Dear Mr Loubser,
At 12:14 AM 29-09-2018, Coenraad Loubser wrote:
The main objective is to get more networks peering and using number
resources properly.
The ability to get great connectivity into even these areas is a
good side effect, hence our proposed amendment.
Connectivity in these areas are my main focus and perhaps my bias -
of course even people in- or close to very developed areas have
access problems. The ability to peer directly puts them in a better
position to accomplish this, not only technically but also socially.
One of the recommendations in the Fees Review proposal [1] is to have
annual fees calculated from the exact amount of each member's IPv4,
IPv6, and ASN holdings. That is meant to change the existing
situation where a small change in number resource holdings may cause
a move to a new category with a large change in fees. A side effect
of the proposed amendments is that it could undo that change.
This is based on figures from the community I represent.
Thank you for the information. Afrinic Ltd has 1637 members. It may
not be feasible to have an analysis of revenue or profit to assess
the impact of the proposed amendments.
There are different angles to the main objective (please see
above). It might be outside the scope of the Fees Review
proposal. The annual fee could have an impact on that objective,
e.g. the "very little formal economic activity ..." case in your
comments [2]. Section 3.6.4 of the Fees Review proposal introduces a
discount for non-profit or charitable organisations. Would that
cover some of the cases which you referred to in the proposed
amendments, e.g. "Community Network"?
Regards,
S. Moonesamy
1. https://www.afrinic.net/images/doc/fees-proposal-afrinic-20180523.pdf
2.
https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/community-discuss/2018-September/002566.html
_______________________________________________
Community-Discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
