[rpd] Report of the Soft Landing isuue

[ALAIN AINA]

Dear Community 

We thank the co-chairs for the efforts put in managing the soft landing update’s process incepted by the 2 policy proposals. We also thank the community for the intensive discussions and contributions. 

We have contributed to the post-Mauritius initiative from the co-chairs on this update to the softlanding and remain available for any further actions required from us.

We still believe that amending certain aspects of the current  soft landing policy adopted in 2011, is  a good thing to do, despite the time wasted and  the fact that  AFRINIC  v4 pool showing 1.077 /8 available, which means the soft landing may be triggered anytime soon. 

We hope that the community has learnt a lot from this process and consider the main lesson here to be, the fundamental principle of policies/standards' development, which is that when a proposal is on the table to address an issue and has been accepted for discussion, it becomes community's document, aiming to be improved by the community up to adoption, rejection or withdrawal.

Thanks

Softlanding-bis Co-authors



> On Mar 20, 2017, at 10:24 PM, SamiSalih <sami at ntc.gov.sd> wrote:
> 
> 
> Dear AfriNIC Community,
> Greetings from the PDWG Co-chairs,
> 
> Many of you may have followed the proceedings of the two conflicting proposals addressing IPv4 exhaustion.
> 
> At the last meeting in Mauritius, authors of both IPv4 run-out management proposals agreed to consider working together to develop an improved proposal.
> We regret to inform you that despite several efforts, both groups of authors were unable to collaborate towards a joint solution.
> 
> As that process is deadlocked, the co-chairs have put together some of the major points in discussions raised over multiple meetings and mailing list discussions. Because the community has made many valid observations on improvements that could be made to the status quo, we hereby suggest that these be assessed by the community with a view to presenting a proposal that better manages the exhaustion of IPv4 resources.
> 
> Some examples of recommended improvements include consideration for new entrants, IPv6 transition provisions, and repurposing of reserves for the "unforeseen".
> 
> To avoid entering a loop similar to what we recently encountered, there is a need to concentrate our efforts on a joint solution. Can we discuss and let the co-chairs assist with the draft of a proposal that contains only areas that have rough consensus?
> 
> If there are areas on which consensus cannot be reasonably reached, those can be left out of the policy update proposal. Although the resulting proposal may be treated under the emergency provisions of the PDP due to time sensitivity of the subject matter, the ideal situation would be for the draft update to be received before the next PPM.
> 
> Although the PDP does not expressly require the above, we trust that all community members will be reasonable and work together constructively rather than seek to frustrate any efforts that do not align with their viewpoints.
> 
> The extracts from discussions till date are at https://goo.gl/AWCCWd and we would like to receive feedback and suggestions from the community
> over the next 7 days.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> AfiNIC PDP Co-chairs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr. Sami Salih  | Assistant Professor
> Sudan University of Science and Technology
> Eastern Dum, P.O Box 11111-407
> email: sami.salih at sustech.edu
> Mob: +249122045707 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd