[rpd] RPD Digest, Vol 222, Issue 42

Sat Jul 18 10:44:17 UTC 2026

Dear PDWG,

I agree with Thandeka and remain opposed to this proposal.

The attempt to dismiss similar objections as “astroturfing” does not answer
the substance of those objections. Different participants may independently
reach the same conclusion when a proposal introduces requirements that are
not supported by demonstrated operational necessity. Similarity of position
is not evidence of improper coordination.

The relevant question is not who used comparable language, but whether the
proposal protects a genuine technical invariant such as registry accuracy,
uniqueness, security, or operational continuity. If it does not, the matter
should remain with operators and voluntary operational practice.

Participation should be assessed by the quality of the argument, not
invalidated because several people object on the same principled grounds. A
mailing list should discuss policy, not police conformity of expression.

For these reasons, I support Thandeka’s objection and maintain my
opposition to the proposal.

Kind regards,
Nonhlanhla

On Sat, 18 Jul 2026, 11:56 am <rpd-request at afrinic.net> wrote:

> Send RPD mailing list submissions to
>         rpd at afrinic.net
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>         https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>         rpd-request at afrinic.net
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>         rpd-owner at afrinic.net
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of RPD digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: [Last Call] Draft Policy Proposal - Hierarchical Names
>       for New AS-SETs (AFPUB-2026-ASN-001-DRAFT02) and Amendment of
>       Utilisation in Soft Landing (AFPUB-2026-IPv4-002-DRAFT02)
>       (Thandeka Mseleku)
>    2. Re: IPv6 as a criteria in IPv4 Soft Landing
>       AFPUB-2026-v6-001-DRAFT01. (Simphiwe Ngubane)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2026 10:59:07 +0200
> From: Thandeka Mseleku <mselekuthandeka80 at gmail.com>
> To: rpd at afrinic.net
> Cc: rpd-owner at afrinic.net
> Subject: Re: [rpd] [Last Call] Draft Policy Proposal - Hierarchical
>         Names for New AS-SETs (AFPUB-2026-ASN-001-DRAFT02) and Amendment of
>         Utilisation in Soft Landing (AFPUB-2026-IPv4-002-DRAFT02)
> Message-ID:
>         <CA+mVb0m_TZG5Mn+a0gK=
> kXZ5yCoEMq4yKazG_+1GMUouiEpkYA at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Dear PDWG,
>
> I remain opposed to this proposal.
>
> The fact that multiple community members express similar concerns should
> not diminish the substance of those concerns. What matters is whether the
> arguments are technically and operationally sound.
>
> I continue to believe that policy should reflect demonstrated operational
> needs rather than introduce obligations that have not been shown to be
> necessary. Registry policies should preserve stability, accuracy, and
> neutrality without expanding prescriptive requirements where voluntary
> operational practices are already sufficient.
>
> For that reason, I do not believe this proposal has demonstrated a
> compelling justification for the additional requirements it introduces.
> Maintaining operator flexibility while ensuring sound resource governance
> remains the more proportionate approach.
>
> BR,
> *Thandeka Mseleku*
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20260718/90004a03/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2026 09:55:24 +0000
> From: Simphiwe Ngubane <NGBSIM008 at myuct.ac.za>
> To: Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>
> Cc: rpd <rpd at afrinic.net>
> Subject: Re: [rpd] IPv6 as a criteria in IPv4 Soft Landing
>         AFPUB-2026-v6-001-DRAFT01.
> Message-ID:
>         <
> JN1P275MB06001BC72DBF6290E7A7336AB1C52 at JN1P275MB0600.ZAFP275.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM
> >
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Good morning Seun,
>
> To the best of my knowledge I've only posted once or twice on this
> platform. I'm comparatively knew to the forum.
>
> In terms of the similarity you allude to, I should think it well spotted
> as we both, from my understanding, object/ed to the new policy proposal.
> Fundamentally, as an objection to IPv6 enforcement creep through IPv4
> policy.
>
> Kind Regards
> Simphiwe Ngubane
>
> ________________________________
> From: Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>
> Sent: Friday, July 17, 2026 2:10:59 pm
> To: Simphiwe Ngubane <NGBSIM008 at myuct.ac.za>
> Cc: rpd <rpd at afrinic.net>
> Subject: Re: [rpd] IPv6 as a criteria in IPv4 Soft Landing
