[Community-Discuss] should the allocation/assigment of resources be made public?
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
jordi.palet at consulintel.es
Sat Jul 31 10:47:19 UTC 2021
(subject changed and moved to RPD and we should follow the discussion there and not copy community, as it belongs to there)
I don’t think is so easy.
It is very normal, even in open organizations, to keep confidentiality in many documents. It could be even ruled as illegal if you don’t accept that in the CPM, if we ground the CPM under Mauritius law, which is an open question. However, the CPM implementation is done by the AFRINIC as a Mauritius legally constituted organization …
Remember that a justification for a resource request, can provide insights of a business plan and then you’re opening your business to your competitors.
So the point is if we can draft something in the line of:
(new section 3.3.4 “Publication of Information”)
IPv4 resources are scarce and close to exhaustion. So, following the principles of openness, transparency and fairness as set above, after “n” years of every allocation/assignment of IPv4 resources, the justification of the request must be published. Towards that, the resource member will be warned 3 months before the publication with a draft of the summary to be published,. It will have up to 1 month, to provide a demonstration of reasons why some of the details can’t be made public (such as patents or similar), that show the uniqueness nature of the services offered which, if disclosed, could damage the resource member business. The staff will have 1 month to decide if that’s the case, and in doubt, they will escalate to the Board that must resolve in a maximum of 1 month.
This policy shall be implemented in such way that all the resources allocated/assigned for over “n” years, will be chronologically warned in such way that allows the staff to process the possible responses of “non-disclosure” without requiring extra human resources.
Now, we need to decide if this is good enough, and how many years for the “n”. 2 years maybe?
I will love also to hear from legal counsel/Board and lawyers participating in the community, how they see it …
I’m not even sure myself, this could work, but we could try.
Dear AfriNIC's Community,
Please see my comments below, inline...
Le mercredi 28 juillet 2021, Owen DeLong via Community-Discuss <community-discuss at afrinic.net> a écrit :
> On Jul 27, 2021, at 12:30 , JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via Community-Discuss <community-discuss at afrinic.net> wrote:
> This will be very simple to resolve (not taking a position in one side or the other because I don't have all the real facts and documents).
> The original justificacion of the request of the resources I don't think it had so many "secret" and "confidential" details. After several years if any "secrets" were there, probably aren't longer something that can't published now.
How come that INRs management becomes a
matter of such secrets?
Please Jordi or any other volunteer, let me know if
you are willing to contribute to draft a DPP to
remove the possibility of keeping such, apparently,
We have already agreed that the original justification is no longer relevant and that, like any ISP in business for more than 8 years, things have changed and we have adapted.
...strange! is/was it an adaptation for the good of
the AfriNIC's service region?
Please, could you enlightenned us on those
...moving 90% of INRs out of the AfriNIC's service
region, without any Inter RIR transfer policy, seems
to be your best way to support the grow of this RIR
> So why not CI, voluntarely publish that information? I don't have any stance on this game, but if I was CI, this will be the best way to probe my points.
Because it is no longer relevant.
> Otherwise, I will suggest that AFRINIC asks the court to incorporate that in the proceedings if is not there already, this way, whatever is the result of the case, everybody will know it. At least in the countries I know, the results of the cases are public, as well as the documents that were incorporated during all the process: transparency.
Jordi, maybe it's simply time to stop allowing such
In reality, even if a curative submission is required (if the last filed justification to which I do not have access, TBH), I would suggest they simply modify their justification to the following:
We will use the addresses to number internet connected hosts on our own infrastructure and on our customers’ networks.
This is a justification which meets the letter of the law of the policy and which does not preclude leasing.
...are you considering the notions of *conservation*
Knowing the understanding of the current
implementers of the CPM, it's clear that one shall
need to submit a convincing addressing plan
before receiving any INR allocation.
Best Regards !
baya.sylvain[AT cmNOG DOT cm]|<https://cmnog.cm/dokuwiki/Structure>
Subscribe to Mailing List: <https://lists.cmnog.cm/mailman/listinfo/cmnog/>
#LASAINTEBIBLE|#Romains15:33«Que LE #DIEU de #Paix soit avec vous tous! #Amen!»
#MaPrière est que tu naisses de nouveau. #Chrétiennement
«Comme une biche soupire après des courants d’eau, ainsi mon âme soupire après TOI, ô DIEU!»(#Psaumes42:2)
_______________________________________________ Community-Discuss mailing list Community-Discuss at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Community-Discuss