[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
List: afrinic-rpd
Subject: Re: [rpd] RPD Digest, Vol 122, Issue 70
From: Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston () liquidtelecom ! com>
Date: 2016-11-22 10:09:28
Message-ID: AMSPR03MB5342BADACDA13F4F1B3711FEEB40 () AMSPR03MB534 ! eurprd03 ! prod ! outlook ! com
[Download RAW message or body]
[Attachment #2 (text/plain)]
Ali,
That's half the point – no one is quite sure what the principle idea behind this \
policy is – despite many many questions and no responses.
There is no evidence whatsoever that resources are being misused. We are asked to \
approve a policy that allows one company to demand afrinic audit another company, \
with absolutely no basis for defining a rule like that other than hypothetical \
fearmongering. We are asked to accept a policy that has NO safe guards and allows \
one operator to harass another operator at any point by requesting an audit on them, \
with no specifics as to what evidence they have to provide for requesting the audit. \
We are asked to accept a policy where the person being audited – who has to put \
time and effort and hence OPEX cost into complying with the audit has no right to \
know who requested the audit against them or the grounds for the audit – and hence \
has no recourse.
The authors have point blank refused to address these concerns despite them being \
raised time and again. Hence – at that point, I start to question the ACTUAL \
motivations behind this policy – because it sure as hell isn't based on any \
objective evidence provided that would cause me to support this policy.
Andrew
From: ALI Hadji Mmadi [mailto:alihadji90@gmail.com]
Sent: 22 November 2016 13:02
To: rpd@afrinic.net
Subject: Re: [rpd] RPD Digest, Vol 122, Issue 70
Hi Andrew
when you say:
> > we act against every member who is not announcing space because they cannot \
> > justify not announcing it..
I'm not sure that is the principal idea of this Policy. If it is accepted in the \
community, It will be use to all. When you say:
> > Are the authors of this policy and those supporting it prepared to bear the cost \
> > of the fee increases that would be necessary to back fill the loss in revenue \
> > that would effectively bankrupt AfriNIC?
I'm not elso sure that is good thought that every authors will have to support the \
costs associated with his policy. If not, we (community) will never try to rectify \
some rules which no longer adapt to the actual reality while they were before; Or we \
will never try to maintain some rules that are still be good for the community.
Regards.
ALI Hadji
2016-11-22 11:58 GMT+03:00 <rpd-request@afrinic.net<mailto:rpd-request@afrinic.net>>:
Send RPD mailing list submissions to
rpd@afrinic.net<mailto:rpd@afrinic.net>
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
rpd-request@afrinic.net<mailto:rpd-request@afrinic.net>
You can reach the person managing the list at
rpd-owner@afrinic.net<mailto:rpd-owner@afrinic.net>
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of RPD digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: [Community-Discuss] Update to Resources review policy
proposal (Badru Ntege)
2. Re: [Community-Discuss] Update to Resources review policy
proposal (Andrew Alston)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 08:09:22 +0300
From: Badru Ntege <badru.ntege@nftconsult.com<mailto:badru.ntege@nftconsult.com>>
To: Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com<mailto:Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com>>, \
Dewole Ajao
<dewole@forum.org.ng<mailto:dewole@forum.org.ng>>, sergekbk \
<sergekbk@gmail.com<mailto:sergekbk@gmail.com>>, Arnaud AMELINA
<amelnaud@gmail.com<mailto:amelnaud@gmail.com>>, "rpd >> AfriNIC Resource \
Policy" <rpd@afrinic.net<mailto:rpd@afrinic.net>>
Subject: Re: [rpd] [Community-Discuss] Update to Resources review
policy proposal
Message-ID: <A6414A3C-4424-4FE5-B89F-DB9BD83FEE17@nftconsult.com<mailto:A6414A3C-4424-4FE5-B89F-DB9BD83FEE17@nftconsult.com>>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
On 11/16/16, 1:43 PM, "Andrew Alston" \
<Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com<mailto:Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com>> wrote:
So,
I have a hypothetical question ? and it will become a lot less hypothetical once I?ve \
run the numbers which I?m currently doing.
Let?s say we implement this audit policy ? and then ? because we have to act \
consistently ? we act against every member who is not announcing space because they \
cannot justify not announcing it ? and we terminate their membership.
Are the authors of this policy and those supporting it prepared to bear the cost of \
the fee increases that would be necessary to back fill the loss in revenue that would \
effectively bankrupt AfriNIC? Running through the preliminary statistics ? firstly \
the auditing process would be immensely expensive in HR cost ? secondly ? termination \
of members that aren?t ?legitimately? announcing space by rough calculations could \
cost AfriNIC in excess of 15% of its revenue by the latest numbers available in the \
financial reports and correlating the unannounced space that is allocated with the \
billing file.
I hardly believe that a drop in 15% of revenue would bankrupt AfriNIC ??. If \
that?s the case then our problems are bigger than an Audit. Which I definitely \
doubt.
Lets not add scary variables to support opposition to a policy.
Now, some would argue that is all the more reason to implement the audit policy ? but \
here is a wake up call ? the space you would recover in that call on those \
calculations ? amounts to less than 10% of space that AfriNIC has allocated \
legitimately since May ? so effectively, for the gain of looking tough and being \
rigid, we may end up bankrupting the organisation while recovering potentially a /15 \
worth of space. Alternatively, from any logical business perspective ? that money \
would have to be recovered from the members who are legitimately announcing space ? \
because it certainly can?t just disappear.
So, has anyone ACTUALLY thought through the implications of this policy? I remain \
firmly opposed.
