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

[rpd] RPD Digest, Vol 135, Issue 62

KOUADIO Landry kouadio.landry at
Sun Dec 10 12:40:36 UTC 2017

Bien vu Christophe
Il ne faudrait pas utiliser l'argument de la communauté pour retenir intentionnellement des ressources dont nous savons tous son épuisement. Ce ne serait pas dans l' intérêt de la communauté Africaine‎.

Envoyé de mon smartphone BlackBerry 10.
  Message d'origine
De: rpd-request at
Envoyé: dimanche 10 décembre 2017 12:01
À: rpd at
Répondre à: rpd at
Objet: RPD Digest, Vol 135, Issue 62

Send RPD mailing list submissions to
        rpd at

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
        rpd-request at

You can reach the person managing the list at
        rpd-owner at

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of RPD digest..."

Today's Topics:

   1. Re: RPD Digest, Vol 135, Issue 58 (Lu Heng)


Message: 1
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2017 07:53:26 +0800
From: Lu Heng < at>
To: Kangamutima zabika Christophe <funga.roho at>
Cc: Patient Utshudi <putshudi at>, rpd <rpd at>
Subject: Re: [rpd] RPD Digest, Vol 135, Issue 58
        <CAAvCx3hC5kxBkvkJORzaKMLCQ1tKT6UYgOTp0bj6ibSsF=N8_Q at>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"


1. All IPs belong to IANA

2.African internet community is not a virtual entity, for it does not own
anything. It is simply a group of people who are interested in the region?s

3. RIR was created to facilitate local internet development, instead of a
territorial exclusive governing body?at least that was Rob?founder of the
system believes.

4. On the contrary to what many believe, the resource assigned to AFRINIC
was not given to Africa. In fact, those resources still belong to
IANA--just like any other RIR's resource.

5. While IP remains a public resource,  the usage rights of IP resource is
a private right. At today's market, those rights worth millions.

6. While market economy might not be the best solution, it is the only
solution we know that works as centre planning and redistribution of
resource(the basic ideology of communism) do not work, hundreds of millions
of lives which lost in the 20th century proves this.

7. Voting is rejected in the first sentence of RFC7282, .  Thus, "it would be necessary to
resort to the vote" will never happen in the current process.

8. And if you look at the issue realistically, the real minority here might
be those non-profit organizations and academics that supports the policy,
both in terms of the number of people and the amount of resources held. I
believe those ISP are way out number NGOs in this contest by far, just they
did't pay as much as attention to the process as some of the NGO do. I
would rather call them "*silence majority*".

9. Just to stress again,* since we do not apply any soft landing space,
therefore me and my cooperation have no views on this soft landing policy,*
our only stand here is to correct the policy development process in which
is currently broken.

And if I may add, the RIR system, both the book keeper ideology as well as
consensus-based decision making, is a brilliant idea that protects the
system by far, the more I think about it, the more I appreciate it.

*Book keeper analogy keep RIRs away from any possible power struggles--we
don't claim any power so there is nothing to take from us.*

Consensus-based decision making brilliantly avoids one huge problem with
voting--who is eligible for voting and how we count vote while one internet
with community is so broadly defined (which means basically all human
being). Thus, if there is a voting, all sides can always bring more people
therefore a decision will be practically impossible without defining
eligibility. However, on the other hand, if we do define eligibility, we
are in fact narrowing down the community - we are excluding people to the
system. Thus, the system will not have that much support as it has today if
it does not include everyone.

*Consensus-based decision making avoids both problems(inclusiveness and
effectiveness) in a simple and elegant way.*

I must admit I really didn't realize how smart those funding members of the
system are when I first talked to them. Hours-long conversations with Rob
in different ripe meetings taught me a great deal, however it took me quiet
a certain period of time to fully appreciate and understand. Hopefully his
conversation won't get wasted by passing on to people like you and me who
can maintain the system's longevity and prosperity.

