[AFRINIC-rpd] PDP discussions

Mon Jun 24 10:08:18 UTC 2013

Hi Maye,

I do not understand how you can claim this is depriving AfriNIC of its
revenues.  Let us look at some hard facts.

Firstly, annual fees and application fees will still apply to any
applications made under this policy, the policy does not change the fee
structure in any way shape or form.  Secondly, irrespective of if the space
is used under this policy or by other organisations, the money is still
coming in.  The current revenues generated by already existent applications
will also keep flowing.

By the published figures at the meeting, if you extrapolate from the data
provided in the financial slides based on the amount of revenue generated by
new members, it averages out at under $4,000 per member.  Because of the
size of the applications being generated by this policy, the fees generated
on the application fees will actually be higher than that.  Further to this,
AfriNIC is going to need a model to adjust the fees for the reality that
IPv4 life span is limited anyway.

Our application rate for new customers is also limited by the number of
ISP's, and whats more due to the amount of consolidation on the continent
within the corporate sector that is likely to occur in the coming
months/years, the revenue fees are likely to decrease from that as well,
since a merged organisation with multiple blocks will move from one category
to the other, but the overall aggregate will reduce.

I would seriously suggest that you actually do some financial modelling
around this, and you will actually find that yes, running out of IPv4 may
have an impact on the financial status of AfriNIC, but it can be addressed,
and the same situation exists irrespective of this policy being passed or
not.  The key difference is that without this policy while we may have more
revenue coming in (and it won't be substantially more), it will be coming in
from foreign sources who have taken our IP space off this continent for use
in Asia, Europe and the States.  I once again stress that current policy
does not preclude this from happening unless you refer to the soft landing
policy.

So, in summary, it comes to a choice, get the revenues albeit at a slightly
lower rate, with a fairly drastic income in initial application fees from
the initial applications this policy is likely to generate, or deprive
yourself of revenues by slowing allocation rates by not passing the policy,
or get the revenue from foreign entities who have taken our resources and
left us with nothing (which I believe is not in the interests of this
community AT ALL).

Seriously, before we all panic, lets actually run the models, look at the
numbers, and realise that this panic is over nothing.

Andrew

From:  Maye Diop <mayediop at gmail.com>
Date:  Monday 24 June 2013 11:56 AM
To:  Andrew Alston <alston.networks at gmail.com>
Cc:  Adiel Akplogan <adiel at afrinic.net>, Bope Domilongo Christian
<christianbope at gmail.com>, Alan Barrett <apb at cequrux.com>, rpd
<rpd at afrinic.net>
Subject:  Re: [AFRINIC-rpd] PDP discussions

Dear All,
I would like to express again my concern about this policy which is a
strategy to hold our precious v4 adresses and deprive Afrinic from its
unique source of revenues. Then how will AFRINIC continue serving this
continent by providing training and support for internet growth?
I call all board members and the whole community to take their
responsability to avoid any action which will jeopardize afrinics' future.
Best Regards, 

2013/6/24 Andrew Alston <alston.networks at gmail.com>
> Hi Adiel,
> 
> Just a correction on the South African statistics, University of the Free
> State has an ASN. University of Cape Town also has an ASN, Rhodes.
> 
> I also need to stress that while the UbuntuNet Alliance is registered as
> "Netherlands", it is very clearly an African organisation with its sole focus
> the connectivity of academic networks in Africa.  This is merely a company
> registration that caused it to state Netherlands (which, while I don't speak
> for the Alliance, if I am correct now also has a registration in Malawi)
> 
> I do have to say that in these statistics, I find certain things very telling
> and I think it clearly highlights just how much the policy under discussion is
> needed across the continent.
> 
> Currently South African institutions with their legacy space are utilising
> more than 10 times the space than their nigerian counterparts.  The student
> base at HEI's in the respective countries seems to be pretty similar from
> published statistics, this policy will address that imbalance by providing
> access to space those those institutions in Nigeria.  It is also very telling
> that there are single institutions in South Africa that have more IP address
> space than the entire academic sector in Ghana, Egypt and Congo DR combined!!!
> This is the VERY reason this policy needs to pass, because it will make it so
> much easier for these institutions to get space and address the imbalance.
> 
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Andrew
> 
> 
> From:  Adiel Akplogan <adiel at afrinic.net>
> Date:  Monday 24 June 2013 10:59 AM
> 
> To:  Bope Domilongo Christian <christianbope at gmail.com>
> Cc:  <rpd at afrinic.net>, Alan Barrett <apb at cequrux.com>
> 
> Subject:  Re: [AFRINIC-rpd] PDP discussions
> 
> 
> On 2013-06-21, at 11:44 AM, Bope Domilongo Christian <christianbope at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> I would like to request to Afrinic to provide the current IPV4 allow to all
>> African Universities regionally.
> 
> The information is temporarily available at (this is :
> 
> http://meeting.afrinic.net/www3-utils/hei-stats/hei.php
> 
> thanks.
> 
> - a.
> _______________________________________________ rpd mailing list
> rpd at afrinic.nethttps://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rpd mailing list
> rpd at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd
> 

-- 
---------------------
Mme Ndéye Maimouna DIOP
Spécialiste ICT4D

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20130624/74dcec45/attachment.html>