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

[AFRINIC-rpd] Last call - Academic IPv4 Allocation- AFPUB-2013-GEN-001-DRAFT-03 -

Bope Domilongo Christian christianbope at
Tue Jul 9 07:34:23 UTC 2013

Dear Community,

A lot of  debate and view was raised in the mailing list concerning this
policy. I'll not go through some detail. After following religiously the
discussion, comment and argument from those who support and not, I am
convince that for the sustainability and sufficiency of our community and
the interest of  Universities, supporting this will be unfair for my point
of view.

Writing on my personal ability, I am not support this policy for the
interest of the community.

It obvious that the majority of the community are not ready to support this
as it is.

Best Regards

On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 3:29 AM, Owen DeLong <owen at> wrote:

> On Jul 8, 2013, at 1:45 PM, Dr Paulos Nyirenda <paulos at> wrote:
> >
> > Academic IPv4 Allocation- AFPUB-2013-GEN-001-DRAFT-03
> >
> > A lot has been said already on this, I just want to add my voice that I
> am unable to
> > support this policy draft as it stands right now. I would also like to
> note that those
> > who are neutral on this are basically saying that there is no need to
> change policy as
> > of now with this draft.
> As one who is neutral, I will clarify that your statement here is not an
> accurate reflection
> of my viewpoint. There are many possible reasons someone may choose a
> neutral
> position on a policy without necessarily reflecting their belief as to
> whether policy
> needs to be changed or not.
> > I like to proposal because I am an academic, a hat that says I teach in
> at university
> > level. As an academic I tend to like aspects  of the policy that aim to
> improve the
> > situation for academic institutions. But I do not see why this should be
> restricted to
> > only HEI, whatever that is, it should go to other levels as well.
> Agreed. I have stated as much several times in this thread.
> > Basing IP address allocation on things like number of students and
> staffs basically says
> > that we would be basing this on the budget of the HEI and not on need
> for the IP
> > resources. But in most public HEIs, the budget is mostly based on need
> and utilisation,
> > so why would we move away from the same allocation based on need for IP
> resources?
> I disagree. First, we are not basing the allocation to the Educational
> Institution on the
> number of students and staff. We are setting a reasonable cap on the
> amount of number
> resources that they can request. The policy is clear that an Institution
> which requires less
> can request less based on their needs.
> In reality, the number of students and staff do serve as a reasonable
> proxy for judging
> the likely IP number resource requirements of the institution, so I do not
> believe this is
> an unreasonable approach.
> > The budget for most public HEIs is a very tight one almost all the time.
> This may
> > justify this policy which seems to aim to help cash-strapped HEIs but it
> also means
> > exposing Afrinic to more financially toxic items. Seeing the reported
> financial
> > statements this year, it becomes difficult, when I put on Afrinic hats,
> to assist one
> > set of African institutions while poisoning another.
> I think the use of the words toxic and poisoning here is inflammatory and
> unjustified.
> Andrew has done a good job of showing that this proposal is probably
> somewhere between
> neutral to slightly positive for AfriNIC in the short term and not
> significantly negative in the
> longer term.
> > One of the major principles of the AfrNIC PDP is fairness (3.3),
> everyone should be
> > treated the same by Afrinic policies. While seeking to help HEIs, this
> policy draft
> > seems to break this principle, across levels of academic institutions,
> across regions,
> > across AfriNIC constituencies, across levels of development, etc.
> I think the proposal is fair across regions. I agree that all levels of
> academic institutions
> should have access under this proposal, not just some narrow definition of
> HEI whatever
> that means.
> I ask you to explain how you believe it is unfair across constituencies
> and/or levels of
> development and any other categories meant by "etc.".
> > The categorization of students still remains debatable. I would like to
> see how HIEs
> > like UNISA measure up in the policy, in the simulations, and how do
> regions that supply
> > very large numbers of students to such institutions benefit from this
> policy. Dynamics
> > of HEIs seems to indicate a growing need for distance or network based
> education
> > delivery. By removing the IP resource allocation based on network need,
> the policy seems
> > to be biased to considering only the dynamics of HEIs while ignoring the
> dynamics of IP
> > resource allocation.
> This policy does not remove that possibility. It creates an option to use
> a more convenient
> formulation where applicable and/or useful. Nothing prevents an
> educational institution
> from applying under the traditional policy even if this is enacted.
> Owen
> _______________________________________________
> rpd mailing list
> rpd at

Best Regards
Christian Bope Domilongo
Gtalk : christianbope at
Msn : christianbope at
Skype : christian.bope
Phone : +243993005258
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the RPD mailing list