<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:Helvetica;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
@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:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",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:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.apple-tab-span
{mso-style-name:apple-tab-span;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle22
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;
font-weight:normal;
font-style:normal;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
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-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Dear Saul,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>What conflict of interest? Almost every policy author has an interest in the policy they are authoring, often that’s the impetus for the policy.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Almost every author and AFRINIC member stands to profit through their use of IPv4 addresses acquired from AFRINIC.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>As an (open) broker, I have successfully authored policy in ARIN and LACNIC which tended to open up the IPv4 market. Is it your opinion that my policymaking ability be curtailed due to “conflict of interest?”<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>No, the interests of the author should not be considered, but the author’s arguments should be considered outside anybody’s feelings about the author’s motivations, location, or language. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Are we to examine the motivations of every policy author? Can you see how that would devolve even lower than the current state? Maybe Liquid Telecom will benefit from one policy and an IP broker from another. That should not concern us. What should concern us is whether the policy is supported by sound arguments regardless of the source of those arguments.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>There is a reason why ad hominem is not used in policymaking discussions. It would be well for this community to understand why that is. Sure it’s human nature to take into account a person’s motivations, but we have to rise above base human responses to logically and dispassionately evaluate the arguments, not the persons.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Also, I doubt there is any way to forcibly remove a policy due to “conflict of interest.” Saul, do you want to grant to somebody at AFRINIC the ability to cull policies deemed authored by a conflicted author?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Finally I concur that it’s best to be open about your role to avoid inviting these kinds of disputes.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Regards,<br>Mike Burns<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> Saul Stein [mailto:saul@enetworks.co.za] <br><b>Sent:</b> Friday, June 08, 2018 1:55 AM<br><b>To:</b> ALAIN AINA <aalain@trstech.net>; rpd@afrinic.net<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [rpd] Questions for Alain...<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-ZA style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Chairs, <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-ZA style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-ZA style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>It has been more than 24hours since my last request.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-ZA style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Alain has not withdrawn this policy. He has acknowledged that he wasn’t a broker at the time of compilation of the policy, but now is and a clear conflict arises.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-ZA style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-ZA style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Please can this policy be removed due to conflict of interest.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-ZA style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> ALAIN AINA [<a href="mailto:aalain@trstech.net">mailto:aalain@trstech.net</a>] <br><b>Sent:</b> 07 June 2018 07:43 PM<br><b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net">rpd@afrinic.net</a><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [rpd] Questions for Alain...<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-ZA><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-ZA>Owen,<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-ZA><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-ZA>I did not know in 2016 that I will be associated to an ip broker project. I am sorry that my "African magic" was not sufficient to predict this future.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-ZA><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-ZA>The intra-RIR policy was adopted by the community and implemented by AFRINIC. Hence, one would expect Brokers to emerge on the continent.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-ZA><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-ZA>Let me repeat:<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-ZA><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-ZA>The original proposal of SL-bis did not contain any limitation beyond the change on the max allocation size in phase 1. <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-ZA><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-ZA>The revision history of the proposal is very explicit on the changes. The limitations proposed by Sl-SD team were incorporated into the SL-BIS after the Nairobi meeting based on discussions at the PPM and on list after the PPM. PPM minutes and RPD archives are available to prove that. <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-ZA><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-ZA>Policy proposals evolve beyond the control of the initiators. <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-ZA><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-ZA>So, let us not redo the SL-bis discussions on the same issues again, and let us move forward.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-ZA><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-ZA>Thanks<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-ZA><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-ZA>—Alain<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span lang=EN-ZA><o:p> </o:p></span></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-ZA>On 6 Jun 2018, at 18:48, Owen DeLong <<a href="mailto:owen@delong.com">owen@delong.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-ZA><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-ZA><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span lang=EN-ZA><o:p> </o:p></span></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-ZA>On Jun 6, 2018, at 06:34 , ALAIN AINA <<a href="mailto:aalain@trstech.net">aalain@trstech.net</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-ZA><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-ZA><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-ZA>Hi Andrew,<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-ZA><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-ZA>I know that the SL-BIS policy proposal still giving you insomnia, but relax.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-ZA><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-ZA>It is bizarre that i co-authored the SL-bis since February 2016 and the Intra-RIR v4 transfer proposal, the 23rd may 2016 and you did not see the so-called conflict.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-ZA><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-ZA>Considering that it was not known at that time that you intended to be a broker (at least not to Andrew, nor myself), why is it bizarre?