<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 10.00.9200.16612"></HEAD>
<BODY style="FONT: 10pt Segoe UI; MARGIN: 4px 4px 1px">
<DIV>Hi,</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I support the following draft AFPUB-2013-GEN-001-DRAFT-03. I feel it is in the best interest of the African community. After reading all of the comments I still believe it to be a good policy.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Louis<BR><BR>>>> <rpd-request@afrinic.net> 2013-06-26 02:23 PM >>><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: Commencement of the last call (Dewole Ajao)<BR> 2. Re: Commencement of the last call (Dewole Ajao)<BR><BR><BR>----------------------------------------------------------------------<BR><BR>Message: 1<BR>Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 11:56:34 +0000 (GMT)<BR>From: Dewole Ajao <dewole@forum.org.ng><BR>Subject: Re: [AFRINIC-rpd] Commencement of the last call<BR>To: Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com><BR>Cc: rpd <rpd@afrinic.net><BR>Message-ID: <1629415906.7.1372247794363.JavaMail.root@forum.org.ng><BR>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"<BR><BR><BR>On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 12:15 PM, Dewole Ajao < dewole@forum.org.ng > wrote: <BR><BR><BR><BR>A few constructive modifications to this policy have been suggested and as a PDP newbie, I'm interested in seeing the most recent revision of the draft as the website still carries DRAFT-02. <BR><BR><BR><BR><BR>Your observation is actually valid and we have notified the site Admin to make the necessary update. Hopefully it will be done today. Nevertheless you can find the DRAFT-03 here: <A href="https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2013/003332.html">https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2013/003332.html</A> <BR><BR>Ack. Thanks. <BR><BR>Dewole. <BR>-------------- next part --------------<BR>An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<BR>URL: <A href="https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20130626/0324d3f5/attachment-0001.htm">https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20130626/0324d3f5/attachment-0001.htm</A><BR><BR>------------------------------<BR><BR>Message: 2<BR>Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 12:22:36 +0000 (GMT)<BR>From: Dewole Ajao <dewole@forum.org.ng><BR>Subject: Re: [AFRINIC-rpd] Commencement of the last call<BR>To: Andrew Alston <alston.networks@gmail.com><BR>Cc: rpd <rpd@afrinic.net><BR>Message-ID: <278662006.277.1372249356304.JavaMail.root@forum.org.ng><BR>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"<BR><BR>Hi Andrew, <BR><BR>The concern about opposing definitions of "enough addresses for the projected rollout" can be resolved within the policy itself so it doesn't become a burden for Afrinic staff in future. Since the policy will allow for "startup allocation" without infrastructure on ground, there wouldn't be the issue of slow starters getting nothing; only non-starters will get nothing. <BR><BR>Personal suggestion for startup allocation is 40-50%. I think half is a good figure because <BR>1. It (almost) halves the chances that a large institution that is lackadaisical about rollout will sit on address space that could have beeen assigned to others (thus protecting the smaller/poorer). <BR>2. It provides a substantial amount (about half) of the resources needed for any institution that is serious about deployment to start with (thus still serving the larger/richer). A larger institution that can justify immediate 100% deployment will still get it based on existing justification policy, right? <BR><BR>Dewole. <BR><BR>----- Original Message -----<BR><BR>From: "Andrew Alston" <alston.networks@gmail.com> <BR>To: "Dewole Ajao" <dewole@forum.org.ng> <BR>Cc: "Walubengo J" <jwalu@yahoo.com>, "Maye Diop" <mayediop@gmail.com>, "rpd" <rpd@afrinic.net> <BR>Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2013 12:30:09 PM <BR>Subject: Re: [AFRINIC-rpd] Commencement of the last call <BR><BR>Hi Dewole, <BR><BR>My problem with this is that this again disadvantages the institutions who are rolling out slowly, and could end up in a situation where they get none, and does nothing to address the imbalance of space where the poorer institutions are still hugely disadvantaged in the fact that they have to apply multiple times to get to the same level as their