[AFRINIC-rpd] Commencement of the last call

[john mae]

I am in support this policy because I believe it is in the best interests
of Africa and African academia.

Regards
John Mbugua


On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 12:44 PM, Andrew Alston
<alston.networks at gmail.com>wrote:

> Actually Badru,
>
> I disagree.  Current AfriNIC rules and procedures and policies do not in
> any way prohibit an ISP from stating that their business is being an ISP,
> and then operating an ISP (a small one) on the continent and a much larger
> one off the continent on the same space.  That is not change of scope or
> mission.
>
> I will give you an example, say for example a company like Level 3 (Note,
> I am not accusing Level 3 of this behaviour, I am merely using them as an
> example), came to Africa and started an operation here.  They would be
> entirely in the rights under current procedures and policies to apply for
> space for their operations.  There would be nothing stopping them using
> that space elsewhere in the world while keeping a small amount of it in
> Africa.  This only changes in the soft landing policy where 10% of the
> space as a maximum may be used off continent.
>
> Their mission and purpose for registration of the space (to use it as an
> ISP) has not changed, they would not be violating this clause.
>
> Andrew
>
>
> On 2013/06/26 11:32 AM, "Badru Ntege" <ntegeb at one2net.co.ug> wrote:
>
> >Thanks Alan
> >
> >You see there has been a claim that current policies will allow for
> >Afrinic resources to be taken of the continent and thus bringing this
> >policy in will keep the resources on the continent.    The point below i
> >believe refutes this justification completely.
> >
> >
> >On Jun 26, 2013, at 10:58 AM, Alan Barrett <apb at cequrux.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 26 Jun 2013, Badru Ntege wrote:
> >>> 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.
> >>
> >> See the existing IPv4 allocation policy, AFPUB-2005-V4-001, section 9.5:
> >>
> >> "   9.5 Validity of an assignment
> >> "
> >> "   Assignments remain valid as long as the original criteria
> >> "   on which the assignment was based are still in place and
> >> "   the assignment is registered in the AFRINIC database. An
> >> "   assignment is therefore invalid if it is not registered in the
> >> "   database and if the purpose for which it was registered has
> >> "   changed or no longer holds.
> >>
> >> An attempt to transfer of resources clearly invalidates the assignment
> >>under clause 9.4 of AFPUB-2005-V4-001.  I would argue that a mission
> >>change on the part of the organisation (such as serving as a for-profit
> >>ISP), would also invalidate the assignment under that clause.
> >
> >So with these safe guards how will people get resources from AfriNIC and
> >take them off the continent as is being claimed to support the policy ??
> >if the rules are the same then that point as justification for us to
> >legalize hoarding of resources through this policy should not be used.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >> --apb (Alan Barrett)
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20130626/68b39459/attachment.html>