[rpd] Appeal against softlanding-bis declaration of consensus

[Nishal Goburdhan]

/bump.

On 23 Jan 2018, at 13:45, Nishal Goburdhan wrote:
> 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.