[rpd] Appeal against softlanding-bis declaration of consensus

[John Hay]

Hi Jackson,

On 11 January 2018 at 08:19, Jackson Muthili <jacksonmuthi at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 8:34 AM, John Hay <jhay at meraka.csir.co.za> wrote:
>
>> Hi Jackson,
>>
>> On 11 January 2018 at 06:58, Jackson Muthili <jacksonmuthi at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 8:52 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Still nobody has actually addressed the substance of our arguments
>>> against
>>> > the proposal. Do you have any answer to the issue of unfairness raised
>>> > repeatedly with regard to the way in which a 24 month waiting period
>>> does
>>> > not protect those in line, but those not yet in line at the expense of
>>> > providers which need more than a /18 for continued growth? Do you have
>>> any
>>> > response to the merits of my demonstration that it doesn’t even have
>>> to be a
>>> > particularly large provider or a large deployment in order to require
>>> more
>>> > than a /18 every 2 years?
>>>
>>> Those not yet in line are the largest chunk in Africa not in America -
>>> the community you operate and live in. If you want the tiny few in line to
>>> gobble up everything, I must remind you again that AfriNIC resource
>>> distribution environment is not a capitalist approach where its an open
>>> shop for who has the money to come buy, deplete and go make a killing at
>>> the detriment of the upcoming and majority existing others that will
>>> happily be protected in that 24 month window. The tiny few will have
>>> complaints. The mostly others on the continent will be protected. This
>>> situation now is no longer a free market but a period of responsible
>>> custody of a scarce public resource. (The resource is not for a wealthy few
>>> but : for the *public*).
>>>
>>> You may think different but this does not make the current situation of
>>> scarcity against a largely unconnected community go away. Think fair
>>> distribution not capitalism and open/free market.
>>>
>>> A scarce public resource cannot be carelessly doled out irresponsibly
>>> for monetary gains of a privileged few. Sorry.
>>>
>>
>> So if you want to connect more than a /18 of African users to the
>> internet in a 2 year period, you are a privileged few, a depleter, making a
>> killing, and it is to the detriment of .... those that you connected? ...
>> Or those that have not been connected yet?
>>
>
> You are veering out of context on purpose it appears.
>

No I'm using words out of your post, but the questions are mine. :-)
Because I think you are focusing so much on the organisations that might
request address space, but not enough on the millions of African people
still without internet.


> The current remaining IPv4 addresses can even be used by one or two
> companies to serve millions of their customers in less than a year and they
> will be depleted. In any configuration of distribution, they are simply not
> enough. Period.
>

If the /18 rule is kept, but the 24 month limit is removed? I doubt if any
company will be able to request a /18, with proof of their previous use,
wait for Afrinic to process their request, receive it, roll it out, gather
their proof, request a /18 again, with proof, wait for Afrinic... And
deplete it in a two year period. And in that time anyone else can also put
in their request.


> Those bigger organisations do not take the IP address space out of Africa.
>> They also do not leave it unused. They would not be able to request more if
>> they left it unused. They want to use it to connect African people to the
>> internet. Surely that is not against Africa or its people?
>>
>
> Those very few but bigger organizations are not the only ones with the
> noble albeit profit-making intent of connecting those African people.
>

I think everyone wants to make some kind of profit, even non-profit
organisations. That is how you can be sustainable and grow. If a company
makes too much profit, someone else will come and make that service
available at a cheaper cost.

To me, getting African people connected to the internet is more important
than having IPv4 addresses available in 10 year's time for some possible
new ISP. He will probably just laugh at you for wanting to give him IPv4
space in any case. :-)

Regards

John



> J
>
>
>>>
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20180111/2d3e84a0/attachment.html>