<p dir="ltr">Andrew,</p>
<p dir="ltr"> You need not respond to all opinions that have no material effect on OUR proposed policy else your motive will be mistaken. Marriage is not the only way to help a widow. I think discretion is the greater part of valour.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Jackson,</p>
<p dir="ltr">Do not try to be both accuser and judge. Leave the co-chairs to do their work. Repitition does not count neither does extravagant antagonism. </p>
<p dir="ltr">Sunday.</p>
<div class="gmail_quote">On 25 Jun 2013 07:10, "Jackson Muthili" <<a href="mailto:jacksonmuthi@gmail.com">jacksonmuthi@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 3:00 PM, Andrew Alston<br>
<<a href="mailto:alston.networks@gmail.com">alston.networks@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> Sorry Badru,<br>
><br>
> But I have to disagree with this, strongly and vocally.<br>
><br>
> The policy process is EXTREMELY clear in this regard, the meeting requested<br>
> changes, those changes have now been submitted, and the policy now needs to<br>
> go through last call as agreed at the meeting and by the process. That last<br>
> call has NOT been made yet and we are waiting for that.<br>
><br>
> Further more, if a policy that is passed with over 90% support in the room<br>
> can be invalided by the same 10% that voted against it from the floor and<br>
> pushed out by months, I would argue that our policy process is fundamentally<br>
> flawed, since it means that irrespective of the minority of people who<br>
> oppose the policy, it can be delayed indefinitely.<br>
<br>
One person can find serious matter which one hundred fail to see.<br>
<br>
And process flaw can be fix if for the good of everyone.<br>
<br>
> Again, I state that if the people on this list that were objecting were NOT<br>
> the same ones that were in the room and we were dealing with a different<br>
> segment of the membership base and the community, my stance on this would be<br>
> different, but we aren't, this is the minority that were in the room that<br>
> are now objecting again after their objections were overruled by community<br>
> consensus.<br>
><br>
> So, I ask, do we have respect for community consensus or not?<br>
<br>
<br>
What community concensus?<br>
<br>
Now on these discussion majority is against!<br>
<br>
I also still oppose!<br>
<br>
Jack<br>
<br>
<br>
> From: Badru Ntege <<a href="mailto:ntegeb@one2net.co.ug">ntegeb@one2net.co.ug</a>><br>
> Date: Monday 24 June 2013 2:19 PM<br>
> To: Maye Diop <<a href="mailto:mayediop@gmail.com">mayediop@gmail.com</a>><br>
> Cc: Andrew Alston <<a href="mailto:alston.networks@gmail.com">alston.networks@gmail.com</a>>, rpd <<a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net">rpd@afrinic.net</a>>, Alan<br>
> Barrett <<a href="mailto:apb@cequrux.com">apb@cequrux.com</a>><br>
> Subject: Re: [AFRINIC-rpd] PDP discussions<br>
><br>
> To Andrew and All<br>
><br>
> i would suggest its time to consider a third alternative to this policy as<br>
> it seems to be not settling well with a number of people. I believe a mid<br>
> point can be achieved but for us to get to that point you have to be<br>
> prepared to move from your current position.<br>
><br>
> from a financial point of view this policy is dangerous to AfriNIC and i<br>
> think i have to be honest and say it here. From a due diligence point of<br>
> view i can imagine it would be an administrative nightmare. And from a<br>
> community point of view i think comments on this thread are already showing<br>
> unwelcome but understandable sentiments.<br>
><br>
> Lets take some time and see how we can make adjustments if possible to make<br>
> it viable. If not possible lets revisit the problem we are trying to solve<br>
> and see if we can creatively fix the problem without a policy that scares<br>
> the community.<br>
><br>
> What are we trying to fix ?<br>
> what is the criteria for success ?<br>
> what solution will work for all parties ?<br>
><br>
> And can we do all the above without breaking anything.<br>
><br>
> regards<br>
><br>
> Badru<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> On Jun 24, 2013, at 2:35 PM, Maye Diop <<a href="mailto:mayediop@gmail.com">mayediop@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> Dear Andew,<br>
> I do work on the financial model and what I got is different from yours.<br>
> That's why I would like afrinic staff to make a<br>
> 1) financial analysis which will make comparison with current policy and<br>
