AFRINIC Board statement on resource allocation — 25 November 2014

AFPUB-2012-V4-001-DRAFT-01

Évaluation: Cohérent · The two February 2015 explanations are compatible: an ordinary IPv4 application must meet the usual utilization requirements, and anycast may then be its intended use within the policy and bylaws. The later agreement clarifies the earlier distinction rather than reversing it.

Réserves: This finding concerns the interpretation of ordinary allocation requirements, not support for a particular policy amendment. · Only the two supplied February 2015 statements establish this continuity.

9 févr. 2015

Correct but at that point, it's a normal v4 application with all the utilization requirements.

10 févr. 2015

Agree; so long as the normal v4 allocation requirements are meet which includes utilization requirements, the purpose can then be anycast or anything within the limitation of the policy/bylaw ;)

No Reverse Unless Assigned

Évaluation: Éléments insuffisants pour évaluer la cohérence · The July 2013 reminder keeps No Reverse Unless Assigned in last call and sets out how comments will be assessed. It gives no personal position on the proposal's merits and no second substantive statement with which to assess continuity.

Réserves: The announced future assessment and communication date are plans, not evidence of a decision already made.

23 juil. 2013

All comments that were received from the Public policy meeting (AFRINIC18, Lusaka) and up until 31st July 2013 will be evaluated by the co-chairs to determine the final state of this policy proposal, which will be communicated to the PDWG on 2013-08-08 by the co-chairs.

Anycast resource assignments in the AFRINIC region

Évaluation: Éléments insuffisants pour évaluer la cohérence · The sequence reports meeting consensus and last call, then an unopposed minor change and a forthcoming recommendation, and finally a draft awaiting Board ratification. These are compatible stages of a process. They do not establish a sustained personal stance on the anycast proposal's substantive terms.

Réserves: A report of meeting consensus or an intended recommendation is not proof of Board ratification. · The suggestion to propose an update through the normal PDP is procedural advice, not endorsement of that update.

5 déc. 2014

21 janv. 2015

The co-chairs will soon formally recommend ratification of this policy proposal to the AFRINIC Board.

8 févr. 2015

There is a related policy awaiting board ratification which you may want to look at and then propose an update through following the normal PDP (policy development process)

Resource Reservations for Internet Exchange Points

Évaluation: Éléments insuffisants pour évaluer la cohérence · The December 2014 report of no consensus and the later AFRINIC-22 agenda both place IXP resource reservations in continuing discussion. Neither states Ojedeji's personal position, so they cannot establish consistency or inconsistency on the proposed reservation rules.

Réserves: No consensus at one meeting is not permanent rejection; scheduling further discussion is not endorsement.

5 déc. 2014

15 mai 2015

Resource Reservation for Internet Exchange Points (AFPUB-2014-GEN-004-DRAFT-01)

Number Resources Transfer Policy (AFPUB-2015-GEN-001-DRAFT-01)

Évaluation: Éléments insuffisants pour évaluer la cohérence · The two January 2016 messages report the same AFRINIC23 outcome for the transfer proposal; the second explicitly repairs formatting. They are not two independent personal opinions and provide no basis for a verdict on Ojedeji's substantive transfer-policy stance.

Réserves: The reported outcome is no consensus and a return to the mailing list, not personal opposition or the policy's later status.

13 janv. 2016

Number Resources Transfer Policy (AFPUB-2015-GEN-001-DRAFT-01) No Consensus ? back to *rpd *list

13 janv. 2016

Initial attempt got out of format. trying again.

13 janv. 2016

Number Resources Transfer Policy (AFPUB-2015-GEN-001-DRAFT-01) No Consensus ? back to *rpd *list

AFRINIC Whois Database Update Process

Évaluation: Éléments insuffisants pour évaluer la cohérence · The only supplied statement reports that the author withdrew the Whois Database Update Process proposal. Reporting another person's withdrawal does not disclose Ojedeji's own view of the proposal or a change in that view.

Réserves: This is a co-chairs' meeting-status announcement, not the sender withdrawing his own support.

5 déc. 2014

Out-Of-Region Use of AFRINIC Internet Number Resources

Évaluation: Éléments insuffisants pour évaluer la cohérence · The October 2014 messages question how the proposal would affect expansion in Africa and the resource needs of offshore offices and points of presence. Later messages announce discussion, a revised draft and no-consensus outcomes. The questions do not settle a personal position, and the procedural announcements cannot supply one or demonstrate its reversal.

Réserves: The no-consensus reports describe their respective meetings and must not be treated as the policy's current status. · The May 2015 update notice contains an inconsistent policy identifier; its title, author and out-of-region-use link identify its subject without resolving that documentary error.

22 oct. 2014

Just to be clear, do you think this policy will deny availability of IP resource to organisations that intend to expand their growth in Africa?

24 oct. 2014

In summary you are saying offshore offices and pops devices will require so much IP resource than the customers being served by the organisation [1]

27 mai 2015

Draft Policy name: Out-Of-Region Use of AFRINIC Internet Number Resources Unique identifier: AFPUB-2014-GEN-001-DRAFT-03

13 janv. 2016

Out-Of-Region Use of AFRINIC Internet Number Resources (AFPUB-2014-GEN-002-DRAFT-03) No Consensus ? back to *rpd *list

AFRINIC Service Guidelines

Évaluation: Éléments insuffisants pour évaluer la cohérence · Reporting no consensus for Service Guidelines and later placing it on the meeting agenda are compatible procedural acts. Neither provides a substantive personal position to compare over time.

Réserves: Continuing the discussion does not imply support, and the earlier no-consensus report does not imply permanent rejection.

5 déc. 2014

15 mai 2015

AFRINIC Service Guidelines (AFPUB-2014-GEN-005-DRAFT-01)

AFRINIC Board statement on resource allocation — 25 November 2014

Évaluation: Éléments insuffisants pour évaluer la cohérence · The December 2014 reply invites the other participant to turn a suggested protection into a written policy proposal. That single invitation establishes a preference for using the policy process, but not endorsement of a particular allocation threshold or enough evidence to assess change over time.

Réserves: Do not infer support for a specific /18 threshold from the invitation to draft a policy.

1 déc. 2014

I have spotted a possible policy item ;) could you consider writing a policy that achieve what you've mentioned above?

Anycast resource assignments in the AFRINIC region · Out-Of-Region Use of AFRINIC Internet Number Resources

Évaluation: Éléments insuffisants pour évaluer la cohérence · The same co-chairs' announcement reports consensus and last call for anycast while returning out-of-region use to the list without consensus. Different outcomes for different proposals do not demonstrate contradictory personal positions: the announcement records the meeting's conclusions, not Ojedeji's votes or a common substantive rule applied inconsistently.

Réserves: Assess personal consistency only from attributable substantive positions, preserving the distinction between a chair's procedural reporting and individual advocacy.

5 déc. 2014

5 déc. 2014