<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
{Warning : you read the 12 pages but you might find this tl;tr}<br>
<br>
Hi all, <br>
<br>
I'm glad to see that this mail complies with the CPM section 3.4.2
(pasted below). I thing it <br>
was possible because the new Chairs have actively worked with the
previous Chairs and with <br>
the Staff (perhaps the Staff should be officially responsibilised
for taking the minutes -as <br>
Secretariat is mentioned- to be reviewed by the Chairs prior to the
publication onlist. <br>
<br>
...also, i know we have new Chairs and the CPM section 3.4.2 is not
clear about the publishing <br>
action. I mean, if the deadline of publication is about the web
site, then due to the public <br>
review we are started, we failed to comply. So if that is the right
interpretation, <br>
we are challenged to improve at least two things : <br>
<br>
+ Secretariat (= Staff) takes the Minutes of the PPM, the Chairs
validate the draft of the <br>
Minutes, then send it (draft of the minutes) to the RPD for a public
review. At end the <br>
Minutes are published to the website (by the Staff) and the URL is
sent onlist (by Chairs). <br>
All that within three weeks.<br>
<br>
+ Add a provision to permit a deadline extension when, for some
reasons (think of the case <br>
of two new Chairs even if not admitted by the CPM) the Chairs
thought that the Minutes <br>
would not be published within three weeks as expected. Actually,
there is no provision <br>
(see CPM section 3.4.2) to extend the publication deadline of the
PPM Minutes. <br>
<br>
<div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border-top:dotted windowtext
3.0pt;border-left:none;border-bottom:dotted windowtext
3.0pt;border-right:none;padding:1.0pt 0cm 1.0pt 0cm"><span
lang="EN-US"></span>CPM section 3.4.2 : «[...]The Chair(s) shall
publish the minutes of proceedings of the Public <br>
Policy Meeting not later than three weeks after the meeting.[...]»</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"> </div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">other comments inline...<br>
<br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Le 7/10/2019 à 9:15 PM, ABDULKARIM
AYOPO OLOYEDE a écrit :<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAES4e9=2fRPqs=hyvYvrBpScOgHHBYYf6oLwkkH+ZvtuNUQ+9w@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">Dear all,
<div>Please find attached the minute of the Policy Development
sessions at the AFRINIC 30 meeting in Kampala. Uganda.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Many thanks to all those who was involved (last & new Chairs and
the Staff Secretariat :-). <br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAES4e9=2fRPqs=hyvYvrBpScOgHHBYYf6oLwkkH+ZvtuNUQ+9w@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>Please feel free to submit your comments on the minute
within the next week. We shall publish the final version after
then. Please send your comments to the mailing list </div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>* Page 0 :</p>
<p>File Name : the name of your file should be something like "Draft
Minutes of the AFRINIC <br>
</p>
<p>30 PPM" but not 31</p>
<p>...as a new active contributor, i found the 12 pages of this
report very instructive, but <br>
</p>
<p>i'm not sure those who are contributing for long time will like
to read a so detailed, <br>
</p>
<p>so precise and longer report. {that is my personal opinion, i may
be wrong}<br>
</p>
<p>In summary my contribution below consists of two folds :</p>
<p>+ Trying to contract the reported author's speaches to have a
brief summary of max 15 <br>
</p>
<p>lines of 80 characters. (considering that for more details we can
go to the Authors slides) <br>
</p>
<p>+ Proposing to <br>
</p>
<p>+ Asking to add a, URL, link to the slides provided by the
authors after each summary.</p>
<p>+ Asking to add a, URL, link to the policy proposal itself.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</p>
<p> </p>
<p>* Page 1 : <br>
</p>
<p>..* may the Staff always act practically as Secretariat for the
PPM</p>
<p>..* i think you should add the following text "Contributors :
[previous Chairs]"<br>
</p>
<p>* Page 2 : <br>
</p>
<p>..* 2.0 : "[...]The community (is) has people from different
backgrounds and cultures[...]"<br>
</p>
<br>
* Page 3 : <br>
<p>..* 3.0 : i suggest a brieffer summary with a URL where to find
the 2019 PIER report : <br>
</p>
<p> <span class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"><a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="https://afrinic.net/ast/pdf/policy/afrinic-pier-2019.pdf"><https://afrinic.net/ast/pdf/policy/afrinic-pier-2019.pdf></a></span></p>
