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)

Seun Ojedeji seun.ojedeji at
Sun Feb 10 18:02:25 UTC 2013

Hello Ari
This mail has come from a non AFRINIC domain...are we to take this as
official or as a community member contribution?
This may help respond appropriately.


Sent from Google Nexus
Skype: seun.ojedeji
On Feb 10, 2013 6:25 PM, "ari" <sultane at> wrote:

> Dear All,
> Allow me to pitch in here. I want to tell members and community that we
> are taking all complaints seriously. And all of us at staff level have been
> following the debate carefully.
> First though, I would like to remind all that not everyone on this
> continent is an English speaker. A few of our members do take time to read,
> understand and respond to questions on their requests. Becoming a member
> for some is a marathon yes, not because AFRINIC is not responsive but
> because dealing with an all English institution is a hurdle for them as
> AFRINIC material is not in their language.
> Because of that, people take time to find and provide the information
> requested. The team manages not only resources requests but also any other
> queries relating to resource management, recording assignments, utilisation
> of WHOIS, MYAFRINIC, Reverse DNS etc. As a result Member Services staff do
> spend time responding to and asking questions because of documentation
> provided in other languages also. They spend time explaining what the
> bylaws and RSA wording mean, they spend time checking into authenticity of
> material provided in English and other languages.
> And believe me you; I have seen cases of blatant fraud for the past 5
> months that I have been around or simple manufacturing of bad stories about
> AFRINIC’s work. The work behind is not as simple as people think and
> rambling and complaining are counterproductive when people think only of
> themselves and isolated cases. AFRINIC is a community and members driven
> organisation and we are here, committed to serve you all.
> Granted, there were issues of material that was asked for in particular
> cases that was perceived as intrusion and waste of time. Let me say that I
> actually support our RS team as this was a pattern of the same person
> asking resources for several different institutions and not providing what
> our RS team thought should be asked for. This has been taken care of and
> strict adherence to what policies ask for has been implemented.
> One way to deal with timeliness of responses may be to devise a ticket
> number that is also a queue number. We are looking into that. This will
> mean that all know that they will be responded to in the order their
> request came in. I do believe we have to stop the constant interference I
> have been seeing from all places on AFRINIC staff that results on RS team
> lack of concentration and
> loss of productivity often.
> Even before the complaints, we were reviewing processes internally and
> have corrected some of the perceived and actual issues, without
> jeopardising our adherence to policies. AFRINIC shall do what we have to
> do, be it SLAs or other things needed to make sure our processes are of
> help to our membership.
> We reiterate our commitment to make the registration process as smooth and
> as easy as it can get considering our policies. We are putting processes in
> place for that and I am here pleading for members and community’s help in
> telling us what they believe should be in place for the work that we do to
> be of help to them. For that to happen, we also plead for objective and
> non-passionate escalation of ‘issues’ given that we have a mechanism for
> that (and not privately talk to staff because people personally know them)
> if people perceive they are being treated unfairly/untimely by staff.
> Cheers,
> ar inne
> ________________________________
> From: Douglas Onyango <ondouglas at>
> To: Andrew Alston <alston.networks at>
> Cc: AfriNIC Resource Policy <rpd at>
> Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2013 4:21 PM
> Subject: Re: [AFRINIC-rpd] Academic IPv4 Allocation Policy Second Draft
> (AFPUB-2013-GEN-001-DRAFT-02)
> All,
> Sorry I am late to this party, but I would like to voice my principle
> objection to this policy because it reads more like an
> operational/implementation document rather than a policy. My feeling
> is that inconsistent treatment of resource applications is at the
> centre of this policy. If I am right then I would posit that this is
> not the first time we see some attempt to resolve administrative
> issues with policy, so for me it would be important to put in
> place/fix a mechanism for AfriNIc and the community to resolve these
> kind of issues.
> More specifically 3.1 of this policy:
> >3.1) To qualify for address space, Academic institutions will need to
> apply as end users and provide the following >documentation:
> >3.1.1) Proof of Institution's registration/accreditation
> >3.1.2) Proof of the number of registered full time students
> >3.1.3) Proof of staff head count.
> I am averse to the idea of hardcoding requirements here as it will
> constrain staff from doing any extra due dilligence --- applications
> can refer them to #3.1 when probed :-). imagine how abused this
> scripted process can be --- we should allow some discretion to staff –
> unless offcourse we have a problem with the way they are  doing their
> job, in which case we should try and fix that, only I am doubtful that
> this would fall under the purview of the PDP
> Also 3.5:
> >3.5) Under the policy, HEI shall be eligible to receive IPv4 resources
> >at a ratio not less than 5 IPv4 addresses per campus user,
> >where campus user is defined in 3.2).
> It would appear that from the thread 3:1 would be something members
> see as pragmatic and are able to agree to, although some numbers have
> been advanced to demonstrate a  5:1 situation. My take on this
> particular discussion is that I would agree with the demonstrated 3:1
> that most of the people on the list seem to lean toward, albeit, if we
> accounted for the future growth of the Internet (stats by Andrew :-)),
> you will agree that a 5:1 is wise as it would support scalability in
> the near future. For this reason I would be in support of a 5:1. So I
> feel the following would be a reasable compromise :-
> 1.    No minimum ratio
> 2.    > 3:1 screening begins
> 3.    5:1 is the max
> _______________________________________________
> rpd mailing list
> rpd at
> _______________________________________________
> rpd mailing list
> rpd at
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the RPD mailing list