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

[rpd] Report of the Soft Landing isuue

Andrew Alston Andrew.Alston at
Sun Mar 26 12:01:16 UTC 2017

The co-chairs cannot act as editors for a proposal that they have to adjudicate consensus on.

That cannot happen - it is beyond their mandate granted by the bylaws and it creates a direct conflict of interest situation, which is something we have worked hard to address at all levels within AfriNIC.

Furthermore, any individual is free to propose another policy if they feel that something on the table does not meet their needs.

As for the reference to us refusing to work with the authors of the bis proposal - I point out that mutual withdrawal and then working together on a mutual proposal was proposed by the authors of the withdrawn policy - it was the authors of that policy that acted in good faith making that proposal.  It was the authors of the bis policy that agreed to that proposal in front of the entire community and then acted in extreme bad faith and refused to follow through.

If the authors of the bis policy with to attempt to update it in an effort to find consensus on it - that is their choice - however it is also the choice of any individual to propose another policy if they choose - just as it is the choice of the community to decide if they wish any amendment whatsoever to the current soft landing at this late stage of the game.  My gut feeling though as I have stated before is that no soft landing ammendment will get consensus in the short to medium term and by the time we get consensus on one it will be to late to make sense.

For the record - I stand opposed to the softlanding-bis policy for all the reasons I have stated time and again - and my substantive and valid objections have yet to be addressed by the authors of said policy.


Get Outlook for iOS<>

From: Honest Ornella GANKPA <honest1989 at>
Sent: Sunday, March 26, 2017 2:45:44 PM
To: Mark Elkins
Cc: rpd
Subject: Re: [rpd] Report of the Soft Landing isuue

Hi everyone,

>From my point of view, I don’t see anything sad about it. I see progress and an opportunity to improve our PDP process.

The Co-Chairs have done a good job of presenting the main points of the discussions we had. Why not contribute or comment on that as requested?

One lesson I learned from this is that we should try not to have 2 proposals dealing with the same issue in the PDP. What we should do is work as a community to improve or reject proposals that are submitted.

Another proposal from you does not make sense to me especially as your team refused to cooperate with the Co-chairs. As far as I understand, because you withdrew your policy, softlanding-bis is currently the policy under consideration.

We can react to the feedback at and update the policy. If there are no constraints, we could even do this without the authors, have the Co-chairs act as editors and make this a real community process.

What we must not do is waste even more of everyone's time and Co-chairs effort in getting us to this point.

Best regards

Honest Ornella GANKPA

2017-03-24 21:46 GMT+01:00 Mark Elkins <mje at<mailto:mje at>>:

That's a bit sad.

I've been involved in a number of proposals, both some successful (IPv6 /48, AnyCast) and some not (Inter-regional Transfer - which I withdrew). I believe that there is a need to re-address some parts of the Soft Landing Proposal and I'm thick-skinned enough to give this a try.

I believe that proposals since the Soft landing proposal was first proposed (and that wasn't a quick task) along with what has been learned by watching other regions and by some of our own proposals will allow our community to better shape the Soft Landing Proposal to something that will allow some limited but crucial IPv4 resources to last a fare bit longer into the future for new entrants into this world of Internet Addresses.

On 24/03/2017 22:08, Arsène Tungali wrote:
Hi everyone.

Though we still have 3 days to go (out of the 7 suggested by the Co-chairs to hear from the community on their suggestion),

As a newbie in the PDP process, I have the impression that we (community) will not be able to move ahead with this work as per the wonderful suggestion by co-chairs. If this wonderful idea was supported by the community, there should have been someone to take the lead (already).

In my opinion, since no one from the community has stepped in to work on a merged policy, I would suggest co-chairs to just leave this and declare it a dead proposal. There is no interest in working on a merged proposal given that original authors were not able to come together and produce something as we all agreed in Mauritius. This is frustrating and I hope we take lessons from this experience for the future.


*Arsène Tungali*
Co-Founder & Executive Director, Rudi international<>,
CEO, Smart Services Sarl<>, Mabingwa Forum<>
Tel: +243 993810967
GPG: 523644A0
Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo

2015 Mandela Washington Felllow<> (YALI) - ISOC Ambassador (IGF Brazil<> & Mexico<>) - AFRISIG 2016<> - Blogger<> - ICANN Fellow (Los Angeles<> & Marrakech<>). AFRINIC Fellow (Mauritius<>) - IGFSA Member<> - Internet Governance - Internet Freedom.

Check the 2016 State of Internet Freedom in DRC report<>

2017-03-22 22:09 GMT+02:00 ALAIN AINA <aalain at<mailto:aalain at>>:

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.


Softlanding-bis Co-authors

> On Mar 20, 2017, at 10:24 PM, SamiSalih <sami at<mailto:sami at>> 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 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<mailto:sami.salih at>
> Mob: +249122045707<tel:%2B249122045707>
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at<mailto:RPD at>

RPD mailing list
RPD at<mailto:RPD at>

RPD mailing list
RPD at<mailto:RPD at>

Mark James ELKINS  -  Posix Systems - (South) Africa
mje at<mailto:mje at>       Tel: +27.128070590<tel:+27%2012%20807%200590>  Cell: +27.826010496<tel:+27%2082%20601%200496>
For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA:

RPD mailing list
RPD at<mailto:RPD at>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the RPD mailing list