[rpd] AFPUB-2016-V4-002-DRAFT02

[h.lu at anytimechinese.com]

Hi

> 在 2016年2月13日，下午3:06，Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com> 写道：
> 
> Hi Lu,
>  
> Comments inline:
>  
> 1. If there is an transfer policy, please make sure that the last /22 received was none-transferable for X amount of time(as it was an loophole in RIPE region and take quite a bit effects to close afterwards, and we can prevent it from beginning.)
>  
> No issue with this, but we think it would be covered in the transfer policy rather than this one, though we agree with the sentiment and we don’t believe any space acquired within a to be defined time period should be transferable.
>  
> 2. I would suggest adding FIFO to the "near depletion" for the fair process, and reduce staff burden on the matter. An "near depletion" can be defines as an application is larger than current "free space" left in the pool( better definition is welcome of course)
>  
> This is possible, though we would like to hear the host masters comments on this.  The FIFO principles in the proposed policy are designed to avoid slowing down the application process drastically, but there may be better options than the one proposed as well.  We welcome community input on this and also welcome host master input on this.

Fairness concerns(e.g I applied first but why he gets the space I didn't), in order not let the staff take the responsibility who get the address first, a clear, workable solution should proposed to make sure everyone understand, and staff has clear instruction to excuses it,  and staff don't have to take the blame about giving the last bit to who ever is.( sorry about my English ability, did I make myself understandable here?)
>  
> 3. Removing location requirement for the last /22 and allow companies world wide come to get the last /22, and expanding the reserved allocation to /10, might help Afrinic have a stable financial future.(1000USD/ member for 1000 IPs, a /10 can generate 4 millions USD per yaer revenue for Afrinic, in which would double it's current budget without African organizations paying anything).
>  
> I’m 100% certain (though I haven’t as of yet spoken to them regarding this point) that my co-authors (and myself) would strongly oppose this.  The new entrant block is meant to provide space for African entities, we are not in the business of giving space to the rest of the world that ran out of theirs.  So this point, simply isn’t going to make it into this policy!

I heard from a board member in last meeting about financial concerns, I think this might be a good idea to solve it without asking African orgs to pay more. A /10 is merely 2% of address space of Afrinic, but could provide 80% of budget of Afrinic, IMHO, I think it's not bad trade off.

Or we can charge double for orgs based outside of region, then a /10 would give Afrinic 8 millions used per annul in budget. And I believe there will be a lot org out there to pay 2k use for 1k address.

But my end point is, I will not go strongly on this point although as I see it, it will provide a stable financial future for Afrinic, but still, with out it, every African org pays a bit more, Afrinic is still not expensive to run, we can afford it anyway.
  
>  
> Thanks
>  
> Andrew
>  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20160213/ea59cd9e/attachment.html>