<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
Some thoughts:
<p>Africa has some regions that are doing quite well regarding
Internet Penetration (and thus the use of IP Addresses) and others
that are not... so a generalisation is we are a mix of both first
and third world countries.</p>
<p>Regions that I'd say are more first world would (a
generalisation) include Northern, Southern, Eastern and Indian
Ocean regions. <br>
There are though countries with very, very low Internet
penetration such as Eritrea.</p>
<p>There are also many more "small" LIR's in Africa than larger
LIR's - thus the voice at meetings is predominantly attended by
smaller LIR's. Their IPv4 address needs are thus small - so the
revised Soft Landing proposal is in their favour or certainly does
them no harm.<br>
</p>
<p>Thus, by extension, the revised policy is generally harmful to
larger LIR's. They need larger blocks in order to grow, which this
revision of the policy does not allow. This policy is therefore
discriminatory against larger (which probably implies more
successful) LIR's. Thus, the policy harms success (and larger
LIR's who need more space).</p>
<p>So in many ways - what we are seeing is a clash between large,
successful LIR's versus less large and less successful LIR's. I
don't see why success should be punished.</p>
<p>The large LIR's will stop coming back for more space when we
enter phase two of the current Soft Landing system. There will
still be plenty of space for the smaller LIR's. Neither party will
be strangled.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Oh - and (rough) Consensus is not the same as Majority...<br>
</p>
<p>
---------------------<br>
</p>
<p>People should also note that other vocal parties, thinking of
Owen from the ARIN region and Sander from the RIPE Region, are
both extremely involved with Policy within their own regions with
years of experience in policy development - they do the equivalent
jobs in their region of our own PDP Co-Chairs. They recognise that
our own process has not being followed properly.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Wishing everyone a prosperous and successful New Year.<br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 04/01/2018 10:29, Eucharia Chimbuzor
Nwachukwu wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAGmMPpe4a=rR8GwXCH-j+SdWFgwStRHkLrK8hhcJpvigK205pw@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="auto">Dear colleagues,
<div dir="auto">I see from Omo response and corresponding
response from Andrew that there's more to what we are
discussing on this matter. From my personal observation, I
deduce the following:</div>
<div dir="auto">1. Omo and co submitted proposal.</div>
<div dir="auto">2. Andrew and co sort for comprise on the
proposal.</div>
<div dir="auto">3. Omo and co refused to negotiate.</div>
<div dir="auto">4. Andrew and co submitted a counter proposal
with the aim of ensuring that the first proposal doesn't get a
concensus.</div>
<div dir="auto">5. Andrew was happy to withdraw his proposal
when both were advised to do so because it was a dream come
true. Omo and co wasn't happy with the advice to withdraw
because it seemed like Andrew has pushed his threat
successfully.</div>
<div dir="auto">6. Omo and co amended the proposal and
resubmitted and it was never turned down by congregation
rather the same group who stood against the proposal kept
objecting. The said proposal seems to satisfy the expectations
of the larger community including some of the appellants who
have no issues with the proposal but the process of passing
it. Yet, a concensus can't be achieved.</div>
<div dir="auto">My submission: I want to ask, as a community, do
we need to be strangulated in this way? Should it be a norm
that when your negotiation fails, the community stands still?
