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

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

Frank Habicht geier at
Wed Dec 6 17:52:15 UTC 2017


On 12/6/2017 5:16 PM, Mark Elkins wrote:
> For the Record - I am against this Soft Landing Proposal.
me too.

> Having said that,
> The way that I understand the policy proposal system to work is: (and
> I've done a few myself, some passed, some didn't)
> 1) Some one or group of people make a policy proposal. They send it to
> the PDP Co-Chairs and get a proper reference No for it and its posted to
> the PDP Mailing list.
> 2) The Policy is discussed on the list and the policy is (if necessary)
> refined. People indicate whether they support the policy or not and
> suggest changes if appropriate.***I believe this is where the bulk of
> work should happen.* This is usually the case in other regions.
> 3) At the next AFRINIC meeting (assuming that the policy has been in
> circulation long enough - something like four weeks) - the policy is
> further presented to the community members who are there. More exchange
> of ideas can happen here - but it should be understood that only a
> fraction of the PDP mailing list participants will be in the room. At

Was that the case in the last meeting in Lagos?

> the end of the discussion period the PDP Co-Chairs try and gauge
> consensus (actually - this should be an ongoing thing, bringing into
> account what happened on the mailing lists before the meeting as well as

Was mailing list activity considered? Were concerns from the mailing
list addressed?

(I wasn't there, didn't follow live, hope to get access to video online,
have asked about same on this list)

> in the discussion period in the room). If they feel that a rough
> consensus has been reached - they move the policy to "Last Call". If not
> - the policy reverts to the mailing list.>
> 4) Once Policy is in Last Call - as long as there are no substantial
> objections 

I believe there are. I see others want to deny that.

> - the policy will be sent to the Board for ratification. This

having a decision by the chairs in the meeting questioned very much,
makes me NOT comfortable to trust the same chairs to decide whether the
policy has passed (or not) the Last Call. I support the appeal. I also
see the benefit or more clarity for the future - as Lu Heng has explained.

> is usually a "Rubber Stamp" affair - unless there is something harmful
> in the policy towards the Company.
> 5) If there are no updates to the policy in about a year(?) - the policy
> is withdrawn. The authors can also withdraw at any time.
> That's the generalisation of the current process.
> The appeal process is what I understand can be brought about if a policy
> passes Last Call yet still has very unhappy people. I'd say that Andrew
> is getting ready for an appeal - because the appeal process is new -
> never been used - so is getting his ducks in a row. Right now - I sense
> that enough people are objecting to this policy that it won't get past
> Last Call, thus the Appeal Process will not be tested.

As mentioned, I see it the same way ("enough people are objecting"), but
I do not want to risk the chairs declaring the policy to pass Last Call
and then there's nothing stopping it.

Also: "enough people"... - I really think the number of people does not
matter at all. Numbers were mentioned on this list ("A group of 2 to 10
people") and I really don't think those numbers matter. If a group of
10,000 or 10,000,000 do NOT listen and not react to the concerns raised
by the two people, then this is, in my opinion, not in the spirit of the
PDP and the Chairs should ask that either the concerns get addressed, or
the concerns are considered valid. [and if addresses they could still be

> We've seen this before, Sunday (our esteemed Chair Person) and one other
> proposed a policy for universities - so they could get IPv4 address
> space easier. Before the meeting - this had very positive support. At
> the meeting (in Lusaka, Zambia) it passed to last call - but got shot
> down by (as I remember) a small but vocal handful of people. I still
> think this was a dumb thing to happen - but anyway.

I agree.

I just think that the number of people and the number of emails should
not be measured and valued that much. All that can be copy&paste.

The number of concerns / questions that are raised and not addressed
should [in my opinion] be more important.

> I think also at AFRINIC that we have created a culture that if this
> policy is proposed by X - then it must be bad. That is a very unhealthy
> culture and, to coin a phrase, cutting your nose off to spite your face.

I completely agree.
<sarcasm>Obviously because it's you who said it.</sarcasm>


> Best example of this is the "Inward bound international transfer" policy.
> On 06/12/2017 11:07, Christian Ahiauzu wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> In fact, I have been wondering what the last call period is for.
>> Please put me on the right lane. Is the last call period not meant to
>> check if there are still any objections to the policy proposal under
>> discuss? If my postulation is true, then it means if sustained
>> objections are found at this point, then the policy will likely not be
>> sent for ratification by the board.
>> If all the above be the case, then was there actually any need for
>> invoking an appeal process at this point? Why didn't we just get
>> further  objections to the policy proposed and discuss way forward. I
>> am really lost here and need clarification especially from Andrew who
>> initiated the Appeal process.
>> BR
>> Christian.
>> On Dec 6, 2017 8:17 AM, "Alan Levin" <alan at
>> <mailto:alan at>> wrote:
>>     Oops sorry I wasn't finished..
>>     On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 9:08 AM, Alan Levin
>>     <alan at <mailto:alan at>> wrote:
>>         I am surprised that we have not heard from these "Chairs", in
>>         fact I had to look up who the chairs actually are...
>>         I believe that this page
>>         shows: <>
>>         1. Dewole Ajao
>>     2. Sami Salih
>>     Gentlemen, we clearly require your leadership here. 
>>     Whilst I see the Board has been acquiring legal assistance to deal
>>     with their own group, we really don't want to get to that level
>>     here please. 
>>     Dewole, Sami - you do not have sufficient support for this policy,
>>     please end this discussion and start a new one!
>>     Kind thanks
>>     Alan
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     RPD mailing list
>>     RPD at <mailto:RPD at>
>>     <>
>> _______________________________________________
>> RPD mailing list
>> RPD at
> -- 
> Mark James ELKINS  -  Posix Systems - (South) Africa
> mje at       Tel: +27.128070590  Cell: +27.826010496
> For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA:
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at

More information about the RPD mailing list