<div dir="auto"><span style="font-family:sans-serif;font-size:12.8px">I agree with Paul , the problems of this proposal are glaring, if the contents are found in existing policies there definitely no need for additional policy.</span><div dir="auto"><span style="font-family:sans-serif;font-size:12.8px">Lets further explain terms that are vague for better apprehension which will aid sound use of resources and birth efficient users.</span><br></div><div dir="auto"><span style="font-family:sans-serif;font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div><div dir="auto"><span style="font-family:sans-serif;font-size:12.8px">Francis S. Ahile</span></div><div dir="auto"><span style="font-family:sans-serif;font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr">On Sun, May 12, 2019, 13:00 <<a href="mailto:rpd-request@afrinic.net">rpd-request@afrinic.net</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Send RPD mailing list submissions to<br>
<a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">rpd@afrinic.net</a><br>
<br>
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit<br>
<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><br>
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to<br>
<a href="mailto:rpd-request@afrinic.net" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">rpd-request@afrinic.net</a><br>
<br>
You can reach the person managing the list at<br>
<a href="mailto:rpd-owner@afrinic.net" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">rpd-owner@afrinic.net</a><br>
<br>
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific<br>
than "Re: Contents of RPD digest..."<br>
<br>
<br>
Today's Topics:<br>
<br>
1. RPD : Prolicy proposal "Internet Number Resources review by<br>
AFRINIC" informations update (Paul Lam)<br>
2. Re: RPD : Policy proposal "Internet Number Resources review<br>
by AFRINIC" informations update (Big Jayz)<br>
<br>
<br>
----------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 1<br>
Date: Sat, 11 May 2019 21:45:05 +0700<br>
From: Paul Lam <<a href="mailto:thisispaullam@gmail.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">thisispaullam@gmail.com</a>><br>
To: "<a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">rpd@afrinic.net</a>" <<a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">rpd@afrinic.net</a>><br>
Subject: [rpd] RPD : Prolicy proposal "Internet Number Resources<br>
review by AFRINIC" informations update<br>
Message-ID:<br>
<CADZR81=TO-x-rYWLpu9=R=<a href="mailto:ZkySN8aVUkcOumQEEaDUq1zHxQEw@mail.gmail.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">ZkySN8aVUkcOumQEEaDUq1zHxQEw@mail.gmail.com</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"<br>
<br>
Hi<br>
<br>
Many of you have already stated the problems of this proposal. I think this<br>
proposal is in fact quite unnecessary - we can find most of the content in<br>
existing policies and the RSA already. What?s the point of having an<br>
additional policy when most things are there already?<br>
<br>
Additionally, most of the terms are not explained clearly. What is<br>
?regular?? (Monthly, quarterly, annually)? What?s the duration of each<br>
review?<br>
<br>
And does the review really guarantee a better use of resource? What if it?s<br>
just passed from one inefficient user to the other?<br>
<br>
Fairly speaking, this proposal seems to me a mere waste of time and money.<br>
<br>
Paul<br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
URL: <<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20190511/ee21d50d/attachment-0001.html" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20190511/ee21d50d/attachment-0001.html</a>><br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 2<br>
Date: Sun, 12 May 2019 02:18:10 +0100<br>
From: Big Jayz <<a href="mailto:jjamesonuh@gmail.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">jjamesonuh@gmail.com</a>><br>
To: Melvin Cheng <<a href="mailto:melvinc0730@gmail.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">melvinc0730@gmail.com</a>><br>
Cc: <a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">rpd@afrinic.net</a><br>
Subject: Re: [rpd] RPD : Policy proposal "Internet Number Resources<br>
review by AFRINIC" informations update<br>
Message-ID:<br>
<CABZOdDoY4Bp7G50ZKoRjLG8PN8+7ahvpM+RG=<a href="mailto:DDzhXvxbeVjNg@mail.gmail.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">DDzhXvxbeVjNg@mail.gmail.com</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"<br>
<br>
If end-users will lose their connectivity to the internet during a switch<br>
process from one ISP to another due to inefficient utilization of<br>
resources, then I think the authors of this proposal should go back and<br>
review the draft. At the end, all discussions on this platform is geared<br>
towards making the internet affordable and accessible within the region.<br>
<br>
On Sat, May 11, 2019, 10:17 Melvin Cheng <<a href="mailto:melvinc0730@gmail.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">melvinc0730@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
> Hi<br>
><br>
> The debate over this policy has been for ages. I really think that if an<br>
> issue has been discussed over and over again, there must be something<br>
> fundamentally wrong about it. It?s quite obvious that this proposal draws<br>
> way more controversy than the others - its own existence in a way seems to<br>
> be a source of extreme disputes among the community, as we have seen in<br>
> Tunisia. I was in fact there myself.<br>
><br>
> This policy has a lot of problems. Intrinsically, as a policy itself, it<br>
> is not well defined. A lot of terms remain unclear. For example, as Owen<br>
> has also pointed out earlier, the term ?annual meaningful report? is an<br>
> ambiguous term. What is a ?meaningful? report? To whom? What are the<br>
> factors? How is ?meaningful? defined? 100 people can have 100 definitions<br>
> of ?meaningful?. If the report is deemed as something crucial to this<br>
> proposal, then the author shall better define and address it. Honestly<br>
> speaking, although this proposal has been ?re-proposed? over and over, I do<br>
> not see any improvements in it. More precisely, I barely see any changes<br>
> made in the new proposal when comparing to the previous one. I would expect<br>
> the authors to make some adjustments when so many issues have not been<br>
> addressed in previous meetings before they posted them again, even just as<br>
> gesture of their sincerity. You can?t just post something that?s almost<br>
> identical by pretending your audience were blind.<br>
><br>
> On the other hand, this policy is not realistic at all. Afrinic does not<br>
> have the financial power to conduct such a big quantity of reviews within<br>
> its regions. It?s quiet easy to imagine that because of this lack of<br>
> financial backup, reviews are done unfairly and unjustly. For example, some<br>
> users are screened while the others are not because Afrinic runs out of<br>
> money during the process of review. This may, at the worst, can lead to<br>
> Afrinic?s bankruptcy, which I am sure none of us would wish that to happen.<br>
><br>
> The other is the potential of end-users being disconnected due to the<br>
> review. I think we have to bear in mind that, end-users have no clue about<br>
> the review. However, according to this proposal, if an ISP is found to have<br>
> violated the rule (ie, inefficient utilisation of resources), their IPs<br>
> will be taken back by Afrinic and re-allocate to others. End-user will lost<br>
> connectivity to the Internet during this process even they have no idea<br>
> what is going on. This is unfair to them. After all, connectivity to the<br>
> Internet shall come as the priority over any other things. What this policy<br>
> will bring is quiet the opposite.<br>
><br>
> Having said so much, I think my stand is quite clear. This proposal is not<br>
> well drafted and the authors haven?t well considered its potential<br>
> problems. It?s impractical when considering Afrinic?s current situation.<br>
><br>
> Let?s not forget about this. if something has been doubted by people over<br>
> and over again, there must be something wrong about it.<br>
><br>
> Cheers<br>
> Melvin<br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> RPD mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">RPD@afrinic.net</a><br>
> <a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><br>
><br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
URL: <<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20190512/b5f4779e/attachment-0001.html" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20190512/b5f4779e/attachment-0001.html</a>><br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Subject: Digest Footer<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
RPD mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">RPD@afrinic.net</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><br>
<br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
End of RPD Digest, Vol 152, Issue 8<br>
***********************************<br>
</blockquote></div>