counterparts. Also "enough addresses for the projected rollout" becomes a point of contention and debate with AfriNIC staff, because once again the issue of concurrency rears its head when you are attempting to rollout wireless networks. <BR><BR>I remind this list that the original policy proposed a ratio of 3:1 and it was at the request of this list and this community that we raised that to a 5:1, indicating that the community on this list believed that the 3:1 ratio was infact to low. <BR><BR>Andrew <BR><BR><BR>From: Dewole Ajao < dewole@forum.org.ng > <BR>Date: Wednesday 26 June 2013 1:15 PM <BR>To: Andrew Alston < alston.networks@gmail.com > <BR>Cc: Walubengo J < jwalu@yahoo.com >, Maye Diop < mayediop@gmail.com >, rpd < rpd@afrinic.net > <BR>Subject: Re: [AFRINIC-rpd] Commencement of the last call <BR><BR>A few constructive modifications to this policy have been suggested and as a PDP newbie, I'm interested in seeing the most recent revision of the draft as the website still carries DRAFT-02. Apologies for my ignorance if it's already somewhere I'm not aware of. <BR><BR>In the past couple of hours, I have seen just one reasonable fear and I believe it is easy to fix this. <BR><BR>The fear was: <BR>* That the proposed policy will allow some institutions take up IPv4 addresses to the detriment of late-movers that are yet to request allocations. <BR><BR>Suggested fix: Authors should revise the policy so that allocations are based not solely on the number of students enrolled but also on a reasonable phased plan for rollout (as per existing policy). Afrinic can first allocate enough addresses for say Year 1 of projected rollout. If institutions need more in subsequent years after rollout, they can request more with evidence that 80% utilization has been reached. <BR><BR>Phasing the allocations can be likened to the use of small plates at an all-you-can-eat-buffet; go eat then come back to the queue when you're done. Everyone in the room (hopefully) gets to eat a portion. <BR><BR>I hope this is helpful so we can move forward. <BR><BR>Dewole. <BR><BR><BR>----- Original Message -----<BR><BR>From: "Andrew Alston" < alston.networks@gmail.com > <BR>To: "Walubengo J" < jwalu@yahoo.com >, "Maye Diop" < mayediop@gmail.com >, "rpd" < rpd@afrinic.net > <BR>Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2013 11:11:01 AM <BR>Subject: Re: [AFRINIC-rpd] Commencement of the last call <BR><BR>Hi Walu, <BR><BR>Nice to see you on the list and joining our lively debate :) <BR><BR>> I hope this does not turn out to be a one-to-one match :-) <BR><BR>I hope that is not the case, I believe we should be debating this policy on <BR>technical merits and in the view to what is in the best interests of the <BR>entire continent. <BR><BR>> 1. The policy is not good since it seems to favour certain orgarnizations <BR>(academia) - the risk here being that soon or later, other specialized <BR>organisations may come up with their own specialized policies as well. Think of <BR>Churches, Political Parties, Youth, Football groups etc :-) <BR><BR>I can understand this concern, however, it needs to be stated that any such <BR>policy would need to pass through the PDP as this one is. If the community <BR>found consensus for such things, then as a community organisation AfriNIC <BR>should not oppose it. That is what the policy process is there for, to <BR>build policy that the community wants. However, if a specialised <BR>organisation could not gain the consensus of the community such a policy <BR>would be rejected. This mitigates this concern in my mind since anyone is <BR>free to propose any policy and put it through the process. <BR><BR>> 2. The Policy is good in that it makes it easier for Universities to quickly <BR>get IP addresses - which is a good thing since Universities tend to be the <BR>safest custodian and best consumers of IP resources amongst all other potential <BR>organisations. <BR><BR>100% agreed. <BR><BR>> I also see Maye's point that it could be that Southern region (read SA), East <BR>African region (read Kenyan) & perhaps West Africa region (read Nigerian) <BR>Universities maybe the ones who may "rush" for these IP <BR>> resources at the expense of the other regions(countries). I think it is a <BR>valid point and the most likely outcome of this policy. <BR><BR>I do not understand this point, at all. There has even been a South African <BR>institution on the