Search RPD Archives
[AfriNIC-rpd] Re: rpd Digest, Vol 60, Issue 5
John Hay
jhay at meraka.org.za
Tue Sep 13 17:37:11 UTC 2011
Hi Rajabu,
Should these issues (I agree that they are important) be part of this policy?
Should it not be in a seperate policy or policies that govern how the
operators of AfriNIC should operate? That way it can be applicable to more
than just how they react to this one policy.
I do think that we should not let this policy drag with issues that could
be addressed in their own seperate polcies. This policy have dragged for
quite a few years already.
John
--
John Hay -- jhay at meraka.csir.co.za / jhay at FreeBSD.org
On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 07:19:27PM +0300, rajabu kitindi wrote:
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> rpd mailing list
> rpd at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd
More information about the RPD
mailing list