<p><span class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E">...then, you will not be
forced to keep the below lines :<br>
</span></p>
"[...]Highlights from the PIER on ambiguous CPM content:<br>
- CPM section 5.4 (Soft Landing) is assumed to be the default policy
used in this<br>
exhaustion phase of IPv4 space, however, it does not align with some
other sections<br>
of the CPM, such as the 90% utilization in 5.4 to qualify for
additional addresses vs<br>
the 80% utilization in other sections.<br>
- CPM 5.7.1 allows for Inter-RIR transfers of IPv4 space, and does
not cater for other<br>
resources such as ASN and IPv6. It is also not clear about how to
cater for transfers<br>
as a result of mergers and acquisitions.<br>
- The section on Sub-Allocation windows with a 12 months cap on
allowed space to be<br>
sub-allocated does not align with the 8-months cap in the Soft
Landing policy.<br>
- During phase 2 of soft landing, the maximum allowable IPv4 space
to be issued is /22<br>
vs the other sections where /22 is the minimum.[...]"<br>
<br>
<br>
* Pages 3 to 4 : <br>
<p> ..* 4.0 : remove the following text and send the readers to the
slides of the author by providing <br>
a URL.</p>
<p>"[...]- When the ASN assignment policy was originally designed,
the main concern was that<br>
16 bits is a limited address space (RFC1930, section 9).<br>
- This is no longer an issue with 32-bit AS numbers (RFC6793). If
each of the five RIRs<br>
were to assign 100 AS Numbers a day, 365 days a year, it would
take over 20,000<br>
years to deplete the 32-bit space.<br>
- When initial ASN policies were developed, the reliability of
networks was not so<br>
good back then and it made sense that companies needing an ASN be
multihomed.<br>
- Today this is not necessarily a reasonable requirement. Some
networks may require<br>
an ASN while not willing to be multihomed.<br>
- The increased IPv6 deployment has also mandated the need for
companies to<br>
announce their IPv6 space with their own ASN without the need to
be multihomed.<br>
- The author stated that ARIN and LACNIC already have such a
policy in place, and that<br>
an equivalent proposal reached consensus at APNIC47. He also
stated that he will<br>
submit a similar proposal to the RIPE community very soon.[...]"<br>
</p>
..* 5.0 : <span class="tlid-translation translation" lang="en"><span
title="" class="">P</span></span>lease add the link (URL) to the
slides used by the author and the link to the policy <br>
proposal.<br>
<br>
* Pages 4 & 5 : <br>
<p> ..* 5.0 : if we are sure to have the following arguments into
the slides of the author, we <br>
can remove it :</p>
<p>"[...]- At the moment, all the other regions have already in
place a policy proposal for<br>
transfers, and all those have no restrictions.<br>
- With Africa not having sufficient IPv4 resources, limiting the
option for incoming<br>
transfers of IPv4 space makes difficult the opportunity to create
new businesses that<br>
will need IPv4 resources. To make matters worse, phase 2 of
soft-landing will make<br>
the number of resources that organisations within AFRINIC can get
much smaller.<br>
- There is already a market situation where AFRINIC member
organisations are selling<br>
resources illegally and under the table, this policy only makes it
official such that<br>
such transactions are actually reflected officially in the whois
db when they happen.<br>
- Deploying IPv6 now requires some IPv4 space. If there isn’t any
left and no transfer<br>
mechanism to bring some into the continent, IPv6 adoption will
stagnate.[...]"<br>
<span class="tlid-translation translation" lang="en"><span
title="" class=""><br>
P</span></span>lease add the link (URL) to the slides used by
the author and the link to the policy <br>
proposal.<br>
</p>
<br>
* Page 6 : <br>
<p> ..* 6.0 : For simplicity i'll prefer that you replace all your
text by what i propose below :<br>
</p>
<p>"<i>The authors highlight that there is a /12 IPv4 block reserved
from the last /8 for some </i><i><br>
</i><i> </i></p>
<i> </i>
<p><i>unforeseen future uses (see CPM section 5.4.7.1 - soft landing
policy) but the CPM section </i><i><br>
</i> </p>
<i> </i>
<p><i>5.4.7.2 states that the BoD has the exclusive power to define
when and how to use it. </i><i><br>
</i> </p>
<i> </i>
<p><i>They present their policy proposal as a community-driven mean
to prevent the BoD to </i><i><br>
</i> </p>
<i> </i>
<p><i>eventually act without community involvement and consent.
