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

[Dr Paulos Nyirenda]

RPD,

We would like to advise that the Last Call period on the "IPv4 Soft Landing Policy" 
(AFPUB-2010-v4-005-draft-05) policy proposal has now closed.

Regards

The Co-Chairs
AfriNIC Policy Development Working Group (PDPWG)
The AfriNIC Policy Development Process
http://www.afrinic.net/docs/policies/AFPUB-2010-GEN-005.htm 

On 5 Sep 2011 at 15:25, McTim wrote:

> 
> Dear Colleagues
> 
> During the AfriNIC-14 Public Policy Meeting that took place
> in Dar esSalaam, 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 andits 
> associateddocuments and make comments. As a brief guide,in recent debate,comments and 
> issues were raised on the followingareas of the policywhich have now been modified:
> 
> -    Section 2: Incentive Text Changed
> 
> -    Section 3.5.1: Standardize the Minimum Allocation/Assignment
> to cater for routeaggregation etc
> 
> -    Section 3.5: Change the names of the two sub-phases within theExhaustion 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 droppedin favour of a 
> support for backward connectivity without explicitmention 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 byAfriNIC 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 usedoutside 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 RSAof 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 forthe proposal if
> the 10% was exclusively to allow connectivity back tothe continent.
> 
> **Frank Habicht suggested that a middle ground to specifying percentagewas to change the
> clause to state that more than half of all the spaceof the requesting entity (including
> legacy space) has to be used withinthe AfriNIC service region.
> 
> **Mark Tinka and Sunday Folayan opposed the proposal on the groundsthat it tries to 
> tell an operator how to run their networks.
> 
> **Consensus at the meeting was that the most contentious piece of theproposal was 
> paragraph 3.8 and several proposals to replace it weregiven at the meeting. In the end
> the adopted replacement for thatparagraph was as follows:
> 
> (a) When applying for more space, the applicant must have used 90% ofall space currently
> held by them. This 90% excludes legacy spaceShould this space include legacy space? 
> Three people from the audiencesaid 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 resourcesare for the 
> AfriNIC geographical region and any use outside should besolely in support for 
> connectivity back to the region."
> (Option 5): Internet resources allocated by AfriNIC may be used solelywithin the AfriNIC
> region or to support connectivity back to the region.
> 
> Consensus was on option 4 but with "geographic region" changed into"service region"
> 
> 
> 
>