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

[rpd] IPv4 Soft Landing BIS

Andrew Alston Andrew.Alston at
Thu Jul 27 11:36:05 UTC 2017

The video footage disputes what you say.

At the following URL:

Times are approximate – not to the second. Here is the time line I put together:

7:02:30 – Alan gives a long speech where he states he abhors long speeches and says the authors need to work together (sorry Alan, it was amusing)
7:04:00 - SM stands up and says- get together - come up with a common proposal
7:10:30 – I made an offer at this point to withdraw in conjunction with the authors of the other policy
7:12:00 - Seun states that its better to withdraw both policies
7:19:00 - Sunday asks for the dual withdrawl
7:22:00 - The co-chairs thank both policy authors for willingness to work together
7:25:00 - Seun asks for clarity as to exactly what is going on - what is the actual status
7:26:00 - The co-chairs clearly state that the community has said they don't want policies going in opposite directions
7:26:30 - SM asks for a clear decision
7:26:45 - Sunday says he also wants clarity and a clear decision and requests a statement of mutual withdrawl.
7:27:00 – I state that I stand by the mutual withdrawl
7:27:30 - Alain says – and I quote – Same here
7:28:30 - Omo retracts and stops the mutual withdrawl
7:29:00 – Sunday states that there is a clear statement that we understand – and what the community wants is that the policies are mutually withdrawn
7:30:30 – I took the position of clarifying – and reiterated we wanted mutual withdrawal – because the mutual withdrawal was part of establishing trust
7:32:00 – Omo makes it clear that he is renegading on what Alain said at 7:27:30 – and once again refuses to back the withdraw
7:35:00 – Seun tells Omo that the policies are still divergent – and the policies need to be withdrawn
7:36:00 – Sunday states that good faith means doing something – not just saying they will do it
7:37:00 – Despite Alain’s statement at 7:27:30 – he now backs off his position and refuses to withdraw
7:38:00 – I unilaterally withdraw – on the basis of the community wanting withdrawal

So sorry Alain – what you stated below is factually inaccurate and contradicted by the above.


From: ALAIN AINA [mailto:aalain at]
Sent: 27 July 2017 12:18
To: rpd <rpd at>
Subject: Re: [rpd] IPv4 Soft Landing BIS

> On 26 Jul 2017, at 22:16, Owen DeLong <owen at<mailto:owen at>> wrote:

>> Andrew takes the title now because he doesnt believe in any form of softlanding policy amendment beyond the status quo even though he authored a softlanding-overhaul policy proposal and then went on to withdraw it.
> He offered a less destructive alternative to this proposal as an attempt at a compromise that might serve the community. When the community requested and authors of both proposals agreed to withdraw their respective proposals, he acted in good faith to withdraw that proposal assuming that the authors of this proposal would do likewise based on their word. Sadly, the authors of this proposal did not follow through on that commitment and we find ourselves here with this proposal still standing despite community opposition and with you somehow claiming that the good faith withdrawal of the other proposal and the failure to act in good faith by the authors here somehow constitutes merit for this proposal.

We have responded to this many times, but you keep playing it. So let me say it again.

1- there was no request from community about withdrawal of the 2 proposals
2- during AFRINIC-25 meeting in Mauritius, Authors of the SL-bis decided after the SL-overhaul was presented to not waste the working time by presenting and defending SL-bis and offered to work with the authors of the SL-overhaul and co-chairs to seek a common ground.
3- withdrawal of the 2 proposals was raised by the authors of the SL-overhaul, but never agreed by the 2 parties as pre-conditions.
4- we all know what happen after Mauritius with efforts and attempts made by co-chairs and authors of SL-bis…

Hope this clarifies and closes this rhetoric



> I find this reasoning very strange, but you are certainly entitled to your opinion.
> In any case, I remain opposed to Soft Landing bis (and likely any other change to the current soft landing policy other than possibly repealing it completely) and I also remain opposed to the current text in the resource review policy (while I don’t oppose reviews conceptually).
> Frankly, IMHO, the preservation of IPv4 is strictly a way of inflicting additional cost and pain on the majority of the internet. Unfortunately, much like toxic polluters of the 70s and 80s, most of the cost and pain is inflicted on those who are ready for IPv6 rather than those who remain unprepared for that future. The good news is that if the current adoption rates continue, the holdouts that haven’t implemented IPv6 will become mostly irrelevant relatively soon and when the rest of us start turning off IPv4, they will be the ones left out in the cold wondering what happened instead of inflicting costs and pain on the rest of us.
> The sooner the internet moves on from its unhealthy IPv4 addiction the better. I’m pretty sure you know this as well as I do, despite all of your apparent protestations to the contrary.
> Owen
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at<mailto:RPD at>

RPD mailing list
RPD at<mailto:RPD at><>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the RPD mailing list