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

[AFRINIC-rpd] Commencement of the last call

Andrew Alston alston.networks at
Wed Jun 26 07:16:26 UTC 2013


Actually my comment applies to the first part as well.  You cannot setup an
ISP on end user space, you cannot pass end user resources to a third party.
As for the duly authorised letter, I point to precedent for one thing, such
letters were accepted as intention to keep the space within an institution
no less than 3 times last year.  Further more, ANY organisation that applies
as an end user under the RSA is obliged to stay within the confines of his
classification as either LIR or End User.  So, either you are saying to me
that the End User classification cannot be trusted AT ALL irrespective of
the RSA, or are you saying to me that Universities / Academic institutions
who have committed in letters from management to abiding by their end user
classifications are more likely to lie than anyone else applying for end
user classifications.

Further more, any violation of the end user classification by a University
would, under the RSA, result in the revocation of space.  Since AfriNIC
stated multiple times in Lusaka that they were revoking space based on lack
of payment, is AfriNIC now saying that they have no ability to do the same
in the event of what would be a clear and direct violation of the RSA and a
contractual commitment in the form of that letter?

If you can revoke for one, you can revoke for another, and if you are going
to tell me that AfriNIC does not have the man power to police this, of
course they don't, AfriNIC are not the IP policy, but if it did become a
practice that was happening, are you telling me that you do not have
sufficient faith in the community to pick it up and report it to AfriNIC
where AfriNIC could act?

Surely, in your position as chair of the board, you are fully aware of the
rules surrounding end user classifications, and I pray you are not stating
on this list that Universities applying for space are less trustworthy than
anyone else applying under that classificationŠ.


From:  Badru Ntege <ntegeb at>
Date:  Wednesday 26 June 2013 9:09 AM
To:  Andrew Alston <alston.networks at>
Cc:  Owen DeLong <owen at>, rpd <rpd at>
Subject:  Re: [AFRINIC-rpd] Commencement of the last call


did not comment on this part

This policy does not require an institution to prove that it has
infrastructure for the capacity is requesting.  All it requires is that you
have students and asks us to assume that each student will have a laptop,
pda, iPad, and i-anything that will need connectivity.    There is nothing
stoping this institution now using the resources to set up a local for
profit ISP, or even passing these resources to a third party that will take
them off the continent.   Lets stop using this tactic to scare people into
supporting the proposal.

response to you point below

On Jun 26, 2013, at 9:53 AM, Andrew Alston <alston.networks at>

> Sorry Badru, but your comment below is actually incorrect.
>> > if i wanted to take resources off the continent all i need to do now is to
>> invest in a poor african HEI get the resources and then use them in my
>> business abroad.  The policy opens the door we are claiming to close.
> The policy is pretty clear on this:
> HEIs will be classified as End Users under this policy, on provision of a duly
> authorized letter from the institution management stating that address space
> allocated will not be used outside of the campus/academic environment.

What authenticates a dully authorized letter ??    You are asking us here to
exercise what i would call "Blind Trust"  on top of just counting the
numbers of students without much consideration for availability of CPE.

> End users do not have this option, the only time this would be the case is if
> the Universities were classified as LIR's and that is something we have been
> at pains to make sure is not the default case under this policy
> Andrew
>> If people still have issues with these answers, we cannot address them
>> without further articulation of the concerns.  Part of the consensus process
>> is to build towards a common goal, and we have done our best to answer each
>> query as it was raised, and if the answers were not satisfactory and did not
>> adequately explain our position, we can do nothing more but wait for further
>> questions which will allow us to further clarify the position.  This is the
>> nature of consensus building.
>> Andrew
>> From:  Owen DeLong <owen at>
>> Date:  Tuesday 25 June 2013 10:04 PM
>> To:  Andrew Alston <alston.networks at>
>> Cc:  Maye Diop <mayediop at>, Emile Milandou <emilemilan at>,
>> rpd <rpd at>
>> Subject:  Re: [AFRINIC-rpd] Commencement of the last call
>> The same should apply equally to statements of support.
>> Owen
>> On Jun 25, 2013, at 04:50 , Andrew Alston <alston.networks at> wrote:
>>> If I may ask the following on the list, because this is part of what is
>>> required when determining consensus as per the IETF draft document on rough
>>> consensus.
>>> If there are objections to the policy, if these can be clearly articulated
>>> with solid modelling, technical objections or financial objections, that are
>>> based on solid information and not hypotheticals, it would be hugely
>>> helpful.
>>> This way,  should the policy not pass last call, we can then examine exactly
>>> what changes need to be made in order to make the policy more palatable.
>>> However, this is impossible to do if the objections are based on
>>> hypotheticals with no basis in solid information or gut feelings, and by the
>>> IEFT draft document on consensus, objections that are considered when
>>> gauging consensus should be based in fact, since consensus is more than just
>>> a "majority" issue.
>>> Thanks
>>> Andrew
>>> From:  Maye Diop <mayediop at>
>>> Date:  Tuesday 25 June 2013 1:41 PM
>>> To:  Emile Milandou <emilemilan at>
>>> Cc:  rpd <rpd at>
>>> Subject:  Re: [AFRINIC-rpd] Commencement of the last call
>>> Dear Colleagues,
>>> Thanks to Emile for this update.
>>> As the last call is open now, I would like to add my opposition to the
>>> policy about Academic IPv4 Allocation.
>>> Best Regards,
>>> 2013/6/25 Emile Milandou <emilemilan at>
>>>> Dear Colleagues,
>>>> Following the face to face discussions in Lusaka, Zambia during
>>>> AFRINIC 18, the following proposals reached consensus during the
>>>> meeting.
>>>> Remove requirement to announce entire v6 block as single aggregate
>>>> Steven Wiesman, Steven Tapper,Charles Hendrikson
>>>> AFPUB-2013-V6-001-DRAFT01
>>>> No Reverse Unless Assigned
>>>> Tim McGinnis
>>>> AFPUB-2012-DNS-001-DRAFT-02
>>>> Academic IPv4 Allocation
>>>> Andrew Alston, Sunday Folayan
>>>> AFPUB-2013-GEN-001-DRAFT-03
>>>> Anycast Assignments in the AFRINIC region
>>>> Mark Elkins, Mauritz Lewies, Tim McGinnis
>>>> AFPUB-2012-V4-001-DRAFT-01
>>>> The two-week last call period for these proposals starts today 25-06-2013.
>>>> At the end of the Last Call, we will make a final assessment on whether
>>>> consensus has been reached by taking into consideration the comments from
>>>> the Public Policy Meeting as well as those during this Last Call period.
>>>> With Regards,
>>>> Emile Milandou, Seun Ojedeji
>>>> PDWG co-Chairs
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> rpd mailing list
>>>> rpd at
>>> -- 
>>> ---------------------
>>> Mme Ndéye Maimouna DIOP
>>> Spécialiste ICT4D
>>> _______________________________________________ rpd mailing list
>>> rpd at afrinic.net
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> rpd mailing list
>>> rpd at
>> _______________________________________________
>> rpd mailing list
>> rpd at

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

More information about the RPD mailing list