<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 9.00.8112.16484"></HEAD>
<BODY style="MARGIN: 4px 4px 1px; FONT: 10pt Segoe UI">
<DIV>Hello,</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Having read through this policy I feel it is in the best interest of African academia. </DIV>
<DIV>I support this policy.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Louis<BR><BR>>>> <rpd-request@afrinic.net> 6/25/2013 8:14 AM >>><BR>Send rpd mailing list submissions to<BR> rpd@afrinic.net<BR><BR>To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit<BR> <A href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd</A><BR>or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to<BR> rpd-request@afrinic.net<BR><BR>You can reach the person managing the list at<BR> rpd-owner@afrinic.net<BR><BR>When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific<BR>than "Re: Contents of rpd digest..."<BR><BR><BR>Today's Topics:<BR><BR> 1. Re: Latest version of the policy AFPUB-2013-GEN-001-DRAFT-03<BR> (Alan Barrett)<BR> 2. Re: Latest version of the policy AFPUB-2013-GEN-001-DRAFT-03<BR> (Andrew Alston)<BR> 3. Re: Latest version of the policy AFPUB-2013-GEN-001-DRAFT-03<BR> (Alan Barrett)<BR> 4. Re: Latest version of the policy AFPUB-2013-GEN-001-DRAFT-03<BR> (Sunday Folayan)<BR> 5. Re: PDP discussions (Jackson Muthili)<BR><BR><BR>----------------------------------------------------------------------<BR><BR>Message: 1<BR>Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2013 20:44:20 +0200<BR>From: Alan Barrett <apb@cequrux.com><BR>Subject: Re: [AFRINIC-rpd] Latest version of the policy<BR> AFPUB-2013-GEN-001-DRAFT-03<BR>To: rpd <rpd@afrinic.net><BR>Message-ID: <20130624184420.GF26805@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za><BR>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed<BR><BR>On Mon, 24 Jun 2013, Andrew Alston wrote:<BR>>I need to go through the list<BR>>of people I have that voted against in the room [...]<BR><BR>Several hands were raised in opposition to the unmodified proposal <BR>(DRAFT-02), but when I asked about the proposal with modifications <BR>that are now in DRAFT-03 (to use consistent terminology and to <BR>make it clear that an organiation may request less space), then I <BR>saw no hands raised at all.<BR><BR>--apb (Alan Barrett)<BR><BR><BR>------------------------------<BR><BR>Message: 2<BR>Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2013 20:51:30 +0200<BR>From: Andrew Alston <alston.networks@gmail.com><BR>Subject: Re: [AFRINIC-rpd] Latest version of the policy<BR> AFPUB-2013-GEN-001-DRAFT-03<BR>To: rpd <rpd@afrinic.net>, Alan Barrett <apb@cequrux.com><BR>Message-ID: <CDEE611B.6F97%alston.networks@gmail.com><BR>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"<BR><BR>Hi,<BR><BR>I concur with what Alan was saying, I was basing my original count on the<BR>first question. But he is correct that on the second vote there were no<BR>hands. Though the number of hands on the first question raised do<BR>coincide rather closely with the number of voices on this list right now :)<BR><BR>I do have a question to the PDWG chair's (or even the ex chairs) about<BR>this situation though.<BR><BR>>From what Seun just posted to the list:<BR><BR>------------<BR>A final review of the draft policy is initiated by the Working Group<BR>Chair(s) by sending an announcement to the Resource Policy<BR>Discussion mailing list. The Last Call period shall be at least two<BR>weeks. The Working Group Chair(s) shall evaluate the feedback<BR>received during the Public Policy Meeting and during this period and<BR>decide whether consensus has been achieved.<BR><BR>-------------<BR><BR>If the Face to Face meeting is evaluated in conjunction with the last call<BR>voices on the list, am I to conclude that these are evaluated together,<BR>and as such, 5 objections on the list + 5 objections on the floor, even if<BR>totalled together = 10 objections, against 60+ votes in favour, we still<BR>have consensus?<BR><BR>Or is there segregation between the last call and the on the floor vote?<BR>If there is, can I please understand how this is reconciled with the above<BR>extract on the process?