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

[rpd] Softlanding-Bis decision appeal

Mike Silber silber.mike at
Fri Dec 1 09:55:39 UTC 2017


Andrew and I work for an entity that uses our address space in DRC and has a growing customer base in the DRC and elsewhere. We are not raptors and we actually provide services to Africans - which is more than can be said for many on this list. We do NOT have a “safe” of IPv4 addresses. We actually use ours extensively, which is more than can be said for many on this list!

Do you have address space and are you using it?

What are your plans to use address space? What are the timelines?

Or must we limit technical progress and the services we offer to an expanding customer base because the customs authority may want to provide services at some future undetermined time?

Do we leave gold in the ground, just so future generations can mine it at some stage in the future?

This is a balancing act - with no right or wrong answer. I have no problem with soft landing in principle, however object to the proposed execution in the Softlanding-Bis proposal.


> On 1 Dec 2017, at 11:29, Kangamutima zabika Christophe <funga.roho at> wrote:
> Je soutiens tous les propos de Jackson Muthili. Quels sont les objectifs inavoués des manoeuvres dilatoires entreprise par Andrew et ses co-listiers. Ces ressources appartiennent à la communauté africaine et doivent être geré rationnellement gare aux rapaces opportunistes soucieux juste du lucre.
> C'est à cause des gens pareils que des individus se promenent en Afrique avec des coffre-fort d'adresses IPv4 inutilisés.
> I support all of Jackson Muthili's comments. What are the unacknowledged objectives of the delaying tactics undertaken by Andrew and his co-listiers. These resources belong to the African community and must be rationally managed by opportunistic raptors who are just concerned about profit.
> It is because of such people that people are walking around Africa with safe of unused IPv4 addresses.
> 01.12.2017, 10:19, "Jackson Muthili" <jacksonmuthi at>:
>> Your objections as stated before are iffy, out-of context, off-topic
>> and irrelevant to the spirit and principle behind soft landing.
>> The community will move forward and will not entertain ill intentioned
>> and malicious people hijacking a drive to protect a continent's
>> resource from pillaging.
>> Go back and read the original proposal behind which the global
>> redistribution of the last 5 /8s to each individual RIR was premised,
>> and the actual problem statement in Soft Landing BIs which aligns
>> exactly with that original policy.
>> /////////////////////////////
>> The IANA pool of allocation units of IPv4 addresses (/8s) is
>> decreasing rapidly; and to continue applying a global coordinated
>> policy for distribution of the last piece(s) of each RIR's unallocated
>> address block does not match the reality of the situation in each RIR
>> region. Issues each RIR region will face during the exhaustion period
>> vary by region as the level of development of IPv4 and IPv6 are widely
>> different. As a result, applying a global coordinated policy may
>> adequately address issues in a certain region while it could not be
>> work for the others.
>> For example, in a region where late comers desperately need even small
>> blocks of IPv4 addresses to access to the IPv4 Internet, a policy that
>> defines the target of allocations/assignments of IPv4 address space to
>> the late comers would be appropriate in such region. This would allow
>> availability of IPv4 address space for such requirements for more
>> years.
>> Another example comes from difference in IPv6 deployment rate. For a
>> region where IPv6 deployment rate is low, measures may be necessary to
>> prolong IPv4 address life for the existing business as well as for new
>> businesses until networks are IPv6 ready. Some regions may have strong
>> needs to secure IPv4 address space for translators.
>> A globally coordinated policy which addresses all issues listed above
>> (and/or others) to meet the needs for all RIR regions may result in
>> not solving issues in any of the regions. So a new global policy
>> proposal , a revised version of policy proposals "AFPUB-2007-v4-001"
>> and "AFPUB-2007-v4-002", is proposed to replace the current "on
>> demand" policy for allocating of the remaining IPv4 address space to
>> RIRs.
>> \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
>> You and your so-called friends MUST stop wasting the community's time.
>> Africa will move forward irrespective. Neocolonialism is so last century.
>> J
>> On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 9:19 AM, Andrew Alston
>> <Andrew.Alston at> wrote:
>>>  Hi All,
>>>  Considering the decision to take the soft-landing bis policy into last call
>>>  yesterday – the following individuals wish to state that we are officially
>>>  appealing the decision by the co-chairs in this regard:
>>>  Ben Maddison
>>>  Andrew Alston
>>>  Mark Elkins
>>>  Christopher Mwangi
>>>  Over the last 2 years there have been sustained and unaddressed objections
>>>  to this policy. There have been multiple requests by this community to
>>>  withdraw this policy. There was a statement by the authors in Mauritius
>>>  that the policy would be withdrawn that was reneged. The list archives
>>>  clearly show that there was – and remains opposition to this policy. The
>>>  rules of the PDP are clear – consensus is not based on what is said at the
>>>  floor of the meeting alone, but is derived from the sum total of comments
>>>  and objections both on the floor and the lists – and includes any objections
>>>  that are sustained and unaddressed.
>>>  While we are happy to engage with the chairs on this issue in the public
>>>  forum that is this list – we also see little hope of resolution without
>>>  going to the formal appeal committee should the chairs not decide to reverse
>>>  their decision, which we believe was taken in error.
>>>  We also welcome any other individuals who wish to add their names to this
>>>  appeal – and note that individuals wishing to do so, by the appeal process,
>>>  are free to join the appeal process irrespective of their comments or lack
>>>  of comments on the policy to date – since the appeal surrounds procedural
>>>  error – rather than the content of the specific policy itself.
>>>  Further emails will follow in due course detailing the objections raised on
>>>  the list and the floor of previous meetings that have never been addressed,
>>>  and we will clearly demonstrate the error that was made in the consensus
>>>  declaration.
>>>  Further to this – any of the appellants reserve the right to continue to
>>>  contribute during the last call for the duration of the appeal and may
>>>  continue to state their objections during the last call – so that in the
>>>  event of this appeal failing – and consensus in last call being declared –
>>>  the ground work is laid for a second appeal.
>>>  Yours Sincerely
>>>  Andrew Alston
>>>  _______________________________________________
>>>  RPD mailing list
>>>  RPD at
>> _______________________________________________
>> RPD mailing list
>> RPD at
> -- 
> Contrôleur des douanes
> Direction des Systèmes et Technologies de l'Information
> Direction Générale des Douanes et
> Accises
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at

More information about the RPD mailing list