[Community-Discuss] IPv4 depletion in AFRINIC will speed up IPv6 adoption - myth or fact?

Tue Nov 1 17:28:34 UTC 2016

2016-11-01 16:39 GMT+00:00 Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com>:

> Arnaud,
>
>
>
> Let me be very clear –
>
>
>
> I never expressed support for this policy – I asked a question.
>
>
>
> I am COMPLETELY opposed to this policy, and will be until such time as the
> policy explicitly states that in the event of a complaint against a member,
> the member is informed when he is audited who complained and the grounds
> stated for the complaint.  That is in line with internationally accepted
> practice that the accused may have the right to confront his accuser, and
> protects against malicious accusations for the sake of causing on going
> work for an organisation.
>
>
>
> It opens the door for legal action against an accuser by the accused, if
> the accused feels the accuser is lodging complaints that are malicious and
> unsubstantiated in nature, and it means that those who are complaining and
> demanding audits are doing so **backed by evidence** rather than because
> they feel they can.
>
>
>
> I also argue that any person who issues a complaint should be willing to
> subject themselves to automatic audit, which again, will cut down on
> unfounded complaints that are not backed by evidence.
>
>
>
> In addition to this, complaints should be submitted by **members** alone,
> they are the true stake holders, and I will oppose any policy that allows a
> random member of the community to submit arbitrary complaints without
> proof, evidence or proper substantiation.
>
>
>
Andrew,
The relationship between the RIR and its members is based on trust.  I feel
you miss the intent of this proposal and imagine too many negative
things.   A network truly using resources should not care.  I also feel you
confuse role of policy and Afrinic staff who have responsibility to propose
a process in accordance with the RSA.

> Further to this, 3.4 makes reference to unauthorised transfers.  I can
> issue with auditing against something that is unauthorised when there is no
> process to authorise it.  That needs re-wording until such time as there is
> a transfer policy.   I also take issue with 3.4 that it is declared as a
> non-exhaustive list.  That is an open door for abuse, define the reasons
> for audit and stick to them.
>
>
>
> I also take **HUGE** issue with 3.6 – if you want 3.6 and you want to
> publish the names of companies that have been audited, firstly, you have to
> publish the names as well of the requesting party, and secondly, that would
> be a direct violation of the confidentiality agreements agreed to in the
> RSA which you yourself refer to in the policy.
>
>
>
> Those are my thoughts – but until those issues are rectified – I do not
> support this policy, nor do any of the 15 organisations which I represent
> directly support this policy.
>

Oooh! I am not aware that we can have proxy for PDP discussions too.

> Once those issues are rectified, I will **consider** support for the
> policy, but the above points are deal breakers for me – after that,
> consideration can be given.
>

