[AfriNIC-rpd] Section 3.8 of AFPUB-2010-v4-005-draft-02 - IPv4 Soft Landing

Mon May 23 13:14:55 UTC 2011

On 23 May 2011 at 13:03, Mark Elkins wrote:

> ...x ...
>
> I've no problem with this either - unless "participation" by people not
> from the AfriNIC region allows "them" to harm "us". Maybe "they" should
> not always be invited to "show consensus" (vote)???  Ponder this a
> while.

If you want this then the AfriNIC PDP in AFPUB-2010-GEN-005 needs to be revised because 
you really cannot do this right now and the policy says that you should not do this.

> Whilst I was at ARIN a few weeks ago - participating in their Policy
> discussions - I didn't always put up my hand to "show consensus" - I
> didn't always feel it appropriate. (Might be wrong - but there was no
> voting at ARIN - just a demonstration of "consensus" as a guide to the
> AC (Advisory Council))

If you check the you will see that the word "vote" does not appear in the AfriNIC PDP. 
The  AfriNIC PDP is based on consensus and not voting. The current counting of who 
supports and who opposes is painting the wrong picture on how to implement the AfriNIC 
PDP.

> So my remark still stands. I would still be sceptical about the motives
> of any non-African based entity that supported the dilution of AfriNIC
> resources (IPv4 address space in this case) out of the AfriNIC area.

There is need to synthesize the many diverse views, including yours, into the policy, 
what ever that will be. We will most likely get it wrong if we rush with only one or a 
few such views.

> I'm not saying they can't participate. Maybe AfriNIC Members need to
> participate more though - as in stand up and be counted.
> Its our region - we have to operate in the region. There are other
> regions with both the same, similar and with quite different rules and
> procedures.
> 
> My motive is to protect AfriNIC and its resources for use by Africans.

Interoperability?

If you really want to push this line of thought then you need to revise the current 
AfriNIC PDP, as approved by the AfriNIC Board less than six months ago. As the PDP 
currently stands, your motives go against the principles of this AfriNIC policy.

Regards,

Paulos
======================
Dr Paulos B Nyirenda
NIC.MW & .mw ccTLD
http://www.registrar.mw

On 23 May 2011 at 13:03, Mark Elkins wrote:

