<div dir="auto"><div data-smartmail="gmail_signature" dir="auto">On 29 Dec 2017 21:08, "Andrew Alston" <<a href="mailto:Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com" target="_blank">Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.c<wbr>om</a>> wrote:<br></div><div class="gmail_extra" dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="m_-1982225692088262048m_-1700022685043720942quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">







<div bgcolor="white" lang="EN-GB" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="m_-1982225692088262048m_-1700022685043720942m_541845009077290435WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">it is absolutely
 unconscionable that this community has</p></div></div></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto">Are you pointing fingers to the community now :-)</div><div class="gmail_extra" dir="auto"></div><div class="gmail_extra" dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="m_-1982225692088262048m_-1700022685043720942quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="white" lang="EN-GB" link="blue" vlink="purple"><div class="m_-1982225692088262048m_-1700022685043720942m_541845009077290435WordSection1"><p class="MsoNormal">a.) refused to pass an inbound transfer policy to allow entities to buy space in from outside when they need it </p></div></div></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">The working group never refused to pass the inbound policy. The rational behind it was not convincing enough for the working group to find support for it and the PPM minutes below are clear. </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">PPM minutes section 4.0</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><a href="https://www.afrinic.net/en/library/policies/archive/obsolete-policies/1963-afrinic-25-public-policy-minutes" target="_blank">https://www.afrinic.net/en/<wbr>library/policies/archive/<wbr>obsolete-policies/1963-<wbr>afrinic-25-public-policy-<wbr>minutes</a><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">So the simple fact is that, it failed to reach consensus and everything is well documented in the pdp archives.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">PPM minutes section 8.0</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><a href="https://www.afrinic.net/en/library/policies/archive/obsolete-policies/1963-afrinic-25-public-policy-minutes" target="_blank">https://www.afrinic.net/en/<wbr>library/policies/archive/<wbr>obsolete-policies/1963-<wbr>afrinic-25-public-policy-<wbr>minutes</a><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">And as it stands its obsolete and those are the facts.</div><div class="gmail_extra" dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="m_-1982225692088262048m_-1700022685043720942quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="white" lang="EN-GB" link="blue" vlink="purple"><div class="m_-1982225692088262048m_-1700022685043720942m_541845009077290435WordSection1"><p class="MsoNormal">b.) refused to pass a bi-directional transfer policy to achieve the same </p></div></div></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">How about the  existing "IP<span style="font-family:sans-serif">v4 resources transfer within the Afrinic region" </span>policy which is in existance?? </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><a href="https://www.afrinic.net/en/library/policies/1969-ipv4-resources-transfer-within-the-afrinic-region" target="_blank">https://www.afrinic.net/en/lib<wbr>rary/policies/1969-ipv4-resour<wbr>ces-transfer-within-the-afrini<wbr>c-region</a><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Is that not a viable option to achieve the same in absense of the non-existent  bi-directional policy you seem to prefer most.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra" dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="m_-1982225692088262048m_-1700022685043720942quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="white" lang="EN-GB" link="blue" vlink="purple"><div class="m_-1982225692088262048m_-1700022685043720942m_541845009077290435WordSection1"><p class="MsoNormal">c.) decided to declare consensus
 on a policy for which there was no consensus </p></div></div></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Can we leave the determination and declaration of consensus to the co-chairs of the PDPWG, afterall you have appealed which is within the process.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra" dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="m_-1982225692088262048m_-1700022685043720942quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="white" lang="EN-GB" link="blue" vlink="purple"><div class="m_-1982225692088262048m_-1700022685043720942m_541845009077290435WordSection1"><p class="MsoNormal">which prevents organisations that have spent significant sums of money from getting any IP space whatsoever on the continent because of the lack of (a) and (b).</p></div></div></blockquote></div><div class="gmail_extra" dir="auto"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra" dir="auto">I read "prevents organisations from getting any IP space" which is a total lie/false Andrew. </div><div class="gmail_extra" dir="auto"><br></div>SL-BIS version 7 inline with section 3.4(i) of the AFRINIC bylawys does allow for address space to be allocated/assigned as per below sections of the draft policy.</div><div class="gmail_extra" dir="auto"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra" dir="auto"><snip></div><div class="gmail_extra" dir="auto"><p style="margin-top:5px;margin-bottom:5px;color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:helvetica,arial,freesans,sans-serif;font-size:12px;background-color:rgb(238,238,238)"><span style="color:rgb(255,102,0)">5.4.6 Allowable Limits</span></p><p style="margin-top:5px;margin-bottom:5px;color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:helvetica,arial,freesans,sans-serif;background-color:rgb(238,238,238)"> </p><p style="margin-top:5px;margin-bottom:5px;color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:helvetica,arial,freesans,sans-serif;font-size:12px;background-color:rgb(238,238,238)"><span style="color:rgb(255,102,0)">5.4.6.1 Within any 24-month period during Exhaustion Phase 1, an organization may receive one or more allocations/assignments totalling the equivalent of a /18.</span></p><p style="margin-top:5px;margin-bottom:5px;color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:helvetica,arial,freesans,sans-serif;background-color:rgb(238,238,238)"> </p><p style="margin-top:5px;margin-bottom:5px;color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:helvetica,arial,freesans,sans-serif;font-size:12px;background-color:rgb(238,238,238)"><span style="color:rgb(255,102,0)">5.4.6.2 Within any 24-month period during Exhaustion Phase 2, an organization may receive one or more allocations/assignments totalling the equivalent of a /22. </span></p><p style="margin-top:5px;margin-bottom:5px;color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:helvetica,arial,freesans,sans-serif;background-color:rgb(238,238,238)"> </p></div><div class="gmail_extra" dir="auto"><snip></div><div class="gmail_extra" dir="auto"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra" dir="auto">I recommend that you really take time to read through version 7 of the draft policy to avoid the innacurate conclusions you keep making.</div><div class="gmail_extra" dir="auto"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra" dir="auto">Noah</div></div>