[rpd] FW: Opposition to the changes in the AfriNIC Soft Landing Policy

[Andrew Alston]

Badru the review on existent policy is unlikely to go anywhere because of fundamental differences in ideology.

The reality is that one very large portion of the member base will oppose tightening the restrictions - another portion is hell bent on doing exactly that - the compromise position is the current policy.

That is why my co-authors and I withdrew our repeal policy - because we were prepared to compromise - the conpromise was the status quo.

I don’t see any hope for changing soft landing when considering this - the only question is if the authors of the bis policy are to proud to admit that a good portion of this industry is never going to support this and if they keep fighting for a policy that will never and can never be reality - or if they do what is right and stand down and withdraw - as they have been requested to meeting after meeting - and as they were going to do in Mauritius as requested by the floor

Andrew

Get Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef>
________________________________
From: Badru Ntege <badru.ntege at nftconsult.com>
Sent: Monday, December 4, 2017 9:59:04 PM
To: Mike Silber
Cc: AfriNIC Resource Policy Discussion List
Subject: Re: [rpd] FW: Opposition to the changes in the AfriNIC Soft Landing Policy

Ok

Now that we are getting dialogue. I’m hearing that we want a review on the policy in place ???

Would an ammendment of the new policy to cater for those objecting be a better use of resources??

Sent from my iPhone

On 4 Dec 2017, at 18:35, Mike Silber <silber.mike at gmail.com<mailto:silber.mike at gmail.com>> wrote:

Hi Ismail

On 4 Dec 2017, at 17:16, Ismail Settenda <ismail at tispa.or.tz<mailto:ismail at tispa.or.tz>> wrote:

Hi all,

Well lets not confuse silence with agreement and seeing the unpleasant sentiments...one cant really blame some for keeping quiet.

I for one will support the policy because there is no such policy to deal with such a scenario in the first place

I have no problem with your views, but I think you may be confused.

There IS a policy in place: https://www.afrinic.net/library/policies/697-ipv4-soft-landing-policy<https://www.afrinic.net/library/policies/697-ipv4-soft-landing-policy>

This is a suggestion to amend the existing soft landing policy and making it more restrictive.

I have a few issues with the existing policy, but I think it is a reasonable compromise in the circumstances.

My objection is to adding further restrictions, as is proposed in the -bis proposal.

and the longer we stay without one the more vulnerable we become.

Actually we have one in place, so I am not sure I understand your point.

So I like to think I see the logic in the arguments for the proposal however there is s greater danger in having NO measure or policy in place rather than have a perfect one in place when it is too late.

Well this is actually what is being discussed here: we have a measure and policy in place right now. This is a proposal to refine it further. I have yet to see a justification I can accept for the need for such further refinement.

Unless I have missed your comment completely, in which case I apologise.

Mike

_______________________________________________
RPD mailing list
RPD at afrinic.net<mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd<https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20171204/bc79bc8f/attachment-0001.html>