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

[members-discuss] Re: [rpd] Board Statement with regards to allocation of large blocks of IP Addresses

Noah Maina mainanoa at
Wed Nov 26 19:23:53 UTC 2014

On 26 Nov 2014 16:46, "Seun Ojedeji" <seun.ojedeji at> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 2:12 PM, Alan Barrett <apb at> wrote:
>> Thank you Sunday, for that report.  I am in agreement with all of it,
>> but I would like to hightlght these two paragraphs:
>>> The board has been given every assurance that AfriNIC staff followed
>>> the IP allocation policy with regards to all allocations already made.
>>> The board appeals to the community and to the AfriNIC members to
>>> examine the current policies in light of the discussions held in
>>> recent weeks and should the community feel that a change is needed,
>>> the board encourages the members to follow the processes defined and
>>> propose suitable changes to the current policies.
>> I think it's especially important that both members applying for address
space, and staff handling such applications, should follow both the letter
and the spirit of the existing policies.
>> The staff should take reasonable measures to check the information
presented in applications, and the amount of checking that is reasonable
goes up with the size of the requested space.  The Board should be aware of
what's going on, especially when it may be controversial, but should not
interfere without very good cause.
>> If people think that the policies allow things that should not be
allowed, then the correct remedial action is not to petition the staff or
the board to do things outside the policy, but rather to go through the
policy development process to change the policy.
>> Finally, may we interpret the Board's message as meaning that Heng Lu's
application is now approved, and no longer under review?
> I think i will be surprised if board respond with a yes or no to this
question as it will most likely go against the principle that they have
highlighted in their earlier mail. Basically the way i have understood
board's message is that the board is not in the position to review/approve
allocation request as that is the role of staff. I also understand from
boards mail that staff is expected to make their assessment and decisions
based on the existing policies and procedures.

Which also means the ball is in the hands of the operations team or rather
responsible stuff ref: IP allocation and if their due diligence returns
positive results like " the previous allocation  was used up to foster
internt development in Africa to a larger extent and there is really need
to allocate more" ...then another allocation is worthy a short.....
Otherwsimply drop the additional allocation of more space :-)....



> Regards
>> --apb (Alan Barrett)
>> _______________________________________________
>> members-discuss mailing list
>> members-discuss at
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Seun Ojedeji,
>> Federal University Oye-Ekiti
>> web:
>> Mobile: +2348035233535
>> alt email: seun.ojedeji at
>>> The key to understanding is humility - my view !
> _______________________________________________
> rpd mailing list
> rpd at
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the RPD mailing list