[rpd] Appeal against softlanding-bis declaration of consensus

[Nishal Goburdhan]

On 11 Jan 2018, at 14:33, Nishal Goburdhan wrote:
> On 10 Jan 2018, at 21:38, ALAIN AINA wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>
> hi alain,
> hny :-)
>
>
>>> On 5 Jan 2018, at 10:05, Alan Barrett <alan.barrett at afrinic.net> 
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 4 Jan 2018, at 15:56, Ornella GANKPA <honest1989 at gmail.com> 
>>>> wrote:
>>>> Anyone can always get more allocation as long as they justify 90%
>>>> utilization.
>>>
>>> That is accurate for the existing soft landing policy 
>>> <https://afrinic.net/community/policy-development/2195-consolidated-policy-manual-v11#SoftLanding>, 
>>> but it is not accurate for the soft landing bis proposal 
>>> <https://afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposals/2197-ipv4-soft-landing-bis> 
>>> (which recently ended last call and was sent to the Board for 
>>> ratification, and which is the subject of an appeal).
>>>
>>> Under the soft landing bis proposal, no organisation will be able to 
>>> receive more than a /18 of IPv4 space every 24 months during 
>>> “Exhaustion Phase 1”, or a /22 every 24 months during 
>>> “Exhaustion Phase 2”, even if they can demonstrate 90% 
>>> utilisation.
>>>
>>
>> Ornella presentation of the SL-BIS  is accurate.
>> SL-BIS  set not limit on the number of requests a member can make 
>> until they reach the maximum allowable size during each exhaustion 
>> phase.
>
> yes, but it does specify an upper limit on the total space that can be 
> requested.   ie.  “totalling the equivalent of a /x “.  i admit 
> that when i read this, i read it as an organisation not being able to 
> get more than a /x within a period.  and it seems clear to me, that 
> this is how it’s understood by many other people too.
>
> so, to eschew obfuscation, could you clarify that please.
>
> if you are saying that, an organisation can go back, and get more than 
> that, then, this changes things quite a bit.  for a start, if i was 
> able to get more than a /18, in a 2yr year period, then why have the 
> 2yr period at all?
>
> —n.
>
> ps. i’m not stating the obvious; that i have satisfied the 
> hostmaster’s concerns that my usage is legitimate.


hi,
just in case this was lost in the back-to-work rush ..

—n.