Andrew
From: Dewole Ajao [mailto:dewole@forum.org.ng<mailto:dewole@forum.org.ng>]
Sent: 16 November 2016 12:52
To: sergekbk <sergekbk@gmail.com<mailto:sergekbk@gmail.com>>; Arnaud AMELINA \
<amelnaud@gmail.com<mailto:amelnaud@gmail.com>>; rpd >> AfriNIC Resource Policy \
<rpd@afrinic.net<mailto:rpd@afrinic.net>>; General Discussions of AFRINIC \
<community-discuss@afrinic.net<mailto:community-discuss@afrinic.net>>
Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Update to Resources review policy proposal
I think all policies (if we really intend to implement them) must be clear and leave \
no room for variable interpretation as ambiguity will put additional burdens of \
interpretation on staff.
If the community's preference is for the 24-month window to become invalid on \
allocation/assignment of new resources, then the policy (proposal) should state it \
clearly; If on the other hand, the intention is for the 24-month window to stay in \
place come-what-may, it's better for the policy (proposal) to be explicit about it.
Please see below, additional questions for the community to consider. Hopefully, they \
can be discussed and the authors can (if they so choose,) take the inputs from the \
community into their modified proposal.
3.3.2 Selected:
A member is selected because of an internal report or due to a lack of contact \
between the AFRINIC and the member.
Q1. Do we presently have an existing (effective) structure (apart from billing) that \
measures degree of contact with members? If there is no agreed means of measuring the \
degree contact, we need to define degrees of contact so that "lack of contact" (as \
referred to in the proposal) can be measured objectively.
Perhaps as a first step for ensuring regular contact without using up too many \
resources, this proposal might want to borrow a leaf from RIPE's Assisted Registry \
Check (ARC). See https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/resource-management/assisted-registry-check
Basically, the RIR does a consistency check on members' Registry, Resource, and \
Route/rDNS information and then sends emails to the contacts on file showing their \
view. They then schedule a telephone call to work with the member and fix any \
identified issues.
My understanding from RIPE is that these non-invasive checks sometimes reveal issues \
that may warrant more detailed investigation. The primary model is by random checks \
but done in a manner that checks every member at least once in 3 years (given the \
size of RIPE). They also have ARCs that are initiated as a result of information \
received from the member or third parties.
Q2. Can reachability/cooperation of a member for such a consistency check-and-fix \
activity as described above be used to measure the degree of contact?
Q3. Given the fact that time taken for consistency checks are more predictable, can \
these be implemented as a preliminary step in addressing the "lack of investigation" \
problem as well as the concern about taking up much of members' and/or AFRINIC \
hostmasters' time?
Regards,
Dewole.
(with apologies for continuing the cross-posting between RPD and Community-discuss)
On 15/11/2016 20:18, sergekbk wrote:
Hello Dewole,
Thanks for this comment.
The limit of 24 months applies to a member based on ressources portfolio. If the \
portfolio changes with new allocation, member can be audited anytime on the new \
ressources if required.
Is this clear enough or shall we make it explicit ?
Kind Regards.
Serge Ilunga
Cell: +243814443160<tel:%2B243814443160>
Skype: sergekbk
R.D.Congo
-------- Original message --------
From: Dewole Ajao <dewole@tinitop.com<mailto:dewole@tinitop.com>>
Date: 11/15/2016 11:38 (GMT+01:00)
To: Arnaud AMELINA <amelnaud@gmail.com<mailto:amelnaud@gmail.com>>, "rpd >> AfriNIC \
Resource Policy" <rpd@afrinic.net<mailto:rpd@afrinic.net>>, General Discussions of \
AFRINIC <community-discuss@afrinic.net<mailto:community-discuss@afrinic.net>>
Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Update to Resources review policy proposal
Thanks for working to apply the community's input to your proposal, Arnaud.
To test the proposed re-wording, consider the following sequence of events:
Member XYZ initiates self-requested review;
Review is completed by AFRINIC in X weeks;
After review, Member XYZ applies for "large chunk" of number resources;
Member XYZ receives "large chunk" of number resources in say 60 days;
Member XYZ happens to make some unacceptable use of (previous or new) number \
resources and it somehow becomes known to the community; Regardless of convincing \
evidence, Member XYZ cannot be subjected to a review until 24 months have elapsed \
since the last review.
Is this a design feature or a bug?
Regards,
Dewole.
On 15/11/2016 10:48, Arnaud AMELINA wrote:
Hi community !
Following, recent discussions and in accordance with text proposal from Owen and \
others contributors, authors propose this as replacement to the section 3.3.3
-'---old version---''
3.3.3 Reported: Here, members are reviewed either because:
a. They have requested the review themselves or
b. There has been a community complaint made against them that warrants \
investigation.
----new version-----
3.3.3 Reported: Here, members are reviewed either because:
a..They have requested the review themselves or
b. There has been a community complaint made against them that warrants \
investigation. Complaints shall be backed by evidence and AFRINIC staff shall \
evaluate the facts as appropriate to conduct the review. However this review is not \
applicable to a member on which a full review has been completed in the preceding 24 \
months.
Regards.
Arnaud.
_______________________________________________
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net<mailto:Community-Discuss@afrinic.net>
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
_______________________________________________ RPD mailing list \
RPD@afrinic.net<mailto:RPD@afrinic.net> \
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20161117/b0e0d4de/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2016 08:57:39 +0000
From: Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com<mailto:Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com>>
To: Badru Ntege <badru.ntege@nftconsult.com<mailto:badru.ntege@nftconsult.com>>, \
Dewole Ajao
<dewole@forum.org.ng<mailto:dewole@forum.org.ng>>, sergekbk \
<sergekbk@gmail.com<mailto:sergekbk@gmail.com>>, Arnaud AMELINA
<amelnaud@gmail.com<mailto:amelnaud@gmail.com>>, "rpd >> AfriNIC Resource \
Policy" <rpd@afrinic.net<mailto:rpd@afrinic.net>>
Subject: Re: [rpd] [Community-Discuss] Update to Resources review
policy proposal
Message-ID:
<AMSPR03MB53453FA73AAEEA3268239CCEEB40@AMSPR03MB534.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com< \
mailto:AMSPR03MB53453FA73AAEEA3268239CCEEB40@AMSPR03MB534.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com>>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Actually ? do the maths ? that is pretty much the situation.