> On Mon, 2011-05-23 at 09:05 +0200, Dr Paulos Nyirenda wrote:
> > Mark,
> > 
> > Your argument on "non-African based entity" raises the issue on the definition or 
> > restriction of the word "community" that is very pertinent in the AfriNIC PDP
> policy.
> > 
> > The current understanding, at least as resolved by the previous PDPMG and as defined as 
> > the PDP Working Group (PDPWG) in the current AfriNIC PDP with respect to the RPD process 
> > is that the global Internet community is defined as the "community" here, it includes
> > "any person".
> > 
> > See Section 4 of http://www.afrinic.net/docs/policies/AFPUB-2010-GEN-005.htm
> 
> Quoting what seems to apply from the above link...
> 
>         The Policy Development Working Group (PDWG) discusses about the
>         proposals. Anyone may participate via the Internet or in person.
>         The work is carried out through the Resource Policy Discussion
>         mailing list (RPD) and the Public Policy Meeting (PPM). Any
>         person, participating either in person or remotely, is
>         considered to be part of the Policy Development Working Group.
> 
> I've no problem with this - for example, how else would global polices
> ever get to us. From a Policy point of view - people from outside our
> region often have very good input, advice and practical experience. No
> problem.
> 
> > So, the issue of a "non-African based entity" being marginalised in your argument
> should 
> > not arise here as you seem to indicate, it runs against the principles of the AFRINIC
> > PDP, see Section 3 of the PDP policy.
> 
> "Openness, transparency and fairness" - I guess you are referring to...
> 
>         3.1 Openness
>         
>         All policies are developed in an open forum in which anyone may
>         participate. There are no qualifications for participation.
>         
> I've no problem with this either - unless "participation" by people not
> from the AfriNIC region allows "them" to harm "us". Maybe "they" should
> not always be invited to "show consensus" (vote)???  Ponder this a
> while.
> 
> Whilst I was at ARIN a few weeks ago - participating in their Policy
> discussions - I didn't always put up my hand to "show consensus" - I
> didn't always feel it appropriate. (Might be wrong - but there was no
> voting at ARIN - just a demonstration of "consensus" as a guide to the
> AC (Advisory Council))
> 
> So my remark still stands. I would still be sceptical about the motives
> of any non-African based entity that supported the dilution of AfriNIC
> resources (IPv4 address space in this case) out of the AfriNIC area.
> 
> I'm not saying they can't participate. Maybe AfriNIC Members need to
> participate more though - as in stand up and be counted.
> Its our region - we have to operate in the region. There are other
> regions with both the same, similar and with quite different rules and
> procedures.
> 
> My motive is to protect AfriNIC and its resources for use by Africans.
> 
> > 
> > Regards,
> > 
> > Paulos
> > ======================
> > Dr Paulos B Nyirenda
> > NIC.MW & .mw ccTLD
> > http://www.registrar.mw
> > 
> > 
> > On 21 May 2011 at 22:12, Mark Elkins wrote:
> > 
> > > I might be sceptical about the motives of any non-African based entity
> > > (or their representative) wanting to remove this "10%" paragraph?
> > > 
> > > On Sat, 2011-05-21 at 00:09 -0700, sm+afrinic at elandsys.com wrote:
> > > > This was a Consensus call on the following sentence in Section 3.8 of 
> > > > AFPUB-2010-v4-005-draft-02 (IPv4 Soft Landing proposal):
> > > > 
> > > >    "For each allocation or assignment made during the Exhaustion Phase,
> > > >     no more than 10% of these resources may be used outside of the
> > > >     AfriNIC region, and any use outside the AfriNIC region shall be
> > > >     solely in support of connectivity back to the AfriNIC region."
> > > > 
> > > > This is a rough summary of the discussion:
> > > > 
> > > > 5 May 2011 - James Blessing objected on the grounds that it is 
> > > > unenforceable but also a hinderance to African networks looking to 
> > > > expand into other regions.
> > > > 
> > > > 5 May 2011 - Andrew Alston is opposed to the sentence.
> > > > 
> > > > 5 May 2011 - Graham Beneke is opposed to the sentence.
> > > > 
> > > > 5 May 2011 - Dr Paulos Nyirenda opposed the consensus call.
> > > > 
> > > > 5 May 2011 - Maye diop supports the sentence.
> > > > 
> > > > 5 May 2011 - Mark Elkins supports the sentence.
> > > > 
> > > > 5 May 2011 - Owen DeLong supports the sentence.
> > > > 
> > > > 5 May 2011 - Douglas Onyango is the author of the proposal.
> > > > 
> > > > 6 May 2011 - JP Viljoen opposed the sentence and mentioned that 
> > > > artificially limiting the potential use by entities (and thereby 
> > > > effectively limiting any use whatsoever) on in this in a non-AfriNIC 
> > > > region seems like a very bad move.  One reason provided was "Your 
> > > > biggest customer wants to branch into a European office and requires 
> > > > a /24 there, but since your total allocation is a /22, it exceeds the 
> > > > 10% mark".
> > > > 
> > > > 6 May 2011 - Frank Habicht would like the sentence to stay in.
> > > > 
> > > > 6 May 2011 - McTim would like the sentence to stay in.
> > > > 
> > > > 6 May 2011 - J Walubengo "asked whether the current IPv4 allocation 
> > > > policy have this suddenly contentious 10% rule".
> > > > 
> > > > 6 May 2011 - David Conrad asked about the role of a "Regional 
> > > > Internet REGISTRY".
> > > > 
> > > > 6 May 2011 - Daniam Henriques is opposed.
> > > > 
> > > > 6 May 2011 - Simon Balthazar would like the sentence to remain.
> > > > 
> > > > 7 May 2011 - Komlan Togbedji mentioned that it is "normal that Africa 
> > > > public IP address could be used outside Africa when african 
> > > > organisations or companies expand to other areas".
> > > > 
> > > > All the comments provided will be taken into account for the Last 
> > > > Call on AFPUB-2010-v4-005-draft-03.  I would like to remind authors 
> > > > that they can contact AfriNIC for administrative support and 
> > > > assistance in drafting their proposals.
> > > > 
> > > > Regards,
> > > > S. Moonesamy
> > > > Interim co-chair
> > > > 
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > rpd mailing list
> > > > rpd at afrinic.net
> > > > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd
> > > 
> > > -- 
> > >   .  .     ___. .__      Posix Systems - Sth Africa
> > >  /| /|       / /__       mje at posix.co.za  -  Mark J Elkins, Cisco CCIE
> > > / |/ |ARK \_/ /__ LKINS  Tel: +27 12 807 0590  Cell: +27 82 601 0496
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> -- 
>   .  .     ___. .__      Posix Systems - (South) Africa
>  /| /|       / /__       mje at posix.co.za  -  Mark J Elkins, Cisco CCIE
> / |/ |ARK \_/ /__ LKINS  Tel: +27 12 807 0590  Cell: +27 82 601 0496
> 