<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">I still support the policy.<div><br></div><div>Owen</div><div><br><div><div>On Sep 5, 2011, at 5:25 AM, McTim wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite">Dear Colleagues<br><br>During the AfriNIC-14 Public Policy Meeting that took place <div>in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania on the 8th and 9th June 2011, the <br>"IPv4 Soft Landing Policy" proposal with reference<br>AFPUB-2010-v4-005-draft-04 was declared to have reached <br>
consensus. In line with the AfriNIC Policy Development Process <br>(PDP), we, the PDPWG Co-chairs, are now issuing a<br>Last Call for comments on the proposal as follows:<br><br>Start of Last Call: 5 September 2011<br>End of Last Call: 20 September 2011<br>
<br>The community is hereby called upon to review the policy proposal and its associated documents and make comments. As a brief guide, in recent debate, comments and issues were raised on the following areas of the policy which have now been modified:<div>
<br>- Section 2: Incentive Text Changed<br><br>- Section 3.5.1: Standardize the Minimum Allocation/Assignment<br>to cater for route aggregation etc<br><br>- Section 3.5: Change the names of the two sub-phases within the Exhaustion Phase to "Exhaustion Phase 1" and "Exhaustion Phase 2".<br>
<br>- Exhaustion Phase 2: During this phase a minimum<br>Allocation/Assignment size will be /24, and the maximum will be /22<br>
per allocation/assignment.<br><br>- Section 3.8.1: The 10% per Allocation/Assignment was dropped in favour of a support for backward connectivity without explicit mention of percentages<br><br>- AfriNIC resources are for AfriNIC service region and any use<br>
outside the region should be solely in support of connectivity <br>back to the AfriNIC region<br><br>For your reference, the deliberations on this proposal at the meeting<br>are re-produced from the minutes at the end of the message:<br>
<br>At the end of the Last Call, we will make a final assessment on<br>whether consensus has been reached by taking into consideration <br>the comments from the Public Policy Meeting as well as those during this Last Call period.<br>
<br>Regards.<br><br>The Co-Chairs<br>AfriNIC Policy Development Working Group (PDPWG)<br><br><br><br>[References]<br><br><br>(i) The full text of the policy proposal that got consensus in Dar es Salaam<br> <<a href="http://www.afrinic.net/docs/policies/AFPUB-2010-v4-005-draft-04.htm" target="_blank">http://www.afrinic.net/docs/policies/AFPUB-2010-v4-005-draft-05.htm</a>></div>
<div><br>(ii) Minutes of the AfriNIC-14 policy discussions<br><br><<a href="http://www.afrinic.net/docs/policies/afrinic14_f2f_meeting_minutes.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.afrinic.net/docs/policies/afrinic14_f2f_meeting_minutes.pdf</a>><br>
<br>(iii) Staff Comments and Implementation Analyses of the proposal by AfriNIC Ltd<br> <<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2011/001209.html" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2011/001209.html</a>><br>
<br>(iv) The AfriNIC Policy Development Process<br> <<a href="http://www.afrinic.net/docs/policies/AFPUB-2010-GEN-005.htm" target="_blank">http://www.afrinic.net/docs/policies/AFPUB-2010-GEN-005.htm</a>></div><div>
<br>(v) Post Meeting Policy Report by interim PDWG co-chairs<br>
<<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2011/001759.html" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2011/001759.html</a> ><br><br><br>Highlights of Discussions during Face to Face meeting in Dar es Salaam<br>
<br>On the contentious issue of a limit on how much space could be used outside the region:<br><br>** Andrew Alston stated that he will support the proposal without the<br>10% clause.<br><br>**Nii Quaynor proposed a 1% limit combined with inclusion into the RSA of what kinds of out of region uses were realistic. Mark Elkins<br>
responded that 1% of a /22 (the typical allocation during exhaustion<br> phase 2) will be inadequate for most purposes. He expressed support for the proposal if the 10% was exclusively to allow connectivity back to the continent.<br>
<br>**Frank Habicht suggested that a middle ground to specifying percentage was to change the clause to state that more than half of all the space of the requesting entity (including legacy space) has to be used within the AfriNIC service region.<br>
<br>**Mark Tinka and Sunday Folayan opposed the proposal on the grounds that it tries to tell an operator how to run their networks.<br><br>**Consensus at the meeting was that the most contentious piece of the proposal was paragraph 3.8 and several proposals to replace it were given at the meeting. In the end the adopted replacement for that paragraph was as follows:<br>
<br>(a) When applying for more space, the applicant must have used 90% of all space currently held by them. This 90% excludes legacy space Should this space include legacy space? Three people from the audience said that legacy space.<br>
<br>(b) For second part of 3.8 (regarding the 10% limit on out-of-region<br>
use), Alan presented the options as follows:<br><br>(Option 1) Keep existing text<br>(Option 2) No more than 1%<br>(Option 3) No more than 50% outside of Africa (including legacy space)<br>(Option 4) No number, just a statement stating that "AfriNIC resources are for the AfriNIC geographical region and any use outside should be solely in support for connectivity back to the region."<br>
(Option 5): Internet resources allocated by AfriNIC may be used solely within the AfriNIC region or to support connectivity back to the region.<br>
<br>Consensus was on option 4 but with "geographic region" changed into "service region"<br><br><br><br></div>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>rpd mailing list<br><a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net">rpd@afrinic.net</a><br>https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd<br></blockquote></div><br></div></body></html>