--Arnaud

>
>
> Andrew
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Arnaud AMELINA [mailto:amelnaud at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* 01 November 2016 19:10
> *To:* ALAIN AINA <aalain at trstech.net>
> *Cc:* General Discussions of AFRINIC <community-discuss at afrinic.net>
> *Subject:* Re: [Community-Discuss] IPv4 depletion in AFRINIC will speed
> up IPv6 adoption - myth or fact?
>
>
>
> My Contribution through the lines of this message
>
>
>
> 2016-11-01 15:31 GMT+00:00 ALAIN AINA <aalain at trstech.net>:
>
> Hello,
>
>
>
> On Oct 29, 2016, at 7:18 PM, Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.
> com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> Ø  Yes. the usual story. You only know. Others are either clueless or
> naive..
>
>
>
> Not at all, I’m sure there are plenty of people who may know better than
> me.  Unfortunately, as of yet, none of them have bothered to provide
> realistic ways of doing this that contain **detailed** proposals of how
> this would be accomplished and what the end results are.
>
>
>
> There are plenty of people here who know far more than me and you , but
> resolve not to speak as you have made this a low floor, repetitive and non
>  productive discussions.
>
>
>
> The policy proposal was introduced  on the 18 May 2016, and we have had
>  these discussions. RPD  and the  AFRINIC-24 policy archives are available.
>
>
> +1 @Alain
>
> Yes Andrew, we had good discussions  and a new version of the proposal
> which  incorporated  the changes  was posted  Tuesday, 9 August 2016, the
> link below :
>
> http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/
> policy-proposals/1827-internet-number-resources-review-by-afrinic
>
> And I understood trough your e-mail posted on 14 October 2016, which is
> cuts below, you finally express support to this Policy proposal.
>
> ====
>
> "Just a question about the audit policy….
>
> Is it agreed that if we have such a policy, we should also audit the v6
> assignments people are holding that should be announced under the needs
> based policy rules?
>
> Thanks"
>
> ===
>
> regards
>
>
>
>
> Now  that you have asked again, see below...
>
>
>
>
>
> See Alain, the difference here, I ask for hard facts and data – and when
> I’m asked for such I provide it – but I will not accept vague positions and
> unsubstantiated nonsense as the grounds for implementing a policy.
>
>
>
> a.)    No one has yet proposed how these audits are meant to be
> realistically done beyond looking at the routing tables
>
>
>
> Policy proposals do not  dictate implementation, but describe principles
> to action.
>
>
>
> The policy  proposal aims to seek compliance to RSA which all members sign
> before applying for the number ressources. Section 4 of the RSA is very
> clear on parties responsibilities. http://www.
> afrinic.net/en/services/rs/rsa
>
>
>
> The policy proposal  says :
>
> ===
>
> 3.4 In case of non-compliance and if evidence has been established in
> accordance with the non-exhaustive list below:
>
>    - Unjustified lack of visibility of the resource on the global routing
>    table.
>    - Breach of AFRINIC policies.
>    - Breach of the provisions of the registration service agreement or
>    other legal agreements between the organization holding the resource and
>    AFRINIC.
>    - Evidence that an organisation is no more operating and its blocks
>    have not been transferred.
>    - Unauthorized transfers of resources.
>
> ===
>
>
>
> Looking at the global  Internet routing table at a given time is an
> option. Visibility or not in the global Internet Routing Table gives an
> indication of how to reach the destination, but does not tell about
> utilisation. A prefix can easily be seen in the Global Internet Table
> without  being used.
>
>  Utilisation in compliance with RSA and policies is what is sought here.
> What AFRINIC will be trying to establish is utilisation based on justified
>  needs  and compliance with RSA. In doing so, Members are  bound to
> collaborate with AFRINIC as said in section 4.(4) below.
>
>
>
> ===
>
> (b) Cooperation:
>
> (i) An applicant receiving service under an agreement is at all times
> bound to provide to AFRINIC such information, assistance and cooperation as
> may be reasonably required by the latter in the provision of the service.
>
> (ii) Such request for information may also be made where AFRINIC is
> investigating (reviewing) the applicant's utilisation of the numbering
> resources already assigned to it.
>
> (iii) Failure by the applicant, to comply with a request made at above may:
>
>    1. entail revocation or withholding of the service supplied by AFRINIC;
>    2. be taken into account by AFRINIC in its evaluation for further and
>    future assignment or allocation of numbering resources;
>    3. lead to the closure of an LIR and termination of the agreement by
>    AFRINIC.
>
>
>
> ===
>
>
>
> Investigated members to provide  information and data to convince AFRINIC
> which may not need to do  much.
>
>
>
> “Say what you do, do what you say and prove it."
>
>
>
>
>
> b.)    No one has proposed where the resources to do these audits are
> meant to come from
>
>
>
>
>
> AFRINIC as RIR is already committed to do this review as prescribed in the
> RSA. This proposal is just  guidelines on how to implement it.  But if
> there is a need for extra ressources, it is up to  AFRINIC staff to say so.
> The PDP has provision for staff analysis on Policy proposal. Shall
> co-chairs request one ?
>
>
>
>
> c.)    No one has addressed the MASSIVE potential for abuse of this policy
>
>
>
>
>
> I remembered  the discussions on possible abuse on  the “reported” class
> of the policy proposal.
>
>
>
> ===
>
> 3.3.3 Reported: Here, members are reviewed either because:
>
>    1. They have requested the review themselves or
>    2. there has been a community complaint made against them that
>    warrants investigation.
>
> ===
>
>
>
> This has been addressed as we all trust AFRINIC to do the right job and as
> a community, we stand to revive policies and implementations in case of
> known abuses.
>
>
>
> People have been complaining  about flaws in current policies, practices
> which have been abused by some members.
>
>
> d.)    No one has addressed the fact that if an audit is needed – then
> the original documentation is in question – and at that point you are by
> the very nature of requesting the audit saying the hostmasters didn’t do
> their jobs when verifying the application in the first place – and if you
> want to make implications like that – you need evidence.
>
>
>
>
>
> The application approved by Hostmasters at the first place serves as basis
> to all reviews. Questioning  applications approved by Hostmasters is a
> different matter.
>
>
>
>
>
> I am sick and tired of vague statements, vague insinuations, vague claims
> that everyone is stealing the space and taking it elsewhere,
>
>
>
> Ah bon ? I have not heard that.  But in case this exist, I would expect
> this policy proposal to help clear the point.
>
>
>
> vague claims that presentations that report on one thing some how are
> actually reporting on other issues they don’t ever reference.
>
>
>
> There are data in there, plus some conclusions. Nothing prevents further
> analysis and readings of the data.
>
>
>
> —Alain
>
>
>
>
>
> Come with real data – real facts – real figures – and then let’s have this
> discussion.
>
>
>
> Andrew
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Community-Discuss mailing list
> Community-Discuss at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/community-discuss/attachments/20161101/0eb7f57a/attachment.html>