Search RPD Archives
Limit search to: Subject & Body Subject Author
Sort by:

[AfriNIC-rpd] Re: [resource-policy] AfriNIC Policy Proposal: IPv6ProviderIndependent (PI) Assignment for End-Sites

Mon Mar 19 12:26:22 UTC 2007

The definition of an organization is not something to be done by AfriNIC, is
there, is a legal definition and I guess is valid in every country on the
world (I may be wrong): Whatever is not an individual.

I agree with a previous comment that a individual can create an
organization, but typically this is done only if there is a real need
(creating a business, a non-profit organization, whatever). Individuals
don't tend to do so, especially because it cost money and a lot of paper
work (every year, or even every month/3 months) to justify the accounting,
taxes, etc. to the government.

If an individual decides to create an organization, that's fine, they
deserve to be allocated a PI if it is justified by the rest of the criteria.

I also think that the current text doesn't define if the end-site is a
single "physical location" or allows several. I think it should be the
later, and end-user-organization make it clear.

When I did the first PI proposal, it took to me long time and many
discussions with lot of folks to understand why they were asking me to use
end-user-organization (in my drafts I was using end-user/end-site
terminology). Now I'm convinced that this is the right wording, and if we
can't have an agreement on that, then is clear to me that we will have two
competing policy proposals. I don't think it helps, but seems there is no
other way.

I still don't see the harm that "end-user-organization" creates to the
intend of your policy. According to the policy proposal itself (section
"current situation"), reading in between lines, it was meant in order to
facilitate the consensus (or I'm wrong ?), but if we can't do so, it seems
to me that it was much easier allowing my previous proposal to get evolved
to match the inputs received in the last policy meeting, instead of creating
a new one to create confusion and compete.

> De: Alain Patrick AINA <aalain at>
> Organización: technologies réseaux et Solutions (
> Responder a: <aalain at>, AfriNIC Resource Policy Discussion List
> <rpd at>
> Fecha: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 11:00:20 +0000
> Para: <rpd at>
> Asunto: Re: [AfriNIC-rpd] Re: [resource-policy] AfriNIC Policy Proposal:
> IPv6ProviderIndependent (PI) Assignment for End-Sites
>> I think so. In principle our policies are not made for individuals
>> accessing those resources, unless clearly justified (and in this case I
>> think a good justification is to be an organization).
>> Otherwise one of the missions of the RIRs, the adequate management of
>> address space (not a wasteful one), is not fulfilled.
> The question  is:  Do we think, the proposed criteria  are good for what we
> intend to do with this policy ?
> If the answer is "no" and the solution is "be an organization", then let add
> * "Must be an organization"
> So, if a "individual" meet the initial  assignments criteria, he will need to
> become an organization to qualify.
>> Please, think in the implications in terms of routing table if just a 10%
>> of the individuals in the world are able to get this resource. Is not only
>> about the addressing space, which probably could perfectly cope with that
>> for 100% of the world population if using /48, but what about the routing
>> slots ? Are you willing to pay then for a 10 times more expensive router in
>> your network (you will not have other chance, you are being forced to that
>> if the routing table grows at that point).
>> We need a balance here.
> I suspect that, we will need a definition of  "organization"  including size.
> And are we not meeting folks against this policy  here ?
> --alain
> Let us  keep think simple  and move forward.
> --alain 
> _______________________________________________
> rpd mailing list
> rpd at

The IPv6 Portal:

Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 !

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.

More information about the RPD mailing list