<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div></div><div>I think in this case, it is not complicated, but rather the fact that there is sustained and substantial opposition to the remaining proposal as it stands.</div><div><br></div><div>It does not, IMHO, meet the definition of consensus. I think we can almost all agree on that. (No sustained substantial objection or opposition)</div><div><br></div><div>From my perspective it also does not meet any valid definition of "rough consensus" (e.g. Something along the lines of: Any sustained or substantial objection or opposition has been addressed to the extent practical and the remaining resistance represents a small minority).</div><div><br></div><div>There is still the open question of the agreement made at the last meeting and whether the continued existence of this -bis proposal represents negotiation in bad faith. I wasn't present, but I note that none of the -bis authors have denied this claim. If they did agree to withdraw their proposal in the negotiations, then they should, in fact, fulfill that promise and the community can await a new proposal if same is desired.</div><div><br></div><div>Personally, I find the status quo preferable to _ALL_ previously proffered alternatives.</div><div><br></div><div>Owen</div><div><br></div><div><br>On Mar 31, 2017, at 03:01, Barrack Otieno <<a href="mailto:otieno.barrack@gmail.com">otieno.barrack@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><p>Dear all,</p>
<p>Many thanks Andrew, if consensus is complicated we could try rough consensus, i think every proponent is right in one way or the other, we just need a middle ground that is acceptable to all of us. I agree with the co-chairs that we can have consensus if we choose to do so. Can the other proposal be sent in the same spirit? The status quo is good but we should not give up on engaging each other. Let us accept or refuse the proposals based on the merits and shortcomings. Happy to contribute in this effort alongside Arsene.</p>
<p>Regards</p>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Mar 31, 2017 9:56 AM, "Andrew Alston" <<a href="mailto:Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com">Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Let me state our problem statement from the authors of the withdrawn proposal.<br>
<br>
The problem is that restricting the amount of space that can be allocated in this late stage has the following effects:<br>
<br>
a.) It disadvantages the areas that have already got networks and are ready to connect consumers but can't do so because they can't get adequate space<br>
b.) It disadvantages the consumer who is in an area with network coverage but ends up stuck behind NAT and other mechanisms which hurt him because space allocation is being artificially constrained<br>
c.) It increases the digital divide by creating a false sense that v4 is still current and will continue to last - while the rest of the world moves to V6<br>
d.) It assists only people who have not yet invested in and build their own networks - at the expense of people who have already done the work<br>
<br>
Furthermore:<br>
<br>
a.) Any tie back to v6 "plans" has proven to be totally and utterly ineffective in actually getting people to do v6 - all it results in is people putting an allocation on one router for announcement purpose and saying look, we are doing v6, while the consumer never sees a v6 address<br>
b.) Tying up resources for critical infrastructure at this point makes zero sense - critical infrastructure is by and large already catered for in other policies - with the exception of TLD's, and how much space are you reserving for them? A TLD should not require more than a /24, and there are only 54 countries on the continent - that amounts to no more than a /17 worth of space - why are we trying to tie up /12s?<br>
c.) Restrictions on allocations without being willing to implement an inbound transfer policy that allows people to get space they need when they cannot get it via AfriNIC is nothing short of insanity, it puts the larger operators who need space at risk of being able to get NONE, while giving zero benefit to anyone - and the alternative to this is that it forces those entities to go and join another RIR, at additional expense to the operator and at the expense of revenue to AfriNIC<br>
<br>
The withdrawn policy effectively called for the repeal of the soft landing policy - the bis policy effectively calls for a tightening of the policy - these are diametrically opposed viewpoints and diametrically opposed philosophies. This is the reason why I do not believe that there will be consensus on this and why I believe we are wasting our time - because there is a large segment of the community that will simply not accept the tightening of restrictions in soft landing, and there is an equal segment of the community that will not accept the repeal of the soft landing or a loosening of the restrictions. Which segment of the community has the right philosophy and the right approach, well, time will tell on this, but its immaterial to the discussion - the fact is - we're deadlocked on this and that’s ok, lets accept it, accept the status quo and move on. Anything else is a waste of time and distracting from other far more important issues in my view... like the lack of inbound transfer policy for when we truly do need space and don't have any.<br>
<br>
Restricting the allocation sizes in the soft landing is not the answer - and certainly not if you do not give the members the ability to get what space they need from alternate sources.<br>