<BR><BR>Thanks<BR><BR>Andrew<BR><BR><BR>On 2013/06/24 8:44 PM, "Alan Barrett" <apb@cequrux.com> wrote:<BR><BR>>On Mon, 24 Jun 2013, Andrew Alston wrote:<BR>>>I need to go through the list<BR>>>of people I have that voted against in the room [...]<BR>><BR>>Several hands were raised in opposition to the unmodified proposal<BR>>(DRAFT-02), but when I asked about the proposal with modifications<BR>>that are now in DRAFT-03 (to use consistent terminology and to<BR>>make it clear that an organiation may request less space), then I<BR>>saw no hands raised at all.<BR>><BR>>--apb (Alan Barrett)<BR>>_______________________________________________<BR>>rpd mailing list<BR>>rpd@afrinic.net<BR>><A href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd</A><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR>------------------------------<BR><BR>Message: 3<BR>Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2013 21:03:54 +0200<BR>From: Alan Barrett <apb@cequrux.com><BR>Subject: Re: [AFRINIC-rpd] Latest version of the policy<BR> AFPUB-2013-GEN-001-DRAFT-03<BR>To: rpd <rpd@afrinic.net><BR>Message-ID: <20130624190354.GG26805@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za><BR>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed<BR><BR>On Mon, 24 Jun 2013, Andrew Alston wrote:<BR>> I do have a question to the PDWG chair's (or even the ex chairs) <BR>> about this situation though. [...]<BR>><BR>> If the Face to Face meeting is evaluated in conjunction with <BR>> the last call voices on the list, am I to conclude that these <BR>> are evaluated together, and as such, 5 objections on the <BR>> list + 5 objections on the floor, even if totalled together <BR>> = 10 objections, against 60+ votes in favour, we still have <BR>> consensus?<BR><BR>As an ex-chair, I don't think that counting votes should be <BR>definitive. One serious objection can outweight many "me too" <BR>voices in favour, and vice versa. The chairs should be looking <BR>at the arguments more than at the number of people, but both are <BR>relevant.<BR><BR>> Or is there segregation between the last call and the on the <BR>> floor vote? If there is, can I please understand how this is <BR>> reconciled with the above extract on the process?<BR><BR>I think the chairs can consider everything. The end result should <BR>reflect the will of the community as a whole.<BR><BR>--apb (Alan Barrett)<BR><BR><BR>------------------------------<BR><BR>Message: 4<BR>Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2013 23:24:19 +0100<BR>From: Sunday Folayan <sfolayan@gmail.com><BR>Subject: Re: [AFRINIC-rpd] Latest version of the policy<BR> AFPUB-2013-GEN-001-DRAFT-03<BR>To: "AfriNIC RPD MList." <rpd@afrinic.net><BR>Message-ID:<BR> <CAFi3HFXtGeWN_AZ2G0b-XidBdmaoJNoNe+dJ-s12uPfF3sNNTA@mail.gmail.com><BR>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"<BR><BR>Alan,<BR><BR>It is appropriate at this point to say .....<BR><BR>Congrats on your 2013 Nii award. In addition to all your hats, your<BR>willingness and sacrifice last year to co chair this WG is testament to<BR>your versatility and commitment.<BR><BR>More grease to your elbow!<BR><BR>Sunday.<BR>On 24 Jun 2013 20:06, "Alan Barrett" <apb@cequrux.com> wrote:<BR><BR>> On Mon, 24 Jun 2013, Andrew Alston wrote:<BR>><BR>>> I do have a question to the PDWG chair's (or even the ex chairs) about<BR>>> this situation though. [...]<BR>>><BR>>> If the Face to Face meeting is evaluated in conjunction with the last<BR>>> call voices on the list, am I to conclude that these are evaluated<BR>>> together, and as such, 5 objections on the list + 5 objections on the<BR>>> floor, even if totalled together = 10 objections, against 60+ votes in<BR>>> favour, we still have consensus?<BR>>><BR>><BR>> As an ex-chair, I don't think that counting votes should be definitive.<BR>> One serious objection can outweight many "me too" voices in favour, and<BR>> vice versa. The chairs should be looking at the arguments more than at the<BR>> number of people, but both are relevant.<BR>><BR>> Or is there segregation between the last call and the on the floor vote?<BR>>> If there is, can I please understand how this is reconciled with the above<BR>>> extract on the process?