[rpd] Reminder: Deadline for Last Call – Today 23:59 UTC.

[jordi.palet at consulintel.es]

Hi Nonjabulo,

I believe you’ve missed the PIER that was prepared a few months ago by the staff.

Even if one of those policies doesn’t reach consensus, the contradictions of the actual CPM have already enforced the staff to decide that the softlanding policy is what actually is being used.

So there is no harm created in any of the possible cases that you presented.

Further to that, of course, the staff has contemplated that when preparing the relevant staff assessments, and further to that, according to the PDP, the staff will need to inform the board for any proposal that reach consensus and passes the Last Call. Clearly, it means that if any of the situations that you mention happens and creates a contradictory situation, the board may return the proposal to the list so we fix that.

Also the staff can decide how to implement any of the policies and the timing for that, so if needed to avoid confusions or to create challenging situations, they can also opt for implementing in a given order, or at the same time.

We have been in similar situations already, I don’t recall right now if in AFRINIC, but for sure in other RIRs.

Regards,
Jordi

@jordipalet

> El 31 jul 2026, a las 11:14, Nonjabulo Sphilile <nonjabulosphilile at gmail.com> escribió:
> 
> Dear PDWG,
> 
> I have reviewed AFPUB-2026-IPv4-002-DRAFT02 against the current CPM and the concurrent Soft Landing, Recovered Space and Priority proposal. I wish to raise one specific issue that does not appear to have been addressed.
> 
> DRAFT02 amends only section 5.4.6.1. However, the current CPM contains separate utilisation requirements in sections 5.5.1.4.1, 5.5.1.4.2, and 5.6.3.
> 
> This means an operator could qualify for a waiver from the 90% requirement under DRAFT02 but still fail the existing 80% LIR threshold, the rule excluding future reservations from valid utilisation, or the separate PI utilisation requirements.
> 
> The concurrent Soft Landing proposal proposes deleting those provisions, and its Impact Assessment says their removal will assist integration of this amendment. In contrast, the Impact Assessment for DRAFT02 records no interaction with other proposals.
> 
> Those positions need to be reconciled.
> Before rough consensus is determined, AFRINIC should publish a combined interpretation explaining the outcome where:
> only AFPUB-2026-IPv4-002 is adopted;
> only AFPUB-2026-IPv4-001 is adopted;
> both are adopted;
> and the two are implemented on different dates.
> 
> The treatment of future utilisation also remains undefined. If an allocation granted under the waiver is intentionally underutilised for redundancy or high availability, will it form part of “all prior allocations or assignments” when the operator submits its next request?
> If it remains in the denominator, one waiver may create continuing dependence on further waivers. If it is excluded, the proposal creates a separate class of resources outside the normal utilisation calculation. The policy currently states neither result.
> 
> There is also a timing issue in relying on approximately three million recovered addresses to justify the change. Recovered inventory is not necessarily immediately allocable inventory. The effective date should be supported by the amount actually available after quarantine and by a demand and depletion analysis.
> 
> These are not demands that the proposal solve every possible future problem. They concern the rule that applicants and Hostmasters will actually be required to apply from the implementation date.
> A policy governing a finite pool should be internally consistent, measurable, and capable of producing the same result from the same facts. At present, DRAFT02 depends on another unresolved proposal, leaves future utilisation accounting undefined, and relies on inventory that may not yet be available.
> 
> For these reasons, I do not believe the proposal is ready to advance and I object it.
> 
> Regards,
> Nonjabulo
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd


**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.