Search RPD Archives
Limit search to: Subject & Body Subject Author
Sort by:

[AfriNIC-rpd] Draft Minutes of AfriNIC-13 Public Policy Meeting

sm+afrinic at sm+afrinic at
Tue Dec 14 20:48:44 UTC 2010


This is a draft of the minutes for the AfriNIC-13 
Public Policy Meeting.  If there are any errors 
or omissions, please post them to this mailing list.

We are waiting for feedback from AfriNIC about 
the analysis of AFPUB-2010-GEN-006 and 
AFPUB-2010-v4-005 before issuing the Last Call for these two proposals.

Martin Hannigan posted an updated text for 
AFPUB-2010-v4-003 on 12 December ( ).

Alan Barrett and S. Moonesamy
Interim co-chairs, AfriNIC Policy Development Working Group

Draft Minutes of AfriNIC-13 Public Policy Meeting

Meeting : AfriNIC 13, 24 & 25 November 2010
Location: Protea Hotel Balalaika, Sandton, Johannesburg, South Africa
Chairs  : Alan Barrett <apb at>, S. Moonesamy
            <sm+afrinic at>
Minutes : Mukom Akong T. <tamon at>


A. Appointment of Interim co-chairs, AfriNIC Policy Development Working Group

B. Abuse Contact Information in the AfriNIC service region Proposal

C. Addition of Real Contact Email into ASN Whois Bulk Data Proposal

D. Global Policy for IPv4 Allocations by the IANA Post Exhaustion Proposal

E. IPv4 Soft Landing Proposal (AFPUB-2010-v4-005)


A. Appointment of Interim co-chairs, AfriNIC Policy Development Working Group

   Dr Viv Padayatchy, Chairman of the AfriNIC Board of Directors chaired the
   first part of the Public Policy Meeting.  Dr Viv Padayatchy on behalf of the
   Board announced the Board’s decision
   ( )
   to appoint S. Moonesamy and Dr Paulos Nyirenda as interim PDWG Chairs until
   proper elections can be organised.

   Alan Barrett wanted a clarification on the implementation of the new PDP ­
   specifically because neither S. Moonesamy, Dr Paulos Nyirenda nor the
   AfriNIC Policy Development Working Group had accepted the Board’s
   appointment.  On this point, the Chairman of the AfriNIC Board put it to the
   community as to whether there was any objection of appointment of the
   co-chairs and for Dr Paulos Nyirenda to make up his mind whether or not he
   accepted the appointment.  While S. Moonesamy accepted the appointment,
   Dr Paulos Nyirenda declined, opting to wait for elections.  S. Moonesamy
   proposed Alan Barrett as interim co-chair and Allan Barret reluctantly
   agreed to accept the appointment subject to the appointment being approved
   by the community.  The Chairman of the AfriNIC Board determined that it
   was the consensus of the AfriNIC Policy Development Working Group to
   appoint the two Interim co-chairs.  At this point, Dr Viv Padayatchy
   handed over the chair to S. Moonesamy and Alan Barrett who requested
   a ten minutes recess.

   After the recess, Adiel Akplogan, CEO of AfriNIC, clarified the issue of
   elections for PDWG chairs as follows:

   1. The appointment of S. Moonesamy and Alan Barrett is NOT an election

   2. The 2011 Nominations Committee will be responsible for the election of
      the PDWG Chairs for AfriNIC-14

   Discussions about the various proposals were conducted under the Policy
   Development Process in the AfriNIC service region (AFPUB-2010-GEN-005).

B. Abuse Contact Information in the AfriNIC service region Proposal

   In the absence of the author of the proposal, S. Moonesamy presented the
   proposal and then called for comments.

   Mohamed Ibrahim asked for a bit more context about the proposal - why we
   have it in the first place and what problem it is trying to solve.
   Graham Beneke provided the context by introducing what Abusix (the
   organisation with which the proposal author is affiliated) does (sending
   spam abuse reports) and by the nature of their work, the automated reports
   that their systems send regularly trips the constraints put in place to
   protect the Whois database from abuse.

