[rpd] Competitions Tribunal Petition

[Boubakar Barry]

On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 8:40 PM, Noah <noah at neo.co.tz> wrote:

> 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.
>

Good advice. Though I doubt from previous experiences that it will be
taken; I hardly believe in wonders, but who knows.

Happy New Year to the entire AfriNIC community.

Boubakar


> Noah
>
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20171229/19ec0b86/attachment-0001.html>