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

[rpd] IPv4 Soft Landing BIS

Andrew Alston Andrew.Alston at
Tue Jul 25 06:52:51 UTC 2017


But I simply do not see the grounds for fast-track or any variance on this.

If the community really believed that this whole soft-landing issue was a problem – we would not have gone through 3 successive meetings where the policy failed.  Furthermore, this is particularly relevant in the fact that the community specifically and clearly asked that both this policy and another policy be withdrawn and a consolidated policy drawn up.  This request from the community was ignored (despite commitments to do so), and we stil sit with a policy that is in contravention of community request in what I view as a total display of bad faith.

What is the emergency that justifies fast-tracking this?  That we’re running out of IP space? An issue that has been stated time and again for the last – oh I dunno – 5 years?!  An emergency created by the community not wishing to act – and hence indicating lack of consensus – for the last few years?  Sorry – emergencies arise out of unforeseen circumstance – they do not arise from the community saying no to something – they do not arise when the issue has been coming for years and no one has done anything about it – they do not arise because of apathy.

Indeed – the definition of emergency is: a serious, unexpected, and often dangerous situation requiring immediate action.

This – doesn’t fit that definition – so – rather than trying to push something through because a limited segment of the community wants it while there is still significant opposition – just follow the process.


From: Alan Barrett <alan.barrett at>
Date: Tuesday, 25 July 2017 at 08:12
To: rpd <rpd at>
Subject: Re: [rpd] IPv4 Soft Landing BIS

> On 24 Jul 2017, at 14:37, Jackson Muthili <jacksonmuthi at> wrote:
> This Soft Landing revision version 5 received support to fast
> track it through the PDP.

The minutes of the AFRINIC-26 meeting in Nairobi <<>> do nto mention anything about that. Is the support for fast-tracking documented somewhere else?

> Dear Co Chairs, what is the status of fast tracking this
> proposal? Can you give the community a roadmap?

In terms of “Varying the Process” in CPM section 3.6 <<>>, the process is:

>> 3.6 Varying the Process
>> The process outlined in this document may vary in the case of an emergency. Variance is for use when a one-time waiving of some provision of this document is required. The decision to vary the process is taken by the Working Group Chair. There must be an explanation about why the variance is needed. The review period, including the Last Call, shall not be less than four weeks. If there is consensus, the policy is approved and it must be presented at the next Public Policy Meeting.

So, there whould have to be an emergency, and there would have to be a decision taken by the Working Group Chair (or co-chairs, I assume).

Alan Barrett

RPD mailing list
RPD at<>

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

More information about the RPD mailing list