<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-ZA><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-ZA>Both elements must be known in order to become aware of the conflict.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span lang=EN-ZA><o:p> </o:p></span></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-ZA>Now back to your point, i don't see how the SL-bis proposal submitted in February 2016 creates a v4 shortage. It was about "fair distribution of the last /8 of v4 and IPv6 deployment”:<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-ZA><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-ZA>Laughable.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-ZA><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-ZA>It was about preventing those who need address space now from getting it (i.e. an artificial shortage) in order to have some available for those who do not yet need it but might in the future.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-ZA><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-ZA>It has nothing to do with fairness. It’s ostensibly all about keeping a free pool available as long as possible for speculative possible future needs. The only way you can achieve that is by creating an artificial shortage (or, more accurately, artificially worsening the existing shortage) for those that need address space now.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span lang=EN-ZA><o:p> </o:p></span></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-ZA><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-ZA>How does it solve the problem [<a href="https://afrinic.net/en/library/policies/archive/1609-soft-landing-bis">https://afrinic.net/en/library/policies/archive/1609-soft-landing-bis</a>]<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-ZA>========<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-ZA>2) Summary of How this Proposal Addresses the Problem<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-ZA>This policy proposal solves the problem described above by:<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-ZA><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-ZA>Changing the value of the maximum allocation/assignment size during the exhaustion phase 1.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-ZA>Imposing IPv6 resources as a pre-condition to IPv4 resource requests during the exhaustion.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-ZA>Reserving address spaces for Critical Internet Infrastructure and new LIRs or End-Users.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-ZA>Removing the minimum allocation size as this may evolve over time during the exhaustion period.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-ZA><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-ZA>You left out the part where you create a maximum amount of space per unit of time restriction on applicants.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-ZA><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-ZA>That provision (which is part of the policy) is the most controversial and also the most critical to the real intents behind the proposal (denying space to those who need it now to support the ostensible goal of providing it to others later).<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-ZA><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-ZA>There are those that argue that such a denial is “fair” and there are those who argue that it is completely unfair.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-ZA><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span lang=EN-ZA><o:p> </o:p></span></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-ZA>=====<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-ZA><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-ZA>and the proposal itself is clear:<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-ZA><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-ZA>-No explicit limit on the number of times an organization may request additional IPv4 address space during Exhaustion Phases(same as the soft landing policy implemented)<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-ZA><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-ZA>Except that there is… There’s a limit on the amount of space an organization may receive within a given time period which is effectively the same thing.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span lang=EN-ZA><o:p> </o:p></span></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-ZA><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=EN-ZA>We all know how it evolved and how the SL-SD(*) proposal came in and impacted the original proposal.</span></b><span lang=EN-ZA><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-ZA><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-ZA>The Intra-RiR proposal was meant to address justified needs after exhaustion of Afrinic pool or when AFRINIC cant no longer satisfied such needs. It reached consensus (there was no appeal filled against) and has been implemented.. [<a href="https://www.afrinic.net/en/library/policies/archive/1785-ipv4-resources-transfer-within-the-afrinic-region">https://www.afrinic.net/en/library/policies/archive/1785-ipv4-resources-transfer-within-the-afrinic-region</a>]<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-ZA><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-ZA>====<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-ZA>2) Summary of How this Proposal Addresses the Problem<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-ZA>The Policy solves the issue of an African organisation needing IPv4 number resources after the exhaustion of the AFRINIC IPv4 pool or when AFRINIC can no longer satisfy the needs of such an organization.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-ZA>=======<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-ZA><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-ZA>So, overall fair distribution from the last /8 and other remaining blocks and provisions to cover justified needs inside the region after AFRINIC pool exhaustion. <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-ZA><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-ZA>Where is this problem ? <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-ZA><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-ZA>You were accused with your proposal of soft-landing-overhaul(**) to fast track the exhaustion of the AFRINIC pool(distribute the last /8 with the max allocation size at /10 instead of the /13 as per current soft landing policy or /15 proposed by SL-bis proposal ) and i should have followed you if i was acting to promote a v4 market.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-ZA><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-ZA>Actually, not really. Preserving effective shortage against large providers while still facilitating small providers obtaining sufficient IPv4 to be able to avoid IPv6 provides the maximum revenue opportunity for brokers while also being maximally destructive to the progress of a free and open internet. SL-BIS does exactly this.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-ZA><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-ZA>Fast tracking run-out, OTOH, brings AfriNIC in line with the rest of the world and helps get everyone moving towards IPV6 sooner rather than later, thus allowing those who have implemented IPv6 to deprecate their IPv4 albatrosses sooner rather than later, thus allowing the entire internet to move forward sooner rather than later.