[AFRINIC-rpd] PDP discussions

Tue Jun 25 08:40:40 UTC 2013

Hi all,

I strongly feel we should respect the policy process and proceed to last
call. Given that the policy was debated for a while before the Lusaka
meeting, I feel that the community has had enough time to internalise it.
having seen the stats of IPv4 allocations provided by AfRINIC, I think
HEI's especially those outside South Africa need more IP space, and this
policy will be a big help. I also think that AfRINIC is capable of ensuring
that the policy is not abused, and only those institutions that qualify get
IP space.

I support the policy.

On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 9:05 AM, Jackson Muthili <jacksonmuthi at gmail.com>wrote:

> 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
>

-- 
Joe Kimaili
Ubuntunet Alliance
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20130625/4f8fb76a/attachment.html>