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

[Andrew Alston]

Hi McTim,

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

No, they have the option to apply as LIR's but the policy would not apply to
them if they did that.  The policy specifically states that under this
policy, users are considered PI if they apply under it, it does NOT preclude
them being LIR's.

> They already get a significant discount, correct?

Correct, academic institutions get discounted PI space 

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

Incorrect, unless AfriNIC's fee structure is inaccurate in what it states:

As per the fee-structure: End-site organisations have to become AFRINIC
members to get resource assignments and pay for each assignment according to
the size of IP block requested

The billing according to the fee structure would be billed separately for
each separate allocation. (And since that structure does not differentiate
between one off and annual payments, it can be assumed that it applies to
both)

Thanks

Andrew

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