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 -

Andrew Alston alston.networks at
Tue Jul 9 13:03:47 UTC 2013

Hi Paulos,

It would seem to me that your email again raises questions already raised
and answered in the previous summary I sent out.  You make reference to
the financials again, yet this question has been raised and responded to
multiple times.  While I respect the opinion of every member on this list
irrespective of their position, I would plead with people to follow the
correct course required to find consensus, and that is to either raise
specific questions against the proposed text so that the authors can look
and make possible adjustments post final call, or alternatively to respond
to the answers the authors have given up until now, either finding them
insufficient and if so stating why, so the further questions can be
addressed, or accepting the answers as written.

As of posting that last summary with each of the answers, I have yet to
see emails objecting to the answers given, and as such I believe it is
fair to assume that the majority accepts those answers as written?


On 2013/07/08 11:45 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.
>It has already been shown on this debate that it does not work to say
>that I am speaking
>as an individual, so, I will put all my ?hats? on.
>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.
>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
>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
>statements this year, it becomes difficult, when I put on Afrinic hats,
>to assist one
>set of African institutions while poisoning another.
>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.
>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
>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.
>While I like aspects of the policy that address academics, the draft is
>in need of
>improvement and I would like it to go around once more for more debate
>and possible
>improvement so that I can be happy with it no matter which hat I am
>Dr Paulos B Nyirenda
>NIC.MW & .mw ccTLD
>On 25 Jun 2013 at 11:33, Emile Milandou <emilemilan at> wrote:
>> Dear Colleagues,
>> Following the face to face discussions in Lusaka, Zambia during
>> AFRINIC 18, the following proposals reached consensus during the
>> meeting.
>> Remove requirement to announce entire v6 block as single aggregate
>> Steven Wiesman, Steven Tapper,Charles Hendrikson
>> AFPUB-2013-V6-001-DRAFT01
>> No Reverse Unless Assigned
>> Tim McGinnis
>> AFPUB-2012-DNS-001-DRAFT-02
>> Academic IPv4 Allocation
>> Andrew Alston, Sunday Folayan
>> AFPUB-2013-GEN-001-DRAFT-03
>> Anycast Assignments in the AFRINIC region
>> Mark Elkins, Mauritz Lewies, Tim McGinnis
>> AFPUB-2012-V4-001-DRAFT-01
>> The two-week last call period for these proposals starts today
>> At the end of the Last Call, we will make a final assessment on whether
>>consensus has
>been reached by taking into consideration the comments from the Public
>Policy Meeting as
>well as those during this Last Call period.
>> With Regards,
>> Emile Milandou, Seun Ojedeji
>> PDWG co-Chairs
>rpd mailing list
>rpd at

More information about the RPD mailing list