<div><div dir="auto">As the process stands that require another meeting - but I’m ok with the idea.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">The biggest issue that I see is that the biggest point of contention is around the premise of the policy itself.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">There is fundamental disagreement between those that oppose and those that support about if address space should be rationed at all - hence the alternative proposal that was withdrawn at community request that wanted to revoke even the current soft landing.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Hence - i am far from convinced that resolution can be found here - and am still of the opinion that the compromise position is the current policy - and that’s ok - I just see a total lack of willingness to compromise on the part of the proposers.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Andrew </div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div>On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 6:48 PM, Lee Howard <<a href="mailto:lee.howard@retevia.net">lee.howard@retevia.net</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
  
    
  
  <div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
    <p>Maybe the co-chairs could use the discussion at the meeting to
      list the issues that need to be addressed. Then each of those
      issues could be addressed independently, either on the list or
      with changes to the proposed policy. After all of them have been
      addressed, there can be another call for consensus. I don't know
      whether that call would require another meeting, or be another
      Last Call.</p></div><div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
    <p>Lee<br>
    </p></div><div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
    <div class="m_-3937213373707566174moz-cite-prefix">On 04/29/2018 06:37 AM, Komi Elitcha
      wrote:<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote type="cite">
      <div>
        <div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Daniel,</div>
        <div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Please, find few
          comments below.</div>
        <div class="gmail_extra"><br>
          <div class="gmail_quote">2018-04-28 21:27 GMT+00:00 Daniel
            Yakmut <span><<a href="mailto:yakmutd@googlemail.com" target="_blank">yakmutd@googlemail.com</a>></span>:<br>
            <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><br>
              The argument and discussion on this policy will continue
              to go back and forth,</blockquote>
            <div><br>
            </div>
            <div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">​Intentionally? The
              question is worth asking?</div>
            <div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">​</div>
            <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"> as i see a dangerous
              trend of members standing at very sharp and deep divides.
              The proponents and those opposed to the policy are not
              ready to shift grounds,</blockquote>
            <div>
              <div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">​</div>
              <div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">We've gone a long
                way through this policy[1]. </div>
              <div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">​</div>
            </div>
            <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"> in this regard can we
              answer the following:<br>
              <br>
              1. Is there in any form, an agreement that the community
              needs a policy of this nature?<br>
            </blockquote>
            <div><br>
            </div>
            <div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">​Considering that
              the said policy has reached "Last call". I'd answer yes.</div>
            <div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">​</div>
            <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
              2. If we agree that the policy is required, then what are
              the issues?<br>
            </blockquote>
            <div><br>
            </div>
            <div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">​I find a clue for
              this here[2]</div>
            <div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">​</div>
            <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
              3. If the policy is not required, then it should just be
              buried  and we make progress on more productive issues.<br>
            </blockquote>
            <div><br>
            </div>
            <div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">​Archives should
              tell about the interest or lack of interest the community
              on the SL-BIS​</div>
            <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
              <br>
              However if we answer is Yes to No. 1. Then i will suggest
              that we do a clause by clause discussion and come to some
              consensus,</blockquote>
            <div><br>
            </div>
            <div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">​Co-chairs have
              already declared "consensus". Does it make your suggestion
              obsolete?</div>
            <div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">​</div>
            <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"> any clause agreed upon
              will form part of the policy. Though tedious but that way,
              we can identify the "offensive" clause(s) and agree or
              discard it.<br>
              <br>
              But if we think the policy is not required, just bury it
              and move on.<br>
              <br>
              It is important we quickly turn our attention to policies
              that will fast track the deployment of IPV6, as we are
              overstretching the discussion on IPV4.<br>
            </blockquote>
            <div><br>
            </div>
            <div class="gmail_default"><span style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">​</span><font face="verdana, sans-serif">Assuming the problem
                statement, here is what 2.0 says.</font></div>
            <div class="gmail_default"><font face="verdana, sans-serif">{</font></div>
            <div class="gmail_default"><font face="verdana, sans-serif">This
                policy proposal solves the problem described above by:</font></div>
            <div class="gmail_default"><font face="verdana, sans-serif"><br>
              </font></div>
            <div class="gmail_default"><font face="verdana, sans-serif"><span style="white-space:pre-wrap">     </span>Changing
                the value of the maximum allocations/assignment sizes
                during exhaustion phases 1 and 2.</font></div>
            <div class="gmail_default"><font face="verdana, sans-serif"><span style="white-space:pre-wrap">     </span>Reserving
                a dedicated block to facilitate IPv6 deployment. </font></div>
            <div class="gmail_default"><font face="verdana, sans-serif">}</font></div>
            <div class="gmail_default"><font face="verdana, sans-serif">So
                IPv6 deployment is covered.</font></div>
            <div class="gmail_default"><font face="verdana, sans-serif">Hoping
                this helps.</font></div>
            <div class="gmail_default"><font face="verdana, sans-serif">Thanks.</font></div>
            <div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">​</div>
            <div class="gmail_default">
              <div class="gmail_default"><font face="verdana,
                  sans-serif"><br>
                </font></div>
              <div class="gmail_default"><font face="verdana,
