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

[rpd] Two more petitioners

Noah noah at
Mon Dec 18 23:41:37 UTC 2017


Be specific, what exactly did Jackson say that "introduced a racially
biased context." and in what way specifically has he made "accusations of
Neo colonialism "?


On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 12:55 AM, Andrew Alston <
Andrew.Alston at> wrote:

> While I am sorely tempted to respond point to point in your email and give
> you a lesson in facts - I will not dignify this nonesense with such.
> I will however say this - this is the second time you have introduced a
> racially biased context into the PDP - and discounted the will of a
> significant portion of the member base - based of blatant unsubstantiated
> and inaccurate prejudice
> Chairs - please can this be dealt with - this individual has already made
> accusations of Neo colonialism with no  basis - and nothing was done - but
> enough is enough.
> Every member of Afrinic is equal in their right to be heard - be they
> black or white - South African or Egyptian or Congolese or Senegalese.  The
> type of racial drivel and divisive language is what tears this community
> apart - and is totally intolerable.
> Consider this an official complaint about conduct
> Andrew
> Get Outlook for iOS <>
> _____________________________
> From: Jackson Muthili <jacksonmuthi at>
> Sent: Monday, December 18, 2017 14:15
> Subject: Re: [rpd] Two more petitioners
> To: Andrew Alston <andrew.alston at>
> Cc: rpd <rpd at>
> On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 6:10 PM, Andrew Alston
> Andrew.Alston at> wrote:
> > As per attached
> >
> > _____________
> Extract of attached petitions in quotes below and comments therein
> > RE: IPv4 Soft Landing Bis
> > I, the undersigned, representing Afrihost SP hereby wish to state my
> clear and unambiguous
> > opposition to the IPv4 Soft Landing BIS proposal,
> AFPUB-2016-V4-001-DRAFT-07
> > I oppose this policy because I believe that the policy in its current
> form is harmful to the industry
> Can the opposer or the convener of the opposers explain the harm that
> will befall our dear industry?
> > and
> > irrespective of the motives of the authors, will have the effect of
> limiting the growth of Internet
> > penetration in Africa.
> According to various sources, about 13.5% of the African population
> has Internet access. While Africa accounts for 15.0% of the world's
> population, only 6.2% of the World's Internet subscribers are
> Africans. Africans who have access to broadband connections are
> estimated to be in percentage of 1% or lower.
> These metrics tell a compelling story about a continent whose internet
> is growing, but is still constrained through infrastructure, save for
> one country that is South Africa, where all the opposers or their
> convener appears to emanate. While their concerns are selfishly in the
> interest of their business landscape and interests, the situation in
> the other 53 countries is a far cry from the reality in South Africa.
> For the internet to continue to grow, they will need affordable means
> to acquire IPv4 address space for a considerable time in the
> foreseeable future. Even if the IPv6 argument holds true, we have
> argued on here that IPv6 is the future, yes, but Africa, South Africa,
> Americas and the others are still far from that IPv6 future. We would
> otherwise not be having this conversation.
> For the Internet to grow in Africa and for the unconnected to still
> get connected, the need to preserve IPv4 space in the registry and
> still make it available to both new and existing operators is as
> extremely critical as the need itself to get connected. I cannot see a
> better policy to assure this than this one.
> > I further believe that to lock space up in a manner that ensures that it
> will still be unused after the
> > rest of the world has moved to V6,
> If the rest of the world has moved to IPv6, AFRINIC will not have run
> out of IPv6 space to dole out to our communities and businesses. They
> will all just get IPv6 simple and easy.
> > thereby wasting a precious African resource until such a point as
> > it will be worthless is completely contrary to the interests of the
> African industry as a whole.
> The principle is to fairly distribute the resource in a period of
> scarcity, not to greedily dole it out to the wealthiest. Do not ignore
> the fact that AFRINIC serves a community of 54 African countries. It
> does not sell IP addresses in a capitalist free market system where
> the richest take it all at the expense of the poorer. If the resource
> ever becomes worthless, IPv6 would be up and running, and the
> continent wins. The issue is not the *worth* or *value* of the
> resource, but getting everyone connected. Do not lose the purpose of
> the argument.
> > Finally, I believe that this policy and its implementation are in direct
> conflict with section 3.4.ii of the
> > AFRINIC bylaws, which reads (with particular emphasis on relevant
> wording indicated):
> > (Under Types and Objects of the company)
> > 3.4 The Company shall have, both within and outside the Republic of
> Mauritius, full capacity to carry
> > and/or undertake any business or activity, including, but not limited
> to, the following objects:
> > 3.4.i To provide the service of allocating and registering Internet
> resources for the purpose of
> > enabling communications via open system network protocols and to assist
> in the development and
> > growth of the Internet in the African region.
> :-) no comment on this one
> anyhoo I realized last call passed. My thoughts to the petitioners and
> their convener are to show that the points in their signed document
> are, although plausible in a different context, are mostly immaterial
> for all intents and purposes of this proposal.
> I trust in good judgement of chairs as discussions progress.
> J
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the RPD mailing list