   Alain Aina re-counted that there had been previous disagreement on the
   creation of a new object rather than just adding an attribute on an
   existing information object.  S. Moonesamy clarified that the text
   of the proposal left that implementation detail up to AfriNIC’s
   technical depatment.  Alan Barrett also later clarified that a key
   change from the old version was that this facility is optional and
   not mandatory.

   Graham Beneke wanted to know the implications of the RIPE Abuse Finder
   as mentioned in the proposal.  As an individual comment, S. Moonesamy
   responded that it means that AfriNIC will have to put the information
   in the RIPE abuse finder.  Adiel Akplogan clarified that as soon as the
   appropriate information is updated, the RIPE abuse finder has access to
   the AfriNIC Whois bulk data and so nothing explicitly need to be done
   on AfriNIC’s part.

   The Interim co-chairs determined that there was consensus on progressing
   this proposal to Last Call.  No changes were suggested during the meeting.

C. Addition of Real Contact Email into ASN Whois Bulk Data Proposal

   As the author of the proposal was absent, Alan Barrett briefly presented
   the proposal after which he called for comments.

   Graham Beneke submitted that the previous proposal (Abuse Contact
   Information) that just passed addresses the same issue that this proposal
   is trying to solve. He thus saw no reason for an additional proposal. Saul
   Stein in agreeing with Graham Beneke also pointed out that if abuse
   information is added to ASN, abuse reports will l go to the wrong person -
   the LIR that has the ASN rather than the specific site to which the prefix
   has been assigned.

   Mohamed Ibrahim raised an objection to the wording of the proposal (it
   seems to referring specifically to Google) to the exclusion of the
   AfriNIC community.

   Mark Elkins suggested that the proposal be dropped because Google hasn’t
   signed any agreement with AfriNIC with respect to the data, that the
   proposal is not well written. This position was also supported by
   Dr Viv Padayatchy.

   The Interim co-chairs determined that there was no consensus for
   this proposal.  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).

D. Global Policy for IPv4 Allocations by the IANA Post Exhaustion Proposal

   The proposal (AFPUB-2010-v4-003) was discussed on the 25 November and was
   presented by Martin Hannigan, who is one of the authors, with some changes.

   Alan Barrett clarified that as a global policy, if many changes are done at
   this meeting, it will reduce the probability 
of it passing at the global level.

   Alain Aina wanted to now if the NRO-EC had looked at this proposal and what
   their plans for it are.  In response, Axel 
Pawlik said the NRO-EC was waiting
   for it to pass at all RIRs then they would pass it to the ASO-AC to check
   that everyone’s comments have been heard. After that it will go to the ICANN
   Board for ratification. He further stressed that the proposal as passed in
   other RIRs must not vary significantly in content.

   Alain Aina wanted clarifications as to whether 
any reserve block, for example
   the IPv4 Softlanding Proposal 
(AFPUB-2010-v4-005), held by an RIR affects the
   RIRs eligibility to receive allocations from IANA under this policy.
   Martin Hannigan responded that so long as that any reserve remains longer
   than /10, it should not affect an RIRs eligibility i.e. the exception is
   for a /10 entirely, including all reserve pools in the inventory.

   Timothy McGinnis voicing support for the proposal said it is just good house
   keeping even as he pointed out that in the long term they might not be many
   people returning address space. It also will save the RIRs from criticism
   from other folks in the global Internet governance eco-system.

   Martin Hannigan reported that from financial 
analysis of post-exhaustion cost,
   the average black/grey market address costs US 
$1.63 and that post-exhaustion,
   it will increase by 263% to about $4 of the 
RIR-normalized cost in some regions.
   He referred to an eBay auction for a /24 that 
went up to US$40 an address which
   could be a sign of things to come.

   William Stucke wanted clarification of the 
phrase in the proposal that states,
   "address space can only be returned by the issuing RIR". In response Martin
   Hannigan said it was in anticipation of an inter-RIR transfer policy.  This
   would prevent organisations that got an 
allocation from an RIR from bypassing
   the RIR and returning space directly to IANA.

