.
>>> 
>>> Thanks
>>> 
>>> Andrew
>> 
>> I agree with Andrew's objections and so object to the current
>> proposal. I believe unenforceable rules (paper laws) sets bad
>> precedents.
>> 
> 
> At some level almost all rules are unenforceable. Any just society depends
> to a large extent on voluntary compliance and the rules serve first and
> foremost as an expression of the community's intent for how members of
> that society should conduct themselves.
> 
> Enforcement is strictly a mechanism to deal with and discourage the
> outliers, primarily by taking away advantages gained and providing some
> level of disincentive for enough of them to discourage others. The idea
> of hard-core zero-tolerance absolute enforcement of any regulation
> is unachievable even with a strong military. However, where we even
> come close to achieving such a thing, we have generally referred to
> the situation as a "police state" or "fascist regime". The RIRs are not
> and cannot be effective as such a structure. First, there are safeguards
> in place to prevent them from having that much power (this is a good
> thing). Second, RIR compliance at any level is strictly a voluntary
> thing. The RIR does not have the legal ability to prevent me from
> using a set of numbers they have issued to someone else, if I can
> convince a sufficient fraction of ISPs to listen to me instead of them.
> 
> This voluntary cooperation on the part of ISPs is where ALL ability
> to enforce policies of the RIRs is concentrated. Absent ISPs choosing
> to do so, RIR policies are only words on paper. Fortunately, at least
> so far, the ISPs recognize that doing so is vital to a stable and functional
> internet. The day they stop, we will have serious address coordination
> problems and significant destabilization. Fortunately, everyone knows
> this and the ISPs are unlikely to make such a choice since each and
> every one of them would be directly harmed by such a decision. There
> have been a few ISPs that have on occasion attempted to do so and
> they usually either get filtered or lose their peering altogether.
> 
> As such,I don't see how this rule is particularly more unenforceable
> than any other RIR rule and I think it is in the community's interest
> to express their clear intent through this policy. If the community
> intends that AfriNIC resources should be used within region, then,
> this paragraph should remain in the policy and the policy should
> be adopted.
> 
> If the community intends that AfriNIC resources should be plundered
> by foreign interests like so many other African resources throughout
> history, then, this paragraph should be removed.
> 
> It really boils down to that simple choice.
> 

Prefer that the resources used to expand Internet in Africa first. Thats what we worked so hard for. This could be enforced by member commitment to Africa and best practices

Ni


> Owen
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rpd mailing list
> rpd at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd