Search RPD Archives
[rpd] Appeal Committee Terms of Reference (Version 1)
noah at neo.co.tz
Thu Aug 17 19:02:40 UTC 2017
On 14 Aug 2017 21:17, "Owen DeLong" <owen at delong.com> wrote:
ARIN reserved a /10 for IPv6 transition and a /16 for critical
infrastructure. ARIN Has a total of 100.1 /8s (400.4 /10s, so the
reservation of a /10 is the equivalent of 0.25% of their total holdings.
It’s equal to 25,600.3 /16s, so reservation of a /16 is equal to 0.004% of
their total holdings.
ARIN made no other reservations for new entrants.
Proportionately, AfriNIC total holdings are 7.23 /8s, so equivalent
reservations would be about 1.5 /14s, so let’s call it a /13 for transition
and approximately 20 /24s (let’s round up to 32 and call it a /19 for
If such a proposal were on the table in AfriNIC, I would support it.
Unfortunately, that’s not what is on the table here. The proposal on the
table here is laden with quite a few other unnecessary and harmful
restrictions and is focused on stringing out the IPv4 business as usual for
small organizations while denying addresses to larger organizations with
equivalent or even greater present need.
I did not agree to adoption of a previous version, I stated that it was
less objectional than its predecessor.
In the mail  you wrote among other things and I will quote below your
exact words in quotes:
"I do commend the authors for addressing most of my concerns in redrafting
I’m still rather unconvinced that the problem statement represents an
actual problem to be solved, but I am no longer so opposed to the adoption
of the actual policy text."
Therefore, when all objections have been given the due attention/addressed
and you consent to the results, then what's next?
IMHO, consensus is achieved when everyone consents to the decision of the
group. The decision may not be everyone’s first preference, but is
acceptable to all participants.
IMHO, authors acting in bad faith is the single biggest issue dividing the
community. That doesn’t mean I’m advocating it as the only issue, it means
I am identifying it as what I perceive to be the single most divisive issue.
You keep raising the above despite all the explanations and discussions
this community had about what happened during AFRINIC-25. I personally wont
replay them but I clearly remember in Nairobi two SL proposals were under
discussions and SL-BIS was one of them and back to the list for further
In anycade are we going to restrain the whole continent from moving on with
a proposal to solve problems simply because of what **you** qualify as "bad
faith " of the authors of the 1st proposal put on the table to address
issues the current softlanding policy poses?
Can we rise above all this in this discourse?
It is a bit annoying to hear such claims of bad faith from someone who
publicly claimed to have authored a policy which was authored by completely
someone else in ARIN.
You keep telling me I should let others speak, but I don’t see where I have
ever made any effort to prevent anyone from speaking, so I am not sure what
your meaning is here. I think it is, perhaps, your back-handed way of
attempting to tell me not to speak, but if that is your intent, then say it
plain and see where that goes.
Unless the goal is for you to appear No.1 on traffic rating stats for the
RPD list, my call to you here is to consider:
1. Collective responsibility in guaranteeing the efficiency of
traffic/discussions on the list to allow folks to follow and contribute by
looking at the essential few messages and respect of other's opinions.
2. People in this specific region are not used to the always controversial
discussion and we live mostly in hierarchical society. Folks out here want
to be given the opportunity to express their "stupid and/or naive"
opinions, be hard and understood. Folks here don't speak up in a hostile
environments in which someone is playing "Mr know it all".
My 2 cents.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the RPD