Please go and look at the profitability of the company over the last few years based \
vis-a-vie the revenue numbers.
Our income in the 2015 financial year was 4.084 million dollars.
Our Surplus for the year was $402,245
If you remove 15% of the revenue, you remove $612,000 from the income.
That would leave us at a net loss of in excess of $200k USD.
And that is calculated against the year where we had our best income surplus in the \
last 5 or 6 years.
Seriously ? before you doubt things ? go and do your homework ? the numbers are in \
black and white on the financial statements that have been given to this community at \
every AGMM.
Andrew
From: Badru Ntege [mailto:badru.ntege@nftconsult.com<mailto:badru.ntege@nftconsult.com>]
Sent: 17 November 2016 08:09
To: Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com<mailto:Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com>>; \
Dewole Ajao <dewole@forum.org.ng<mailto:dewole@forum.org.ng>>; sergekbk \
<sergekbk@gmail.com<mailto:sergekbk@gmail.com>>; Arnaud AMELINA \
<amelnaud@gmail.com<mailto:amelnaud@gmail.com>>; rpd >> AfriNIC Resource Policy \
<rpd@afrinic.net<mailto:rpd@afrinic.net>>
Subject: Re: [rpd] [Community-Discuss] Update to Resources review policy proposal
On 11/16/16, 1:43 PM, "Andrew Alston" \
<Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com<mailto:Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com><mailto:Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com<mailto:Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com>>> \
wrote:
So,
I have a hypothetical question ? and it will become a lot less hypothetical once I?ve \
run the numbers which I?m currently doing.
Let?s say we implement this audit policy ? and then ? because we have to act \
consistently ? we act against every member who is not announcing space because they \
cannot justify not announcing it ? and we terminate their membership.
Are the authors of this policy and those supporting it prepared to bear the cost of \
the fee increases that would be necessary to back fill the loss in revenue that would \
effectively bankrupt AfriNIC? Running through the preliminary statistics ? firstly \
the auditing process would be immensely expensive in HR cost ? secondly ? termination \
of members that aren?t ?legitimately? announcing space by rough calculations could \
cost AfriNIC in excess of 15% of its revenue by the latest numbers available in the \
financial reports and correlating the unannounced space that is allocated with the \
billing file.
I hardly believe that a drop in 15% of revenue would bankrupt AfriNIC ??. If \
that?s the case then our problems are bigger than an Audit. Which I definitely \
doubt.
Lets not add scary variables to support opposition to a policy.
Now, some would argue that is all the more reason to implement the audit policy ? but \
here is a wake up call ? the space you would recover in that call on those \
calculations ? amounts to less than 10% of space that AfriNIC has allocated \
legitimately since May ? so effectively, for the gain of looking tough and being \
rigid, we may end up bankrupting the organisation while recovering potentially a /15 \
worth of space. Alternatively, from any logical business perspective ? that money \
would have to be recovered from the members who are legitimately announcing space ? \
because it certainly can?t just disappear.
So, has anyone ACTUALLY thought through the implications of this policy? I remain \
firmly opposed.
Andrew
From: Dewole Ajao [mailto:dewole@forum.org.ng<mailto:dewole@forum.org.ng>]
Sent: 16 November 2016 12:52
To: sergekbk <sergekbk@gmail.com<mailto:sergekbk@gmail.com><mailto:sergekbk@gmail.com<mailto:sergekbk@gmail.com>>>; \
Arnaud AMELINA <amelnaud@gmail.com<mailto:amelnaud@gmail.com><mailto:amelnaud@gmail.com<mailto:amelnaud@gmail.com>>>; \
rpd >> AfriNIC Resource Policy \
<rpd@afrinic.net<mailto:rpd@afrinic.net><mailto:rpd@afrinic.net<mailto:rpd@afrinic.net>>>; \
General Discussions of AFRINIC \
<community-discuss@afrinic.net<mailto:community-discuss@afrinic.net><mailto:community-discuss@afrinic.net<mailto:community-discuss@afrinic.net>>>
Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Update to Resources review policy proposal
I think all policies (if we really intend to implement them) must be clear and leave \
no room for variable interpretation as ambiguity will put additional burdens of \
interpretation on staff.
If the community's preference is for the 24-month window to become invalid on \
allocation/assignment of new resources, then the policy (proposal) should state it \
clearly; If on the other hand, the intention is for the 24-month window to stay in \
place come-what-may, it's better for the policy (proposal) to be explicit about it.
Please see below, additional questions for the community to consider. Hopefully, they \
can be discussed and the authors can (if they so choose,) take the inputs from the \
community into their modified proposal.
3.3.2 Selected:
A member is selected because of an internal report or due to a lack of contact \
between the AFRINIC and the member.
Q1. Do we presently have an existing (effective) structure (apart from billing) that \
measures degree of contact with members? If there is no agreed means of measuring the \
degree contact, we need to define degrees of contact so that "lack of contact" (as \
referred to in the proposal) can be measured objectively.
Perhaps as a first step for ensuring regular contact without using up too many \
resources, this proposal might want to borrow a leaf from RIPE's Assisted Registry \
Check (ARC). See https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/resource-management/assisted-registry-check
Basically, the RIR does a consistency check on members' Registry, Resource, and \
Route/rDNS information and then sends emails to the contacts on file showing their \
view. They then schedule a telephone call to work with the member and fix any \
identified issues.
My understanding from RIPE is that these non-invasive checks sometimes reveal issues \
that may warrant more detailed investigation. The primary model is by random checks \
but done in a manner that checks every member at least once in 3 years (given the \
size of RIPE). They also have ARCs that are initiated as a result of information \
received from the member or third parties. Q2. Can reachability/cooperation of a \
member for such a consistency check-and-fix activity as described above be used to \
measure the degree of contact?