I see nothing bad in that proposal and it has to pass in some
way. Let us move forward, please!</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Wishing all of us a prosperous and focused new
year.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Eucharia Nwachukwu</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Jan 4, 2018 8:28 AM, "Andrew Alston"
<<a href="mailto:Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com"
moz-do-not-send="true">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">
<div>
<div id="m_4880714762994644373compose-container"
style="direction:ltr"> <span><span></span></span>
<div>
<div style="direction:ltr">Go right ahead Omo - I did
state that if there was no negotiation a counter
proposal would be coming - 100 percent I did -
because we believed all along on the repeal.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div style="direction:ltr">That reach out to you was
an effort to prevent that - but you rejected it.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div style="direction:ltr">But if we want to start
sharing other skype logs - maybe I should also
respond with the rest of the logs with your
co-authors - happy to oblige on that as well - let
me know if you wish to play that game - I would
rather not - but it’s up to you.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div style="direction:ltr">The fact is - an attempt
was made to reach out - and it was openly and
transparently stated that if a compromise could not
be met - a counter proposal would be coming - I
stand by that and always will</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div style="direction:ltr">Andrew</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div class="m_4880714762994644373acompli_signature">Get
<a href="https://aka.ms/o0ukef" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">Outlook for iOS</a></div>
</div>
</div>
<hr style="display:inline-block;width:98%">
<div id="m_4880714762994644373divRplyFwdMsg" dir="ltr"><font
style="font-size:11pt" color="#000000" face="Calibri,
sans-serif"><b>From:</b> Omo Oaiya <<a
href="mailto:Omo.Oaiya@wacren.net" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">Omo.Oaiya@wacren.net</a>><br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, January 4, 2018 10:12:51 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Sander Steffann<br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a href="mailto:pdwg-appeal@afrinic.net"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">pdwg-appeal@afrinic.net</a>;
AfriNIC RPD MList.<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [rpd] Appeal against
softlanding-bis declaration of consensus</font>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div>
<div dir="ltr"><br>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On 3 January 2018 at 10:21,
Sander Steffann <span dir="ltr"> <<a
href="mailto:sander@steffann.nl"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">sander@steffann.nl</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px
0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="auto">
<div>Hello rpd and appeals committee,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I am also one of the contributors to the
memorandum sent by Andrew and I fully
support its contents. While my personal
opinions about the policy proposal are not
as strong as those of other opposers, I do
recognise that their objections have not
been addressed and that therefore there can
be no consensus on this proposal.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Building community-wide consensus, or
acknowledging that there is no consensus and
withdrawing, are the cornerstones of our
policy development process. Violations of
that process are a serious danger to the
community. Therefore I support this appeal.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Sincerely,</div>
<div>Sander Steffann</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<div
class="m_4880714762994644373m_3747070920562572155gmail_signature">
<div dir="ltr">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div>The real danger to the community in my
view is cohorts who seek to impose their
wishes on the AfriNIC community by abusing
loopholes in the process in the guise of
upholding its tenets.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>My reasons for responding to this thread:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>#1 - I am explicitly named in the appeal
as refusing to enter into discussions on
competing proposals. </div>
<div>#2 - Reference is also made to a Skype
conversation with the SL-BIS authors in the
appeal document</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"> <span style="white-space:pre-wrap"></span>1)
Some background history behind
AFPUB-2016-V4-001<br>
<blockquote><span style="white-space:pre-wrap"></span>Shortly
after AFPUB-2016-V4-001 came out – a
second proposal was put to the floor to
repeal the current (and now active) soft
landing proposal. This was done after
attempts to communicate with the authors
of AFPUB-2016-V4-001 around the policy
directly failed (sadly these
communications were on Skype and the logs
are long gone – so since this cannot be
proven, it is submitted merely as
unsubstantiated background, however the
publication of the second policy is well
documented fact)<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Well, can I provide substantiated
background? I have these Skype logs. What
they show is that violations of AfriNIC
processes may have been going on for some
time and not always for community interest.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div>On 10th Feb 2016, shortly after the
Softlanding-BIS proposal was announced on
the list, Mr Alston contacted me on Skype
to reach what he termed an "amicable
agreement”. He advised that we needed to
negotiate otherwise he would post a
counterproposal which had 8 authors on the
lists and claimed that neither would pass
as it was very easy to block consensus on
policies. </div>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The rest is in the archives. We have
since seen the various attempts to make good
on this threat to block consensus on
SL-BIS. The proposal ended up being
unnecessarily contentious despite its aim
for the best interests of the whole
community. Failing to block consensus on
the policy, the process which had served
well up till now has become the new AfriNIC
structure to assault.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I had considered these logs private but
as Mr Alston cites them in his appeal, I am
happy to produce.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Best wishes</div>
<div>Omo Oaiya</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
RPD mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" moz-do-not-send="true">RPD@afrinic.net</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.afrinic.net/<wbr>mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
RPD mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net">RPD@afrinic.net</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Mark James ELKINS - Posix Systems - (South) Africa
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:mje@posix.co.za">mje@posix.co.za</a> Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496
For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://ftth.posix.co.za">https://ftth.posix.co.za</a>
</pre>
</body>
</html>