Search RPD Archives
[AfriNIC-rpd] Re: rpd Digest, Vol 60, Issue 5
rajabu kitindi
rkitindi at gmail.com
Tue Sep 13 16:19:27 UTC 2011
Dear Dr Paulos
To be more specific,
I would like to modify section 3.6 by adding "A proof of IPv4 utilization
from LIR or end used must be submitted along with request for additional
IPv4" as per my email below
I would also like to add two new sections, which will address SLA issue, at
this point SLA will be very critical as we LRI and end users will need to
plan on utilization of IP addresses. I had such experience that responses to
email took very long time also it too me long time get new blocks, so if I
have only 10% of IP addresses remain, I don't know how long will this amount
sustain my operations, if it takes very long to get new addresses, I might
finish this 10% before I get new block. So I think Policy should address
that, so summary new sections should look like
Section 4: Should specify time period for *LRI or End user* to get response
when they make first request to Afrinic
Section 4.1: This should specify how long will it take for LRIs and End
user to get additional IPv4 from the day they submit all
utilization evidences
I would also like suggest we add a section which will promote deployment of
IPv6 as per my email addresses, let say
Section 5: Should for example mention shorter time period to get IPv6 as
compared to IPv4, if possible, free workshops which address IPv6 deployment
and transition strategies etc anything we want to add that will justify
promotion of IPv6 deployment across Africa.
Thanks & Regards,
Rajabu Kitindi
On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 4:29 PM, <rpd-request at afrinic.net> wrote:
> Send rpd mailing list submissions to
> rpd at afrinic.net
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> rpd-request at afrinic.net
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> rpd-owner at afrinic.net
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of rpd digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: If a Consensus Declaration falls in the forest, but no
> one hears it does it make a sound?? (Alan Barrett)
> 2. Re: If a Consensus Declaration falls in the forest, but no
> one hears it does it make a sound?? (SM)
> 3. Re: IPv4 Soft Landing - Re: rpd Digest, Vol 60, Issue 2
> (Dr Paulos Nyirenda)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2011 16:13:08 +0200
> From: Alan Barrett <apb at cequrux.com>
> Subject: Re: [AfriNIC-rpd] If a Consensus Declaration falls in the
> forest, but no one hears it does it make a sound??
> To: McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com>
> Cc: AfriNIC Resource Policy Discussion List <rpd at afrinic.net>
> Message-ID: <20110912141308.GA2057 at apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
>
> On Sat, 10 Sep 2011, McTim wrote:
> >I sent the FINAL 1.5 days ago, but don't see it on
> >https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2011/
> >
> >Did it get to you via the rpd list?
>
> I received it earlier today. I don't know why it took three days/
>
> Your followup message took 2 days, and arrived here just a few minutes
> ago.
>
> --apb (Alan Barrett)
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2011 07:54:36 -0700
> From: SM <sm at resistor.net>
> Subject: Re: [AfriNIC-rpd] If a Consensus Declaration falls in the
> forest, but no one hears it does it make a sound??
> To: McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com>
> Cc: AfriNIC Resource Policy Discussion List <rpd at afrinic.net>
> Message-ID: <6.2.5.6.2.20110912074735.09474238 at resistor.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
>
> Hi McTim,
> At 11:38 10-09-2011, McTim wrote:
> >I sent the FINAL 1.5 days ago, but don't see it on
> >https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2011/
> >
> >Did it get to you via the rpd list?
>
> I see a message from you in the archives. I received it on Monday
> afternoon (UTC). Is that what you are referring to?
>
> Regards,
> -sm
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 15:15:07 +0200
> From: "Dr Paulos Nyirenda" <paulos at sdnp.org.mw>
> Subject: Re: [AfriNIC-rpd] IPv4 Soft Landing - Re: rpd Digest, Vol
> 60, Issue 2
> To: rajabu kitindi <rkitindi at gmail.com>, rpd at afrinic.net
> Message-ID: <4E6F575B.27237.10684ED at paulos.sdnp.org.mw>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
>
> Rajab Kitindi,
>
> At this stage of Last Call in the development of this proposal, it would
> really be more
> helpful if you were more specific in your comments and recommendations on
> this proposal.
>
> Could you please point more specifically at what you are objecting to in
> this policy
> proposal?
>
> Which parts of the proposal would you like to modify or be modified?
>
> Regards,
>
> Paulos
> ======================
> Dr Paulos B Nyirenda
> NIC.MW & .mw ccTLD
> http://www.registrar.mw
>
>
> On 11 Sep 2011 at 23:22, rajabu kitindi wrote:
>
> >
> > Hi All,
> >
> > Although in section 3.8 policy mention amount of IPv4 utilization to be
> reached before
> > LRI or end user send request for aadditionalIPv4addresses.
> >
> > I still think, it is necessary for Policy to explicitly mention that "A
> proof of IPv4
> > utilization from LIR or end used must be submitted along with request for
> additional
> > IPv4" in section 3.6, this will make sure that LRIs and End users don't
> think there
> > isbureaucracy atAfrinic when asked for such evidences, I once did last
> time I was
> > applying for more IPv4s.
> >
> > I also think at this stage, Policy should explicitly mention, how long
> will it take for
> > LRIs and End user to get additional IPv4 from the day they submit all
> utilization
> > evidences. This will assist LRIs and end users to plan and use
> efficiently the remaining
> > 10%.
