[AFRINIC-rpd] PDP discussions

[Owen DeLong]

> Secondly, I wish to address the question of IPv4 burn rate and the
> objections on this list.  The fact that this policy would result in faster
> usage of the available pool was made very plain at the microphone by both
> Sunday and myself when presenting this policy.  The community heard this,
> and accepted the policy.  I believe this is probably because yes, it
> increases the usage of the available pool, but it keeps the space where it
> belongs, in Africa, for the African people.  Without increasing the burn
> rate, rest assured the space would disappear off our continent fairly
> quickly.

The people in the room when the policy was presented are a tiny fraction of the community. Treating the result in the room as absolute and representative of the full community is a fallacy. That is why there is a last call period on the list after consensus is determined at the meeting.

While I agree that increasing the burn rate is not a problem and I also agree that doing so in a way that ensures the addresses are used to the benefit of the African Peoples is a good thing, I do not think you have any evidence to substantiate your latter claim and I challenge you to present it if you do. Assuming staff is following the policies that are in place, that shouldn't be happening and I know of no indication or evidence that it is.

> I point to the fact that currently, to my knowledge, there is *NOTHING* in
> current policy aside from the soft landing policy that stops organisations
> using space assigned by AfriNIC in places outside of the African region.
> This policy will at least lock the space to Africa.

Only to the extent that said space is issued to institutions under this policy.

> My second last point is, to my knowledge, this policy passed with a
> greater on the floor consensus of any policy in African PDP history
> (personal observation and echoed by others), the community overwhelmingly
> supported this by a massive majority.  While I respect the democratic
> right of any member to disagree with the policy, I do ask that the
> decision that was taken by the community, by show of hands, and by massive
> majority be respected as well.

Again, counting strictly on the consensus in the room is absurd in such a diverse community where travel to meetings can be such a challenge. The discussion of the policy on the list both before and after the meeting has bee rather controversial. This is the reason there is a last-call safety valve to give the community that wasn't at the meeting a chance to comment and/or reconsider the result in the room.

I'm neutral with respect to the policy. Overall, I think it is probably slightly beneficial or harmless at worst.

Owen