[rpd] Appeal against softlanding-bis declaration of consensus

Tue Jan 9 10:18:51 UTC 2018

Hi Kangamutima,

i agree with your first paragraph.

About your 2nd paragraph: I have no illegitimate means seen used.
If you really mean that someone used illegitimate means, please support
and state who did that and when.

Then:
I hope we don't continue to address each other as
"les détracteurs intempestifs comme ______ et sa bande"

You have your opinion. We have heard it. Others have tried in various
ways to show that they see problems with the proposed softlanding-bis
policy.
The terms you use bring attention to _who_ is proposing policies, _who_
is objecting. And this is not what the policy discussion is about.

You support the policy (proposal). I hope you do that because of the
content of the policy, not because of the persons proposing, supporting
or opposing it.

I hope we all can stop looking at the _who_ is proposing / writing
something, and start looking at _what_ is being proposed / written / said.

Have a nice day.

Frank

On 1/9/2018 10:08 AM, Kangamutima zabika Christophe wrote:
> Ornella,
>  
> Je soutiens ton opinion mais avoir une adresse de messagerie russe
> constitue t il maintenant un facteur de discredit, toi tu as une adresse
> de messagerie d'une société américaine cela ne cause aucun problème à
> personne dans cette liste de discussion. N'entrons pas dans des
> guéguerres qui ne nous concernent pas.
>  
> Concernant la proposition en cours de discussion, il est manifeste
> qu'andrew et son groupe utilise tous les leviers légitimes ou
> illégitimes pour bloquer totalement ce texte, tant pis pour ceux qui ont
> été traités par Mark de "petits LIR", priorité aux mastodontes ("grande
> LIR").
>  
> Le point faible se trouve dans la porosité de la procédure d'élaboration
> des politiques. Tant que les détracteurs intempestifs comme andrew et sa
> bande pourront toujours bloquer systématiquement, à leur volonté, toute
> proposition allant à l'encontre de leurs intérêts mercantiles, nous ne
> ferons que tourner en rond
>  
> 05.01.2018, 14:59, "Ornella GANKPA" <honest1989 at gmail.com>:
>>
>> Hi Dabu,
>>
>> Please forgive me but I'm surprised to see unknown people with russian
>> freemail suddenly surface on rpd and have strong views. No offence
>> meant but we need to ensure we have real people participate in policy
>> development.
>>
>> I would not want the working group to spend time replying to
>> sockpuppets so perhaps others know you or could you introduce yourself?
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Honest Ornella GANKPA
>> Le 04/01/2018 à 16:24, Dabu Sifiso a écrit :
>>>  
>>>  
>>> 04.01.2018, 08:00, "Ornella GANKPA" <honest1989 at gmail.com>
>>> <mailto:honest1989 at gmail.com>:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Mark
>>>>
>>>> Again this is not true. It is explicitely said in the policy that any
>>>> organization (regardless of its size) can be allocated /18 within a 24
>>>> month period during exhaustion phase 1 and /22 during exhaustion phase
>>>> 2. Anyone can always get more allocation as long as they justify 90%
>>>> utilization. I fail to see how it prevents growth for anyone. However it
>>>> does ensure good management of our ressources.
>>>>
>>>  
>>> "it does ensure good management of our ressources."
>>>  
>>> Isn't that just what people are debating what is good and what is bad
>>> and cannot agree on it?
>>> If you needs more than a /18 or even a /22 in phase 2 for 24 months,
>>> transfers will be your only option once you have received that /22 or
>>> /18 from AFRINIC, is that good management, maybe?
>>>  
>>> We hear of larger and smaller allocations being underutilized today,
>>> like a /12 being very much empty. but some people want limiting
>>> access of AFRINIC IPs in a way that AFRINIC's own IPs given to
>>> AFRINIC for distribution will be underutilized even when the demand
>>> and need is there by bigger networks.
>>> The refusal to see this makes me think!
>>>  
>>> Are people trying to force IPv4 transfers to happen in AFRINIC just
>>> to raise prices by limiting access to the IPv4 address space owned by
>>> AFRINIC?
>>> Are those the ones who are sitting on those smaller and larger
>>> underutilized allocations?
>>> Creating a premature scarcity to unload what they are sitting on and
>>> do not need at high price to the large ISPs with money but with no
>>> possibility to get more IP address from AFRINIC?
>>> Are those the same people that rejected having one way transfer into
>>> Africa, so that prices and availability could at least be matched
>>> with the current global market?
>>>  
>>> If this is true then the people against the changes to softlanding
>>> policy are for the whole of Africa and are acting in our best
>>> interest not against!
>>> I hope the appeal committee shed some light into this.
>>>  
>>> Maybe all these private Skype conversations will be made public and
>>> make us understand!
>>>  
>>>  
>>>>
>>>> The policy doesn't punish success. In any case, it encourages carefully
>>>> planned growth
>>>>
>>> How?
>>> It encourages CGNAT and IPv4 transfer by not giving AFRINIC IPv4 that
>>> is needed to those who need it.
>>>>
>>>> Why would anyone disagree with that?
>>>>
>>>
>>> People did, we didn't listen and believed those saying they were
>>> acting for the good of Africa, we were duped.
>>>  
>>>>
>>>> Is IPv6 not the common sense optionfor any growth plan?
>>>>
>>>  
>>> It stopped being a realistic alternative in 1999, turned into a
>>> running gag by 2009, and will only be revived once there is no IPv4
>>> to distribute, could it be happening in 2019, or do we have to wait
>>> until 2029!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>>
>>>> Honest Ornella GANKPA
>>>>
>>>> Le 04/01/2018 à 11:36, Mark Elkins a écrit :
>>>>
>>>>      Thus, by extension, the revised policy is generally harmful to
>>>>     larger
>>>>      LIR's. They need larger blocks in order to grow, which this
>>>>     revision
>>>>      of the policy does not allow. This policy is therefore
>>>>     discriminatory
>>>>      against larger (which probably implies more successful) LIR's.
>>>>     Thus,
>>>>      the policy harms success (and larger LIR's who need more space).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>> L'absence de virus dans ce courrier électronique a été vérifiée par
>>>> le logiciel antivirus Avast.
>>>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> RPD mailing list
>>>> RPD at afrinic.net <mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>
>>>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
>>>>
>>  
>> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
>> Garanti sans virus. www.avast.com
>> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
>>
>> ,
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> RPD mailing list
>> RPD at afrinic.net <mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>
>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
>>
>  
>  
> -- 
> KANGAMUTIMA  ZABIKA
> Contrôleur des douanes
> Direction des Systèmes et Technologies de l'Information
> Direction Générale des Douanes et
> Accises
> DRC
>  
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
> 