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

[AfriNIC-rpd] EU, LIR & UFS [Was: Policy Proposal: End user classification for Universities]

Adiel Akplogan adiel at
Fri Jun 29 20:32:48 UTC 2012

Dear colleagues,

I don't think there was a need for a policy as the definition and 
difference between LIR and EU are clear enough to allow IP Resources 
Analysts to take a decision. These definitions have been smoothly 
applied until now by the team and without major issue. 

The case under discussion here will be evaluated the same way for 
either a University or a corporation. 

In the case of UFS this is what happened:

* To start Andrew introduced a request for a new membership with 
  justification for a /15. However in his justification there was
  many instances where the University provides service to other 
  distinct entities such as schools (not affiliated to the uni) and
  other entities (like museum etc...). In such case there is no 
  doubt and the answer to him by the HM team was clear that he will 
  be categorized as LIR. He has escalated this to me and I confirmed 
  to him that he can no go around it. The policy is clear. 
  Convinced by the clarification I provided him, he then suggested 
  to remove these external entities from his application and cover 
  them with his legacy registered prefixes. So he resubmit his 
  request with these changes (on Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 4:49 PM]. Now 
  that has introduced a new parameter to his first application under 
  evaluation by the HM team. 

* During the evaluation process that follow the above a mail was sent 
  to Andrew by a Hostmaster requesting further information to complete 
  the evaluation. However the last sentence of that mail mentioned 
  that his request will be considered as LIR (the chronology of the 
  logged communication suggest that, that statement was a human 
  mistake as they were still collecting information on the application 
  ... the evaluation was not yet completed so as for conclusions be 
  drawn on the case). That seems to be what triggered Andrew decision 
  to submit a policy. I Think that he panicked :-)? I believe that it 
  was a hasty decision by Andrew to try to solve his case by a policy. 

The IP Resource Analysts use Policies in place and all the information 
provided by the requestors to take their decision. More the information 
is clear and precise, easy it will be for them to take a quick decision.

I hope this put the discussion (which I think should have not happened)
in context. 

Thanks you (catching up with mails).

- a.

More information about the RPD mailing list