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

[rpd] Appeal against softlanding-bis declaration of consensus

Kangamutima zabika Christophe funga.roho at
Wed Jan 10 15:18:35 UTC 2018


Nulle part dans mes propos, je n'ai cité ou fait allusion aux auteurs de la proposition que je soutiens. J'ai lu ce texte, j'ai apprécié sa philosophie, son objectif, le but poursuivi. Il suffit de relire toutes mes précédentes interventions pour comprendre que c'est d'abord la préservation des ressources numériques attribuées à la zone afrique sujettes au braconnage carnassiers de certains acteurs de l'ecosystème d'internet en afrique.

09.01.2018, 11:19, "Frank Habicht" <geier at>:
> 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>:
>>>  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
>>>>  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.
>>>>>  _______________________________________________
>>>>>  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
>>  DRC
>>  _______________________________________________
>>  RPD mailing list
>>  RPD at

Contrôleur des douanes
Direction des Systèmes et Technologies de l'Information
Direction Générale des Douanes et

More information about the RPD mailing list