> sustainability,<br>
> 2) geographic analysis which will allow to appreciate @s' repartition<br>
> through africa region (north, south, est, ouest, central and indian ocean)<br>
> 3) long or medium consequence about no need of any justification to get back<br>
> @s.<br>
> Best Regards,<br>
><br>
><br>
> 2013/6/24 Andrew Alston <<a href="mailto:alston.networks@gmail.com">alston.networks@gmail.com</a>><br>
>><br>
>> Hi Maye,<br>
>><br>
>> I do not understand how you can claim this is depriving AfriNIC of its<br>
>> revenues. Let us look at some hard facts.<br>
>><br>
>> Firstly, annual fees and application fees will still apply to any<br>
>> applications made under this policy, the policy does not change the fee<br>
>> structure in any way shape or form. Secondly, irrespective of if the space<br>
>> is used under this policy or by other organisations, the money is still<br>
>> coming in. The current revenues generated by already existent applications<br>
>> will also keep flowing.<br>
>><br>
>> By the published figures at the meeting, if you extrapolate from the data<br>
>> provided in the financial slides based on the amount of revenue generated by<br>
>> new members, it averages out at under $4,000 per member. Because of the<br>
>> size of the applications being generated by this policy, the fees generated<br>
>> on the application fees will actually be higher than that. Further to this,<br>
>> AfriNIC is going to need a model to adjust the fees for the reality that<br>
>> IPv4 life span is limited anyway.<br>
>><br>
>> Our application rate for new customers is also limited by the number of<br>
>> ISP's, and whats more due to the amount of consolidation on the continent<br>
>> within the corporate sector that is likely to occur in the coming<br>
>> months/years, the revenue fees are likely to decrease from that as well,<br>
>> since a merged organisation with multiple blocks will move from one category<br>
>> to the other, but the overall aggregate will reduce.<br>
>><br>
>> I would seriously suggest that you actually do some financial modelling<br>
>> around this, and you will actually find that yes, running out of IPv4 may<br>
>> have an impact on the financial status of AfriNIC, but it can be addressed,<br>
>> and the same situation exists irrespective of this policy being passed or<br>
>> not. The key difference is that without this policy while we may have more<br>
>> revenue coming in (and it won't be substantially more), it will be coming in<br>
>> from foreign sources who have taken our IP space off this continent for use<br>
>> in Asia, Europe and the States. I once again stress that current policy<br>
>> does not preclude this from happening unless you refer to the soft landing<br>
>> policy.<br>
>><br>
>> So, in summary, it comes to a choice, get the revenues albeit at a<br>
>> slightly lower rate, with a fairly drastic income in initial application<br>
>> fees from the initial applications this policy is likely to generate, or<br>
>> deprive yourself of revenues by slowing allocation rates by not passing the<br>
>> policy, or get the revenue from foreign entities who have taken our<br>
>> resources and left us with nothing (which I believe is not in the interests<br>
>> of this community AT ALL).<br>
>><br>
>> Seriously, before we all panic, lets actually run the models, look at the<br>
>> numbers, and realise that this panic is over nothing.<br>
>><br>
>> Andrew<br>
>><br>
>> From: Maye Diop <<a href="mailto:mayediop@gmail.com">mayediop@gmail.com</a>><br>
>> Date: Monday 24 June 2013 11:56 AM<br>
>> To: Andrew Alston <<a href="mailto:alston.networks@gmail.com">alston.networks@gmail.com</a>><br>
>> Cc: Adiel Akplogan <<a href="mailto:adiel@afrinic.net">adiel@afrinic.net</a>>, Bope Domilongo Christian<br>
>> <<a href="mailto:christianbope@gmail.com">christianbope@gmail.com</a>>, Alan Barrett <<a href="mailto:apb@cequrux.com">apb@cequrux.com</a>>, rpd<br>
>> <<a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net">rpd@afrinic.net</a>><br>
>><br>
>> Subject: Re: [AFRINIC-rpd] PDP discussions<br>
>><br>
>> Dear All,<br>
>> I would like to express again my concern about this policy which is a<br>
>> strategy to hold our precious v4 adresses and deprive Afrinic from its<br>
>> unique source of revenues. Then how will AFRINIC continue serving this<br>
>> continent by providing training and support for internet growth?<br>
>> I call all board members and the whole community to take their<br>