On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 16:05 Kangamutima zabika Christophe <
funga.roho at> wrote:

> Lu,
> Concernant ton opinion sur la politiques d'attribution des ressources
> num?riques, si je te comprends bien. Pour toi, ces ressources bien qu'?tant
> allou?s par IANA pour la zone Afrique n'appartiennent ? personne ? part une
> entit? virtuelle d?nomm?e communaut? d'internaute africain. M?me dans une
> ?conomie de march?, il y a toujours un arbirtre qui veille au respect des
> r?gles des jeux c'est pourquoi il y a des autorit?s de r?gulation des
> march?s financiers, des t?l?communications, etc.
> Historiquement, nous avons vu toutes les d?rives d'un syst?me d'?conomie
> de march? sauvage. En cas de crash, ceux-ci recourent encore ? l'Etat ou
> laisse les pauvres consommateurs livr?s ? leur triste sort. Et m?me parmi
> les acteurs de cet ?conomie, ils recourent ? une juridiction d'arbitrage en
> cas de litige ou contentieux. En plus dans la politique vis?e, l'objectif
> poursuivi est d'?viter la r?tention intentionnelle d'adresses IP pouvant
> ?tre attribu? ailleurs pour utilisation imm?diate. Ces ressources sont
> consid?r?es comme des biens num?riques utilitaires pas des pi?ces ? placer
> dans un mus?e num?riques d'adresses quit ? les ressortir un jour pour cr?er
> la sp?culation sur le march? ou d'autres raisons similaires.
> Concernant le PDP, le probl?me qu'il faut aussi une autre autorit?
> ind?pendante pour v?rifier de la violation ou pas de la proc?dure
> d'?laboration des politiques. En lisant la RFC que tu avais mentionn? dans
> ton pr?c?dent message, j'ai compris l'esprit des dispositions du PDP. A mon
> avis, je pense qu'il faudrait d?terminer les mati?res pour lesquelles la
> communaut? pourrait recourir au consensus et d'autres pour lesquelles on en
> dernier recours par exemple il faudrait recourir au vote, et mettre un
> accent sur les divergences et les divergences mineures pour la
> d?termination de la m?thode ? adopter.
> Lu,
> Regarding your opinion on the policy of allocation of digital resources,
> if I understand you correctly. For you, these resources, although
> allocated by IANA for the Africa zone, belong to no one but a virtual
> entity called the African Internet community. Even in a market economy,
> there is always an arbitrator who ensures compliance with the rules of the
> games, which is why there are regulatory authorities for the financial
> markets, telecommunications, etc.
> Historically, we have seen all the excesses of a wild market economy
> system. In the event of a crash, they still resort to the state or leave
> the poor consumers left to their sad fate. And even among the players in
> this economy, they resort to an arbitration court in case of litigation or
> litigation. In addition to the policy, the goal is to avoid the
> intentional retention of IP addresses that can be assigned elsewhere for
> immediate use. These resources are considered to be digital utilities,
> not pieces to be placed in a digital museum of addresses that will take
> them out one day to create speculation on the market or other similar
> reasons.
> Regarding the PDP, the problem that it also requires another independent
> authority to verify the violation or not of the policy making procedure. Reading
> the RFC you mentioned in your previous post, I understood the spirit of the
> provisions of the PDP. In my opinion, I think that it would be necessary
> to determine the subjects for which the community could resort to the
> consensus and others for which one last resort for example it would be
> necessary to resort to the vote, and to put stress on the divergences and
> the minor divergences for the determination of the method to be adopted.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>


Subject: Digest Footer

RPD mailing list
RPD at


End of RPD Digest, Vol 135, Issue 62
Ce message et toutes les pièces jointes (ci-après le "message") sont confidentiels et établis à l'intention exclusive de ses destinataires. Toute utilisation ou diffusion non autorisée est interdite. Tout message électronique est susceptible d'altération, par conséquent l'ARTCI décline toute responsabilité au titre de ce message s'il a été altèré, déformé ou falsifié.
Ce message et toutes les pièces jointes (ci-après le "message") sont confidentiels et établis à l'intention exclusive de ses destinataires. Toute utilisation ou diffusion non autorisée est interdite. Tout message électronique est susceptible d'altération, par conséquent l'ARTCI décline toute responsabilité au titre de ce message s'il a été altèré, déformé ou falsifié.

More information about the RPD mailing list