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-ZA><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-ZA>True, it hurts the following parties:<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span class=apple-tab-span><span lang=EN-ZA> </span></span><span lang=EN-ZA>CGN vendors because it reduces demand for costly CGN solutions<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span class=apple-tab-span><span lang=EN-ZA> </span></span><span lang=EN-ZA>Those in denial about IPv6 because it forces them into an uncomfortable reality check.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span class=apple-tab-span><span lang=EN-ZA> </span></span><span lang=EN-ZA>Brokers because it reduces the peak value and lifetime of the IPv4 marketplace<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span class=apple-tab-span><span lang=EN-ZA> </span></span><span lang=EN-ZA>Those sitting on large unused IPv4 pools for the same reasons as brokers.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span class=apple-tab-span><span lang=EN-ZA> </span></span><span lang=EN-ZA>Those late to the party who still think they can pursue an IPv4-only strategy for a new business.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span class=apple-tab-span><span lang=EN-ZA> </span></span><span lang=EN-ZA>Those late to the party who find it expensive to support remaining IPv4-only customers.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-ZA><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-ZA>However, it would be better for the internet overall and would create a greater level of pain for a much shorter period of time vs. SL-BIS which seeks to intensify the pain more gradually while prolonging the duration of that pain and achieving a much higher maximum.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-ZA><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-ZA>If you believe that SL-BIS actually provides fair distribution or otherwise solves the IPv4 runout problem, then you are like the mythological frog in the pot of water.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-ZA><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-ZA>The myth says that if you toss a frog in to a pot of hot water, it will jump out and save itself. It goes on to say that if you put the frog in a pot of cold water and slowly bring it to a boil, the frog will not notice and will be boiled to death without reacting.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-ZA><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-ZA>Turns out that frogs are smarter than the myth would have us believe and do leave when the temperature becomes uncomfortable, regardless of how slowly the temperature rises.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-ZA><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-ZA>IPv4 runout is like the water. The rise in temperature is inevitable. SL-BIS will make the rise in temperature slower, and its supporters hope we won’t notice and will continue to sit in the water as we get scalded. SL-SD would rapidly heat the water and provide a clear signal that it would be best for us all to get out of the IPv4 pot and use IPv6.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-ZA><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-ZA>Hope this clarifies and helps the discussions.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-ZA><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-ZA>While it is a nice set of obfuscations, I think the community will still see through the deception and continue to oppose SL-BIS as it has been doing for a few years now.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-ZA><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-ZA>Owen<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span lang=EN-ZA><o:p> </o:p></span></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-ZA><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-ZA><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-ZA>(*) <a href="https://afrinic.net/en/library/policies/archive/withdrawn-proposals/2089-soft-landing-sd">https://afrinic.net/en/library/policies/archive/withdrawn-proposals/2089-soft-landing-sd</a><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-ZA>(**) <a href="https://afrinic.net/en/library/policies/archive/withdrawn-proposals/1623-soft-landing-overhaul">https://afrinic.net/en/library/policies/archive/withdrawn-proposals/1623-soft-landing-overhaul</a><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-ZA><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-ZA>—Alain<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-ZA><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span lang=EN-ZA><o:p> </o:p></span></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-ZA>On 5 Jun 2018, at 10:29, Andrew Alston <<a href="mailto:Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com">Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-ZA><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-ZA style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Alain,<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-ZA style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-ZA style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>You have actively supported and fought for the new soft landing policy – to artificially restrict space to entities that need it. <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-ZA style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-ZA style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Now, I’d like to ask – as an author of the soft-landing-bis policy which you have STILL not withdrawn… aren’t you just a LITTLE bit conflicted in trying to create an artificial shortage and make it hard for people to get space – while starting and founding an IP broker in Africa?<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-ZA style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-ZA style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Maybe now we understand the *<b>true</b>* motivations behind the soft landing bis policy….<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-ZA style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-ZA style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><a href="http://ext-host.trstech.net/ipregistrar/trust_us.html"><span style='color:#954F72'>http://ext-host.trstech.net/ipregistrar/trust_us.html</span></a><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-ZA style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-ZA style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Andrew<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-ZA style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-ZA style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'>_______________________________________________<br>RPD mailing list<br></span><span lang=EN-ZA><a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net"><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#954F72'>RPD@afrinic.net</span></a></span><span lang=EN-ZA style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'><br></span><span lang=EN-ZA><a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd"><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#954F72'>https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</span></a><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></blockquote></div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-ZA><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-ZA>_______________________________________________<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></span></p></div></blockquote></div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-ZA><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div></div></blockquote></div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-ZA><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div></body></html>