> AFPUB-2026-v6-001-DRAFT01.
>
> CAUTION: This email originated outside the UCT network. Do not click any
> links or open attachments unless you know and trust the source.
>
> This response seem similar to the response from nndemo at staff.zegu.ac.zw
> <mailto:nndemo at staff.zegu.ac.zw>
>
> Regards
> ----
> Sent from my mobile
> kindly excuse typos
>
> On Mon, 13 Jul 2026, 10:42?am Simphiwe Ngubane via RPD, <rpd at afrinic.net
> <mailto:rpd at afrinic.net>> wrote:
> Dear PDWG,
>
> I agree with Alain?s response because it maintains a necessary distinction
> between the role of registry policy and the realities of network
> operations. The purpose of the IPv4 Soft Landing policy should remain
> centered on the coordination and management of scarce Internet number
> resources, rather than introducing operational conditions tied to IPv6
> deployment.
>
> I also agree that IPv6 adoption across the region cannot be measured only
> through deployment statistics. Many operators may already be investing in
> infrastructure upgrades, staff training, network planning, and transition
> readiness, even where large-scale IPv6 traffic is not yet visible.
> Deployment decisions are influenced by operational readiness, commercial
> priorities, customer demand, equipment lifecycles, and local market
> conditions, all of which vary significantly across the AFRINIC service
> region.
>
> Importantly, the IPv4 Soft Landing policy was developed to address IPv4
> scarcity and allocation management. While IPv6 adoption remains an
> important objective for the long-term sustainability of the Internet, using
> IPv4 allocation policy as a mechanism to drive deployment risks combining
> two distinct policy goals. Resource coordination and technology adoption
> are related, but they are not the same function.
>
> In my view, policies work best when they remain focused on their narrow
> coordination purpose while allowing operators the flexibility to determine
> the most practical technical path for their networks. Linking IPv4
> eligibility to IPv6 deployment could unintentionally disadvantage smaller
> or resource-constrained operators that are actively preparing for
> transition but are not yet in a position to deploy at scale.
>
> Encouraging IPv6 through technical cooperation, implementation experience,
> training, knowledge sharing, and operational forums is likely to produce
> more sustainable progress than introducing deployment requirements into
> resource management policies. Long-term IPv6 success depends on the
> readiness of the broader ecosystem, including network operators, vendors,
> content providers, transit providers, and end-user environments.
>
> For these reasons, I support keeping the IPv4 Soft Landing policy
> technically neutral, operationally realistic, and aligned with the diverse
> needs of networks across the AFRINIC region. RIRs are most effective when
> they remain neutral coordinators of Internet number resources while
> enabling, rather than prescribing, the evolution of network technologies.
>
> Yours Sincerely,
> Simphiwe Ngubane
> MSc in Engineering UCT
> (My views are my own in given in my personal capacity and do not form part
> of any affiliation or representation to the University of Cape Town)
> Disclaimer - University of Cape Town This email is subject to UCT policies
> and email disclaimer published on our website at
> https://www.uct.ac.za/main/email-disclaimer<
> https://www.uct.ac.za/main/email-disclaimer> or obtainable from +27 21
> 650 9111. If this email is not related to the business of UCT, it is sent
> by the sender in an individual capacity. Please report security incidents
> or abuse via https://csirt.uct.ac.za/report-incident<
> https://csirt.uct.ac.za/report-incident>
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net<mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd<
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd>
>
> Disclaimer - University of Cape Town This email is subject to UCT policies
> and email disclaimer published on our website at
> https://www.uct.ac.za/main/email-disclaimer or obtainable from +27 21 650
> 9111. If this email is not related to the business of UCT, it is sent by
> the sender in an individual capacity. Please report security incidents or
> abuse via https://csirt.uct.ac.za/report-incident
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20260718/4684f837/attachment.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of RPD Digest, Vol 222, Issue 42
> ************************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20260718/eeb6e4b3/attachment-0001.html>