<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.apple-tab-span
{mso-style-name:apple-tab-span;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple style='word-wrap: break-word;-webkit-nbsp-mode: space;-webkit-line-break: after-white-space'><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><Snip><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div style='border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt'><div><p class=MsoNormal>I think you are aware, but, removal of this clause would constitute consent.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Even if you don't believe that the clause will make a difference, why consent to their<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>action?<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>I dispute this, acknowledging something is going to happen does not mean you consent to it. It also does not mean you have to support a policy that I believe damages the interests of African companies. I do not consent, and I take exception to anyone who suggests that I do. I also however will say my peace when I believe something is not in the best interests of the African community.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><Snip> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal>Your proposal is not what is currently being discussed. Make that case in that debate.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>At the moment, the question is the consensus call on this sentence in this proposal.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Removing it is an invitation to those companies to engage in additional plunder.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>At the very least, I think it is worth saying "We do not consent", even if it cannot actually<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>prevent the plundering.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Write a statement that protests the actions then, do not place a limit on African companies that could hurt their interests in order to make this statement.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>I have very little faith in the international community. What I do have faith in is the<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>idea that the largest of the large companies will not see enough value in taking<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>/12 and larger chunks out of AfriNICs last /8 to justify their PR risk if this policy is<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>in place.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>For them, the addresses, while valuable, will not be enough to justify the risks.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>It will be enough to drive them to their more localized transfer markets as a likely<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>lower risk solution.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Having read this policy, this argument is actually completely fallacious in nature. The policy EXPLICITLY prohibits allocations of larger than /22 in size. Hence, grabs of /12s out of the last /8 are already prohibited by the policy and the argument you are attempting to make falls flat. If companies wish to grab such large blocks, they would have to do it BEFORE the policy kick in, and if that were to happen, this paragraph in question that we are disputing here would not apply to those allocations in any case. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>If your policy gains consensus, sure. However, removing this clause from this<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>policy without that happening simply means that the AfriNIC community has<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>consented to this pillaging without recourse.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Again, I do not consent, I am also however a realist and as stated before, I long ago abandoned idealism in the face of reality. Furthermore, since it has already been acknowledged by many people that this policy is almost impossible to enforce and monitor, there is no resource available anyway, therefore this argument again is fallacious.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Thanks<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Andrew <o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div></div></body></html>