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

[AFRINIC-rpd] Academic IPv4 Allocation Policy Second Draft (AFPUB-2013-GEN-001-DRAFT-02)

Andrew Alston alston.networks at
Sun Jan 27 19:04:36 UTC 2013

Hi Badru,

100% agreed, however, in order to draft accordingly I need to know if we are
operating outside of the mandate of the PDP in putting clauses to prevent
such double billing from happening or not?


-----Original Message-----
From: Badru Ntege [mailto:ntegeb at] 
Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2013 9:04 PM
To: Andrew Alston
Cc: 'Sunday Folayan'; 'AfriNIC Resource Policy'
Subject: Re: [AFRINIC-rpd] Academic IPv4 Allocation Policy Second Draft


i would say lets look at the merits of the draft policy looking forward.
History is good as a reference point but it should not constrain our future

On Jan 27, 2013, at 9:48 PM, "Andrew Alston" <alston.networks at>

> Hi Badru,
>> The policy could then also cater somehow to an easy transition from 
>> 1:3 to
> 1:5 if the original resource has been utilized.
> I would have no objection to a transition on demonstration.  However, 
> there is a catch here, and it is one I ran into before (I offered 
> AfriNIC a similar compromise like this once before).  If that 
> transition states that the ticket is kept open and if the ratio is 
> proved to be insufficient within X period, the block is expanded to a 
> larger boundary *without further application fees*, I would support 
> it.  If however, we are saying, allocate on X ratio, and if its found 
> to be insufficient, make the organization pay all over again, then, I have

if you build it into the policy and community votes for it then it comes
down to Board ratification and at that point the financial implications come
into play.  However the value of exploring the issue well in the community
and discussions like these also guide the board decision at the end.

> So what you are proposing is workable, but it comes down to a finance 
> issue, and I am not sure that we can necessarily address that within 
> policy (even though it is not directly fee related), it may be outside 
> of the mandate of the PDP.

It might be but paying due care to it and playing out the scenarios helps
make the case


More information about the RPD mailing list