[Community-Discuss] Issue with non-AFRINIC Fellowship to Meeting -
geier at geier.ne.tz
Thu Dec 13 04:51:22 UTC 2018
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.
> 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.
>> 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.
> 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 ;-) ]
> 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?
More information about the Community-Discuss