<BR>>><BR>><BR>> I think the chairs can consider everything. The end result should reflect<BR>> the will of the community as a whole.<BR>><BR>> --apb (Alan Barrett)<BR>> ______________________________**_________________<BR>> rpd mailing list<BR>> rpd@afrinic.net<BR>> <A href="https://lists.afrinic.net/**mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd">https://lists.afrinic.net/**mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd</A><<A href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd</A>><BR>><BR>-------------- next part --------------<BR>An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<BR>URL: <A href="https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20130624/29733e92/attachment-0001.htm">https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20130624/29733e92/attachment-0001.htm</A><BR><BR>------------------------------<BR><BR>Message: 5<BR>Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 08:05:54 +0200<BR>From: Jackson Muthili <jacksonmuthi@gmail.com><BR>Subject: Re: [AFRINIC-rpd] PDP discussions<BR>To: Andrew Alston <alston.networks@gmail.com><BR>Cc: rpd <rpd@afrinic.net>, Alan Barrett <apb@cequrux.com><BR>Message-ID:<BR> <CA+DdLrSx36f+QWzGrQX7mToixWLGqVrG046Zg2NNbPfEo=s+=Q@mail.gmail.com><BR>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1<BR><BR>On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 3:00 PM, Andrew Alston<BR><alston.networks@gmail.com> 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 <ntegeb@one2net.co.ug><BR>> Date: Monday 24 June 2013 2:19 PM<BR>> To: Maye Diop <mayediop@gmail.com><BR>> Cc: Andrew Alston <alston.networks@gmail.com>, rpd <rpd@afrinic.net>, Alan<BR>> Barrett <apb@cequrux.com><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 <mayediop@gmail.com> 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 <alston.networks@gmail.com><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 <mayediop@gmail.com><BR>>> Date: Monday 24 June 2013 11:56 AM<BR>>> To: Andrew Alston <alston.networks@gmail.com><BR>>> Cc: Adiel Akplogan <adiel@afrinic.net>, Bope Domilongo Christian<BR>>> <christianbope@gmail.com>, Alan Barrett <apb@cequrux.com>, rpd<BR>>> <rpd@afrinic.net><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 <alston.networks@gmail.com><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 <adiel@afrinic.net><BR>>>> Date: Monday 24 June 2013 10:59 AM<BR>>>><BR>>>> To: Bope Domilongo Christian <christianbope@gmail.com><BR>>>> Cc: <rpd@afrinic.net>, Alan Barrett <apb@cequrux.com><BR>>>><BR>>>> Subject: Re: [AFRINIC-rpd] PDP discussions<BR>>>><BR>>>><BR>>>> On 2013-06-21, at 11:44 AM, Bope Domilongo Christian<BR>>>> <christianbope@gmail.com> 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">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://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd<BR>>>><BR>>>> _______________________________________________<BR>>>> rpd mailing list<BR>>>> rpd@afrinic.net<BR>>>> <A href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd">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>> rpd@afrinic.net<BR>> <A href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd</A><BR>><BR>><BR>><BR>> _______________________________________________<BR>> rpd mailing list<BR>> rpd@afrinic.net<BR>> <A href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd</A><BR>><BR><BR><BR>------------------------------<BR><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>rpd mailing list<BR>rpd@afrinic.net<BR><A href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd</A><BR><BR><BR>End of rpd Digest, Vol 81, Issue 33<BR>***********************************<BR></DIV><PRE>_____________________________________________________________________
University of the Free State: This message and its contents are subject to a disclaimer.
Please refer to http://www.ufs.ac.za/disclaimer for full details.
Universiteit van die Vrystaat:
Hierdie boodskap en sy inhoud is aan 'n vrywaringsklousule onderhewig.
Volledige besonderhede is by http://www.ufs.ac.za/vrywaring beskikbaar.
_____________________________________________________________________</PRE>
</BODY></HTML>