Search RPD Archives
[AFRINIC-rpd] Latest version of the policy AFPUB-2013-GEN-001-DRAFT-03
ntegeb at one2net.co.ug
Wed Jun 26 05:23:56 UTC 2013
Please find my comments
On Jun 25, 2013, at 10:50 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>>> 3.2) This policy applies a ratio to a head count of campus users, where the number of campus users is calculated using a formula of full time students + full time employees + (part time students * 0.5)
>> Since all institutions register more students than physical occupancy capacity this number should be based on occupancy capacity. How many students at any one time. This will eliminate evening and students that attend 1 day in the week. not sure where this was covered
> Students who attend one day per week would be treated as part time and count as 0.5.
> I believe this is a sufficient factoring.
so we have an institution with a capacity of 2000 students at any one time and library capacity of 200 students. so at any one time the institution can have 240 students on the premises. however most courses are part time so on average classes last four hours. In a week this institution could have up to 10,000 individual students attend a class but the occupancy number can never exceed 2,200 due to physical capacity.
lets also assume that out of this total number only 1,000 students are full time.
based on the policy this school will be able to claim the 10,000 students. This is a major flow. as someone stated earlier the resources are given to CPE not people and this is for exactly this reason.
>>> 3.3) In addition to the documentation specified in clause 3.1, institutions will need to provide details of planned/current IPv6 roll-outs, including committed time frames for the roll-out of IPv6.
>> What accountability will be in place to ensure this is done and what are the consequences of non compliance ??
> I believe that staff can be trusted to implement the required procedures and accounting for this.
No doubt they can be trusted but how much work will be involved in ensuring things are done well and service levels are also maintained. Too much subjectivity.
>>> 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).
>> See my comments. Campus user definition is too wide needs to be narrowed down precisely.
> I disagree. I believe that the definition above is sufficient to achieve a reasonable approximation that gets much closer than the required rounding error for making an allocation or assignment possible via bit-alignment.
my comments above
>>> 3.6) While 3.5 defines a minimum accepted ratio for which the justification is clearly defined in 3.1, applications based on a ratio as high as 10:1 shall be given due consideration and should be approved unless the justification for such increased ratio is believed by AfriNIC staff to be specious or fraudulent in nature.
>> too subjective
> What do you think of my earlier proposed rewording of 3.5-3.7?
the rewording still does not change meaning too much and translation is still subjective. Staff meaning could and will be different from applicant understanding.
>>> 3.9) HEIs qualifying under this proposal will qualify for the same academic discounts that are applicable to any academic institution at the time of application.
>> This is a very scary point. I would suggest to drop this clause completely.
> While I am inclined to agree with you, I don't see it as being scary. Can you explain what scares you about this provision?
Currently HEI's are eligible to 50% discount. We are proposing a gold rush on our last IPv4 resources at reduced price. Makes no logic from a sustainability point of view.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the RPD