Search RPD Archives
Limit search to: Subject & Body Subject Author
Sort by:

[rpd] Inbound Policy

sm+afrinic at sm+afrinic at
Fri Dec 9 11:03:43 UTC 2016

Hi Andrew,
At 19:34 05-12-2016, Andrew Alston wrote:
>You know – I watched thatt inbound transfer 
>policy fail – and to be honest I expeected as 
>much – because let me say it like it is – I dI 
>do not believe that the people who stood against 
>the policy stood against the policy itself – I 
>believe this waas very much a case of what was 
>described by Chris and Jan at the microphone at 
>the end of the meeting.  It seems to be stances 
>are taken against the regions the policies come 
>from or the people who author the 
>policies.  Until we fix the blatant regional 
>splits in the policy process – we will not come right.

I watched the discussions again.  I would like to 
thank Afrinic Ltd for the making that 
possible.  It is nice to see that you disclosed 
for whom you work for so that it is easy to find 
out whether there is a conflict of interest.

It seemed like there were two sides in the 
discussions.  I went through the discussions 
which occurred at previous meetings; the same 
issues were discussed over several meetings and there wasn't any solution.

>removed from anything to do with IP and ASN 
>resources.   Now the question is, can we 
>honestly have an open discussion about the REAL 
>issues facing us, or am I going to become flame 
>bait for what I have said here?  Because again, 
>I believe that if we don't start talking openly 
>about what is going on – we will never aadvance.

Would making more IPv4 addresses available have a 
negative impact on IPv6 usage?

S. Moonesamy 

More information about the RPD mailing list