[ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for the Africa Portion of the ARIN Region

[Owen DeLong]

> In a message written on Wed, Oct 01, 2003 at 12:28:39PM +0200, Gregory
> Massel wrote:
>> Leo, maybe I'm misreading you, but the impression I get is that you're
>> saying  you're concerned to support "Africa People" because they were
>> not vocal  earlier in the year.
>
> No, that is not the reason at all.  The reason is that I fear they
> are derailing an existing process to get 2002-3 passed.  The fact
> that they were not vocal as an issue by itself has little meaning
> to me, but the fact that they didn't take the time to look that
> there was existing discussion and proposals that would do what they
> want in the process already before introducing their own does concern
> me.
>
Leo,
	That is an unfair characterization.  By the time they were
aware to look, the allocation-specific portions of the proposals on the
table were dead.  That is not their fault.

> I can understand that, as I joined myself not all that long ago.
> However, participating on a mailing list and introducing a policy
> are two different things.  Before you introduce a policy you need
> to do more research and make sure you're not stepping on other toes.
> That seems to have not been done.  Moreover, some people here who
> have indicated they have "participated" (to what degree I don't
> know) in the AfriNIC meetings/proposals are long time list members,
> who clearly didn't step up and point out efforts were already going
> on to fix this problem.
>
Their policy proposal does not step on any toes that were visible
when they opened the door.  It is unfortunate that they were not more
aware of the history of the proposals, but, in their current form, there
is no other proposal that grants allocations of /22s.  Their actions were
reasonable from the context they had to work with.  That having been said,
I think it is too important to get allocations of /22s for all of ARIN to
allow a partial policy to pass to the potential exclusion of an all-ARIN
policy.

>> I have not yet seen a single posting from any one of the "Africa People"
>> rejecting 2002-3, although I have seen quite a number supporting it.
>
> No one has rejected it as bad, a few have refused to support it though,
> prefering their own amendment.
>
Do you not think that this helps make Leo's case about splitting the vote?

>> So if were talking about standing united, then it means we all have to
>> give  and take a bit. The best compromise I've seen to date is that we
>> all stand  united in support of both 2002-3 and 2003-15. This is the
>> only win-win  situation for all that does not involve the excessive
>> delays that amending  either or both policies would introduce.
>
> With both we still have the potential to have split votes.  Thus I
> consider having both (fully supported) is risker than having just one.
> Also, on a side note to the concensus talk, I still have a problem with
> region specific policy, particularly when global policy is also on the
> table.
>
Again, I advocate supporting both policies, but, only if we can amend
2003-15 to be an all-ARIN solution.  (use of the term global is dangerous
because others will be quick to point out we can't affect RIPE/APNIC/LACNIC
policies).  I have an idea on how we might be able to make this work.  I'm
waiting for a reply from an AC member to find out if it is workable within
the ARIN process.  As soon as I hear back, I'll let the list know.

Again, Leo, and others that think as I do that 2003-15 needs to be an
all-ARIN policy, please don't be critical of the AfriNIC people for
proposing it.  It is definitely not their fault they have been late
to the party.  Further, such criticisms or accusations will only serve
to further divide us and create perceptions that we don't understand
their situation.  We need to do all that we can to understand their
position and embrace their support for good policy while encouraging
them to accept it as good policy for ALL of ARIN, not just sub-saharan
Africa.

Owen