Q3. Given the fact that time taken for consistency checks are more predictable, can \
these be implemented as a preliminary step in addressing the "lack of investigation" \
problem as well as the concern about taking up much of members' and/or AFRINIC \
hostmasters' time?
Regards,
Dewole.
(with apologies for continuing the cross-posting between RPD and Community-discuss)
On 15/11/2016 20:18, sergekbk wrote:
Hello Dewole,
Thanks for this comment.
The limit of 24 months applies to a member based on ressources portfolio. If the \
portfolio changes with new allocation, member can be audited anytime on the new \
ressources if required. Is this clear enough or shall we make it explicit ?
Kind Regards.
Serge Ilunga
Cell: +243814443160<tel:%2B243814443160>
Skype: sergekbk
R.D.Congo
-------- Original message --------
From: Dewole Ajao <dewole@tinitop.com<mailto:dewole@tinitop.com>><mailto:dewole@tinitop.com<mailto:dewole@tinitop.com>>
Date: 11/15/2016 11:38 (GMT+01:00)
To: Arnaud AMELINA <amelnaud@gmail.com<mailto:amelnaud@gmail.com>><mailto:amelnaud@gmail.com<mailto:amelnaud@gmail.com>>, \
"rpd >> AfriNIC Resource Policy" \
<rpd@afrinic.net<mailto:rpd@afrinic.net>><mailto:rpd@afrinic.net<mailto:rpd@afrinic.net>>, \
General Discussions of AFRINIC \
<community-discuss@afrinic.net<mailto:community-discuss@afrinic.net>><mailto:community-discuss@afrinic.net<mailto:community-discuss@afrinic.net>>
Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Update to Resources review policy proposal
Thanks for working to apply the community's input to your proposal, Arnaud.
To test the proposed re-wording, consider the following sequence of events:
Member XYZ initiates self-requested review;
Review is completed by AFRINIC in X weeks;
After review, Member XYZ applies for "large chunk" of number resources;
Member XYZ receives "large chunk" of number resources in say 60 days;
Member XYZ happens to make some unacceptable use of (previous or new) number \
resources and it somehow becomes known to the community; Regardless of convincing \
evidence, Member XYZ cannot be subjected to a review until 24 months have elapsed \
since the last review.
Is this a design feature or a bug?
Regards,
Dewole.
On 15/11/2016 10:48, Arnaud AMELINA wrote:
Hi community !
Following, recent discussions and in accordance with text proposal from Owen and \
others contributors, authors propose this as replacement to the section 3.3.3
-'---old version---''
3.3.3 Reported: Here, members are reviewed either because:
a. They have requested the review themselves or
b. There has been a community complaint made against them that warrants \
investigation.
----new version-----
3.3.3 Reported: Here, members are reviewed either because:
a..They have requested the review themselves or
b. There has been a community complaint made against them that warrants \
investigation. Complaints shall be backed by evidence and AFRINIC staff shall \
evaluate the facts as appropriate to conduct the review. However this review is not \
applicable to a member on which a full review has been completed in the preceding 24 \
months.
Regards.
Arnaud.
_______________________________________________
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net<mailto:Community-Discuss@afrinic.net><mailto:Community-Discuss@afrinic.net<mailto:Community-Discuss@afrinic.net>>
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
_______________________________________________ RPD mailing list \
RPD@afrinic.net<mailto:RPD@afrinic.net><mailto:RPD@afrinic.net<mailto:RPD@afrinic.net>> \
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20161122/c526af1d/attachment.html>
------------------------------
Subject: Digest Footer
_______________________________________________
RPD mailing list
RPD@afrinic.net<mailto:RPD@afrinic.net>
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
------------------------------
End of RPD Digest, Vol 122, Issue 70
************************************
[Attachment #3 (text/html)]
<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" \
xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" \
xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" \
xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" \
xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"> <head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0cm;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0cm;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-GB" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span \
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Ali,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span \
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span \
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">That's \
half the point – no one is quite sure what the principle idea behind this policy is \
– despite many many questions and no responses.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p \
class="MsoNormal"><span \
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span \
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">There \
is no evidence whatsoever that resources are being misused. We are asked to \
approve a policy that allows one company to demand afrinic audit another company, \
with absolutely no basis for defining a rule like that other than hypothetical \
fearmongering. We are asked to accept a policy that has NO safe guards and \
allows one operator to harass another operator at any point by requesting an audit on \
them, with no specifics as to what evidence they have to provide for requesting the \
audit. We are asked to accept a policy where the person being audited – who \
has to put time and effort and hence OPEX cost into complying with the audit has no \
right to know who requested the audit against them or the grounds for the audit – \
and hence has no recourse. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span \
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span \
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">The \
authors have point blank refused to address these concerns despite them being raised \
time and again. Hence – at that point, I start to question the ACTUAL \
motivations behind this policy – because it sure as hell isn't based on any \
objective evidence provided that would cause me to support this policy. \
<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span \
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span \
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Andrew<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span \
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span \
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US" \
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span \
lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> ALI \
Hadji Mmadi [mailto:alihadji90@gmail.com] <br>
<b>Sent:</b> 22 November 2016 13:02<br>
