[rpd] Two more petitioners

Thu Dec 21 07:35:27 UTC 2017

Writing Andrews argument a little differently and using the Food analogy..

There are a number of organisations feeding people. Some are big  and
some are small. There is a lightly hood that the bigger organisations
feed multiple communities (multiple countries) and due to size, are more
efficient (less wasteful) at doing so.

However, the central food dispensary gives the same amount of food per
organisation. The smaller organisations are therefore lightly to not
pass on this food quickly/efficiently to those in need where as the
larger organisations will.

What is the better solution for the majority of the hungry people?   <--
I think this is what people should consider the most!

With the existing soft-landing that is in place today, there is still a
reserve that can (and I believe, should) be used by the current small
(perhaps up to a total of a /20 ?) and new members. That would keep
small and new folk going for an additional year or so past the depletion
of the bulk of the space left.

Once there is no significant IPv4 left, people will be forced to move to
using IPv6. New members in a year or so will wonder what all the fuss is
about - as IPv6 only works just fine. We really need to "eat" the
existing IPv4 up quickly (in a responsible way, using the current
policy) in order to leave no alternative except IPv6 deployment. Then,
everybody wins.

On 21/12/2017 08:57, Andrew Alston wrote:
>
>   * So yes if you need a /11 you will instead get a /18 but it will allow
>     127 more companies to get a /18. Does this sound unreasonable (during
>     a scarcity)?
>
> Actually – if one company is doing 20+ thousand new subscribers a
> month – and the other company is doing 500 subscribers a month – or in
> the case of a certain network run by a certain author – doing no
> connections for many years and leaving only 25% of a /22 announced
> since the day they got the space – it sounds ENTIRELY reasonable that
> the company that is connecting African citizens who need connectivity
> **today** gets the space.
>
>  
>
> But – I guess for some this is all about their companies – forget the
> consumers that actually need to be connections today – forget the fact
> that we are meant to be trying to increase African penetration levels
> – TODAY – forget the fact that while space languishes unused it is the
> consumers who are disadvantaged – let’s just lock it all up forever
> more to  feel good that we have some IPs in the proverbial bank.
>
>  
>
> Sounds to be a little like a food bank for starving people that
> decides because there could be more starving people tomorrow – the
> ones who are hungry today get to go without.
>
>
> J
>
> > From: Jacob Odame [mailto:jacobodame00 at gmail.com]
> > Sent: 19 December 2017 09:53 AM
> > To: Jackson Muthili <jacksonmuthi at gmail.com>
> > Cc: AfriNIC Board of Directors' List <board at afrinic.net>;
> ceo at afrinic.net;
> > rpd <rpd at afrinic.net>
> > Subject: Re: [rpd] Two more petitioners
> >
> > These arguments make sense.
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > Jacob
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 10:37 AM, Jackson Muthili
> <jacksonmuthi at gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 12:55 AM, Andrew Alston
> > <Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com> 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.
> >
> > You are the convener of opposers. I am open to read those facts.
> >
> >> 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
> >
> > Thank you for the comment.
> >
> > The operative words in your comments are :- THE WILL OF A SIGNIFICANT
> > PORTION OF THE MEMBER BASE
> >
> > You see this is where the crux of your argument lies and where the
> problem
> > is.
> >
> > In your other email you state this same notion that those opposing
> > contribute 30% of AfriNIC revenue.
> >
> > - AfriNIC is a non profit company managing a critical resource (IPs)
> > that is the engine of the internet which the UN already declared a
> > basic human right.
> > - Because of this very nature AfriNIC cant sell IPs to highest
> > bidders in an open market when those highest bidders pay the most
> > revenue. Otherwise yes I will state again that if this was the case
> > South Africa as the strongest economy (or one of the strongest) would
> > just buy off AfriNIC and its miniature IPs and game closed.
> > - You ostentatiously state that every country should be heard equally.
> > Thank you for ignoring the fact that the internet penetration rates
> > and state of the economy in South Africa (where you have convened the
> > largest opposition) - although it can be better - is light years ahead
> > of the other 53 African economies whose interests this policy proposal
> > is trying to protect. To burry your head in the sand and ignore these
> > realities does not take them away.
> >
> > J
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > RPD mailing list
> > RPD at afrinic.net
> > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
> <https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd>
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd

-- 
Mark James ELKINS  -  Posix Systems - (South) Africa
mje at posix.co.za       Tel: +27.128070590  Cell: +27.826010496
For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: https://ftth.posix.co.za

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20171221/39d82986/attachment-0001.html>