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 15:47:08 UTC 2013

Badru, I would oppose these changes in the last call period (Other than the
ratio, which we have always openly stated is a point for further
negotiations and hence I believe that can be changed within the confines of
last call)

We took a policy to the floor for consensus, the consensus was granted, and
the agreement from the floor was that THAT policy  with modifications as
requested on the floor go to last call.

To change the policy to add additional elements would not be what we had
agreed with the community in that room, and that was to table what was put
before them.  We have to act within the policy and within the remit granted
to us by the floor in Zambia, that is how the process is designed and how it
is meant to work.  Further changes to the policy would have to go back to
the floor at a subsequent meeting, and to change the policy and not proceed
to last call and create a delay like that after committing in front of the
community to taking the policy to last call with the changes they requested
would in my view be disingenuous.  If this policy does not pass last call
then we can relook at that then.

I would ask that you, as Chairman of Afrinic, respect the Afrinic process as


From:  Badru Ntege <ntegeb at>
Date:  Wednesday 26 June 2013 5:02 PM
To:  Sunday Folayan <sfolayan at>
Cc:  "AfriNIC RPD MList." <rpd at>
Subject:  Re: [AFRINIC-rpd] Commencement of the last call

So sunday 

Are we prepared to change other areas like bring back some level of network
justification.  Some how re-align with current practice as opposed to
breaking all current practice ???

On Jun 26, 2013, at 5:49 PM, Sunday Folayan <sfolayan at> wrote:

> Thank you Badru, This is progress.
> Thank you Badru. Perhaps we should return to the initial proposal of 3:1
> before the invention of photoptab.
> Mme Maye, what sayest thou?
> Sunday.
> On 26 Jun 2013 15:05, "Badru Ntege" <ntegeb at> wrote:
>> Though totally not in support of the policy of allocating by numbers.  If
>> this can make us start looking at this policy to make it more acceptable
>> On Jun 26, 2013, at 4:18 PM, Sunday Folayan <sfolayan at> wrote:
>>>>  > ii) his focus on south region without any provision of equity;
>>> This statement has been addressed over and over. Indeed it cares more for
>>> the other regions with lower entry barrier. We can lower the ratio to 3:1,
>>> 2:1 even 0.5:1 if you will .... but you are not even proposing anything!!
>> I would propose  2:1  and would also be more stringent in that the entity
>> must have infrastructure in place and also an existing or planned uplink to
>> the internet within 2 months of allocation.
>> Also i would expect stricter due diligence since we are proposing very
>> subjective measures and criteria for allocation.
>> regards

_______________________________________________ rpd mailing list
rpd at

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

More information about the RPD mailing list