[rpd] Competitions Tribunal Petition

[Noah]

On 29 Dec 2017 21:08, "Andrew Alston" <Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com>
wrote:

it is absolutely unconscionable that this community has

Are you pointing fingers to the community now :-)

a.) refused to pass an inbound transfer policy to allow entities to buy
space in from outside when they need it


The working group never refused to pass the inbound policy. The rational
behind it was not convincing enough for the working group to find support
for it and the PPM minutes below are clear.

PPM minutes section 4.0

https://www.afrinic.net/en/library/policies/archive/obsolete-policies/1963-
afrinic-25-public-policy-minutes

So the simple fact is that, it failed to reach consensus and everything is
well documented in the pdp archives.

PPM minutes section 8.0

https://www.afrinic.net/en/library/policies/archive/obsolete-policies/1963-
afrinic-25-public-policy-minutes

And as it stands its obsolete and those are the facts.

b.) refused to pass a bi-directional transfer policy to achieve the same


How about the  existing "IPv4 resources transfer within the Afrinic
region" policy
which is in existance??

https://www.afrinic.net/en/library/policies/1969-ipv4-resour
ces-transfer-within-the-afrinic-region

Is that not a viable option to achieve the same in absense of the
non-existent  bi-directional policy you seem to prefer most.

c.) decided to declare consensus on a policy for which there was no
consensus


Can we leave the determination and declaration of consensus to the
co-chairs of the PDPWG, afterall you have appealed which is within the
process.


which prevents organisations that have spent significant sums of money from
getting any IP space whatsoever on the continent because of the lack of (a)
and (b).


I read "prevents organisations from getting any IP space" which is a total
lie/false Andrew.

SL-BIS version 7 inline with section 3.4(i) of the AFRINIC bylawys does
allow for address space to be allocated/assigned as per below sections of
the draft policy.

<snip>

5.4.6 Allowable Limits



5.4.6.1 Within any 24-month period during Exhaustion Phase 1, an
organization may receive one or more allocations/assignments totalling the
equivalent of a /18.



5.4.6.2 Within any 24-month period during Exhaustion Phase 2, an
organization may receive one or more allocations/assignments totalling the
equivalent of a /22.


<snip>

I recommend that you really take time to read through version 7 of the
draft policy to avoid the innacurate conclusions you keep making.

Noah
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20171229/77ad1cd6/attachment.html>