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

[rpd] [pdwg-appeal] SoftLanding BIS notice of intent to appeal

Owen DeLong owen at
Tue Jan 23 21:34:31 UTC 2018

How can you possibly make this claim?

I have nothing whatsoever to personally gain in terms of resources from blocking the proposal.
I have nothing whatsoever that any organization I work with (at least nothing that I know of) will gain from blocking this proposal.

I am opposed to this proposal simply because I think it is damagingly harmful policy and will not benefit the deployment of the internet in the African region.

Yes, end users are served by ISPs. ISPs that can’t get addresses to serve end users can’t serve end users and the end users they can’t serve go unserved.

While I am sensitive to the idea of not letting one ISP consume the entire remaining free pool in one country, I’m not in favor of protecting those completely late to the party (anyone who didn’t notice that we were running out of IPv4 for the last 20 years) from those who have a current need. I’m all for restricting allocation/assignment sizes as necessary to achieve fair distribution among those who have expressed their current need. But keeping addresses on the shelf to further subsidize those who still haven’t begun to develop infrastructure while preventing those that have infrastructure from serving real customers is absurd at this point in the process as far as I am concerned.

Let’s be clear… We’re not talking about new entrants with the 24 month time limit in this policy. We’re talking about “possible future entrants that don’t yet exist and may or may not ever exist.” That’s why I call them fictitious. I’d call them vaporware, but it didn’t go so well the last time I used that term in reference to an Africa-related policy, so I’m trying to learn from past mistakes. ;-)

I do applaud you, Jackson, for finally actually speaking to the issues in your last post (for the first time in this discussion). However, your opinions expressed are no more “the facts” than my opinions are. We can agree to disagree as men of good conscience often can. I don’t feel that there is a need to protect customers that have no ISP from customers that have an ISP. Really, what argument can be made that it is somehow fair to prevent more consumers in country A from getting access just so that we can still connect consumers in country B who don’t yet have an ISP? This is what is proposed by SL-BIS and IMHO, it’s bad policy. You may disagree with that. You may wish to argue that Nigerian consumers are less important than Congolese or Rwandan or Somalian consumers. I argue that all consumers are of roughly equal value and there is no more fair distribution mechanism amongst various consumers than first come first served. I can see an argument for limiting the amount of space the guy at the front of the line can get so as not to allow the first guy in line to take all to the detriment of those who joined the line at approximately the same time. What I can’t see is telling the guy at the front of the line that he can’t get back in line in case there’s someone else who might want to join the line in front of him for the next 24 months. That’s where SL-BIS really goes of the rails as far as I’m concerned.


On Jan 23, 2018, at 12:30 AM, Kangamutima zabika Christophe <funga.roho at> wrote:
> Jackson,
> Vos propos sont sempiternels et marqueront le continent pour la postérité. Il n'y a que l'appât du gain et la voracité envers les maigres ressources mis à disposition de l'Afrique, qui dirigent cet acharnement contre le SL-BIS. Quoi qu'il advienne nous vaincrons malgré les menaces, les bravades, les insinuations,...
> Quant au PDWG votre abnégation mérite une gratitude. Votre amour pour ce continent irréfragable.
> 23.01.2018, 07:25, "Jackson Muthili" <jacksonmuthi at>:
>> On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 8:48 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at <mailto:owen at>> wrote:
>> >> Your issues are based on presumption that AfriNIC is a shop in a free
>> >> market where IP addresses are commodities on shelves ready for anyone
>> >> that walks in to buy in whatever quantity and deplete at will - an
>> >> extremely selfish principle to deploy during a period of scarcity of a
>> >> public resource.
>> My perspective is that addressed are community resources to be used to deploy internet services to end users.
>> Yes.
>> My belief is that addresses have no utility whatsoever sitting on a shelf in the registry if there is a legitimate need for them to be used by end users.
>> I say yes to this but with caution. Those end users are served by ISPs. Those ISPs are very many, competing for a tiny resource. Those end users also live in 54 African countries. You do NOT want to let one ISP in Nigeria use the remaining tiny resource to just serve Nigerian end users. There are others too that need a piece of that tiny resource. You unfortunately and regrettably keep ignoring this fact. 
>> My belief is that it is a disservice to this community to protect a free pool from real end users with legitimate need
>> It is a greater disservice to this community to open a very scarce resource to abusive use by letting one or two businesses gainfully use most of that resource when there are thousand others that still need it.
>> for the sake of enabling some fictitious entity to gain some advantage later over a clear and present entity attempting to deliver service today.
>> Why do you call the new entrants 'fictitious'? Do you actually think we are stagnant in Africa and that there are no more new players to forecast for? Is the concept of forecasting in business practice perhaps inane to you?
>> You claim it is a lie to say your concerns have not been addressed. May be you are unhappy with the facts and nothing can be done about this unhappiness.  
>> I hope you are not planning to join efforts with your convener who in a separate email has made it clear that if the policy does pass he will use the Mauritius government to force the AfriNIC Board to refuse it and use the same Board to apply different policies top-down while refusing to implement policies the community has passed  - a particularly disturbing piece of information.
>> ,
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the RPD mailing list