Search RPD Archives
[AFRINIC-rpd] Commencement of the last call
alston.networks at gmail.com
Tue Jun 25 20:12:14 UTC 2013
I 100% agree with you Owen, and as one of the authors I have attempted to
adhere to this.
The financial issues have been asked and answered, the inequality in current
space distribution on the continent between the Southern region and the rest
of the continent has been addressed and the issue of utilising the space by
keeping it on the continent has also been addressed. If people still have
issues with these answers, we cannot address them without further
articulation of the concerns. Part of the consensus process is to build
towards a common goal, and we have done our best to answer each query as it
was raised, and if the answers were not satisfactory and did not adequately
explain our position, we can do nothing more but wait for further questions
which will allow us to further clarify the position. This is the nature of
From: Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com>
Date: Tuesday 25 June 2013 10:04 PM
To: Andrew Alston <alston.networks at gmail.com>
Cc: Maye Diop <mayediop at gmail.com>, Emile Milandou <emilemilan at gmail.com>,
rpd <rpd at afrinic.net>
Subject: Re: [AFRINIC-rpd] Commencement of the last call
The same should apply equally to statements of support.
On Jun 25, 2013, at 04:50 , Andrew Alston <alston.networks at gmail.com> wrote:
> If I may ask the following on the list, because this is part of what is
> required when determining consensus as per the IETF draft document on rough
> If there are objections to the policy, if these can be clearly articulated
> with solid modelling, technical objections or financial objections, that are
> based on solid information and not hypotheticals, it would be hugely helpful.
> This way, should the policy not pass last call, we can then examine exactly
> what changes need to be made in order to make the policy more palatable.
> However, this is impossible to do if the objections are based on hypotheticals
> with no basis in solid information or gut feelings, and by the IEFT draft
> document on consensus, objections that are considered when gauging consensus
> should be based in fact, since consensus is more than just a "majority" issue.
> From: Maye Diop <mayediop at gmail.com>
> Date: Tuesday 25 June 2013 1:41 PM
> To: Emile Milandou <emilemilan at gmail.com>
> Cc: rpd <rpd at afrinic.net>
> Subject: Re: [AFRINIC-rpd] Commencement of the last call
> Dear Colleagues,
> Thanks to Emile for this update.
> As the last call is open now, I would like to add my opposition to the policy
> about Academic IPv4 Allocation.
> Best Regards,
> 2013/6/25 Emile Milandou <emilemilan at gmail.com>
>> Dear Colleagues,
>> Following the face to face discussions in Lusaka, Zambia during
>> AFRINIC 18, the following proposals reached consensus during the
>> Remove requirement to announce entire v6 block as single aggregate
>> Steven Wiesman, Steven Tapper,Charles Hendrikson
>> No Reverse Unless Assigned
>> Tim McGinnis
>> Academic IPv4 Allocation
>> Andrew Alston, Sunday Folayan
>> Anycast Assignments in the AFRINIC region
>> Mark Elkins, Mauritz Lewies, Tim McGinnis
>> The two-week last call period for these proposals starts today 25-06-2013.
>> 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.
>> With Regards,
>> Emile Milandou, Seun Ojedeji
>> PDWG co-Chairs
>> rpd mailing list
>> rpd at afrinic.net
> Mme Ndéye Maimouna DIOP
> Spécialiste ICT4D
> _______________________________________________ rpd mailing list
> rpd at afrinic.nethttps://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd
> rpd mailing list
> rpd at afrinic.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the RPD