<html><body><div style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: #000000"><div>Hi Andrew Alston,<br></div><div><br data-mce-bogus="1"></div><div>The submission in the below email from Jackson Muthili talked about the origin (read "country" and "convener") of the opposition. The introduction of "race"/"racial" came from you in your report below. <br data-mce-bogus="1"></div><div><br data-mce-bogus="1"></div><div>Your complaint is noted and addressed above. Co-chairs had tried not to stifle interactions with a hope that common sense will prevail but starting on December 15, our approach has changed and we will be communicating further with the PDWG community shortly. <br data-mce-bogus="1"></div><div><br data-mce-bogus="1"></div><div>Regards,<br data-mce-bogus="1"></div><div>PDWG Co-Chairs.<br data-mce-bogus="1"></div><div><br data-mce-bogus="1"></div><hr id="zwchr" data-marker="__DIVIDER__"><div data-marker="__HEADERS__"><b>From: </b>"Andrew Alston" <Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com><br><b>To: </b>"Jackson Muthili" <jacksonmuthi@gmail.com><br><b>Cc: </b>"rpd" <rpd@afrinic.net>, "CEO" <ceo@afrinic.net>, "sami" <sami@ntc.gov.sd>, "dewole" <dewole@forum.org.ng>, "AfriNIC Board of Directors' List" <board@afrinic.net><br><b>Sent: </b>Monday, December 18, 2017 10:55:54 PM<br><b>Subject: </b>Re: [rpd] Two more petitioners<br></div><br><div data-marker="__QUOTED_TEXT__"><div id="compose-container" style="direction: ltr">
<span><span></span></span>
<div>
<div style="direction: ltr;">While I am sorely tempted to respond point to point in your email and give you a lesson in facts - I will not dignify this nonesense with such.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div style="direction: ltr;">I will however say this - this is the second time you have introduced a racially biased context into the PDP - and discounted the will of a significant portion of the member base - based of blatant unsubstantiated and inaccurate
prejudice</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div style="direction: ltr;">Chairs - please can this be dealt with - this individual has already made accusations of Neo colonialism with no basis - and nothing was done - but enough is enough.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div style="direction: ltr;">Every member of Afrinic is equal in their right to be heard - be they black or white - South African or Egyptian or Congolese or Senegalese. The type of racial drivel and divisive language is what tears this community apart - and
is totally intolerable.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div style="direction: ltr;">Consider this an official complaint about conduct</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div style="direction: ltr;">Andrew</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div class="acompli_signature">Get <a href="https://aka.ms/o0ukef" target="_blank">Outlook for iOS</a><br data-mce-bogus="1"></div>
<div class="gmail_quote">_____________________________<br>
From: Jackson Muthili <jacksonmuthi@gmail.com><br>
Sent: Monday, December 18, 2017 14:15<br>
Subject: Re: [rpd] Two more petitioners<br>
To: Andrew Alston <andrew.alston@liquidtelecom.com><br>
Cc: rpd <rpd@afrinic.net><br>
<br>
<br>
On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 6:10 PM, Andrew Alston<br>
Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com> wrote:<br>
> As per attached<br>
><br>
> _____________<br>
<br>
Extract of attached petitions in quotes below and comments therein<br>
<br>
> To: The AFRINIC POLICY DEVELOPMENT CO-CHAIRS<br>
> RE: IPv4 Soft Landing Bis<br>
> I, the undersigned, representing Afrihost SP hereby wish to state my clear and unambiguous<br>
> opposition to the IPv4 Soft Landing BIS proposal, AFPUB-2016-V4-001-DRAFT-07<br>
> I oppose this policy because I believe that the policy in its current form is harmful to the industry<br>
<br>
Can the opposer or the convener of the opposers explain the harm that<br>
will befall our dear industry?<br>
<br>
> and<br>
> irrespective of the motives of the authors, will have the effect of limiting the growth of Internet<br>
> penetration in Africa.<br>
<br>
According to various sources, about 13.5% of the African population<br>
has Internet access. While Africa accounts for 15.0% of the world's<br>
population, only 6.2% of the World's Internet subscribers are<br>
Africans. Africans who have access to broadband connections are<br>
estimated to be in percentage of 1% or lower.<br>
<br>
These metrics tell a compelling story about a continent whose internet<br>
is growing, but is still constrained through infrastructure, save for<br>
one country that is South Africa, where all the opposers or their<br>
convener appears to emanate. While their concerns are selfishly in the<br>
interest of their business landscape and interests, the situation in<br>
the other 53 countries is a far cry from the reality in South Africa.<br>
<br>
For the internet to continue to grow, they will need affordable means<br>
to acquire IPv4 address space for a considerable time in the<br>
foreseeable future. Even if the IPv6 argument holds true, we have<br>
argued on here that IPv6 is the future, yes, but Africa, South Africa,<br>
Americas and the others are still far from that IPv6 future. We would<br>
otherwise not be having this conversation.<br>
<br>
For the Internet to grow in Africa and for the unconnected to still<br>
get connected, the need to preserve IPv4 space in the registry and<br>
still make it available to both new and existing operators is as<br>
extremely critical as the need itself to get connected. I cannot see a<br>
better policy to assure this than this one.<br>
<br>
> I further believe that to lock space up in a manner that ensures that it will still be unused after the<br>
> rest of the world has moved to V6,<br>
<br>
If the rest of the world has moved to IPv6, AFRINIC will not have run<br>
out of IPv6 space to dole out to our communities and businesses. They<br>
will all just get IPv6 simple and easy.<br>
<br>
> thereby wasting a precious African resource until such a point as<br>
> it will be worthless is completely contrary to the interests of the African industry as a whole.<br>
<br>
The principle is to fairly distribute the resource in a period of<br>
scarcity, not to greedily dole it out to the wealthiest. Do not ignore<br>
the fact that AFRINIC serves a community of 54 African countries. It<br>
does not sell IP addresses in a capitalist free market system where<br>
the richest take it all at the expense of the poorer. If the resource<br>
ever becomes worthless, IPv6 would be up and running, and the<br>
continent wins. The issue is not the *worth* or *value* of the<br>
resource, but getting everyone connected. Do not lose the purpose of<br>
the argument.<br>
<br>
> Finally, I believe that this policy and its implementation are in direct conflict with section 3.4.ii of the<br>
> AFRINIC bylaws, which reads (with particular emphasis on relevant wording indicated):<br>
> (Under Types and Objects of the company)<br>
> 3.4 The Company shall have, both within and outside the Republic of Mauritius, full capacity to carry<br>
> and/or undertake any business or activity, including, but not limited to, the following objects:<br>
> 3.4.i To provide the service of allocating and registering Internet resources for the purpose of<br>
> enabling communications via open system network protocols and to assist in the development and<br>
> growth of the Internet in the African region.<br>
<br>
:-) no comment on this one<br>
<br>
anyhoo I realized last call passed. My thoughts to the petitioners and<br>
their convener are to show that the points in their signed document<br>
are, although plausible in a different context, are mostly immaterial<br>
for all intents and purposes of this proposal.<br>
<br>
I trust in good judgement of chairs as discussions progress.<br>
<br>
J<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div><br></div></div></body></html>