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

[Badru Ntege]

Andrew

On Jan 27, 2013, at 10:04 PM, "Andrew Alston" <alston.networks at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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?
> 

Not sure but i the PDP was created by the community so if it is not working for you then suggest a modification and if the community is ok with it change happens.  

> Andrew
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Badru Ntege [mailto:ntegeb at one2net.co.ug] 
> 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
> (AFPUB-2013-GEN-001-DRAFT-02)
> 
> Andrew
> 
> 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
> plans.
> 
> On Jan 27, 2013, at 9:48 PM, "Andrew Alston" <alston.networks at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> 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
> issues.
> 
> 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
> 
> regards
> 
> 
>