   Alain Aina proposed that due to the fact that the latest version of the
   proposal was not yet online, it is better if the discussions on the proposal
   are taken online.  Adiel Akplogan clarified 
that the reason the latest version
   is not online is because it was not submitted to the mailing list before the
   deadline of the 18th November 2010 set by the 
PDP-MG for all modifications to
   policy proposals.

   Timothy McGinnis asked Martin Hannigan  to give his opinion of what this
   proposal means for Africa in terms of the IPv4 Soft Landing. Martin Hannigan
   said that it will be a while before the proposal impacts the region since
   it will likely be the last RIR that will be seeking additional space from
   IANA. The policy ensures that post exhaustion, addresses will remain within
   the RIR system and at a low cost which will 
help support certain organizations
   that for some reason still needs to run v4.

   In response to concerns that the text 
presented by the author was not the same
   text that is on the mailing list and website and that it was important that
   the community have ample opportunity to review 
the latest version, the Interim
   co-chairs determined that it would be better 
to give people more time to look
   at the updated text and for the discussion to resume after lunch.

   After the break when everyone had had a chance 
to read the updated copy of the
   proposal (AFPUB-2010-v4-006), Nii Quaynor 
wanted to know if a similar proposal
   had been adopted in other regions. Alan Barrett answered by referring to the
   "Policy Discussions Guide" that it is under discussion in other regions and
    was in last call in the ARIN region.

   Dr Viv Padayatchy said that while there was nothing in the policy that was
   detrimental to our region, he didn’t see a need to rush to adopt it here.
   This position was also supported by Nii Quaynor.  Cathy Aronson of the
   ARIN Advisory Council and Mark Elkins in responding said that although
   Africa may not be affected in the short term, not passing this policy will
   mean that IANA has no policy to guide possible address space that becomes
   available post-exhaustion and this will adversely affect other regions
   that may need the extra addresses.

   Summarizing the discussions so far, Alan Barrett put it to the community
   that even though there is no opposition to the proposal, should it proceed
   to last call it now or wait and see what happens in the other RIRs?

   Alain Aina and Adiel Akplogan said that due to the small violation in
   procedure of not posting the updated text to the mailing list for sufficient
   time for discussions by all, it would be better to send it back to
   the mailing list for discussion, bearing in mind that the new PDP allows for
   emergencies. This position was supported by Nii Quaynor, Viv Padayatchy,
   Paulos Nyirenda as well as Ashok Radhakissoon, AfriNIC’s legal adviser.

   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 Interim co-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.

E. IPv4 Soft Landing Proposal (AFPUB-2010-v4-005)

   In the absence of the author, Alain Aina presented the proposal.

   Graham Beneke raised concerns about the routability of a /27 or longer range
   but supported the proposal non-the-less.  As an individual comment from the
   floor, Alan Barrett also supported the 
proposal with a few comments/suggestions:

     *  Change the phase names from Modified status-quo and IPv6 Transition to
        Exhaustion phase 1 and 2.

     *  Even though we can’t route anything longer than /24, it may change in
        the future and no reason to remove the /27.

     *  The proposal should be modified to address space received after the
        final /8.

   Alain Aina clarified that the use of the /27 is more to deal with IPv6
   transition mechanisms and not much to do with routing.

   Dr Viv Padayatchy wanted clarification about whether members requesting for
   resources in the exhaustion phases must also have v6. Alain Aina, Alan
   Barrett clarified that the proposal allows for simultaneous applications of
   v6 (if the member does not already have any).

   Fiona Asonga and William Stucke both voiced support for the proposal as it
   is but to make provisions to incorporate any space that would result from
   the post exhaustion outside the final /8.

   Alan Barrett, as Chair, put it to the community to decide on whether the
   proposal’s requirement to make a member eligible for a new /22 when they
   use 90% of their first /22 should be kept or if requests should be
   limited to a single /22. Mark Elkins pointed 
out that we cannot limit request
   to only one /22 because then we will never use up the remaining space.

   The Interim co-chairs determined that 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.  The consensus was that this issue did not require any change
   to the proposal.

The Public Policy Meeting was adjourned.

More information about the RPD mailing list