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

[AFRINIC-rpd] Summary as it stands on the Academic IPv4 Policy Proposal

Andrew Alston alston.networks at
Thu Jun 27 09:30:25 UTC 2013

Hi All,

I thought that to help this discussion progress rather than further
deteriorate, it would be worth summarising as I see it, the objections
currently raised and the answers given.  I will attempt to do this in the
most unbiased manner I can, though if anyone objects to anything below or to
the summary, please feel free to say so with reasons so I can adjust the
summary.  I will also say that due to the huge volume of mail on this
policy, there may have been issues that I have missed in this summary and if
that is the case, please raise them specifically so that they can be
addressed.  If members of this community do not agree with any of the
answers or have further questions, please feel free to raise them with
specific questions against the answers given so that we can further
understand the views that are causing dissent and attempt to address them.



Objection 1 ­ Space would land up more in the hands of those who already
have than those that don't, creating further imbalance in the distribution
of space between the Southern region Universities and the rest of the

Answer Given ­ Due to the fact that the policy reduces the need to have full
infrastructure in place at the time of application, it becomes easier for
those who are still in the process of building their infrastructure to get
addresses they can use as they move forward.  Those that already have
infrastructure do not require this policy to justify for space, and also are
already in possession of large amounts of both legacy space and non-legacy
space.  As such they have a reduced need for this policy and indeed would be
allocated far less space based on the fact that the total allocation would
take into consideration existing space.  This process therefore actually has
far greater benefit to the higher education institutions that have been
historically disadvantaged in this space than those who have long had
infrastructure and IP space.

Objection 2 ­ The financial implications of this policy are such that they
could have a negative impact on AfriNIC

Answer Given - 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.
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.
Further to this, fees and the discounts and pricing afforded are the purview
of the board and outside of the scope of the PDP, and this policy does not
in any way attempt to change that.

Objection 3 ­ The policy will allow Universities to get large amounts of
space and then transform themselves into ISPs or alternatively transfer the
space off the continent

Answer Given ­ Attempts to transfer space automatically invalidate
assignments under clause 9.4 of AFPUB-2005-V4-001.  With regards to
Universities using the space to form their own ISPs, this would be a change
of stated mission at time of application and would also invalidate the
assignment under the same clause, so this objection is actually countered by
current policy.

Objection 4 ­ The policy is not good since it favours a specific segment /
organisation type, and there is a risk that further segment / organisation
types could attempt similar policies which would result in chaos.

Answer Given ­ Any entity or individual is free to propose policy that would
result in special treatment.  However, such policies would have to pass
through the PDP process and be approved by the community, and if the
community chose in its wisdom to grant such treatment, then the communities
will should be done.  That being said, special treatment could not just
happen, it would still have to be at the will of the community which governs
AfriNIC and its policies.

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

More information about the RPD mailing list