<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>Hi All,</div><div><br></div><div>I thought that to help this discussion progress rather than further deteriorate, it would be worth summarising as I see it, the objections currently raised and the answers given. I will attempt to do this in the most unbiased manner I can, though if anyone objects to anything below or to the summary, please feel free to say so with reasons so I can adjust the summary. I will also say that due to the huge volume of mail on this policy, there may have been issues that I have missed in this summary and if that is the case, please raise them specifically so that they can be addressed. If members of this community do not agree with any of the answers or have further questions, please feel free to raise them with specific questions against the answers given so that we can further understand the views that are causing dissent and attempt to address them.</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks</div><div><br></div><div>Andrew</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Objection 1 – Space would land up more in the hands of those who already have than those that don't, creating further imbalance in the distribution of space between the Southern region Universities and the rest of the continent.</div><div><br></div><div>Answer Given – Due to the fact that the policy reduces the need to have full infrastructure in place at the time of application, it becomes easier for those who are still in the process of building their infrastructure to get addresses they can use as they move forward. Those that already have infrastructure do not require this policy to justify for space, and also are already in possession of large amounts of both legacy space and non-legacy space. As such they have a reduced need for this policy and indeed would be allocated far less space based on the fact that the total allocation would take into consideration existing space. This process therefore actually has far greater benefit to the higher education institutions that have been historically disadvantaged in this space than those who have long had infrastructure and IP space.</div><div><br></div><div>Objection 2 – The financial implications of this policy are such that they could have a negative impact on AfriNIC</div><div><br></div><div>Answer Given - Firstly, annual fees and application fees will still apply to any applications made under this policy, the policy does not change the fee structure in any way shape or form. Secondly, irrespective of if the space is used under this policy or by other organisations, the money is still coming in. The current revenues generated by already existent applications will also keep flowing.</div><div>By the published figures at the meeting, if you extrapolate from the data provided in the financial slides based on the amount of revenue generated by new members, it averages out at under $4,000 per member. Because of the size of the applications being generated by this policy, the fees generated on the application fees will actually be higher than that. Further to this, AfriNIC is going to need a model to adjust the fees for the reality that IPv4 life span is limited anyway.</div><div>Our application rate for new customers is also limited by the number of ISP's, and whats more due to the amount of consolidation on the continent within the corporate sector that is likely to occur in the coming months/years, the revenue fees are likely to decrease from that as well, since a merged organisation with multiple blocks will move from one category to the other, but the overall aggregate will reduce.</div><div>So, in summary, it comes to a choice, get the revenues albeit at a slightly lower rate, with a fairly drastic income in initial application fees from the initial applications this policy is likely to generate, or deprive yourself of revenues by slowing allocation rates by not passing the policy, or get the revenue from foreign entities who have taken our resources and left us with nothing.</div><div>Further to this, fees and the discounts and pricing afforded are the purview of the board and outside of the scope of the PDP, and this policy does not in any way attempt to change that. </div><div><br></div><div>Objection 3 – The policy will allow Universities to get large amounts of space and then transform themselves into ISPs or alternatively transfer the space off the continent</div><div><br></div><div>Answer Given – Attempts to transfer space automatically invalidate assignments under clause 9.4 of AFPUB-2005-V4-001. With regards to Universities using the space to form their own ISPs, this would be a change of stated mission at time of application and would also invalidate the assignment under the same clause, so this objection is actually countered by current policy.</div><div><br></div><div>Objection 4 – The policy is not good since it favours a specific segment / organisation type, and there is a risk that further segment / organisation types could attempt similar policies which would result in chaos.</div><div><br></div><div>Answer Given – Any entity or individual is free to propose policy that would result in special treatment. However, such policies would have to pass through the PDP process and be approved by the community, and if the community chose in its wisdom to grant such treatment, then the communities will should be done. That being said, special treatment could not just happen, it would still have to be at the will of the community which governs AfriNIC and its policies.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div></body></html>