[Community-Discuss] Update to Resources review policy proposal

[Dewole Ajao]

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/*
> */Skype: sergekbk/*
> */R.D.Congo/*
> -------- Original message --------
> From: Dewole Ajao <dewole at tinitop.com>
> Date: 11/15/2016 11:38 (GMT+01:00)
> To: Arnaud AMELINA <amelnaud at gmail.com>, "rpd >> AfriNIC Resource 
> Policy" <rpd at afrinic.net>, General Discussions of AFRINIC 
> <community-discuss at 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 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/20161116/65bcb820/attachment.html>