[rpd] Appeal against softlanding-bis declaration of consensus

Tue Jan 9 20:55:31 UTC 2018

> On Jan 9, 2018, at 03:25 , John Ngwoke <john.ngwoke at unn.edu.ng> wrote:
> 
> Hi Fiona,
> 
> Thanks for your opinion. My personal opinion against some of points you raised below;
> 
> 
> On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 9:34 AM, Fiona Asonga <tespok at tespok.co.ke <mailto:tespok at tespok.co.ke>> wrote:
> Hallo All
> 
> It would be good if the authors can respond to Frank's query below. Their answer will significantly help bring clarity to the issue they are trying to resolve.
> 
> I agree with you for the benefit of clarity especially for those who do not have full understanding of the purpose and aim of this proposal. 
> 
> 
> If it is an issue of denying entities that can justify for additional resource the ability to access the resource with a time cap then there is reason for concern from anyone who has potential of absorbing and justifying for additional resource.
> 
> IMHO I see this proposal as one will challenge the organizations into the deployment to IPv6 around Africa.   
> 
> The Bis proposal as a results puts AFRINIC in a precarious legal position in so far as AFRINIC's mandate of allocating resources is concerned. When we put AFRINIC in that position we are also giving up our community right to develop our allocation policies and are giving that power to legal systems to ensure fairness of our policy. While we should encourage IPV6 deployment we should facilitate for everyone who requires IPV4 resources to get them whether they are big or small. Remember the so called big LIR tend to operate in more than one country and may need more IPV4 for the less developed regions of this continent and these are many.
> 
> I know big organization like MTN with branches in Nigeria, Ghana, South Africa, Uganda, Sudan, etc are seen as different entities in each of the country they are operating, and if this is the case, there should be no fear of limiting them as operate in more than one country.

First, not all companies are organized this way, so it is possible for this to remain a problem.

Second, do you believe it is impossible to need more than a /18 to serve a single country? This would imply that such a country has fewer than 16,384 households that don’t currently have internet access from the company in question. I find that very hard to believe. Or is it that you think an ISP only needs to roll out service to 16,384 new customers per 24 months (that’s a customer acquisition rate of just under 683 per month.

That’s fine for a small-ish provider, in fact it might even be a pretty good month for a mom and pop ISP serving a small community, but for a major provider dropping in FTTH or CMTS infrastructure to even a medium-sized city, I’d say that’s pretty untenable.

Owen

>  
> 
> IMHO I propose we retain the current active policy already in operation that is more balanced and not proceed with BIS proposal.
> 
> Kind regards
> 
> Fiona Asonga
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Frank Habicht" <geier at geier.ne.tz <mailto:geier at geier.ne.tz>>
> To: rpd at afrinic.net <mailto:rpd at afrinic.net>
> Sent: Friday, January 5, 2018 8:35:15 AM
> Subject: Re: [rpd] Appeal against softlanding-bis declaration   of consensus
> 
> Hi,
> 
> On 1/4/2018 6:20 PM, Noah wrote:
> > On 4 Jan 2018 17:02, "Ornella GANKPA" <honest1989 at gmail.com <mailto:honest1989 at gmail.com>
> > <mailto:honest1989 at gmail.com <mailto:honest1989 at gmail.com>>> wrote:
> >
> >     It is explicitely said in the policy that any organization
> >     (regardless of its size) can be allocated /18 within a 24
> >     month period during exhaustion phase 1 and /22 during exhaustion phase.
> >
> >
> > +1 
> >
> > This is what I have been trying to point out to the opposers who have
> > refused to acknowledge this FACTS in the draft policy which FACTS comply
> > with Section 3.4(i) of the AFRINIC bylaws.
> 
> "any organization (regardless of its size) can be allocated /18 within a
> 24 month period during exhaustion phase 1 and /22 during exhaustion phase."
> 
> this is already the case now.
> even better. if they (any organisation) justify, they can get even more.
> 
> You point out positive things about the new policy (proposed), but these
> are already in place in the currently active policy.
> 
> So how is it an improvement?
> 
> Thanks,
> Frank
> 
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net <mailto: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 <mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd <https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd>
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
>  ---------------------------------------------------------------
> John C. Ngwoke (JP)
> Head, Network section
> ICT 
> University of Nigeria
> Nsukka 410001
> web: http://www.unn.edu.ng <http://www.unn.edu.ng/>
> Mobile: +2348035723901, +23407017059403
> Skype:  john.ngwoke
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20180109/bb395296/attachment-0001.html>