[Community-Discuss] Issue with non-AFRINIC Fellowship to Meeting -

[Frank Habicht]

Hi,

inline...

On 12/12/2018 22:20, Owen DeLong wrote:
> Actually, it isn’t. AfriNIC can enforce the RSA without this review 
> policy. This review policy doesn’t enable AfriNIC to do anything AfriNIC 
> can’t already do.

Yes. Agree.

> What it does do is (potentially) force AfriNIC to take on additional 
> tasks to conduct investigations into reported violations of the RSA to 
> determine whether or not the proffered accusation constitutes credible 
> evidence or not. It places no limits on the number of such 
> investigations which can be forced by disgruntled members of the 
> community. It places no hard limits on the amount of time and effort 
> this may require on the part of resource members defending against such 
> allegations, even if they are found to be baseless except  that if a 
> member is put through a “full review” (which is not well defined in the 
> policy), that member cannot be subjected to such process again for some 
> period of time.

Yes. Agree.

>> This policy only gives guidelines as to how this can be implemented in 
>> a fair and transparent process.  How can you or any other African be 
>> against this. If a member already goes through an evaluation process 
>> when acquiring resources why should the member be opposed to a 
>> periodic review.
> 
> It’s neither fair nor transparent. It’s expensive and burdensome for 
> large organizations while remaining fairly light-weight for small 
> organizations. It’s a wide open vector for those who wish to launch a 
> form of denial of service attack against some member organizations 
> and/or AfriNIC itself.

Yes.

[snip...]

> Third, to the best of my knowledge, there are several people who have 
> voiced opposition who have no relationship whatsoever with Larus. I can 
> think of at least two other resource members who fit this description 
> and have expressed similar opposition without doing any research, just 
> off the top of my head.

I'm one of those unrelated to Larus and expressing opposition.
[ hoping Owen counted me.
   if not: it's personal and we'll take it off-list ;-) ]

[snip...]

> In the case of the PDP, having an interest in the outcome of the policy 
> process as a member of the community does not constitute a conflict of 
> interest. In theory, all resource members have some level of interest in 
> the outcome of every PDP. Since all resource members are able to 
> participate on equal footing in the PDP, this interest is not a conflict 
> of interest against their obligations to the community because they do 
> not meet the first test above. Their influence over the PDP is no 
> greater than any other resource member or any other interested person.

My level of interest is this:
I would like to continue having a working, responsive, RIR for Africa, 
maintaining some numbers assignments/allocations, in a fair, predictable 
manner, that should not spend the majority(or a major share) of its 
resources on auditing members, just because a few have accused others 
and require audits; and neither should this RIR be at the risk of having 
to spend these resources, just because of this here discussed policy.

oops, are we on the wrong list?


Frank