[rpd] IPv4 Soft Landing BIS

Wed May 9 09:10:32 UTC 2018

Agreed. Apparently - with the existing policy - we have only used half
of the last /8 - which would suggest that the existing policy is fine.

I'd like to see the current proposal dropped. I don't support it.

On 09/05/2018 09:50, aleruchi chuku wrote:
> Dear All
>
> It is quite clear from the mailing list responses (which by the way is
> much larger than the meeting in Dakar) that this proposed policy is
> Doomed to fail as the very community that will be required to use it,
> is not making any positive progress on the policy.
>
> Therefore as we discuss it in Dakar, we should consider discarding
> this policy and make progress in areas that will help us to deplete
> the remaining IPv4 quickly and bring in the deployment of IPv6 to the
> fore.
>
> It is important that we remove any personal attachment to the policy
> and push for ideas that will benefit the general community.
>
> My Opinion is simply that maintaining the previous soft landing policy
> is the best thing to do.
>
>
> Aleruchi
>
>
> On Sunday, May 6, 2018, 1:07:05 PM GMT+1, Andrew Alston
> <Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com> wrote:
>
>
> Komi,
>
>  
>
> So – in your email below you **acknowledge** that there are issues
> that remain unaddressed.
>
>  
>
> You stated that CLEARLY in your email below – that right there –
> proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that consensus is impossible –
> because the definition of consensus states that ALL issues have been
> addressed – it does not limit that to those who issues you feel like
> addressing – nor does it limit those issues you must address to the
> people who like or the people who disagree with you.
>
>  
>
> Thank you for confirming in a single email that you acknowledge there
> is no consensus – much appreciated
>
>  
>
> Andrew
>
>  
>
>  
>
> *From:*Komi Elitcha [mailto:kmw.elitcha at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* 06 May 2018 11:45
> *To:* Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com>
> *Cc:* AfriNIC RPD MList. <rpd at afrinic.net>
> *Subject:* Re: [rpd] IPv4 Soft Landing BIS
>
>  
>
> Good day Owen,
>
> Please see few comments below.
>
>  
>
> 2018-05-01 23:31 GMT+00:00 Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com
> <mailto:owen at delong.com>>:
>
>
>
>     > On Apr 28, 2018, at 14:27, Daniel Yakmut <yakmutd at googlemail.com
>     <mailto:yakmutd at googlemail.com>> wrote:
>     > 
>     > 
>     > The argument and discussion on this policy will continue to go
>     back and forth, as i see a dangerous trend of members standing at
>     very sharp and deep divides. The proponents and those opposed to
>     the policy are not ready to shift grounds, in this regard can we
>     answer the following:
>     > 
>     > 1. Is there in any form, an agreement that the community needs a
>     policy of this nature?
>
>     The policy currently on the books is less objectionable than the
>     current proposal. While many of us who oppose this proposal would
>     like to see it repealed, I believe most of us can live with the
>     status quo.
>
>  
>
> It is obvious that if you opposed the current  policy on the books,
> you  will oppose SL-bis.
>
> SL policy was adoption was tedious as the revision history  can tell.
> But it was a time where peoole understood the concept and were able to
> work out a concensual policy from a proposal.
>
> Proponents of SL-BIS also will live with the status  quo as not too
> different from the original SL-BIS  proposa, but not with the the
> competing proposal you tend to favour.
>
>  
>
>
>     I personally do not believe such a policy serves the community at
>     this time, so making it even worse is counter-productive.
>
>  
>
> We have agreed to disagree on this.
>
>
>     > 2. If we agree that the policy is required, then what are the issues?
>
>     I think we don’t agree such a policy is required.
>
>     > 3. If the policy is not required, then it should just be buried 
>     and we make progress on more productive issues.
>
>     I do not think we have consensus on this matter. Many of us
>     believe this policy is unnecessary and even harmful. Others
>     believe this policy is needed.
>
>  
>
> This was expected  and lot of discussions have happened to merge and
> accomodate various views. Only those  personal oppositions from
> competing proposals  and denial of acceptance of the history  behind
> the last /8 we got from the global soft landing policy and which is
> subject of  the Soft landing policy  being updated  have not been
> addressed.
>
> 
>
>
>     > 
>     > However if we answer is Yes to No. 1. Then i will suggest that we
>     do a clause by clause discussion and come to some consensus, any
>     clause agreed upon will form part of the policy. Though tedious
>     but that way, we can identify the "offensive" clause(s) and agree
>     or discard it.
>
>     The answer to 1 and 3 (really the same question in reverse) varies
>     depending on who you ask. There is the rub.
>
>  
>
> The tedious method was proposed by cochairs  and followed  by those
> who accepted it.
>
> 
>
>
>     > 
>     > But if we think the policy is not required, just bury it and move on.
>
>     While I’d like to see us do so, unlike my opponents, I do
>     recognize that they are entitled to sustain their support just as
>     much as our sustained objections remain valid.
>
>  
>
> The cochairs report on the proposal is avalaible. The Appeal
> Committee has failed  to point out these objections  not addressed
> which you are referring to. We have not made any  progress since.
>
> 
>
>
>     > 
>     > It is important we quickly turn our attention to policies that
>     will fast track the deployment of IPV6, as we are overstretching
>     the discussion on IPV4.
>
>     The good news is that v4 freepool policies probably won’t matter
>     much after Dakar or possibly one more meeting after that. There’s
>     a reason the proponents are in a rush and the opponents are
>     willing to run out the clock.
>
>  
>
> Anyone on rush here?  This proposal has been following the normal
> track . Is this just another example of your biased judgments of things? 
>
> 
>
>
>     Fortunately for the community, absent actual rough consensus, the
>     process favors the status quo over ill-advised changes to policy
>     over the objections of even a minority of the community.
>
>  
>
> I am curious about your  definition of minority of the community and
> wonder if  we are  still talking about substantial  objections and
> rough consensus 
>
> 
>
>
>     Owen
>
>      
>
> I hope this helps.
>
>  
>
>  
>
> -- 
>
> --KE
>
>  
>
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net <mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd

-- 
Mark James ELKINS  -  Posix Systems - (South) Africa
mje at posix.co.za       Tel: +27.128070590  Cell: +27.826010496
For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: https://ftth.posix.co.za

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20180509/f0e5d24d/attachment-0001.html>