[rpd] Two more petitioners

Tue Dec 19 08:16:37 UTC 2017

Hi Andrew Alston, 

The submission in the below email from Jackson Muthili talked about the origin (read "country" and "convener") of the opposition. The introduction of "race"/"racial" came from you in your report below. 

Your complaint is noted and addressed above. Co-chairs had tried not to stifle interactions with a hope that common sense will prevail but starting on December 15, our approach has changed and we will be communicating further with the PDWG community shortly. 

Regards, 
PDWG Co-Chairs. 

From: "Andrew Alston" <Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com> 
To: "Jackson Muthili" <jacksonmuthi at gmail.com> 
Cc: "rpd" <rpd at afrinic.net>, "CEO" <ceo at afrinic.net>, "sami" <sami at ntc.gov.sd>, "dewole" <dewole at forum.org.ng>, "AfriNIC Board of Directors' List" <board at afrinic.net> 
Sent: Monday, December 18, 2017 10:55:54 PM 
Subject: Re: [rpd] Two more petitioners 

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 [ https://aka.ms/o0ukef | Outlook for iOS ] 
_____________________________ 
From: Jackson Muthili <jacksonmuthi at gmail.com> 
Sent: Monday, December 18, 2017 14:15 
Subject: Re: [rpd] Two more petitioners 
To: Andrew Alston <andrew.alston at liquidtelecom.com> 
Cc: rpd <rpd at afrinic.net> 

On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 6:10 PM, Andrew Alston 
Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com> wrote: 
> As per attached 
> 
> _____________ 

Extract of attached petitions in quotes below and comments therein 

> To: The AFRINIC POLICY DEVELOPMENT CO-CHAIRS 
> 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 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20171219/048252d4/attachment.html>