Search RPD Archives
[AFRINIC-rpd] Re: rpd Digest, Vol 81, Issue 33
Louis Marais
maraisl at ufs.ac.za
Tue Jun 25 06:27:20 UTC 2013
Hello,
Having read through this policy I feel it is in the best interest of
African academia.
I support this policy.
Louis
>>> <rpd-request at afrinic.net> 6/25/2013 8:14 AM >>>
Send rpd mailing list submissions to
rpd at afrinic.net
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
rpd-request at afrinic.net
You can reach the person managing the list at
rpd-owner at afrinic.net
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of rpd digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Latest version of the policy AFPUB-2013-GEN-001-DRAFT-03
(Alan Barrett)
2. Re: Latest version of the policy AFPUB-2013-GEN-001-DRAFT-03
(Andrew Alston)
3. Re: Latest version of the policy AFPUB-2013-GEN-001-DRAFT-03
(Alan Barrett)
4. Re: Latest version of the policy AFPUB-2013-GEN-001-DRAFT-03
(Sunday Folayan)
5. Re: PDP discussions (Jackson Muthili)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2013 20:44:20 +0200
From: Alan Barrett <apb at cequrux.com>
Subject: Re: [AFRINIC-rpd] Latest version of the policy
AFPUB-2013-GEN-001-DRAFT-03
To: rpd <rpd at afrinic.net>
Message-ID: <20130624184420.GF26805 at apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
On Mon, 24 Jun 2013, Andrew Alston wrote:
>I need to go through the list
>of people I have that voted against in the room [...]
Several hands were raised in opposition to the unmodified proposal
(DRAFT-02), but when I asked about the proposal with modifications
that are now in DRAFT-03 (to use consistent terminology and to
make it clear that an organiation may request less space), then I
saw no hands raised at all.
--apb (Alan Barrett)
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2013 20:51:30 +0200
From: Andrew Alston <alston.networks at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [AFRINIC-rpd] Latest version of the policy
AFPUB-2013-GEN-001-DRAFT-03
To: rpd <rpd at afrinic.net>, Alan Barrett <apb at cequrux.com>
Message-ID: <CDEE611B.6F97%alston.networks at gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Hi,
I concur with what Alan was saying, I was basing my original count on
the
first question. But he is correct that on the second vote there were
no
hands. Though the number of hands on the first question raised do
coincide rather closely with the number of voices on this list right
now :)
I do have a question to the PDWG chair's (or even the ex chairs) about
this situation though.
>From what Seun just posted to the list:
------------
A final review of the draft policy is initiated by the Working Group
Chair(s) by sending an announcement to the Resource Policy
Discussion mailing list. The Last Call period shall be at least two
weeks. The Working Group Chair(s) shall evaluate the feedback
received during the Public Policy Meeting and during this period and
decide whether consensus has been achieved.
-------------
If the Face to Face meeting is evaluated in conjunction with the last
call
voices on the list, am I to conclude that these are evaluated
together,
and as such, 5 objections on the list + 5 objections on the floor, even
if
totalled together = 10 objections, against 60+ votes in favour, we
still
have consensus?
Or is there segregation between the last call and the on the floor
vote?
If there is, can I please understand how this is reconciled with the
above
extract on the process?
Thanks
Andrew
On 2013/06/24 8:44 PM, "Alan Barrett" <apb at cequrux.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 24 Jun 2013, Andrew Alston wrote:
>>I need to go through the list
>>of people I have that voted against in the room [...]
>
>Several hands were raised in opposition to the unmodified proposal
>(DRAFT-02), but when I asked about the proposal with modifications
>that are now in DRAFT-03 (to use consistent terminology and to
>make it clear that an organiation may request less space), then I
>saw no hands raised at all.
>
>--apb (Alan Barrett)
>_______________________________________________
>rpd mailing list
>rpd at afrinic.net
>https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2013 21:03:54 +0200
From: Alan Barrett <apb at cequrux.com>
Subject: Re: [AFRINIC-rpd] Latest version of the policy
AFPUB-2013-GEN-001-DRAFT-03
To: rpd <rpd at afrinic.net>
Message-ID: <20130624190354.GG26805 at apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
On Mon, 24 Jun 2013, Andrew Alston wrote:
> I do have a question to the PDWG chair's (or even the ex chairs)
> about this situation though. [...]
>
> If the Face to Face meeting is evaluated in conjunction with
> the last call voices on the list, am I to conclude that these
> are evaluated together, and as such, 5 objections on the
> list + 5 objections on the floor, even if totalled together
> = 10 objections, against 60+ votes in favour, we still have
> consensus?
