Search RPD Archives
[rpd] Two more petitioners
jacksonmuthi at gmail.com
Mon Dec 18 19:15:40 UTC 2017
On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 6:10 PM, Andrew Alston
Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com> wrote:
> As per attached
Extract of attached petitions in quotes below and comments therein
> To: The AFRINIC POLICY DEVELOPMENT CO-CHAIRS
> RE: IPv4 Soft Landing Bis
> I, the undersigned, representing Afrihost SP hereby wish to state my clear and unambiguous
> opposition to the IPv4 Soft Landing BIS proposal, AFPUB-2016-V4-001-DRAFT-07
> I oppose this policy because I believe that the policy in its current form is harmful to the industry
Can the opposer or the convener of the opposers explain the harm that
will befall our dear industry?
> irrespective of the motives of the authors, will have the effect of limiting the growth of Internet
> penetration in Africa.
According to various sources, about 13.5% of the African population
has Internet access. While Africa accounts for 15.0% of the world's
population, only 6.2% of the World's Internet subscribers are
Africans. Africans who have access to broadband connections are
estimated to be in percentage of 1% or lower.
These metrics tell a compelling story about a continent whose internet
is growing, but is still constrained through infrastructure, save for
one country that is South Africa, where all the opposers or their
convener appears to emanate. While their concerns are selfishly in the
interest of their business landscape and interests, the situation in
the other 53 countries is a far cry from the reality in South Africa.
For the internet to continue to grow, they will need affordable means
to acquire IPv4 address space for a considerable time in the
foreseeable future. Even if the IPv6 argument holds true, we have
argued on here that IPv6 is the future, yes, but Africa, South Africa,
Americas and the others are still far from that IPv6 future. We would
otherwise not be having this conversation.
For the Internet to grow in Africa and for the unconnected to still
get connected, the need to preserve IPv4 space in the registry and
still make it available to both new and existing operators is as
extremely critical as the need itself to get connected. I cannot see a
better policy to assure this than this one.
> I further believe that to lock space up in a manner that ensures that it will still be unused after the
> rest of the world has moved to V6,
If the rest of the world has moved to IPv6, AFRINIC will not have run
out of IPv6 space to dole out to our communities and businesses. They
will all just get IPv6 simple and easy.
> thereby wasting a precious African resource until such a point as
> it will be worthless is completely contrary to the interests of the African industry as a whole.
The principle is to fairly distribute the resource in a period of
scarcity, not to greedily dole it out to the wealthiest. Do not ignore
the fact that AFRINIC serves a community of 54 African countries. It
does not sell IP addresses in a capitalist free market system where
the richest take it all at the expense of the poorer. If the resource
ever becomes worthless, IPv6 would be up and running, and the
continent wins. The issue is not the *worth* or *value* of the
resource, but getting everyone connected. Do not lose the purpose of
> Finally, I believe that this policy and its implementation are in direct conflict with section 3.4.ii of the
> AFRINIC bylaws, which reads (with particular emphasis on relevant wording indicated):
> (Under Types and Objects of the company)
> 3.4 The Company shall have, both within and outside the Republic of Mauritius, full capacity to carry
> and/or undertake any business or activity, including, but not limited to, the following objects:
> 3.4.i To provide the service of allocating and registering Internet resources for the purpose of
> enabling communications via open system network protocols and to assist in the development and
> growth of the Internet in the African region.
:-) no comment on this one
anyhoo I realized last call passed. My thoughts to the petitioners and
their convener are to show that the points in their signed document
are, although plausible in a different context, are mostly immaterial
for all intents and purposes of this proposal.
I trust in good judgement of chairs as discussions progress.
More information about the RPD