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

[rpd] Two more petitioners

Saul Stein saul at
Thu Dec 21 07:19:43 UTC 2017

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

The fact that one can only get a /18 or /22 once a year...
That prevents companies from rolling out to new areas.

>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
>Pv4 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.
I am sure that the end users who currently have nothing would not agree with 

>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 


Are there 127 more companies that need it?

Looking at one of our clients as an example. They provide internet access to 
informal settlements. Luckily for them (don’t shudder at the thought) but 
they run NAT (this creates a nightmare of problems for them, but that isn't 
for this discussion). If they could only get 1x /18 per year, they wouldn't 
even be able to deliver services to a single settlement, never mind grow 
their business or connect new users. (Yes, this client can get as much v6 
space from us as they'd like, but sadly they don’t make use of it)


> From: Jacob Odame [mailto:jacobodame00 at]
> Sent: 19 December 2017 09:53 AM
> To: Jackson Muthili <jacksonmuthi at>
> Cc: AfriNIC Board of Directors' List <board at>;
> ceo at; rpd <rpd at>
> 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>
> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 12:55 AM, Andrew Alston
> <Andrew.Alston at> 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
> 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

More information about the RPD mailing list