<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 14px; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; "><div>Badru, I would oppose these changes in the last call period (Other than the ratio, which we have always openly stated is a point for further negotiations and hence I believe that can be changed within the confines of last call)</div><div><br></div><div>We took a policy to the floor for consensus, the consensus was granted, and the agreement from the floor was that <span style="font-weight: bold; ">THAT</span> policy with modifications as requested on the floor go to last call.</div><div><br></div><div>To change the policy to add additional elements would not be what we had agreed with the community in that room, and that was to table what was put before them. We have to act within the policy and within the remit granted to us by the floor in Zambia, that is how the process is designed and how it is meant to work. Further changes to the policy would have to go back to the floor at a subsequent meeting, and to change the policy and not proceed to last call and create a delay like that after committing in front of the community to taking the policy to last call with the changes they requested would in my view be disingenuous. If this policy does not pass last call then we can relook at that then.</div><div><br></div><div>I would ask that you, as Chairman of Afrinic, respect the Afrinic process as defined.</div><div><br></div><div>Andrew</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><span id="OLK_SRC_BODY_SECTION"><div style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; text-align:left; color:black; BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; PADDING-LEFT: 0in; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in; BORDER-TOP: #b5c4df 1pt solid; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-TOP: 3pt"><span style="font-weight:bold">From: </span> Badru Ntege <<a href="mailto:ntegeb@one2net.co.ug">ntegeb@one2net.co.ug</a>><br><span style="font-weight:bold">Date: </span> Wednesday 26 June 2013 5:02 PM<br><span style="font-weight:bold">To: </span> Sunday Folayan <<a href="mailto:sfolayan@gmail.com">sfolayan@gmail.com</a>><br><span style="font-weight:bold">Cc: </span> "AfriNIC RPD MList." <<a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net">rpd@afrinic.net</a>><br><span style="font-weight:bold">Subject: </span> Re: [AFRINIC-rpd] Commencement of the last call<br></div><div><br></div><div><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=iso-8859-1"><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">So sunday <div><br></div><div>Are we prepared to change other areas like bring back some level of network justification. Some how re-align with current practice as opposed to breaking all current practice ???</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div> </div><div><div><div>On Jun 26, 2013, at 5:49 PM, Sunday Folayan <<a href="mailto:sfolayan@gmail.com">sfolayan@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><p dir="ltr">Thank you Badru, This is progress.</p><p dir="ltr">Thank you Badru. Perhaps we should return to the initial proposal of 3:1 before the invention of photoptab.</p><p dir="ltr">Mme Maye, what sayest thou?</p><p dir="ltr">Sunday.</p><div class="gmail_quote">On 26 Jun 2013 15:05, "Badru Ntege" <<a href="mailto:ntegeb@one2net.co.ug">ntegeb@one2net.co.ug</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div>Though totally not in support of the policy of allocating by numbers. If this can make us start looking at this policy to make it more acceptable </div><div><br></div><br><div><div>
On Jun 26, 2013, at 4:18 PM, Sunday Folayan <<a href="mailto:sfolayan@gmail.com" target="_blank">sfolayan@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><blockquote type="cite"><p dir="ltr"><font> </font>> ii) his focus on south region without any provision of equity; </p><p dir="ltr">This statement has been addressed over and over. Indeed it cares more for the other regions with lower entry barrier. We can lower the ratio to 3:1, 2:1 even 0.5:1 if you will .... but you are not even proposing anything!!</p><div><br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I would propose 2:1 and would also be more stringent in that the entity must have infrastructure in place and also an existing or planned uplink to the internet within 2 months of allocation.</div><div><br></div><div>Also i would expect stricter due diligence since we are proposing very subjective measures and criteria for allocation.</div><div><br></div><div>regards</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div> </div></div></div></blockquote></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div>_______________________________________________
rpd mailing list
<a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net">rpd@afrinic.net</a>
<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd</a>
</span></body></html>