Search RPD Archives
Limit search to: Subject & Body Subject Author
Sort by:

[AFRINIC-rpd] PDP discussions

Andrew Alston alston.networks at
Mon Jun 24 13:00:39 UTC 2013

Sorry Badru,

But I have to disagree with this, strongly and vocally.

The policy process is EXTREMELY clear in this regard, the meeting requested
changes, those changes have now been submitted, and the policy now needs to
go through last call as agreed at the meeting and by the process.  That last
call has NOT been made yet and we are waiting for that.

Further more, if a policy that is passed with over 90% support in the room
can be invalided by the same 10% that voted against it from the floor and
pushed out by months, I would argue that our policy process is fundamentally
flawed, since it means that irrespective of the minority of people who
oppose the policy, it can be delayed indefinitely.

Again, I state that if the people on this list that were objecting were NOT
the same ones that were in the room and we were dealing with a different
segment of the membership base and the community, my stance on this would be
different, but we aren't, this is the minority that were in the room that
are now objecting again after their objections were overruled by community

So, I ask, do we have respect for community consensus or not?  Do we have
respect for the policy process as defined or not? Do we act in the will of
the community and put this to last call or not?


From:  Badru Ntege <ntegeb at>
Date:  Monday 24 June 2013 2:19 PM
To:  Maye Diop <mayediop at>
Cc:  Andrew Alston <alston.networks at>, rpd <rpd at>, Alan
Barrett <apb at>
Subject:  Re: [AFRINIC-rpd] PDP discussions

To Andrew and All

i would suggest its time to consider a third alternative to this policy as
it seems to be not settling well with a number of people.  I believe a mid
point can be achieved but for us to get to that point you have to be
prepared to move from your current position.

from a financial point of view this policy is dangerous to AfriNIC and i
think i have to be honest and say it here.  From a due diligence point of
view i can imagine it would be an administrative nightmare.  And from a
community point of view i think comments on this thread are already showing
unwelcome but understandable sentiments.

Lets take some time and see how we can make adjustments if possible to make
it viable.  If not possible lets revisit the problem we are trying to solve
and see if we can creatively fix the problem without a policy that scares
the community.

What are we trying to fix ?
what is the criteria for success ?
what solution will work for all parties ?

And can we do all the above without breaking anything.



On Jun 24, 2013, at 2:35 PM, Maye Diop <mayediop at> wrote:

> Dear Andew,
> I do work on the financial model and what I got is different from yours.
> That's why I would like afrinic staff to make a
> 1) financial analysis which will make comparison with current policy and
> sustainability,
> 2) geographic analysis which will allow to appreciate  @s' repartition through
> africa region (north, south, est, ouest, central and indian ocean)
> 3) long or medium consequence about no need of any justification to get back
> @s.
> Best Regards,
> 2013/6/24 Andrew Alston <alston.networks at>
>> 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>
>> Date:  Monday 24 June 2013 11:56 AM
>> To:  Andrew Alston <alston.networks at>
>> Cc:  Adiel Akplogan <adiel at>, Bope Domilongo Christian
>> <christianbope at>, Alan Barrett <apb at>, rpd
>> <rpd at>
>> 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>
>>> 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>
>>> Date:  Monday 24 June 2013 10:59 AM
>>> To:  Bope Domilongo Christian <christianbope at>
>>> Cc:  <rpd at>, Alan Barrett <apb at>
>>> Subject:  Re: [AFRINIC-rpd] PDP discussions
>>> On 2013-06-21, at 11:44 AM, Bope Domilongo Christian
>>> <christianbope at> 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 :
>>> thanks.
>>> - a.
>>> _______________________________________________ rpd mailing list
>>> rpd at afrinic.net
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> rpd mailing list
>>> rpd at
>> -- 
>> ---------------------
>> Mme Ndéye Maimouna DIOP
>> Spécialiste ICT4D
> -- 
> ---------------------
> Mme Ndéye Maimouna DIOP
> Spécialiste ICT4D
> _______________________________________________
> rpd mailing list
> rpd at

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the RPD mailing list