As an ex-chair, I don't think that counting votes should be
definitive. One serious objection can outweight many "me too"
voices in favour, and vice versa. The chairs should be looking
at the arguments more than at the number of people, but both are
relevant.
> Or is there segregation between the last call and the on the
> floor vote? If there is, can I please understand how this is
> reconciled with the above extract on the process?
I think the chairs can consider everything. The end result should
reflect the will of the community as a whole.
--apb (Alan Barrett)
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2013 23:24:19 +0100
From: Sunday Folayan <sfolayan at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [AFRINIC-rpd] Latest version of the policy
AFPUB-2013-GEN-001-DRAFT-03
To: "AfriNIC RPD MList." <rpd at afrinic.net>
Message-ID:
<CAFi3HFXtGeWN_AZ2G0b-XidBdmaoJNoNe+dJ-s12uPfF3sNNTA at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Alan,
It is appropriate at this point to say .....
Congrats on your 2013 Nii award. In addition to all your hats, your
willingness and sacrifice last year to co chair this WG is testament
to
your versatility and commitment.
More grease to your elbow!
Sunday.
On 24 Jun 2013 20:06, "Alan Barrett" <apb at cequrux.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Jun 2013, Andrew Alston wrote:
>
>> I do have a question to the PDWG chair's (or even the ex chairs)
about
>> this situation though. [...]
>>
>> If the Face to Face meeting is evaluated in conjunction with the
last
>> call voices on the list, am I to conclude that these are evaluated
>> together, and as such, 5 objections on the list + 5 objections on
the
>> floor, even if totalled together = 10 objections, against 60+ votes
in
>> favour, we still have consensus?
>>
>
> As an ex-chair, I don't think that counting votes should be
definitive.
> One serious objection can outweight many "me too" voices in favour,
and
> vice versa. The chairs should be looking at the arguments more than
at the
> number of people, but both are relevant.
>
> Or is there segregation between the last call and the on the floor
vote?
>> If there is, can I please understand how this is reconciled with
the above
>> extract on the process?
>>
>
> I think the chairs can consider everything. The end result should
reflect
> the will of the community as a whole.
>
> --apb (Alan Barrett)
> ______________________________**_________________
> rpd mailing list
> rpd at afrinic.net
>
https://lists.afrinic.net/**mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd<https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20130624/29733e92/attachment-0001.htm
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 08:05:54 +0200
From: Jackson Muthili <jacksonmuthi at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [AFRINIC-rpd] PDP discussions
To: Andrew Alston <alston.networks at gmail.com>
Cc: rpd <rpd at afrinic.net>, Alan Barrett <apb at cequrux.com>
Message-ID:
<CA+DdLrSx36f+QWzGrQX7mToixWLGqVrG046Zg2NNbPfEo=s+=Q at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 3:00 PM, Andrew Alston
<alston.networks at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
One person can find serious matter which one hundred fail to see.
And process flaw can be fix if for the good of everyone.
> 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
> consensus.
>
> So, I ask, do we have respect for community consensus or not?
What community concensus?
Now on these discussion majority is against!
I also still oppose!
Jack
> From: Badru Ntege <ntegeb at one2net.co.ug>
> Date: Monday 24 June 2013 2:19 PM
> To: Maye Diop <mayediop at gmail.com>
> Cc: Andrew Alston <alston.networks at gmail.com>, rpd <rpd at afrinic.net>,
Alan
> Barrett <apb at cequrux.com>
> 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.
>
> regards
>
> Badru
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Jun 24, 2013, at 2:35 PM, Maye Diop <mayediop at gmail.com> 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 gmail.com>
>>
>> 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
>
>
>
>
> --
> ---------------------
> Mme Ndéye Maimouna DIOP
> Spécialiste ICT4D
> _______________________________________________
> rpd mailing list
> rpd at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rpd mailing list
> rpd at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd
>
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
rpd mailing list
rpd at afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd
End of rpd Digest, Vol 81, Issue 33
***********************************
_____________________________________________________________________
University of the Free State: This message and its contents are subject to a disclaimer.
Please refer to http://www.ufs.ac.za/disclaimer for full details.
Universiteit van die Vrystaat:
Hierdie boodskap en sy inhoud is aan 'n vrywaringsklousule onderhewig.
Volledige besonderhede is by http://www.ufs.ac.za/vrywaring beskikbaar.
_____________________________________________________________________
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20130625/9ecdd6fe/attachment.html>
More information about the RPD
mailing list