list stating they would not need to take advantage of it. <BR>Those who have space have no real need of this policy and based on emails I <BR>have put forward earlier in this discussion, it is actually harder for those <BR>that have to qualify for large amounts of space under this policy. However, <BR>in Ethiopia there sits one HEI that I know of that has a single /30 for the <BR>entire University. This policy would allow for that to change, it would <BR>give them the space they need. Those who do NOT have space, need it, and <BR>this policy makes it far easier for them to get it. The policy <BR>significantly advantages those who currently have little or nothing, and I <BR>believe that that is in the best interests of the entire continent, as it <BR>creates a far more equal playing field and balances things removing the <BR>historical advantage from those who already have resources. <BR><BR>Andrew <BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR>From: Andrew Alston < alston.networks@gmail.com > <BR>To: Maye Diop < mayediop@gmail.com >; rpd < rpd@afrinic.net > <BR>Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2013 12:27 PM <BR>Subject: Re: [AFRINIC-rpd] Commencement of the last call <BR><BR><BR><BR>Thanks Maye, <BR><BR>I sent that privately but as I said in it, you are welcome to share my <BR>concerns with the list. <BR><BR>I stand by what I have said there, that I do not understand your motives, <BR>and that I believe strongly that this policy is in the best interests of the <BR>African continent as a whole and that is what I fight for. And I hope that <BR>we are NOT seeing a divide such as what this is beginning to look like <BR><BR>Andrew <BR><BR><BR>From: Maye Diop < mayediop@gmail.com > <BR>Date: Wednesday 26 June 2013 11:19 AM <BR>To: rpd < rpd@afrinic.net > <BR>Subject: Fwd: [AFRINIC-rpd] Commencement of the last call <BR><BR><BR>FYI <BR>---------- Forwarded message ---------- <BR>From: Andrew Alston < alston.networks@gmail.com > <BR>Date: 2013/6/26 <BR>Subject: Re: [AFRINIC-rpd] Commencement of the last call <BR>To: Maye Diop < mayediop@gmail.com > <BR><BR><BR>Sent off listÅ your decision to take it back to the list or notÅ . <BR><BR>; ii) his focus on south region without any provision of equity; <BR><BR>Is this the REAL reason for your opposition? Not on technical grounds, not <BR>on financial grounds, not on any other grounds, but because you oppose <BR>something that is not coming out of your own region? Even though we have <BR>shown and demonstrated that it will benefit your own region more than the <BR>Southern or Eastern regions? I am now openly asking you, is this a <BR>geo-political issue or a language issue or a racial issue? Because if that <BR>is the case, I would be extremely saddened to find that Africa once again <BR>cannot work together because of prejudice based on location, ethnicity, <BR>language, tribal association or any other. <BR><BR>I believe, strongly, that this policy is in the benefit of the continent as <BR>a whole, and I might point out, I actually spend VERY little time in the <BR>southern region these days, most of my work is with the commercials in East <BR>Africa, though I was involved in actively supporting and fighting for the <BR>IPv6 task force in Senegal, have presented in Ghana, have spent time in <BR>Gambia, and have always demonstrated throughout my career that my focus has <BR>been Africa centric rather then South Africa centric. <BR><BR>However, your statements and your views come across to me, and others who <BR>have expressed this view to me, as being extremely guided by issues that are <BR>not actually related to the policy and I question those motives (and am <BR>quite prepared to debate that on list if you so choose) <BR><BR>Andrew <BR><BR><BR>2013/6/26 Alan Barrett < apb@cequrux.com > <BR>> On Wed, 26 Jun 2013, Badru Ntege wrote: <BR>>> There is nothing stoping this institution now using the resources to set up a <BR>>> local for profit ISP, or even passing these resources to a third party that <BR>>> will take them off the continent. <BR>> <BR>> See the existing IPv4 allocation policy, AFPUB-2005-V4-001, section 9.5: <BR>> <BR>> " 9.5 Validity of an assignment <BR>> " <BR>> " Assignments remain valid as long as the original criteria <BR>> " on which the assignment was based are still in place and <BR>> " the assignment is registered in the AFRINIC database. An <BR>> " assignment is