<b>To:</b> rpd@afrinic.net<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [rpd] RPD Digest, Vol 122, Issue 70<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hi Andrew<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">when you say: <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">>>we act against every member who is not announcing space \
because they cannot justify not announcing it..<o:p></o:p></p> </div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I'm not sure that is the principal idea of this Policy. If it is \
accepted in the community, It will be use to all. <o:p></o:p></p> </div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">When you say:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">>>Are the authors of this policy and those supporting it \
prepared to bear the cost of the fee increases that would be necessary to back fill \
the loss in revenue that would effectively bankrupt AfriNIC?<o:p></o:p></p> </div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I'm not elso sure that is good thought that every authors will \
have to support the costs associated with his policy. If not, we (community) will \
never try to rectify some rules which no longer adapt to the actual reality \
while they were before; Or we will never try to maintain some rules that are still \
be good for the community. <o:p></o:p></p> </div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Regards.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">ALI Hadji <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">2016-11-22 11:58 GMT+03:00 <<a \
href="mailto:rpd-request@afrinic.net" \
target="_blank">rpd-request@afrinic.net</a>>:<o:p></o:p></p> <blockquote \
style="border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm \
6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0cm"> <p class="MsoNormal">Send RPD mailing list \
submissions to<br> <a \
href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net">rpd@afrinic.net</a><br> <br>
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit<br>
<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" \
target="_blank"> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><br>
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to<br>
<a \
href="mailto:rpd-request@afrinic.net">rpd-request@afrinic.net</a><br> <br>
You can reach the person managing the list at<br>
<a \
href="mailto:rpd-owner@afrinic.net">rpd-owner@afrinic.net</a><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: [Community-Discuss] Update to Resources review policy<br>
proposal (Badru Ntege)<br>
2. Re: [Community-Discuss] Update to Resources review policy<br>
proposal (Andrew Alston)<br>
<br>
<br>
----------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 1<br>
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 08:09:22 +0300<br>
From: Badru Ntege <<a \
href="mailto:badru.ntege@nftconsult.com">badru.ntege@nftconsult.com</a>><br>
To: Andrew Alston <<a \
href="mailto:Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com">Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com</a>>, \
Dewole Ajao<br> <<a \
href="mailto:dewole@forum.org.ng">dewole@forum.org.ng</a>>, sergekbk <<a \
href="mailto:sergekbk@gmail.com">sergekbk@gmail.com</a>>, Arnaud AMELINA<br> \
<<a \
href="mailto:amelnaud@gmail.com">amelnaud@gmail.com</a>>, "rpd >> \
AfriNIC Resource Policy"<br> <<a \
href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net">rpd@afrinic.net</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [rpd] [Community-Discuss] Update to Resources review<br>
policy proposal<br>
Message-ID: <<a href="mailto:A6414A3C-4424-4FE5-B89F-DB9BD83FEE17@nftconsult.com">A6414A3C-4424-4FE5-B89F-DB9BD83FEE17@nftconsult.com</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 11/16/16, 1:43 PM, "Andrew Alston" <<a \
href="mailto:Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com">Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com</a>> \
wrote:<br> <br>
So,<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
I have a hypothetical question ? and it will become a lot less hypothetical once I?ve \
run the numbers which I?m currently doing.<br> <br>
<br>
<br>
Let?s say we implement this audit policy ? and then ? because we have to act \
consistently ? we act against every member who is not announcing space because they \
cannot justify not announcing it ? and we terminate their membership.<br> <br>
<br>
<br>
Are the authors of this policy and those supporting it prepared to bear the cost of \
the fee increases that would be necessary to back fill the loss in revenue that would \
effectively bankrupt AfriNIC? Running through the preliminary statistics ? \
firstly the auditing process would be immensely expensive in HR cost ? secondly ? \
termination of members that aren?t ?legitimately? announcing space by rough \
calculations could cost AfriNIC in excess of 15% of its revenue by the latest numbers \
available in the financial reports and correlating the unannounced space that is \
allocated with the billing file.<br> <br>
<br>
I hardly believe that a drop in 15% of revenue would bankrupt AfriNIC ??. \
If that?s the case then our problems are bigger than an Audit. Which I \
definitely doubt.<br> <br>
Lets not add scary variables to support opposition to a policy.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Now, some would argue that is all the more reason to implement the audit policy ? but \
here is a wake up call ? the space you would recover in that call on those \
calculations ? amounts to less than 10% of space that AfriNIC has allocated \
legitimately since May ? so effectively, for the gain of looking tough and being \
rigid, we may end up bankrupting the organisation while recovering potentially a /15 \
worth of space. Alternatively, from any logical business perspective ? that \
money would have to be recovered from the members who are legitimately announcing \
space ? because it certainly can?t just disappear.<br> <br>
<br>
<br>
So, has anyone ACTUALLY thought through the implications of this policy? I \
remain firmly opposed.<br> <br>
<br>
<br>
Andrew<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
From: Dewole Ajao [mailto:<a \
href="mailto:dewole@forum.org.ng">dewole@forum.org.ng</a>]<br>
Sent: 16 November 2016 12:52<br>
To: sergekbk <<a href="mailto:sergekbk@gmail.com">sergekbk@gmail.com</a>>; \
Arnaud AMELINA <<a href="mailto:amelnaud@gmail.com">amelnaud@gmail.com</a>>; \
rpd >> AfriNIC Resource Policy <<a \
href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net">rpd@afrinic.net</a>>; General Discussions of \
AFRINIC <<a href="mailto:community-discuss@afrinic.net">community-discuss@afrinic.net</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Update to Resources review policy proposal<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
I think all policies (if we really intend to implement them) must be clear and leave \
no room for variable interpretation as ambiguity will put additional burdens of \