                  sans-serif">[1] <a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2017/007909.html" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2017/007909.html</a></font></div>
              <div class="gmail_default"><font face="verdana,
                  sans-serif">[2] <a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2018/008217.html" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2018/008217.html</a></font></div>
              <div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br>
              </div>
            </div>
            <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
              <br>
              Regards,<br>
              Daniel <br>
              <div class="m_-3937213373707566174gmail-HOEnZb">
                <div class="m_-3937213373707566174gmail-h5"><br>
                  <br>
                  ----- Original Message -----<br>
                  From: "ALAIN AINA" <<a href="mailto:aalain@trstech.net" target="_blank">aalain@trstech.net</a>><br>
                  To: <a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net" target="_blank">rpd@afrinic.net</a><br>
                  Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2018 12:55:36 PM<br>
                  Subject: Re: [rpd] IPv4 Soft Landing BIS<br>
                  <br>
                  hello,<br>
                  <br>
                  <br>
                  > On 28 Apr 2018, at 01:48, Owen DeLong <<a href="mailto:owen@delong.com" target="_blank">owen@delong.com</a>>
                  wrote:<br>
                  > <br>
                  > There are a number of problems with this:<br>
                  > <br>
                  > 1.    History shows that forcing people to accept
                  IPv6 addresses in order to obtain<br>
                  >       more IPv4 addresses doesn’t actually help
                  deploy IPv6, it just makes a mess of<br>
                  >       the registry and registry related
                  statistics.<br>
                  > <br>
                  <br>
                  > 2.    Please explain how one goes about
                  determining equivalence between an IPv4
                  allocation/assignment<br>
                  >       and an IPv6 allocation or assignment. Is a
                  v6 /64 more like a v4 /32 or a v4 /24? Answer: it
                  depends.<br>
                  >       Is a /48 more like a /24 or something
                  larger? Answer: it depends.<br>
                  > <br>
                  >       IPv4 and IPv6 are so very different in
                  terms of address size and allocation boundaries that
                  there<br>
                  >       simply isn’t a good way to define
                  equivalence. That’s a good thing, but it means that
                  what you are<br>
                  >       proposing simply doesn’t work very well (if
                  at all).<br>
                  > <br>
                  > Besides, can’t we just kill this proposal? How
                  many times does the community need to reject it before
                  the authors will recognize that it is not wanted?<br>
                  <br>
                  Oy yes “community”<br>
                  <br>
                  The proposal  got  consensus and was  recommended for
                  ratification by BoD. There has been an appeal against
                  co-chair decision. The Appeal committee decision to
                  nullify the cochairs decision was baseless and has
                  been challenged.<br>
                  <br>
                  lets discuss this in Dakar.<br>
                  <br>
                  —Alain<br>
                  > <br>
                  > Owen<br>
                  > <br>
                  > <br>
                  >> On Apr 27, 2018, at 16:10 , Paschal Ochang
                  <<a href="mailto:pascosoft@gmail.com" target="_blank">pascosoft@gmail.com</a>>
                  wrote:<br>
                  >> <br>
                  >> Is it possible to add a clause under 5.4.5
                  allocation criteria whereby any member requesting for
                  ipv4 addresses must also request for a quota of ipv6
                  as well. Therefore ipv4 addresses cannot be requested
                  without requesting for an equivalent quota of ipv6 and
                  further request can be made when deployment of the
                  allocated ipv6 block has been ascertained.
                  _______________________________________________<br>
                  >> RPD mailing list<br>
                  >> <a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" target="_blank">RPD@afrinic.net</a><br>
                  >> <a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><br>
                  > <br>
                  > <br>
                  > _______________________________________________<br>
                  > RPD mailing list<br>
                  > <a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" target="_blank">RPD@afrinic.net</a><br>
                  > <a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><br>
                  <br>
                  <br>
                  _______________________________________________<br>
                  RPD mailing list<br>
                  <a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" target="_blank">RPD@afrinic.net</a><br>
                  <a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><br>
                  <br>
                  _______________________________________________<br>
                  RPD mailing list<br>
                  <a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" target="_blank">RPD@afrinic.net</a><br>
                  <a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><br>
                </div>
              </div>
            </blockquote>
          </div>
          <br>
          <br clear="all">
          <div><br>
          </div>
          -- <br>
          <div class="m_-3937213373707566174gmail_signature">
            <div>
              <div>
                <div>
                  <div>
                    <div>
                      <div>
                        <div>
                          <div>
                            <div>
                              <div>
                                <div>
                                  <div>
                                    <div>
                                      <div><font color="#073763" face="arial, helvetica,
                                          sans-serif">--</font><font color="#073763" face="verdana,
                                          sans-serif">KE</font></div>
                                      <div><span><br>
                                          <br>
                                        </span></div>
                                    </div>
                                  </div>
                                </div>
                              </div>
                            </div>
                          </div>
                        </div>
                      </div>
                    </div>
                  </div>
                </div>
              </div>
            </div>
          </div>
        </div>
      </div>
      <br>
      <fieldset class="m_-3937213373707566174mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
      <br>
      <pre>_______________________________________________
RPD mailing list
<a class="m_-3937213373707566174moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" target="_blank">RPD@afrinic.net</a>
<a class="m_-3937213373707566174moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a>
</pre>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
  </div>

_______________________________________________<br>
RPD mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" target="_blank">RPD@afrinic.net</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><br>
</blockquote></div></div>