[rpd] Softlanding-Bis decision appeal

[Boubakar Barry]

Large segment of the community? I wonder how one can get to this statement.

Facts remain facts, no matter how often one repeats him/herself. One can
write/talk hundreds of times, his/her voice cannot count more than once.

Yes, I know we are not voting here. But if one looks objectively at the
number of people (the same ones) who are opposing this and other policies
aiming at preserving IP resources for Africa, then it becomes clear that a
small group of people wants to hold AfriNIC at ransom. And this is going on
for years.

No one who cares about Africa's interests should accept that.

Boubakar


On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 3:16 PM, Andrew Alston <
Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com> wrote:

> As you say Noah - agreeing to disagree is ok and normal - so why can we
> not do that in the case of this proposal - there are a large segment of the
> community who disagree with it - and if we agreed to disagree - we go back
> to the status quo and there is no consensus - instead it seems we are being
> “forced to agree” - but for all the reasons stated and reiterated and never
> responded to - we will not be forced into agreement on this policy - we
> disagree with it - let’s agree to disagree and move on with life - and the
> status quo (the current soft landing)
>
> Andrew
>
> Get Outlook for iOS <https://aka.ms/o0ukef>
> _____________________________
> From: Noah <noah at neo.co.tz>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 3, 2018 8:24 AM
> Subject: Re: [rpd] Softlanding-Bis decision appeal
> To: Frank Habicht <geier at geier.ne.tz>
> Cc: rpd List <rpd at afrinic.net>
>
>
>
>
> On 3 Jan 2018 16:00, "Frank Habicht" <geier at geier.ne.tz> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 1/3/2018 3:45 PM, Noah wrote:
> > Hi Frank,
> >
> > I believe your points raised above were addressed and repeated many
> > times and archives are there, but just to retariate that;
> >
> > 1. The global community accepted in 2009 a softlanding policy which
> > granted AFRINIC just like other regions this last /8.
>
> Yes.
>
> > 2. AFRINIC would not have had that last /8 if the  normal allocation
> > rules had continued to the end on IANA pool (need based and 1st come,
> > 1st serve)
>
> Yes.
>
> > 3. The last /8 which is a subject of the current softlanding policy and
> > all the proposals we've seen to amend it was meant for specific
> > purposes. Please
> > read  https://www.afrinic.net/en/library/policies/current/13
> 5-afpub-2009-v4-001
> > <https://www.afrinic.net/en/library/policies/current/135-afp
> ub-2009-v4-001>
>
> Yes.
>
> > 4. Nobody, not even AFRINIC is locking useful numbering resources as
> > allocations will continue as usual, folks are encouraged to adopt IPv6
> > and provision is made for resource members to facilitate the transition.
>
> As per the softlanding policy already in place.
> And the need to change to more stringent criteria ... ?
> ... is in my opinion not something we have a consensus about.
>
>
> Ok
>
>
>
> I believe if you say there is a consensus and I say there is no
> consensus, then the conclusion is that there is no consensus between us,
> or even in the larger group.
>
>
> IMHO, the co-chairs are best placed to determine consensus vs no consensus.
>
>
> Would you agree to these statements?
>
>
> If its just between me and you... we can agree to disagree and that is
> normal.
>
> 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/20180103/a3a02085/attachment.html>