interpretation on staff.<br> <br>
If the community's preference is for the 24-month window to become invalid on \
allocation/assignment of new resources, then the policy (proposal) should state it \
clearly; If on the other hand, the intention is for the 24-month window to stay in \
place come-what-may, it's better for the policy (proposal) to be explicit about \
it.<br> <br>
Please see below, additional questions for the community to consider. Hopefully, they \
can be discussed and the authors can (if they so choose,) take the inputs from the \
community into their modified proposal.<br> <br>
3.3.2 Selected:<br>
<br>
<br>
A member is selected because of an internal report or due to a lack of contact \
between the AFRINIC and the member.<br> <br>
Q1. Do we presently have an existing (effective) structure (apart from billing) that \
measures degree of contact with members?<br> If there is no agreed means of measuring \
the degree contact, we need to define degrees of contact so that "lack of \
contact" (as referred to in the proposal) can be measured objectively.<br> <br>
Perhaps as a first step for ensuring regular contact without using up too many \
resources, this proposal might want to borrow a leaf from RIPE's Assisted Registry \
Check (ARC). See <a href="https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/resource-management/assisted-registry-check" \
target="_blank"> https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/resource-management/assisted-registry-check</a><br>
<br>
Basically, the RIR does a consistency check on members' Registry, Resource, and \
Route/rDNS information and then sends emails to the contacts on file showing their \
view. They then schedule a telephone call to work with the member and fix any \
identified issues.<br> <br>
My understanding from RIPE is that these non-invasive checks sometimes reveal issues \
that may warrant more detailed investigation. The primary model is by random checks \
but done in a manner that checks every member at least once in 3 years (given the \
size of RIPE). They also have ARCs that are initiated as a result of information \
received from the member or third parties.<br> <br>
Q2. Can reachability/cooperation of a member for such a consistency check-and-fix \
activity as described above be used to measure the degree of contact?<br> <br>
Q3. Given the fact that time taken for consistency checks are more predictable, can \
these be implemented as a preliminary step in addressing the "lack of \
investigation" problem as well as the concern about taking up much of members' \
and/or AFRINIC hostmasters' time?<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
Dewole.<br>
(with apologies for continuing the cross-posting between RPD and \
Community-discuss)<br> <br>
On 15/11/2016 20:18, sergekbk wrote:<br>
<br>
Hello Dewole,<br>
<br>
<br>
Thanks for this comment.<br>
The limit of 24 months applies to a member based on ressources portfolio. \
If the portfolio changes with new allocation, member can be \
audited anytime on the new ressources if required.<br> <br>
Is this clear enough or shall we make it explicit ?<br>
<br>
Kind Regards.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Serge Ilunga<br>
<br>
Cell: <a href="tel:%2B243814443160">+243814443160</a><br>
<br>
Skype: sergekbk<br>
<br>
R.D.Congo<br>
<br>
-------- Original message --------<br>
<br>
From: Dewole Ajao <<a \
href="mailto:dewole@tinitop.com">dewole@tinitop.com</a>><br> <br>
Date: 11/15/2016 11:38 (GMT+01:00)<br>
<br>
To: Arnaud AMELINA <<a \
href="mailto:amelnaud@gmail.com">amelnaud@gmail.com</a>>, "rpd >> \
AfriNIC Resource Policy" <<a \
href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net">rpd@afrinic.net</a>>, General Discussions of AFRINIC \
<<a href="mailto:community-discuss@afrinic.net">community-discuss@afrinic.net</a>><br>
<br>
Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Update to Resources review policy proposal<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Thanks for working to apply the community's input to your proposal, Arnaud.<br>
<br>
To test the proposed re-wording, consider the following sequence of events:<br>
<br>
Member XYZ initiates self-requested review;<br>
Review is completed by AFRINIC in X weeks;<br>
After review, Member XYZ applies for "large chunk" of number resources;<br>
Member XYZ receives "large chunk" of number resources in say 60 days;<br>
Member XYZ happens to make some unacceptable use of (previous or new) number \
resources and it somehow becomes known to the community;<br> Regardless of convincing \
evidence, Member XYZ cannot be subjected to a review until 24 months have elapsed \
since the last review.<br> <br>
Is this a design feature or a bug?<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
Dewole.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 15/11/2016 10:48, Arnaud AMELINA wrote:<br>
<br>
Hi community !<br>
Following, recent discussions and in accordance with text proposal from Owen and \
others contributors, authors propose this as replacement to the section 3.3.3<br> \
<br>
-'---old version---''<br>
<br>
3.3.3 Reported: Here, members are reviewed either because:<br>
<br>
a. They have requested the review themselves or<br>
b. There has been a community complaint made against them that warrants \
investigation.<br> <br>
----new version-----<br>
<br>
3.3.3 Reported: Here, members are reviewed either because:<br>
<br>
a..They have requested the review themselves or<br>
b. There has been a community complaint made against them that warrants \
investigation. Complaints shall be backed by evidence and AFRINIC staff \
shall evaluate the facts as appropriate to conduct the review. However this review is \
not applicable to a member on which a full review has been completed in the \
preceding 24 months.<br> <br>
Regards.<br>
<br>
Arnaud.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Community-Discuss mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Community-Discuss@afrinic.net">Community-Discuss@afrinic.net</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss" \
target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss</a><br> \
<br> <br>
<br>
_______________________________________________ RPD mailing list <a \
href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net"> RPD@afrinic.net</a> <a \
href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" target="_blank"> \
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><br> <br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
URL: <<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20161117/b0e0d4de/attachment-0001.html" \
target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20161117/b0e0d4de/attachment-0001.html</a>><br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 2<br>
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2016 08:57:39 +0000<br>
From: Andrew Alston <<a \
href="mailto:Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com">Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com</a>><br>