Authors add that the </i><i><br>
</i> </p>
<i> </i>
<p><i>Community, via the PDP, is in better position to define the
future use of the reserved /12 </i><i><br>
</i> </p>
<i> </i>
<p><i>and that is the purpose of their policy proposal.</i></p>
<i> </i>
<p><i>Authors propose that the CPM section 5.4.7.2 be worded like
this : “If the reserved /12 </i><i><br>
</i> </p>
<i> </i>
<p><i>remains unused by the time the remaining available space has
been allocated, the /12 </i><i><br>
</i> </p>
<i> </i>
<p><i>will be returned to the AFRINIC pool for distribution under
the conditions of the phase 2 </i><i><br>
</i> </p>
<i> </i>
<p><i>of the soft landing policy” – hence giving community power to
decide how to use this /12.</i><i><br>
</i> </p>
<i> </i>
<p><i>Authors further pointed out that this policy proposal was
initially presented at Hammamet</i><i><br>
</i><i> in Tunisia but sent back to the mailing list for more
community inputs and refinements.</i><i><br>
</i><i> However, none were received hence it is still the same
version from Hammamet.</i></p>
<i> </i>
<p><i>See more on the slides of the Authors presentation : [URL]</i>"</p>
<p><span class="tlid-translation translation" lang="en"><span
title="" class="">P</span></span>lease add also the link to
the policy proposal itself.</p>
<p> ..* 7.0 : <span class="tlid-translation translation" lang="en"><span
title="" class="">P</span></span>lease add the link (URL) to
the slides used by the author and the link to the policy <br>
proposal. </p>
<br>
* Page 7 : <br>
..* 8.0 : i would prefer a of 15 lines max summary but it's just my
personal opinion.<br>
<span class="tlid-translation translation" lang="en"><span title=""
class="">P</span></span>lease add the link (URL) to the slides
used by the author and the link to the policy <br>
proposal.<br>
<br>
<br>
* Page 8 : <br>
.* 9.0 : This is a good case of a ten (10) lines summary. <br>
<span class="tlid-translation translation" lang="en"><span title=""
class="">P</span></span>lease add the link (URL) to the slides
used by the author and the link to the policy <br>
proposal.<br>
<br>
<br>
* Page 9 : <br>
..* 10.0 : I see this one as a more straight forward summary. Even
if it is more than 15 lines. <br>
Please also add the link (URL) to the slides of the author's
presentation.<br>
<br>
<br>
* <u>Page 10</u> : <br>
..* 11.0 : a <span class="tlid-translation translation" lang="en"><span
title="" class="">max of 15 lines (summary of the authors
arguments) should be also consider here.<br>
</span></span><span class="tlid-translation translation" lang="en"><span
title="" class="">P</span></span>lease add the link (URL) to the
slides used by the author and the link to the policy <br>
proposal.<br>
<br>
<br>
* <u>Page 11</u> :<span class="tlid-translation translation"
lang="en"><span title="" class=""></span></span><br>
..* 12.0 : <span class="tlid-translation translation" lang="en"><span
title="" class="">The Minutes must also *<b>mention the incident
that occurred when candidates had <br>
the floor* </b>to try to convince the electorate.</span></span>
Remember that a question was discussed twice <br>
and ended by a vote... In fact, we have had the contribution (CPM
section 3.4.0) of the Legal <br>
Advisor ; but its usefulness was disputed by someones. <br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAES4e9=2fRPqs=hyvYvrBpScOgHHBYYf6oLwkkH+ZvtuNUQ+9w@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>or to <font color="#0000ff"><a
href="mailto:pdwg@afrinic.net" moz-do-not-send="true">pdwg@afrinic.net</a>
.</font></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>We did not revive any comment or opposition to the policies
on the last call. Hence, we shall be recommending those
policies to the AFRINIC Board for approval as consensus has
now been reached on them. <br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Chairs, IMHO i think it is not needed to add this in this mail ;
because someones might be <br>
unnecessarily frustrated. <br>
...in fact, nothing (out of the nettiquette) clearly prohibits that
practice (unless you are <br>
Varying the Process here) :-) <br>
So i think we should accept it and take what is useful for this
thread.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAES4e9=2fRPqs=hyvYvrBpScOgHHBYYf6oLwkkH+ZvtuNUQ+9w@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>Finally, we shall be fixing a date within the next week for
our teleconference. If anyone has a preference for a time slot
or day, please communicate this to us (via the mailing list or
the above email), and we would try to consider them before
proposing a day and time.</div>
<div>Please note, the teleconference is for authors of proposed
policies to come and explain their policies to the community
and take back feedbacks. We SHALL NOT be seeking consensus
during the teleconference.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Thanks for this very usefull initiative Abdulkarim & Moses. <br>
Please send a separate mail, with a different subject like :
"Updates about the monthly <br>
teleconference policy show program."<br>
...like that you will be focus and you shall have less *useless*
(scope-ly speaking) comments <br>
about the review of the *subject* of this mail.<br>
<br>
Shalom,<br>
--sb.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAES4e9=2fRPqs=hyvYvrBpScOgHHBYYf6oLwkkH+ZvtuNUQ+9w@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div>Abdulkarim Oloyede</div>
<div>Co-Chair PDWG</div>
[...]</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Regards,
Sylvain B.
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://www.chretiennement.org"><http://www.chretiennement.org></a>
__
Website : <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="https://www.cmnog.cm"><https://www.cmnog.cm></a>
Wiki : <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="https://www.cmnog.cm/dokuwiki"><https://www.cmnog.cm/dokuwiki></a>
</pre>
</body>
</html>