[AfriNIC-rpd] Last Call on IPv4 Soft Landing Policy (AFPUB-2010-v4-005-draft-05)

Fri Sep 9 12:59:34 UTC 2011

i fully support it.

Arbogast Fabian,

cell:+255-78-447-8387

 > Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2011 07:59:18 +0000
> From: mdgai at gamtel.gm
> To: dogwallah at gmail.com
> Subject: Re: [AfriNIC-rpd] Last Call on IPv4 Soft Landing Policy	(AFPUB-2010-v4-005-draft-05)
> CC: rpd at afrinic.net
> 
> i support it with the amendments.
> 
> > Dear Colleagues
> >
> > During the  AfriNIC-14 Public Policy Meeting that took place
> > in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania on the 8th and 9th June 2011, the
> > "IPv4 Soft Landing Policy" proposal with reference
> > AFPUB-2010-v4-005-draft-04 was declared to have reached
> > consensus. In line with the AfriNIC Policy Development Process
> > (PDP),  we, the PDPWG Co-chairs, are now issuing a
> > Last Call for comments on the proposal as follows:
> >
> > Start of Last Call: 5 September 2011
> > End of Last Call:  20 September 2011
> >
> > The community is hereby called upon to review the policy proposal and its
> > associated documents and make comments.  As a brief guide, in recent
> > debate, comments and issues were raised on the following areas of the
> > policy which have now been modified:
> >
> > -       Section 2: Incentive Text Changed
> >
> > -       Section 3.5.1: Standardize the Minimum Allocation/Assignment
> > to cater for route aggregation etc
> >
> > -       Section 3.5: Change the names of the two sub-phases within
> > the Exhaustion Phase to "Exhaustion Phase 1" and "Exhaustion Phase 2".
> >
> > -       Exhaustion Phase 2:  During this phase a minimum
> > Allocation/Assignment size will be /24, and the maximum will  be /22
> > per allocation/assignment.
> >
> > -       Section 3.8.1: The 10% per Allocation/Assignment was dropped in
> > favour of a support for backward connectivity without explicit mention of
> > percentages
> >
> > -       AfriNIC resources are for AfriNIC service region and any use
> > outside the region should be solely in support of connectivity
> > back to the AfriNIC region
> >
> > For your reference, the deliberations on this proposal at the meeting
> > are re-produced from the minutes at the end of the message:
> >
> > At the end of the Last Call, we will make a final assessment on
> > whether consensus has been reached by taking into consideration
> > the comments from the Public Policy Meeting as well as those during this
> > Last Call period.
> >
> > Regards.
> >
> > The Co-Chairs
> > AfriNIC Policy Development Working Group (PDPWG)
> >
> >
> >
> > [References]
> >
> >
> > (i) The full text of the policy proposal that got consensus in Dar es Salaam
> > <http://www.afrinic.net/docs/policies/AFPUB-2010-v4-005-draft-05.htm<http://www.afrinic.net/docs/policies/AFPUB-2010-v4-005-draft-04.htm>
> >>
> >
> > (ii) Minutes of the AfriNIC-14 policy discussions
> >
> > <http://www.afrinic.net/docs/policies/afrinic14_f2f_meeting_minutes.pdf>
> >
> > (iii) Staff Comments and Implementation Analyses of the proposal by AfriNIC
> > Ltd
> >   <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2011/001209.html>
> >
> > (iv) The AfriNIC Policy Development Process
> >  <http://www.afrinic.net/docs/policies/AFPUB-2010-GEN-005.htm>
> >
> > (v) Post Meeting Policy Report by interim PDWG co-chairs
> >  <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2011/001759.html >
> >
> >
> > Highlights of Discussions during Face to Face meeting in Dar es Salaam
> >
> > On the contentious issue of a limit on how much space could be used outside
> > the region:
> >
> > ** Andrew Alston stated that he will support the proposal without the
> > 10% clause.
> >
> > **Nii Quaynor proposed a 1% limit combined with inclusion into the RSA of
> > what kinds of out of region uses were realistic. Mark Elkins
> > responded that  1% of a /22 (the typical allocation during exhaustion
> > phase 2) will be inadequate for most purposes. He expressed support for the
> > proposal if the 10% was exclusively to allow connectivity back to the
> > continent.
> >
> > **Frank Habicht suggested that a middle ground to specifying percentage was
> > to change the clause to state that more than half of all the space of the
> > requesting entity (including legacy space) has to be used within the AfriNIC
> > service region.
> >
> > **Mark Tinka  and Sunday Folayan opposed the proposal on the grounds that it
> > tries to tell an operator how to run their networks.
> >
> > **Consensus at the meeting was that the most contentious piece of
> > the proposal was paragraph 3.8 and several proposals to replace it
> > were given at the meeting. In the end the adopted replacement for
> > that paragraph was as follows:
> >
> > (a) When applying for more space, the applicant must have used 90% of all
> > space currently held by them. This 90% excludes legacy space Should this
> > space include legacy space? Three people from the audience said that legacy
> > space.
> >
> > (b) For second part of 3.8 (regarding the 10% limit on out-of-region
> > use), Alan presented the options as follows:
> >
> > (Option 1) Keep existing text
> > (Option 2) No more than 1%
> > (Option 3) No more than 50% outside of Africa (including legacy space)
> > (Option 4) No number, just a statement stating that "AfriNIC resources are
> > for the AfriNIC geographical region and any use outside should be solely in
> > support for connectivity back to the region."
> > (Option 5): Internet resources allocated by AfriNIC may be used
> > solely within the AfriNIC region or to support connectivity back to the
> > region.
> >
> > Consensus was on option 4  but with "geographic region" changed
> > into "service region"
> >
> 
> 
> 
> Mam Dawda Gai
> Director Multimedia Services
> Gambia Telecommunications Company Ltd (Gamtel)
> Tel: 220 4375936
> Mob: 220 9970444
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rpd mailing list
> rpd at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20110909/948f97c2/attachment.html>