[rpd] Two more petitioners

[Andrew Alston]

  *   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)?

Actually – if one company is doing 20+ thousand new subscribers a month – and the other company is doing 500 subscribers a month – or in the case of a certain network run by a certain author – doing no connections for many years and leaving only 25% of a /22 announced since the day they got the space – it sounds ENTIRELY reasonable that the company that is connecting African citizens who need connectivity *today* gets the space.

But – I guess for some this is all about their companies – forget the consumers that actually need to be connections today – forget the fact that we are meant to be trying to increase African penetration levels – TODAY – forget the fact that while space languishes unused it is the consumers who are disadvantaged – let’s just lock it all up forever more to  feel good that we have some IPs in the proverbial bank.

Sounds to be a little like a food bank for starving people that decides because there could be more starving people tomorrow – the ones who are hungry today get to go without.

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<https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd>
>
>

_______________________________________________
RPD mailing list
RPD at afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd<https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20171221/02337f66/attachment-0001.html>