<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0cm;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0cm;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-GB" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">I do have to say –<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">When I see the policy authors of a policy that has *<b>supposedly</b>* passed consensus – declaring interpretations that are clearly *<b>not</b>* what the policy says – and I see people interpreting
it against its very clear wording – and the policy authors telling afrinic how to interpret a policy (which is staff’s job) – when an interpretation by the staff has already been given against the *<b>very</b>* clear wording…<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Well – consensus? Really? When people don’t seem to even know what the policy, written in English, says is clear English?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Andrew<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US">From:</span></b><span lang="EN-US"> ALAIN AINA [mailto:aalain@trstech.net]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> 10 January 2018 22:38<br>
<b>To:</b> rpd@afrinic.net<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [rpd] Appeal against softlanding-bis declaration of consensus<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hello,<br>
<br>
> On 5 Jan 2018, at 10:05, Alan Barrett <<a href="mailto:alan.barrett@afrinic.net">alan.barrett@afrinic.net</a>> wrote:<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
>> On 4 Jan 2018, at 15:56, Ornella GANKPA <<a href="mailto:honest1989@gmail.com">honest1989@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>> <br>
>> Anyone can always get more allocation as long as they justify 90%<br>
>> utilization.<br>
> <br>
> That is accurate for the existing soft landing policy <<a href="https://afrinic.net/community/policy-development/2195-consolidated-policy-manual-v11#SoftLanding">https://afrinic.net/community/policy-development/2195-consolidated-policy-manual-v11#SoftLanding</a>>, but it is not
accurate for the soft landing bis proposal <<a href="https://afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposals/2197-ipv4-soft-landing-bis">https://afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposals/2197-ipv4-soft-landing-bis</a>> (which recently ended last
call and was sent to the Board for ratification, and which is the subject of an appeal).<br>
> <br>
> Under the soft landing bis proposal, no organisation will be able to receive more than a /18 of IPv4 space every 24 months during “Exhaustion Phase 1”, or a /22 every 24 months during “Exhaustion Phase 2”, even if they can demonstrate 90% utilisation.<br>
> <br>
<br>
Ornella presentation of the SL-BIS is accurate.<br>
<br>
SL-BIS set not limit on the number of requests a member can make until they reach the maximum allowable size during each exhaustion phase.<br>
<br>
Demonstrating efficient use of previous allocation of at least 90% is one of the allocation criteria for additional allocation.<br>
<br>
See below allowable limits and Allocation criteria.<br>
<br>
Allowable limits<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Allocations criteria<br>
<br>
5.4.5.1 In order to receive IPv4 allocations or assignments during the Exhaustion Phase, the LIR or End User must meet IPv4 allocations or assignment policy requirements (by demonstrating and justifying the need for requested space) and must demonstrate to
have efficiently used at least 90% of all previous allocations or assignments (including those made during both the Pre-Exhaustion and the Exhaustion Phase).<br>
<br>
5.4.5.2 In the case of new LIRs or End Users (those that have no previous allocations or assignments prior to the Exhaustion phase), this requirement does not apply to their first allocation or assignment request.<br>
<br>
<br>
HTH<br>
<br>
—Alain<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
RPD mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net">RPD@afrinic.net</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>