therefore invalid if it is not registered in the <BR>> " database and if the purpose for which it was registered has <BR>> " changed or no longer holds. <BR>> <BR>> An attempt to transfer of resources clearly invalidates the assignment under <BR>> clause 9.4 of AFPUB-2005-V4-001. I would argue that a mission change on the <BR>> part of the organisation (such as serving as a for-profit ISP), would also <BR>> invalidate the assignment under that clause. <BR>> <BR>> --apb (Alan Barrett) <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>> < <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>Mme Ndéye Maimouna DIOP <BR>Spécialiste ICT4D <BR>_______________________________________________ rpd mailing list <BR>rpd@afrinic.nethttps ://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd <BR><BR><BR><BR>-- <BR>--------------------- <BR>Mme Ndéye Maimouna DIOP <BR>Spécialiste ICT4D <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><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>Hi Walu, <BR><BR>Nice to see you on the list and joining our lively debate :) <BR><BR>> I hope this does not turn out to be a one-to-one match :-) <BR><BR>I hope that is not the case, I believe we should be debating this policy on technical merits and in the view to what is in the best interests of the entire continent. <BR><BR>> 1. The policy is not good since it seems to favour certain orgarnizations (academia) - the risk here being that soon or later, other specialized organisations may come up with their own specialized policies as well. Think of Churches, Political Parties, Youth, Football groups etc :-) <BR><BR>I can understand this concern, however, it needs to be stated that any such policy would need to pass through the PDP as this one is. If the community found consensus for such things, then as a community organisation AfriNIC should not oppose it. That is what the policy process is there for, to build policy that the community wants. However, if a specialised organisation could not gain the consensus of the community such a policy would be rejected. This mitigates this concern in my mind since anyone is free to propose any policy and put it through the process. <BR><BR>> 2. The Policy is good in that it makes it easier for Universities to quickly get IP addresses - which is a good thing since Universities tend to be the safest custodian and best consumers of IP resources amongst all other potential organisations. <BR><BR>100% agreed. <BR><BR>> I also see Maye's point that it could be that Southern region (read SA), East African region (read Kenyan) & perhaps West Africa region (read Nigerian) Universities maybe the ones who may "rush" for these IP <BR>> resources at the expense of the other regions(countries). I think it is a valid point and the most likely outcome of this policy. <BR><BR>I do not understand this point, at all. There has even been a South African institution on the list stating they would not need to take advantage of it. Those who have space have no real need of this policy and based on emails I have put forward earlier in this discussion, it is actually harder for those that have to qualify for large amounts of space under this policy. However, in Ethiopia there sits one HEI that I know of that has a single /30 for the entire University. This policy would allow for that to change, it would give them the space they need. Those who do NOT have space, need it, and this policy makes it far easier for them to get it. The policy significantly advantages those who currently have little or nothing, and I believe that that is in the best interests of the entire continent, as it creates a far more equal playing field and balances things removing the historical advantage from those who already have resources. <BR><BR>Andrew <BR><BR><BR>From: Andrew Alston < alston.networks@gmail.com > <BR>To: Maye Diop < mayediop@gmail.com >; rpd < rpd@afrinic.net > <BR>Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2013 12:27 PM <BR>Subject: Re: [AFRINIC-rpd] Commencement of the last call <BR><BR>Thanks Maye, <BR><BR>I sent that privately but as I said in it, you are welcome to share my concerns with the list. <BR><BR>I stand by what I have said there, that I do not understand your motives, and that I believe strongly that this policy is in the best interests of the African continent as a whole and that is what I fight for. And I hope that we are NOT seeing