>> responsability to avoid any action which will jeopardize afrinics' future.<br>
>> Best Regards,<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> 2013/6/24 Andrew Alston <<a href="mailto:alston.networks@gmail.com">alston.networks@gmail.com</a>><br>
>>><br>
>>> Hi Adiel,<br>
>>><br>
>>> Just a correction on the South African statistics, University of the Free<br>
>>> State has an ASN. University of Cape Town also has an ASN, Rhodes.<br>
>>><br>
>>> I also need to stress that while the UbuntuNet Alliance is registered as<br>
>>> "Netherlands", it is very clearly an African organisation with its sole<br>
>>> focus the connectivity of academic networks in Africa. This is merely a<br>
>>> company registration that caused it to state Netherlands (which, while I<br>
>>> don't speak for the Alliance, if I am correct now also has a registration in<br>
>>> Malawi)<br>
>>><br>
>>> I do have to say that in these statistics, I find certain things very<br>
>>> telling and I think it clearly highlights just how much the policy under<br>
>>> discussion is needed across the continent.<br>
>>><br>
>>> Currently South African institutions with their legacy space are<br>
>>> utilising more than 10 times the space than their nigerian counterparts.<br>
>>> The student base at HEI's in the respective countries seems to be pretty<br>
>>> similar from published statistics, this policy will address that imbalance<br>
>>> by providing access to space those those institutions in Nigeria. It is<br>
>>> also very telling that there are single institutions in South Africa that<br>
>>> have more IP address space than the entire academic sector in Ghana, Egypt<br>
>>> and Congo DR combined!!! This is the VERY reason this policy needs to pass,<br>
>>> because it will make it so much easier for these institutions to get space<br>
>>> and address the imbalance.<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> Thanks<br>
>>><br>
>>> Andrew<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> From: Adiel Akplogan <<a href="mailto:adiel@afrinic.net">adiel@afrinic.net</a>><br>
>>> Date: Monday 24 June 2013 10:59 AM<br>
>>><br>
>>> To: Bope Domilongo Christian <<a href="mailto:christianbope@gmail.com">christianbope@gmail.com</a>><br>
>>> Cc: <<a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net">rpd@afrinic.net</a>>, Alan Barrett <<a href="mailto:apb@cequrux.com">apb@cequrux.com</a>><br>
>>><br>
>>> Subject: Re: [AFRINIC-rpd] PDP discussions<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> On 2013-06-21, at 11:44 AM, Bope Domilongo Christian<br>
>>> <<a href="mailto:christianbope@gmail.com">christianbope@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>>><br>
>>> I would like to request to Afrinic to provide the current IPV4 allow to<br>
>>> all African Universities regionally.<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> The information is temporarily available at (this is :<br>
>>><br>
>>> <a href="http://meeting.afrinic.net/www3-utils/hei-stats/hei.php" target="_blank">http://meeting.afrinic.net/www3-utils/hei-stats/hei.php</a><br>
>>><br>
>>> thanks.<br>
>>><br>
>>> - a.<br>
>>> _______________________________________________ rpd mailing list<br>
>>> rpd@afrinic.nethttps://<a href="http://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd" target="_blank">lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd</a><br>
>>><br>
>>> _______________________________________________<br>
>>> rpd mailing list<br>
>>> <a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net">rpd@afrinic.net</a><br>
>>> <a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd</a><br>
>>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> --<br>
>> ---------------------<br>
>> Mme Ndéye Maimouna DIOP<br>
>> Spécialiste ICT4D<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> --<br>
> ---------------------<br>
> Mme Ndéye Maimouna DIOP<br>
> Spécialiste ICT4D<br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> rpd mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net">rpd@afrinic.net</a><br>
> <a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd</a><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> rpd mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net">rpd@afrinic.net</a><br>
> <a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd</a><br>
><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
rpd mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net">rpd@afrinic.net</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd</a><br>
</blockquote></div>