<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div class="">Hi,</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On 19 May 2017, at 06:52, Ernest <<a href="mailto:ernest@afrinic.net" class="">ernest@afrinic.net</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div class="">Hi All,<br class=""><br class="">A staff assessment of your proposal was concluded and areport has<br class="">been published alongside your proposal at:<br class=""><br class=""><a href="https://afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposals/2075-ipv4-soft-landing-bis" class="">https://afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposals/2075-ipv4-soft-landing-bis</a><br class=""></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div><br class=""></div><div><br class=""></div><div>Below our answers……</div><div><br class=""></div><div><div><br class=""></div><div>1.0 Staff Understanding of the Proposal</div><div><br class=""></div><div> Complete replacement for the current IPv4 Soft Landing policy (replaces entire CPM 5.4)</div><div>=========================================================================================</div><div><br class=""></div><div>Yes</div><div><br class=""></div><div>Policy makes resource provisions for new LIRs and End-Users, something lacking in current CPM 5.4.</div><div>=================================================================================================</div><div><br class=""></div><div><br class=""></div><div>No. The last version, no longer has this provision. New LIRs/End-users are now covered by the “IPv6 deployment reserve”</div><div><br class=""></div><div>Creates a reserved & dedicated (IPv4 /12) block for companies needing IPv4 space to support IPv6 deployment.</div><div>============================================================================================================</div><div><br class=""></div><div>Yes.</div><div><br class=""></div><div> Introduces new values for the maximum allocations/assignment sizes:Removes minimum allocation/assignment sizes stipulated in CPM 5.4.Removes minimum allocation/assignment sizes stipulated in CPM 5.4.</div><div> Phase 1: Maximum /18, no minimum (implies minimum /32)</div><div> Phase 2: Maximum /22, no minimum (implies minimum /32)</div><div>Removes minimum allocation/assignment sizes stipulated in CPM 5.4.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>===================================================================</div><div><br class=""></div><div>Yes, but we intended to empower staff to determine the minimum for allocation size as we go through the exhaustion phases of the IPv4.</div><div><br class=""></div><div> </div><div><br class=""></div><div>2.0 Staff Comments</div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span></div><div>=============</div><div>Our Responses</div><div><br class=""></div><div>- The missing paragraphs in introduction to 5.4 will be restored</div><div><br class=""></div><div>- Definition of New End-users, New LIRs can be removed as no longer needed</div><div><br class=""></div><div>- The rest the comments are related to texts which were imported from the existing policy already implemented and we did not intent to fix or improve them.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>- This proposal cancels the Reserve for “some future uses, as yet unforeseen”</div><div><br class=""></div><div>- We can split 5.4.6 as requested</div><div><br class=""></div><div>- We can set the minimum allocation/assignment to /24 as requested by Staff, even though we expect this to be within staff’s power to determine based of the evolution. The today /24 may not be the case in the future. </div><div><br class=""></div><div>- The "There is no explicit limit on the number of times an organisation may request additional IPv4 address space during the Exhaustion Period" applies to the whole exhaustion phase (phase 1 and Phase2)</div><div>The positioning of this text in 5.4.3.2 was introduced with the CPM-Style format.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>- Workload caused by this proposal is the same as the current policy. So no reasons to be concerned.</div><div><br class=""></div><div><br class=""></div><div>Thanks</div><div><br class=""></div><div>—Alain</div></div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class=""><br class="">(It's at the bottom of the proposal text)<br class=""><br class="">Best Regards,<br class="">Ernest.<br class=""><br class=""><br class=""></div></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></body></html>