To: Badru Ntege <<a \
href="mailto:badru.ntege@nftconsult.com">badru.ntege@nftconsult.com</a>>, Dewole \
Ajao<br> <<a \
href="mailto:dewole@forum.org.ng">dewole@forum.org.ng</a>>, sergekbk <<a \
href="mailto:sergekbk@gmail.com">sergekbk@gmail.com</a>>, Arnaud AMELINA<br> \
<<a \
href="mailto:amelnaud@gmail.com">amelnaud@gmail.com</a>>, "rpd >> \
AfriNIC Resource Policy"<br> <<a \
href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net">rpd@afrinic.net</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [rpd] [Community-Discuss] Update to Resources review<br>
policy proposal<br>
Message-ID:<br>
<<a \
href="mailto:AMSPR03MB53453FA73AAEEA3268239CCEEB40@AMSPR03MB534.eurprd03.prod.outlook. \
com">AMSPR03MB53453FA73AAEEA3268239CCEEB40@AMSPR03MB534.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com</a>><br>
<br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"<br>
<br>
Actually ? do the maths ? that is pretty much the situation.<br>
<br>
Please go and look at the profitability of the company over the last few years based \
vis-a-vie the revenue numbers.<br> <br>
Our income in the 2015 financial year was 4.084 million dollars.<br>
Our Surplus for the year was $402,245<br>
<br>
If you remove 15% of the revenue, you remove $612,000 from the income.<br>
<br>
That would leave us at a net loss of in excess of $200k USD.<br>
<br>
And that is calculated against the year where we had our best income surplus in the \
last 5 or 6 years.<br> <br>
Seriously ? before you doubt things ? go and do your homework ? the numbers are in \
black and white on the financial statements that have been given to this community at \
every AGMM.<br> <br>
Andrew<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
From: Badru Ntege [mailto:<a \
href="mailto:badru.ntege@nftconsult.com">badru.ntege@nftconsult.com</a>]<br>
Sent: 17 November 2016 08:09<br>
To: Andrew Alston <<a \
href="mailto:Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com">Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com</a>>; \
Dewole Ajao <<a href="mailto:dewole@forum.org.ng">dewole@forum.org.ng</a>>; \
sergekbk <<a href="mailto:sergekbk@gmail.com">sergekbk@gmail.com</a>>; Arnaud \
AMELINA <<a href="mailto:amelnaud@gmail.com">amelnaud@gmail.com</a>>; rpd \
>> AfriNIC Resource Policy <<a \
href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net">rpd@afrinic.net</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [rpd] [Community-Discuss] Update to Resources review policy proposal<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 11/16/16, 1:43 PM, "Andrew Alston" <<a \
href="mailto:Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com">Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com</a><mailto:<a \
href="mailto:Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com">Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com</a>>> \
wrote:<br> <br>
So,<br>
<br>
I have a hypothetical question ? and it will become a lot less hypothetical once I?ve \
run the numbers which I?m currently doing.<br> <br>
Let?s say we implement this audit policy ? and then ? because we have to act \
consistently ? we act against every member who is not announcing space because they \
cannot justify not announcing it ? and we terminate their membership.<br> <br>
Are the authors of this policy and those supporting it prepared to bear the cost of \
the fee increases that would be necessary to back fill the loss in revenue that would \
effectively bankrupt AfriNIC? Running through the preliminary statistics ? \
firstly the auditing process would be immensely expensive in HR cost ? secondly ? \
termination of members that aren?t ?legitimately? announcing space by rough \
calculations could cost AfriNIC in excess of 15% of its revenue by the latest numbers \
available in the financial reports and correlating the unannounced space that is \
allocated with the billing file.<br> <br>
I hardly believe that a drop in 15% of revenue would bankrupt AfriNIC ??. \
If that?s the case then our problems are bigger than an Audit. Which I \
definitely doubt.<br> <br>
Lets not add scary variables to support opposition to a policy.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Now, some would argue that is all the more reason to implement the audit policy ? but \
here is a wake up call ? the space you would recover in that call on those \
calculations ? amounts to less than 10% of space that AfriNIC has allocated \
legitimately since May ? so effectively, for the gain of looking tough and being \
rigid, we may end up bankrupting the organisation while recovering potentially a /15 \
worth of space. Alternatively, from any logical business perspective ? that \
money would have to be recovered from the members who are legitimately announcing \
space ? because it certainly can?t just disappear.<br> <br>
So, has anyone ACTUALLY thought through the implications of this policy? I \
remain firmly opposed.<br> <br>
Andrew<br>
<br>
<br>
From: Dewole Ajao [mailto:<a \
href="mailto:dewole@forum.org.ng">dewole@forum.org.ng</a>]<br>
Sent: 16 November 2016 12:52<br>
To: sergekbk <<a href="mailto:sergekbk@gmail.com">sergekbk@gmail.com</a><mailto:<a \
href="mailto:sergekbk@gmail.com">sergekbk@gmail.com</a>>>; Arnaud AMELINA \
<<a href="mailto:amelnaud@gmail.com">amelnaud@gmail.com</a><mailto:<a \
href="mailto:amelnaud@gmail.com">amelnaud@gmail.com</a>>>; rpd >> \
AfriNIC Resource Policy <<a \
href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net">rpd@afrinic.net</a><mailto:<a \
href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net">rpd@afrinic.net</a>>>; General Discussions of \
AFRINIC <<a href="mailto:community-discuss@afrinic.net">community-discuss@afrinic.net</a><mailto:<a \
href="mailto:community-discuss@afrinic.net">community-discuss@afrinic.net</a>>><br>
Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Update to Resources review policy proposal<br>
<br>
<br>
I think all policies (if we really intend to implement them) must be clear and leave \
no room for variable interpretation as ambiguity will put additional burdens of \
interpretation on staff.<br> <br>
If the community's preference is for the 24-month window to become invalid on \
allocation/assignment of new resources, then the policy (proposal) should state it \
clearly; If on the other hand, the intention is for the 24-month window to stay in \
place come-what-may, it's better for the policy (proposal) to be explicit about \
it.<br> <br>
Please see below, additional questions for the community to consider. Hopefully, they \
can be discussed and the authors can (if they so choose,) take the inputs from the \
community into their modified proposal.<br> <br>
3.3.2 Selected:<br>
<br>
A member is selected because of an internal report or due to a lack of contact \
between the AFRINIC and the member.<br> <br>
Q1. Do we presently have an existing (effective) structure (apart from billing) that \
