[rpd] Two more petitioners

[Jackson Muthili]

On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 11:04 AM, Saul Stein <saul at enetworks.co.za> wrote:
> Jackson,
>
> I see that you too are now against this policy.
>
> You mention your concern, as should all of ours, be about the lack of
> broadband penetration in Africa, then how does limiting the access to
> resources help? Preventing companies from getting resources hinders rather
> than progresses the rollout of broadband.

Which part in the policy is preventing companies from getting resources?

I suspect what you intended to say ; it prevents some companies from
getting more IPs than they would have wanted.

We are dealing with a situation of a scarce public resource. Rationing
is the only reasonable method to use when dealing with the vagaries of
managing and allocating a scarce resource. It is applied in various
sectors. From health care to public utility services. The need for
IPv4 now in Africa and elsewhere is limitless at this moment and for
the foreseeable future, but the resource itself is not limitless. IP
space being a public and social resource, it is imperative to ration
it carefully so as to create a reasonable balance between unlimited
demand and limited supply.

When you want a policy that allows a few companies to be allocated
huge chunks of a scarce public and social good at the disadvantage of
many, many others - it sounds rather selfish to me.

So yes if you need a /11 you will instead get a /18 but it will allow
127 more companies to get a /18. Does this sound unreasonable (during
a scarcity)?

J

> From: Jacob Odame [mailto:jacobodame00 at gmail.com]
> Sent: 19 December 2017 09:53 AM
> To: Jackson Muthili <jacksonmuthi at gmail.com>
> Cc: AfriNIC Board of Directors' List <board at afrinic.net>; ceo at afrinic.net;
> rpd <rpd at afrinic.net>
> Subject: Re: [rpd] Two more petitioners
>
> These arguments make sense.
>
> Cheers
>
> Jacob
>
> On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 10:37 AM, Jackson Muthili <jacksonmuthi at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 12:55 AM, Andrew Alston
> <Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com> wrote:
>> While I am sorely tempted to respond point to point in your email and give
>> you a lesson in facts - I will not dignify this nonesense with such.
>
> You are the convener of opposers. I am open to read those facts.
>
>> I will however say this - this is the second time you have introduced a
>> racially biased context into the PDP - and discounted the will of a
>> significant portion of the member base - based of blatant unsubstantiated
>> and inaccurate prejudice
>
> Thank you for the comment.
>
> The operative words in your comments are :- THE WILL OF A SIGNIFICANT
> PORTION OF THE MEMBER BASE
>
> You see this is where the crux of your argument lies and where the problem
> is.
>
> In your other email you state this same notion that those opposing
> contribute 30% of AfriNIC revenue.
>
> - AfriNIC is a non profit company managing a critical resource (IPs)
> that is the engine of the internet which the UN already declared a
> basic human right.
> - Because of this very nature AfriNIC cant  sell IPs to highest
> bidders in an open market when those highest bidders pay the most
> revenue. Otherwise yes I will state again that if this was the case
> South Africa as the strongest economy (or one of the strongest) would
> just buy off AfriNIC and its miniature IPs and game closed.
> - You ostentatiously state that every country should be heard equally.
> Thank you for ignoring the fact that the internet penetration rates
> and state of the economy in South Africa (where you have convened the
> largest opposition) - although it can be better - is light years ahead
> of the other 53 African economies whose interests this policy proposal
> is trying to protect. To burry your head in the sand and ignore these
> realities does not take them away.
>
> J
>
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
>
>