Search RPD Archives
[AfriNIC-rpd] Definitions of LIR versus End User
Nii Narku Quaynor
quaynor at ghana.com
Sat Jul 21 14:11:30 UTC 2012
SM is right. Fees are not for here but if you insist...some comments follow
On Jul 21, 2012, at 13:13, "Duncan Martin" <ceo at tenet.ac.za> wrote:
> Hi Nii,
> What I believe is that huge differences in the fee structures applicable to various groups of allocatees should be justified in terms of AfriNIC's obligations and responsibility as a RIR to ensure/promote good Internet numbering practice in the Region.
I am not sure the real issue you wish addressed as the community at sometime approved these fees. Would you therefore say that the community promoted bad numbering practice in the region? And which policy is causing this?
> Your remark correctly that my first statement could be an assumption (that present differences in the charges to End-User and LIRs are based on perceptions of the prices and implicit cross-subsidisations that different market segments will tolerate). This is an hypothesis that helps to explain the fee differences.
> It would be great to see an explantion why these fee differences are indeed essential to promote good numbering practices.
Your assumption perhaps has marred the answer;-) you seem to have started with "AfriNIC is not promoting good numbering practices... " and now looking for evidence.
> Duncan Martin
> From: Nii Narku Quaynor [mailto:quaynor at ghana.com]
> Sent: Sat 2012/07/21 10:21 AM
> To: Duncan Martin
> Cc: Sunday Folayan; Guy Antony Halse; AfriNIC Resource Policy Discussion List
> Subject: Re: [AfriNIC-rpd] Definitions of LIR versus End User
> On Jul 21, 2012, at 4:28, "Duncan Martin" <ceo at tenet.ac.za> wrote:
>> I support Sunday's call for a review of AfriNIC's fee structures.
>> The present huge differences between the fees charged to End-Users and those charged to LIRs show that AfriNIC's fees are not based on cost-recovery, as would befit a non-profit entity, but, evidently, on perceptions of the prices and implicit cross-subsidisations that different market segments will tolerate.
> This could be an assumption
>> If definitions of End Users and LIRs and distinctions between End Users and LIRs are indeed required in AfriNIC's fee structures, should these not be justified in terms of AfriNIC's obligations and responsibility as a RIR to ensure/promote good Internet numbering practice in the Region?
> Please explain why you think AfriNIC is not promoting good numbering practices
>> Duncan Martin
>> From: rpd-bounces at afrinic.net on behalf of Sunday Folayan
>> Sent: Fri 2012/07/20 09:36 PM
>> To: Guy Antony Halse
>> Cc: AfriNIC Resource Policy Discussion List
>> Subject: Re: [AfriNIC-rpd] Definitions of LIR versus End User
>> All of this exercise at definitions and ambiguity discoveries points to a total warp in the afrinic fee structure. That is what needs equitable review, not definitions.
>> My 1 micro-lira.
>>> On 13 Jul 2012 08:13, "Guy Antony Halse" <G.halse at ru.ac.za> wrote:
>>> On Wed 2012-07-11 (20:12), Seun Ojedeji wrote:
>>> > end-user:
>>> > An end-user is an organization receivi...
>>> When coupled with the definition of LIR:
>>> > > A Local Internet Registry (LIR) is an IR that receives allocations from
>>> > > an RIR and primaril...
>>> this creates exactly the sort of ambiguity I referred to previously.
>>> There exists the potential for an organisation that neither uses its IP
>>> assignments *exclusively* for its internal use, nor *primarily* assigns
>>> address space to end-users. (Note the emphasised words.) From the
>>> discussions, most universities come to mind.
>>> Ergo (at least some) universities are neither end-users nor LIRs.
>>> Which is why I think that end-user should be !(LIR || RIR).
>>> - Guy
>>> Systems Manager, IT Division, Rhodes University, Grahamstown, South Africa
>>> Email: G.Halse...
>>> rpd mailing list
>>> rpd at afrinic.net
>> rpd mailing list
>> rpd at afrinic.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the RPD