<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>Hi Dabu,</p>
<p>Please forgive me but I'm surprised to see unknown people with
russian freemail suddenly surface on rpd and have strong views. No
offence meant but we need to ensure we have real people
participate in policy development.</p>
<p>I would not want the working group to spend time replying to
sockpuppets so perhaps others know you or could you introduce
yourself?</p>
<p>Regards<br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Honest Ornella GANKPA</pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Le 04/01/2018 à 16:24, Dabu Sifiso a
écrit :<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:560261515079452@web30o.yandex.ru">
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>04.01.2018, 08:00, "Ornella GANKPA"
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:honest1989@gmail.com"><honest1989@gmail.com></a>:</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<p>Hi Mark<br>
<br>
Again this is not true. It is explicitely said in the policy
that any<br>
organization (regardless of its size) can be allocated /18
within a 24<br>
month period during exhaustion phase 1 and /22 during
exhaustion phase<br>
2. Anyone can always get more allocation as long as they
justify 90%<br>
utilization. I fail to see how it prevents growth for anyone.
However it<br>
does ensure good management of our ressources.</p>
</blockquote>
<div> </div>
<div>"it does ensure good management of our ressources."</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Isn't that just what people are debating what is good and
what is bad and cannot agree on it?</div>
<div>If you needs more than a /18 or even a /22 in phase 2 for 24
months, transfers will be your only option once you have
received that /22 or /18 from AFRINIC, is that good management,
maybe?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>We hear of larger and smaller allocations being underutilized
today, like a /12 being very much empty. but some people want
limiting access of AFRINIC IPs in a way that AFRINIC's own IPs
given to AFRINIC for distribution will be underutilized even
when the demand and need is there by bigger networks.</div>
<div>The refusal to see this makes me think!</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Are people trying to force IPv4 transfers to happen in
AFRINIC just to raise prices by limiting access to the IPv4
address space owned by AFRINIC?</div>
<div>Are those the ones who are sitting on those smaller and
larger underutilized allocations?</div>
<div>Creating a premature scarcity to unload what they are sitting
on and do not need at high price to the large ISPs with money
but with no possibility to get more IP address from AFRINIC?</div>
<div>Are those the same people that rejected having one way
transfer into Africa, so that prices and availability could at
least be matched with the current global market?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>If this is true then the people against the changes to
softlanding policy are for the whole of Africa and are acting in
our best interest not against!</div>
<div>I hope the appeal committee shed some light into this.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Maybe all these private Skype conversations will be made
public and make us understand!</div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<p>The policy doesn't punish success. In any case, it encourages
carefully<br>
planned growth</p>
</blockquote>
<div>How?</div>
<div>It encourages CGNAT and IPv4 transfer by not giving AFRINIC
IPv4 that is needed to those who need it.</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<p>Why would anyone disagree with that?</p>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
People did, we didn't listen and believed those saying they were
acting for the good of Africa, we were duped.</div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<p>Is IPv6 not the common sense optionfor any growth plan?</p>
</blockquote>
<div> </div>
<div>It stopped being a realistic alternative in 1999, turned into
a running gag by 2009, and will only be revived once there is no
IPv4 to distribute, could it be happening in 2019, or do we have
to wait until 2029!</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<p><br>
Regards<br>
<br>
Honest Ornella GANKPA<br>
<br>
Le 04/01/2018 à 11:36, Mark Elkins a écrit :</p>
<blockquote> Thus, by extension, the revised policy is generally
harmful to larger<br>
LIR's. They need larger blocks in order to grow, which this
revision<br>
of the policy does not allow. This policy is therefore
discriminatory<br>
against larger (which probably implies more successful)
LIR's. Thus,<br>
the policy harms success (and larger LIR's who need more
space).</blockquote>
<p><br>
---<br>
L'absence de virus dans ce courrier électronique a été
vérifiée par le logiciel antivirus Avast.<br>
<a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.avast.com/antivirus</a><br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<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"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a></p>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br /> <table style="border-top: 1px solid #D3D4DE;">
<tr>
<td style="width: 55px; padding-top: 18px;"><a href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient" target="_blank"><img src="https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif" alt="" width="46" height="29" style="width: 46px; height: 29px;" /></a></td>
<td style="width: 470px; padding-top: 17px; color: #41424e; font-size: 13px; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 18px;">Garanti sans virus. <a href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient" target="_blank" style="color: #4453ea;">www.avast.com</a> </td>
</tr>
</table>
</body>
</html>