Search RPD Archives
Limit search to: Subject & Body Subject Author
Sort by:

[rpd] Appeal against softlanding-bis declaration of consensus

Frank Habicht geier at
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.

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
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.


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>:
>> 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>
>>> <mailto:honest1989 at>:
>>>> 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
>>> 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.
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> RPD mailing list
>>>> RPD at <mailto:RPD at>
>> <>
>> Garanti sans virus.
>> <>
>> ,
>> _______________________________________________
>> RPD mailing list
>> RPD at <mailto:RPD at>
> -- 
> Contrôleur des douanes
> Direction des Systèmes et Technologies de l'Information
> Direction Générale des Douanes et
> Accises
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at

More information about the RPD mailing list