Search RPD Archives
[AfriNIC-rpd] Report on policy discussions at the AfriNIC-13 meeting
sm+afrinic at elandsys.com
sm+afrinic at elandsys.com
Sun Nov 28 13:25:52 UTC 2010
This is a report on policy discussions at the AfriNIC-13 meeting, held
in Johannesburg, South Africa on 24 and 25 November 2010. More detailed
minutes will be posted within the next three weeks.
Four policy proposals were discussed.
Abuse Contact Information in the AfriNIC service region
There was consensus on progressing this proposal to
Last Call. No changes were suggested during the meeting.
Addition of Real Contact Email into ASN Whois Bulk Data
This proposal did not gain consensus. Some objections were that it
was too vague, that it seemed too specific to one particular user
of the data, and that the intent of the proposal could be satisfied
under the abuse contact information proposal (AFPUB-2010-GEN-006).
IPv4 Soft Landing Proposal
There was consensus on progressing this proposal to Last Call.
The following changes or clarifications were suggested, and all
* Policies under the exhaustion phase apply equally to all IPv4
address space available to AfriNIC during this phase, regardless
of whether or not the address space is part of the "Final /8".
* Change the names of the two sub-phases within the Exhaustion
Phase (sections 6.1a and 6.1b) to "Exhaustion Phase 1" and
"Exhaustion Phase 2".
* Clarify that the maximum allocation size of /22 (section 6.1b)
applies independently to each allocation. There is no limit to
the number of times the same organisation may receive allocations
under this policy.
There was a concern that the minimum allocation size of /27 (section
6.1b) would lead to problems with routability. Other people
expressed the views that this proposal would probably remain in
effect for several years, that technology changes in future might
allow routability for small blocks, and that some allocations might
be used in ways that do not require global routability. Consensus
was that this issue did not require any change to the proposal.
Global Policy for IPv4 Allocations by the IANA Post Exhaustion
AFPUB-2010-v4-003 was presented at the Public Policy Meeting by
Martin Hannigan with some changes. The outgoing PDP-MG (working
under the previous version of the Policy Development Process,
AFPUB-2008-GEN-001) had asked the authors of the proposal not to
post a new version of the proposal to the Resource Policy Discussion
mailing list as it was past the deadline of 18th November for
submitting changes. The PDP-MG had advised the author to introduce
the changes during the Public Policy Meeting.
It was pointed out during the Public Policy Meeting that the
changes should have been circulated for review. During a break in
the discussion, Martin Hannigan posted an updated version of the
proposal. The updated version was labelled AFPUB-2010-v4-006.
It was noted that there is some urgency to this proposal, because the
IANA currently has no way of allocating IPv4 address space to RIRs
units smaller than a /8, the IANA pool of IPv4 space is likely to be
entirely depleted before the AfriNIC-14 meeting, and there is the
possibility that some legacy address space in units smaller than /8
might be returned to the IANA soon.
The Working Group Chairs determined that there was rough consensus
in favour of the AFPUB-2010-v4-006 proposal, but there were concerns
about the fact that the version of the proposal presented at the
meeting was not the same as the version posted to the RPD mailing
list or posted on the AfriNIC web site before the meeting.
As a result of confusion during the transition from the previous
Policy Development Process (AFPUB-2008-GEN-001) to the new Policy
Development Process (AFPUB-2010-GEN-005), the following requirement
of Section 5.2 of AFPUB-2010-GEN-005 was violated:
"No change can be made to a draft policy within one week of the
meeting. This is so that a stable version of the draft policy can
be considered at the meeting."
There was a view to allow the proposal to progress to Last Call
despite concerns about the process. There were comments about
following the process even though it would cause problems for a
proposal that otherwise has consensus, and some people expressed the
hope that a method could be found to allow the proposal to progress
rapidly without violating the process.
The PDWG Chairs determined that, even though there was rough
consensus in favour of the proposal, compliance with the policy
development process requires that the proposal should not progress
to Last Call now. Accordingly, discussion should continue on the
Resource Policy Discussion mailing list, and the proposal may be
considered again at the AfriNIC-14 meeting. If passing this proposal
becomes urgent, it is possible that the emergency process (section 7
of AFPUB-2010-GEN-005) may be invoked before the AfriNIC-14 meeting.
Alan Barrett and S. Moonesamy
Interim co-chairs, AfriNIC Policy Development Working Group
26 November 2010
More information about the RPD