<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=""><br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Jul 24, 2017, at 11:33 , Jackson Muthili <<a href="mailto:jacksonmuthi@gmail.com" class="">jacksonmuthi@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div class="">On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 9:13 PM, Owen DeLong <<a href="mailto:owen@delong.com" class="">owen@delong.com</a>> wrote:<br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class="">On Jul 24, 2017, at 03:37 , Jackson Muthili <<a href="mailto:jacksonmuthi@gmail.com" class="">jacksonmuthi@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br class=""><br class="">On Sun, Jul 23, 2017 at 8:51 PM, Ish Sookun <<a href="mailto:ish@lsl.digital" class="">ish@lsl.digital</a>> wrote:<br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class="">Hi Omo, Joe and Alain,<br class=""><br class="">Section 5.4.3.1.1 of the IPv4 Soft Landing BIS [1] states the following:<br class=""><br class=""> "During this phase, allocation/assignment of IPv4 address space will<br class=""> continue as in Pre-Exhaustion with the minimum set at /24, but the<br class=""> maximum will change from /10 to /18, subject to the provisions in<br class=""> 5.4.6.<br class=""><br class="">The policy proposal was submitted on 29 June 2017. However, on 3 April<br class="">2017 AFRINIC announced [2] entering IPv4 Exhaustion Phase 1. Shouldn't<br class="">the proposal state "Exhaustion Phase 1" as the "Current Phase" and<br class="">therefore propose the maximum allocation change from /13 to /18?<br class=""></blockquote><br class=""> This Soft Landing revision version 5 received support to fast<br class="">track it through the PDP.<br class=""></blockquote><br class="">Um… WHere is this support recorded?<br class=""></blockquote><br class="">rpd archive<br class=""><br class=""><a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2017/007145.html" class="">https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2017/007145.html</a><br class=""></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div>I see a request for constructive discussion. I don’t see support for “fast tracking” or even necessarily support for the proposal in this particular message.</div><div><br class=""></div><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class=""><a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2017/007006.html" class="">https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2017/007006.html</a><br class=""></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div>This is a single message from you advocating a particular change to the policy and a personal opinion that the policy is needed urgently.</div><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class=""><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class="">From whom?<br class=""></blockquote><br class="">community members<br class=""></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div>You have failed to make this case. You have, instead, referenced only your own support for the policy and a general call for discussion after an update.</div><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class=""><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class="">What, exactly, does “fast track”<br class="">it through the PDP mean?<br class=""></blockquote><br class="">the CPM 3.6 article - Varying The Process<br class=""></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div>According to 3.6:</div><div><br class=""></div><div><h4 style="padding-bottom: 5px; margin: 5px 0px 10px; font-weight: normal; line-height: 18.719999313354492px; font-size: 14.399999618530273px; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: Helvetica, Arial, FreeSans, sans-serif;" class=""></h4></div><blockquote style="margin: 0 0 0 40px; border: none; padding: 0px;" class=""><div><h4 style="padding-bottom: 5px; margin: 5px 0px 10px; font-weight: normal; line-height: 18.719999313354492px; font-size: 14.399999618530273px; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: Helvetica, Arial, FreeSans, sans-serif;" class="">3.6 Varying the Process</h4></div><div><p style="margin-top: 5px; margin-bottom: 5px; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: Helvetica, Arial, FreeSans, sans-serif;" class="">The process outlined in this document may vary in the case of an emergency. Variance is for use when a one-time waiving of some provision of this document is required. The decision to vary the process is taken by the Working Group Chair. There must be an explanation about why the variance is needed. The review period, including the Last Call, shall not be less than four weeks. If there is consensus, the policy is approved and it must be presented at the next Public Policy Meeting.</p></div></blockquote><div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">This provides for a reduction of the process to some extent at the discretion of the PDWG chair(s) in the case of an emergency. I argue that no such emergency exists here and your own statement and your reference to it as “support from community members” (emphasis on your use of the plural here) doesn’t seem to hold up to scrutiny as the only “community members” you were able to show were your own prior post.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Owen</div><div class=""><br class=""></div></div></body></html>