measures degree of contact with members?<br> If there is no agreed means of measuring \
the degree contact, we need to define degrees of contact so that "lack of \
contact" (as referred to in the proposal) can be measured objectively.<br> <br>
Perhaps as a first step for ensuring regular contact without using up too many \
resources, this proposal might want to borrow a leaf from RIPE's Assisted Registry \
Check (ARC). See <a href="https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/resource-management/assisted-registry-check" \
target="_blank"> https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/resource-management/assisted-registry-check</a><br>
<br>
Basically, the RIR does a consistency check on members' Registry, Resource, and \
Route/rDNS information and then sends emails to the contacts on file showing their \
view. They then schedule a telephone call to work with the member and fix any \
identified issues.<br> <br>
My understanding from RIPE is that these non-invasive checks sometimes reveal issues \
that may warrant more detailed investigation. The primary model is by random checks \
but done in a manner that checks every member at least once in 3 years (given the \
size of RIPE). They also have ARCs that are initiated as a result of information \
received from the member or third parties.<br> Q2. Can reachability/cooperation of a \
member for such a consistency check-and-fix activity as described above be used to \
measure the degree of contact?<br> <br>
Q3. Given the fact that time taken for consistency checks are more predictable, can \
these be implemented as a preliminary step in addressing the "lack of \
investigation" problem as well as the concern about taking up much of members' \
and/or AFRINIC hostmasters' time?<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
Dewole.<br>
(with apologies for continuing the cross-posting between RPD and \
Community-discuss)<br> On 15/11/2016 20:18, sergekbk wrote:<br>
Hello Dewole,<br>
<br>
Thanks for this comment.<br>
The limit of 24 months applies to a member based on ressources portfolio. \
If the portfolio changes with new allocation, member can be \
audited anytime on the new ressources if required.<br> Is this clear enough or \
shall we make it explicit ?<br> <br>
Kind Regards.<br>
<br>
Serge Ilunga<br>
Cell: <a href="tel:%2B243814443160">+243814443160</a><br>
Skype: sergekbk<br>
R.D.Congo<br>
-------- Original message --------<br>
From: Dewole Ajao <<a \
href="mailto:dewole@tinitop.com">dewole@tinitop.com</a>><mailto:<a \
href="mailto:dewole@tinitop.com">dewole@tinitop.com</a>><br>
Date: 11/15/2016 11:38 (GMT+01:00)<br>
To: Arnaud AMELINA <<a \
href="mailto:amelnaud@gmail.com">amelnaud@gmail.com</a>><mailto:<a \
href="mailto:amelnaud@gmail.com">amelnaud@gmail.com</a>>, "rpd >> \
AfriNIC Resource Policy" <<a \
href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net">rpd@afrinic.net</a>><mailto:<a \
href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net">rpd@afrinic.net</a>>, General Discussions of \
AFRINIC <<a href="mailto:community-discuss@afrinic.net">community-discuss@afrinic.net</a>><mailto:<a \
href="mailto:community-discuss@afrinic.net">community-discuss@afrinic.net</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Update to Resources review policy proposal<br>
<br>
<br>
Thanks for working to apply the community's input to your proposal, Arnaud.<br>
<br>
To test the proposed re-wording, consider the following sequence of events:<br>
<br>
Member XYZ initiates self-requested review;<br>
Review is completed by AFRINIC in X weeks;<br>
After review, Member XYZ applies for "large chunk" of number resources;<br>
Member XYZ receives "large chunk" of number resources in say 60 days;<br>
Member XYZ happens to make some unacceptable use of (previous or new) number \
resources and it somehow becomes known to the community;<br> Regardless of convincing \
evidence, Member XYZ cannot be subjected to a review until 24 months have elapsed \
since the last review.<br> <br>
Is this a design feature or a bug?<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
Dewole.<br>
<br>
<br>
On 15/11/2016 10:48, Arnaud AMELINA wrote:<br>
<br>
Hi community !<br>
Following, recent discussions and in accordance with text proposal from Owen and \
others contributors, authors propose this as replacement to the section 3.3.3<br> \
<br>
-'---old version---''<br>
<br>
3.3.3 Reported: Here, members are reviewed either because:<br>
<br>
a. They have requested the review themselves or<br>
b. There has been a community complaint made against them that warrants \
investigation.<br> <br>
----new version-----<br>
<br>
3.3.3 Reported: Here, members are reviewed either because:<br>
<br>
a..They have requested the review themselves or<br>
b. There has been a community complaint made against them that warrants \
investigation. Complaints shall be backed by evidence and AFRINIC staff \
shall evaluate the facts as appropriate to conduct the review. However this review is \
not applicable to a member on which a full review has been completed in the \
preceding 24 months.<br> <br>
Regards.<br>
<br>
Arnaud.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
<br>
Community-Discuss mailing list<br>
<br>
<a href="mailto:Community-Discuss@afrinic.net">Community-Discuss@afrinic.net</a><mailto:<a \
href="mailto:Community-Discuss@afrinic.net">Community-Discuss@afrinic.net</a>><br> \
<br> <a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss" \
target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss</a><br> \
<br> <br>
_______________________________________________ RPD mailing list <a \
href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net"> RPD@afrinic.net</a><mailto:<a \
href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net">RPD@afrinic.net</a>> <a \
href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" target="_blank"> \
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
URL: <<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20161122/c526af1d/attachment.html" \
target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20161122/c526af1d/attachment.html</a>><br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Subject: Digest Footer<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
RPD mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net">RPD@afrinic.net</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" \
target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><br> <br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
End of RPD Digest, Vol 122, Issue 70<br>
************************************<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>
_______________________________________________
RPD mailing list
RPD@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
--===============0424463473086996245==--
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
Configure |
About |
News |
Add a list |
Sponsored by KoreLogic