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

[McTim]

Hi andrew,

On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 2:04 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?


I've refrained from commenting on this policy so far, but I'd like to
know what this proposal would do, before I make a decision about
support.

So HEI are EndUsers (getting PI space) in all cases, correct?

They already get a significant discount, correct?

So if a HEI gets a block of EndUser space, then they need more, they
won't be billed for both blocks??

Or is it only that if they get a PI block of size "X", because the NIC
won't give them "Y" (what they wanted) then the next block "Z" would
not be billed, but the billing would be X+Z=Y?  Is that correct??


Rgds,

McTim

On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 2:16 PM, Badru Ntege <ntegeb at one2net.co.ug> wrote:
> 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
>>
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rpd mailing list
> rpd at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd