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

[AFRINIC-rpd] Commencement of the last call

Owen DeLong owen at
Sat Jun 29 21:59:32 UTC 2013

On Jun 29, 2013, at 13:14 , Badru Ntege <ntegeb at> wrote:

> Owen
> Please try to be objective when you read my posts

To the best of my knowledge, I have been. If you believe otherwise, I request that you clarify the specific incident(s).

> On Jun 28, 2013, at 3:39 AM, Owen DeLong <owen at> wrote:
>> On Jun 26, 2013, at 12:31 AM, Badru Ntege <ntegeb at> wrote:
>> There is, actually. If you read the policy proposal, you will note that in order to receive the space as an end-user under this policy, the institution is required to submit attested proof that they will use the addresses in their own institution and not as an ISP for third parties. Further, to the best of my knowledge, passing the resources to a third party is prohibited by AfriNIC policy in general regardless of whether this proposal is adopted or not.
>> I remain neutral on the proposal overall, but I question the validity of the argument you are making and suggest that it has a greater resemblance to a "scare tactic".
> One of the reasons that have been mentioned on the list and in the room in Lusaka was that this policy would prevent foreign entities registering on the continent to get access to the resources and use existing loopholes to take resources off the continent.   Your argument above and many others from different respondents clearly disputes this point as one of the reasons this policy is needed.  

I agree that the argument that this policy somehow prevents addresses from being removed from Africa strikes me as rather specious at best.

I've never put forth nor defended that argument.

However, to me, the failure of that argument is neither positive nor negative towards adoption of this policy. It merely means that it does not serve to strengthen support for this policy.

> and that makes my point exactly.

Your point seems to be pushing rather farther than what I have aid above.

>>> 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.
>> I don't see how such a use would not result in the revocation of the resources as a fraudulent request under current policies and the existing RSA, so could you please explain why you believe that such a tactic would actually be effective?
>> Do you really believe that African Educational Institutions are so unethical and AfriNIC staff so ineffective?
> lets not build a bubble here.  The reason we and all other RIRs  put in checks and balances is to make sure that the right resources are allocated.  This policy removes a number of checks and balances and expects AfriNIC staff to go by a signed letter from the institution management.  We are talking about a region with over 50 countries in my country alone we have hard issues of institutions having Ghost students to qualify for certain benefits.  How would you expect AfriNIC staff to catch this??.    

I'm having trouble parsing the concept of "over 50 countries in my country alone". Either your country is a country, or, you are referring to something else which contains countries (subregion? region? I'm not sure what).

If you are saying that there are problems with institutions inflating their student counts and behaving in unethical ways in your country (and potentially others in the region) than I would consider that as a "yes" to my question about educational institutions being so unethical.

I do believe that AfriNIC staff are smart enough to catch any significant fraud, but if there is unethical conduct by educational institutions, then there is likely to be some fraud that gets by. I would consider that a valid argument against this proposal. I will admit that I took it as a given that educational institutions would conduct themselves ethically when requesting space. I believe that to be the case in the RIPE and ARIN regions and admit that I had not considered the possibility of more unethical educational institutions elsewhere.

In a case where institutions can be trusted to behave ethically, I do not oppose the idea of reducing some checks and balances in order to streamline processes and reduce costs. However, if they cannot be trusted, then I agree that checks and balances should be preserved.

> The idea of using institution population to allocate IP's is just flawed.  

I don't think it is necessarily perfect, but I don't think it is as bad as you seem to imply.

> I m suggesting a re-look at some of criteria for qualification.
> AfriNIC staff would be requested to follow what the policy requires and what i was saying is what the policy was requiring is already flawed.

I get what you are saying. However, I will say that there definitely seems to be a problem with the current practices as well. In a case where educational institutions are trustworthy and can be expected to request resources ethically according to their needs, this seems like a reasonable compromise proposal from my perspective.

However, you seem to be stating that ethical conduct cannot be assumed in the AfriNIC region. In that case, I would say this policy probably should not be accepted. However, I am not sufficiently familiar as to be able to gauge the level or extent to which educational institutions in the region are likely to be ethical or not.


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

More information about the RPD mailing list