> >
> > For the moment, time to get IPv4 is unpredictable, my last experience
> shows that, it
> > took
> > me around 2 or 2.5 months to get confirmation from Afrinic that my
> request has been
> > received and ask me for utilization evidence, although I sent so many
> reminders. And
> > also
> > it took me around 3 to 4 weeks to get additional IPv4 from the date I
> submitted
> > utilization trends. I think at these critical times, SLA issues should be
> addressed by
> > Policy, will save a lot of issues with regards to IPv4 management,
> because you know
> > exactly how long will it take from the day you send request to the day
> you get
> > additional
> > IPv4
> >
> > Also, I think this Policy generally focuses in reservation of IPv4 for
> longer usage
> > which
> > may lead for LRIs and End user to keep using IPv4 reservation techniques
> such as NAT
> > etc.
> > In my opinion at this stage, Policy should explicitly promote and
> emphasize deployment
> > and usage of IPv6 addresses by for example creating favourable conditions
> for LRIs and
> > end users who ask for IPv6, this may include, instant responses to IPv6
> requests as
> > compare to IPv4request, time to get IPv6 should beconsiderablyshorter as
> compared to
> > the time to get IPv4, if possible, free workshops which address IPv6
> deployment and
> > transition strategies etc. In short Policy should promote IPv6 deployment
> across the
> > region, Although IPv4 utilization in Africa is low, itdoesn'tmean that we
> should be the
> > last in deploying IPv6.
> >
> >
> > I submit
> >
> > Regards,
> > Rajabu Kitindi
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 11:01 AM, <rpd-request at afrinic.net> wrote:
> > Send rpd mailing list submissions to
> > rpd at afrinic.net
> >
> > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd
> > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> > rpd-request at afrinic.net
> >
> > You can reach the person managing the list at
> > rpd-owner at afrinic.net
> >
> > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> > than "Re: Contents of rpd digest..."
> >
> >
> > Today's Topics:
> >
> > 1. Re: Last Call on IPv4 Soft Landing Policy
> > (AFPUB-2010-v4-005-draft-05) (Owen DeLong)
> > 2. Re: Last Call on IPv4 Soft Landing
> > Policy(AFPUB-2010-v4-005-draft-05) (vincent at ngundi.me.ke)
> > 3. Re: Last Call on IPv4 Soft Landing Policy
> > (AFPUB-2010-v4-005-draft-05) (Frank Habicht)
> > 4. Re: Last Call on IPv4 Soft Landing Policy
> > (AFPUB-2010-v4-005-draft-05) (Mam Dawda Gai)
> >
> >
> >
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 1
> > Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2011 07:17:26 -0700
> > From: Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com>
> > Subject: Re: [AfriNIC-rpd] Last Call on IPv4 Soft Landing Policy
> > (AFPUB-2010-v4-005-draft-05)
> > To: McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com>
> > Cc: AfriNIC Resource Policy Discussion List <rpd at afrinic.net>
> > Message-ID: <89588662-986A-4DE6-B6B1-1D91380B8465 at delong.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> >
> > I still support the policy.
> >
> > Owen
> >
> > On Sep 5, 2011, at 5:25 AM, McTim wrote:
> >
> > > 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>
> > >
> > > (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"
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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/20110905/8dc32cb3/attachment-
> > 0001.htm
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 2
> > Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2011 15:22:17 +0000
> > From: vincent at ngundi.me.ke
> > Subject: Re: [AfriNIC-rpd] Last Call on IPv4 Soft Landing
> > Policy(AFPUB-2010-v4-005-draft-05)
> > To: "AfriNIC RPD MList." <rpd at afrinic.net>
> > Message-ID:
> >
> <2109579828-1315236494-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1167879418-
> > @b26.c7.bise7.blackberry>
> >
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
> >
> > I support the policy proposal with the modifications.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Vincent
> > Sent from my BlackBerryZ
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com>
> > Sender: rpd-bounces at afrinic.net
> > Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2011 15:25:14
> > To: AfriNIC Resource Policy Discussion List<rpd at afrinic.net>
> > Subject: [AfriNIC-rpd] Last Call on IPv4 Soft Landing Policy
> > (AFPUB-2010-v4-005-draft-05)
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > rpd mailing list
> > rpd at afrinic.net
> > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 3
> > Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2011 10:13:37 +0300
> > From: Frank Habicht <geier at geier.ne.tz>
> > Subject: Re: [AfriNIC-rpd] Last Call on IPv4 Soft Landing Policy
> > (AFPUB-2010-v4-005-draft-05)
> > To: rpd at afrinic.net
> > Message-ID: <4E6719A1.9020106 at geier.ne.tz>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> >
> > I support it.
> > Frank
> >
> > On 9/5/2011 3:25 PM, McTim wrote:
> > > 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"
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > rpd mailing list
> > > rpd at afrinic.net
> > > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 4
> > Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2011 07:59:18 +0000
> > From: Mam Dawda Gai <mdgai at gamtel.gm>
> > Subject: Re: [AfriNIC-rpd] Last Call on IPv4 Soft Landing Policy
> > (AFPUB-2010-v4-005-draft-05)
> > To: McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com>
> > Cc: AfriNIC Resource Policy Discussion List <rpd at afrinic.net>
> > Message-ID: <20110907075918.3453187u6340wf34 at www.gamtel.gm>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; DelSp="Yes";
> > format="flowed"
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
> > End of rpd Digest, Vol 60, Issue 2
> > **********************************
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > MOTD: When we stop to think, we often miss our opportunity
> >
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> rpd mailing list
> rpd at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd
>
>
> End of rpd Digest, Vol 60, Issue 5
> **********************************
>
--
MOTD: When we stop to think, we often miss our opportunity
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20110913/af68c98c/attachment.html>
More information about the RPD
mailing list