a divide such as what this is beginning to look like <BR><BR>Andrew <BR><BR><BR>From: Maye Diop < mayediop@gmail.com > <BR>Date: Wednesday 26 June 2013 11:19 AM <BR>To: rpd < rpd@afrinic.net > <BR>Subject: Fwd: [AFRINIC-rpd] Commencement of the last call <BR><BR><BR>FYI <BR>---------- Forwarded message ---------- <BR>From: Andrew Alston < alston.networks@gmail.com > <BR>Date: 2013/6/26 <BR>Subject: Re: [AFRINIC-rpd] Commencement of the last call <BR>To: Maye Diop < mayediop@gmail.com > <BR><BR><BR>Sent off listâ€| your decision to take it back to the list or notâ€|. <BR><BR>; ii) his focus on south region without any provision of equity; <BR><BR>Is this the REAL reason for your opposition? Not on technical grounds, not on financial grounds, not on any other grounds, but because you oppose something that is not coming out of your own region? Even though we have shown and demonstrated that it will benefit your own region more than the Southern or Eastern regions? I am now openly asking you, is this a geo-political issue or a language issue or a racial issue? Because if that is the case, I would be extremely saddened to find that Africa once again cannot work together because of prejudice based on location, ethnicity, language, tribal association or any other. <BR><BR>I believe, strongly, that this policy is in the benefit of the continent as a whole, and I might point out, I actually spend VERY little time in the southern region these days, most of my work is with the commercials in East Africa, though I was involved in actively supporting and fighting for the IPv6 task force in Senegal, have presented in Ghana, have spent time in Gambia, and have always demonstrated throughout my career that my focus has been Africa centric rather then South Africa centric. <BR><BR>However, your statements and your views come across to me, and others who have expressed this view to me, as being extremely guided by issues that are not actually related to the policy and I question those motives (and am quite prepared to debate that on list if you so choose) <BR><BR>Andrew <BR><BR><BR>2013/6/26 Alan Barrett < apb@cequrux.com > <BR><BR><BR><BR>On Wed, 26 Jun 2013, Badru Ntege wrote: <BR><BR><blockquote><BR>There is nothing stoping this institution now using the resources to set up a local for profit ISP, or even passing these resources to a third party that will take them off the continent. <BR><BR><BR><BR>See the existing IPv4 allocation policy, AFPUB-2005-V4-001, section 9.5: <BR><BR>" 9.5 Validity of an assignment <BR>" <BR>" Assignments remain valid as long as the original criteria <BR>" on which the assignment was based are still in place and <BR>" the assignment is registered in the AFRINIC database. An <BR>" assignment is therefore invalid if it is not registered in the <BR>" database and if the purpose for which it was registered has <BR>" changed or no longer holds. <BR><BR>An attempt to transfer of resources clearly invalidates the assignment under clause 9.4 of AFPUB-2005-V4-001. I would argue that a mission change on the part of the organisation (such as serving as a for-profit ISP), would also invalidate the assignment under that clause. <BR><BR>--apb (Alan Barrett) <BR><BR>______________________________ _________________ <BR>rpd mailing list <BR>rpd@afrinic.net <BR><A href="https://lists.afrinic.net/">https://lists.afrinic.net/</A> mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd <BR><BR></blockquote><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR>-- <BR>--------------------- <BR>Mme Ndéye Maimouna DIOP <BR>Spécialiste ICT4D <BR>_______________________________________________ rpd mailing list rpd@afrinic.net <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>Mme Ndéye Maimouna DIOP <BR>Spécialiste ICT4D <BR>_______________________________________________ rpd mailing list rpd@afrinic.net <A href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd</A> <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>-------------- next part --------------<BR>An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<BR>URL: <A href="https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20130626/70835381/attachment.htm">https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20130626/70835381/attachment.htm</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>End of rpd Digest, Vol 81, Issue 61<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>