[AfriNIC-rpd] Report on policy discussions at the AfriNIC-13 meeting

[Douglas Onyango]

Thanks SM,

Regards,
Douglas Onyango | +256(0712)981329
Life is the educators practical joke in which you spend the first half learning, and the second half learning that everything you learned in the first was wrong.


--- On Sun, 11/28/10, sm+afrinic at elandsys.com <sm+afrinic at elandsys.com> wrote:

> From: sm+afrinic at elandsys.com <sm+afrinic at elandsys.com>
> Subject: [AfriNIC-rpd] Report on policy discussions at the AfriNIC-13 meeting
> To: rpd at afrinic.net
> Cc: "Alan Barrett" <apb at cequrux.com>
> Date: Sunday, November 28, 2010, 4:25 PM
> 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.
> 
> 
> AFPUB-2010-GEN-006
> Abuse Contact Information in the AfriNIC service region
> <http://www.afrinic.net/docs/policies/AFPUB-2010-GEN-006.htm>
> 
>    There was consensus on progressing this
> proposal to
>    Last Call.  No changes were
> suggested during the meeting.
> 
> AFPUB-2010-GEN-007
> Addition of Real Contact Email into ASN Whois Bulk Data
> <http://www.afrinic.net/docs/policies/AFPUB-2010-GEN-007.htm>
> 
>    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).
> 
> AFPUB-2010-v4-005
> IPv4 Soft Landing Proposal
> <http://www.afrinic.net/docs/policies/AFPUB-2010-v4-005.htm>
> 
>    There was consensus on progressing this
> proposal to Last Call.
> 
>    The following changes or clarifications
> were suggested, and all
>    gained consensus:
> 
>      * 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.
> 
> AFPUB-2010-v4-003
> AFPUB-2010-v4-006
> Global Policy for IPv4 Allocations by the IANA Post
> Exhaustion
> <http://www.afrinic.net/docs/policies/AFPUB-2010-v4-003.htm>
> <http://www.afrinic.net/docs/policies/AFPUB-2010-v4-006.htm>
> 
>    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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rpd mailing list
> rpd at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd
>