<br>
So - we can continue down this path, and I'm ok with that - however, I believe we're wasting our time because I do not believe we will see any consensus on this - not on the floor, not in last call, and not before all the space is gone. But the PDP Is clear, anyone has the right to have policy put before the floor and to be heard, and that must be respected, however much we oppose what is being said, and however much we believe that no consensus will be found. It is, under the PDP process, the decision of the authors to decide if they want to continue wasting the time of this community or not, and the decision is theirs and should be respected - but in turn, the opposition to what is being said must also be heard and respected - it goes both ways.<br>
<br>
I remain opposed to anything that tightens restrictions<br>
<br>
Andrew<br>
<br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: McTim [mailto:<a href="mailto:dogwallah@gmail.com">dogwallah@gmail.com</a>]<br>
Sent: 31 March 2017 05:37<br>
To: SamiSalih <<a href="mailto:sami@ntc.gov.sd">sami@ntc.gov.sd</a>><br>
Cc: rpd <<a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net">rpd@afrinic.net</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [rpd] Report of the Soft Landing isuue<br>
<br>
Hi Sami,<br>
<br>
To be honest, I can't even recall the problem statements of these 2 proposals.<br>
<br>
Perhaps we could have them posted to the list to see if there is any area of commonality at that level?<br>
<br>
After all, if there is zero common ground between the 2 problems that these proposals aim to fix, and instead diametric opposition, then there is little point in carrying on a stalemate.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
McTim<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 11:16 PM, SamiSalih <<a href="mailto:sami@ntc.gov.sd">sami@ntc.gov.sd</a>> wrote:<br>
> Thanks McTim for the reminder<br>
> However, as co-chairs our mandate is to condider every single propsal comming from the community and work to foster a condtructive discussion, this necessitates all members to objectivly discuss the ideas and only good ideas can be further developed to a policy.<br>
> I think ourandate is also to find a middle group to BUILD the<br>
> consensus so we have to be positive and innovative rather than just<br>
> rapporteurs- you know better than me in this regards<br>
><br>
> Sicerely<br>
><br>
> Dr. Sami Salih | Assistant Professor<br>
> Sudan University of Science and Technology Eastern Dum, P.O Box<br>
> 11111-407<br>
> email: <a href="mailto:sami.salih@sustech.edu">sami.salih@sustech.edu</a><br>
> Mob: <a href="tel:%2B249122045707" value="+249122045707">+249122045707</a><br>
><br>
> ----- McTim <<a href="mailto:dogwallah@gmail.com">dogwallah@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>> Sami, all,<br>
>><br>
>> I just want to remind everyone that "no consensus, status quo remains"<br>
>> is a perfectly valid outcome of the PDP.<br>
>><br>
>> Not every policy proposal needs to pass in some form or other. That<br>
>> a proposal fails to gain consensus is not an indictment of the PDP,<br>
>> rather a validation of the PDP.<br>
>><br>
>> Regards,<br>
>><br>
>> McTim<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 1:02 PM, SamiSalih <<a href="mailto:sami@ntc.gov.sd">sami@ntc.gov.sd</a>> wrote:<br>
>> > Dear Marcus,<br>
>> ><br>
>> > First of all YES we really sure what we are trying to organize !<br>
>> > Second, Mark Elkins is on of the co-authors of many other proposals<br>
>> > - as he claimed -, the one you particularly mention is not an<br>
>> > active proposal for the time being Third, as we stated we welcome<br>
>> > any volunteer to contribute to solve the issues we addressed in our<br>
>> > justifications to our call,<br>
>> ><br>
>> > Please help us to focus only on ideas and proposals.<br>
>> ><br>
>> > Best Regards,<br>
>> ><br>
>> > Dr. Sami Salih | Assistant Professor Sudan University of Science<br>
>> > and Technology Eastern Dum, P.O Box 11111-407<br>
>> > email: <a href="mailto:sami.salih@sustech.edu">sami.salih@sustech.edu</a><br>
>> > Mob: <a href="tel:%2B249122045707" value="+249122045707">+249122045707</a><br>
>> ><br>
>> > ______________________________<wbr>__<br>
>> ><br>
>> > From: "Marcus K. G. Adomey" <<a href="mailto:madomey@hotmail.com">madomey@hotmail.com</a>><br>
>> > To: "SamiSalih" <<a href="mailto:sami@ntc.gov.sd">sami@ntc.gov.sd</a>>, "rpd" <<a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net">rpd@afrinic.net</a>><br>
>> > Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 7:19:25 PM<br>
>> > Subject: Re: Report of the Soft Landing isuue<br>
>> ><br>
>> ><br>
>> ><br>
>> > Dear Co-chairs,<br>
>> ><br>
>> ><br>
>> ><br>
>> > While reading your email, I am wondering whether you are really<br>
>> > sure of what you are trying to organize. Have you considered the following points?<br>
>> ><br>
>> ><br>
>> > 1 - Mark Elkins is one of the co-authors of the softlanding<br>
>> > overhaul<br>
>> ><br>
>> > 2- The co-authors of the softlanding-bis proposal which is still in<br>
>> > the PDWG track said ".... we are available for any further<br>
>> > actions required from us" in their response to your 7 days call.<br>
>> ><br>
>> ><br>
>> > Some thoughts for reflection!!!<br>
>> ><br>
>> ><br>
>> ><br>
>> ><br>
>> ><br>
>> ><br>
>> > Marcus<br>
>> ><br>
>> ><br>
>> ><br>
>> > ______________________________<wbr>__<br>
>> > From: SamiSalih <<a href="mailto:sami@ntc.gov.sd">sami@ntc.gov.sd</a>><br>
>> > Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 7:03:11 AM<br>
>> > To: rpd<br>
>> > Subject: Re: [rpd] Report of the Soft Landing isuue<br>
>> ><br>
>> > Dear PDWG,<br>
>> ><br>
>> > We appreciate your active discussion regarding the soft landing policy.<br>
>> ><br>
>> > This is to declare the end of the Seven Days comment period on<br>
>> > developing a common proposal according to the points commonly<br>
>> > agreed before whether in the RPD or at PPMs.<br>
>> ><br>
>> > So far we have Mark Elkins and Arsène Tungali as the only<br>
>> > volunteers. We hope they can edit the commonly agreed view in a new<br>
>> > policy update proposal document and work with other community<br>
>> > members including authors of previous proposals that wish to lend their experience.<br>
>> ><br>
>> > Best Regards,<br>
>> ><br>
>> > PDWG Co-Chairs<br>
>> ><br>
>> ><br>
>> > ______________________________<wbr>__<br>
>> ><br>
>> > From: "Honest Ornella GANKPA" <<a href="mailto:honest1989@gmail.com">honest1989@gmail.com</a>><br>
>> > To: "Dewole Ajao" <<a href="mailto:dewole@forum.org.ng">dewole@forum.org.ng</a>><br>
>> > Cc: "rpd" <<a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net">rpd@afrinic.net</a>><br>
>> > Sent: Monday, March 27, 2017 4:49:22 PM<br>
>> > Subject: Re: [rpd] Report of the Soft Landing isuue<br>
>> ><br>
>> > Hello Dewole<br>
>> ><br>
>> > It has been suggested to take the points which have consensus on<br>
>> > the wide variety and get an editor to come up with a new version<br>
>> > if we really do not want the current authors to do it.<br>
>> ><br>
>> > Best regards<br>
>> ><br>
>> > Honest Ornella GANKPA<br>
>> ><br>
>> ><br>
>> ><br>
>> ><br>
>> > 2017-03-27 8:52 GMT+01:00 Dewole Ajao <<a href="mailto:dewole@forum.org.ng">dewole@forum.org.ng</a>>:<br>
>> >><br>
>> >> The proposal "already in the PDP" (as you put it) deals with a<br>
>> >> wide variety of areas. That collection of areas has not found<br>
>> >> consensus. If the authors choose to whittle the proposal down to<br>
>> >> those areas that the community largely agrees on, the co-chairs<br>
>> >> would not need to point out areas that volunteers can adopt and put forward.<br>
>> >><br>
>> >> Although proposals (once submitted to the RPD list) are supposed<br>
>> >> to be owned by the community and not the authors, the current<br>
>> >> definition/implementation of the AFRINIC PDP does not promote that<br>
>> >> enough. I stand to be corrected but I think that is why we find<br>
>> >> ourselves in this logjam today.<br>
>> >><br>
>> >> The submission presented by co-chairs a week ago was to allow a<br>
>> >> chance to do things the collaborative way. A chance to disconnect<br>
>> >> from whatever sentiments exist and tackle policy issues (which is why we are here).<br>
>> >><br>
>> >> I fail to see what makes you think the co-chairs are focusing on<br>
>> >> authors rather than policy.<br>
>> >><br>
>> >> Dewole.<br>
>> >><br>
>> >> Sent from a mobile device. Please excuse typos and autocorrect<br>
>> >> strangeness.<br>
>> >><br>
>> >> On 26 Mar 2017, at 8:52 PM, Honest Ornella GANKPA<br>
>> >> <<a href="mailto:honest1989@gmail.com">honest1989@gmail.com</a>><br>
>> >> wrote:<br>
>> >><br>
>> >> Hi Dewole,<br>
>> >><br>
>> >> 2017-03-26 18:37 GMT+01:00 Dewole Ajao <<a href="mailto:dewole@forum.org.ng">dewole@forum.org.ng</a>>:<br>
>> >>><br>
>> >>> There is more to benefit from collaborating on a single draft<br>
>> >>> rather than spewing out multiple proposals.<br>
>> >><br>
>> >> Agreed! So why are you asking for new proposals when there is<br>
>> >> already one in PDP. Co-chairs need to focus on policy not authors.<br>
>> >><br>
>> >><br>
>> >> Honest Ornella GANKPA<br>
>> >><br>
>> ><br>
>> ><br>
>> > ______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
>> > RPD mailing list<br>
>> > <a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net">RPD@afrinic.net</a><br>
>> > <a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/<wbr>mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><br>
>> ><br>
>> ><br>
>> ><br>
>> ><br>
>> > ______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
>> > RPD mailing list<br>
>> > <a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net">RPD@afrinic.net</a><br>
>> > <a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/<wbr>mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><br>
>> ><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> --<br>
>> Cheers,<br>
>><br>
>> McTim<br>
>> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A<br>
>> route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel<br>
><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
--<br>
Cheers,<br>
<br>
McTim<br>
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel<br>
<br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
RPD mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net">RPD@afrinic.net</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/<wbr>mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
RPD mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net">RPD@afrinic.net</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/<wbr>mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><br>
</blockquote></div>
</div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div><span>_______________________________________________</span><br><span>RPD mailing list</span><br><span><a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net">RPD@afrinic.net</a></span><br><span><a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a></span><br></div></blockquote></body></html>