Search RPD Archives
[AfriNIC-rpd] Minutes of AfriNIC-13 Public Policy Meeting
sm+afrinic at elandsys.com
sm+afrinic at elandsys.com
Thu Dec 16 20:28:47 UTC 2010
Hello,
This is the minutes for the AfriNIC-13 Public
Policy Meeting. We would like to thank Mukom
Akong T. for drafting the minutes.
Alan Barrett and S. Moonesamy
Interim co-chairs, AfriNIC Policy Development Working Group
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 cequrux.com>, S. Moonesamy
<sm+afrinic at elandsys.com>
Minutes : Mukom Akong T. <tamon at afrinic.net>
AGENDA
A. Appointment of Interim co-chairs, AfriNIC Policy Development Working Group
B. Abuse Contact Information in the AfriNIC service region Proposal
(AFPUB-2010-GEN-006)
C. Addition of Real Contact Email into ASN Whois Bulk Data Proposal
(AFPUB-2010-GEN-007)
D. Global Policy for IPv4 Allocations by the IANA Post Exhaustion Proposal
(AFPUB-2010-v4-003/AFPUB-2010-v4-006)
E. IPv4 Soft Landing Proposal (AFPUB-2010-v4-005)
MEETING REPORT
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
( https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2010/001165.html )
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 Barrett 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
(AFPUB-2010-GEN-006)
http://www.afrinic.net/docs/policies/AFPUB-2010-GEN-006.htm
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 department. 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
(AFPUB-2010-GEN-007)
http://www.afrinic.net/docs/policies/AFPUB-2010-GEN-007.htm
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
(AFPUB-2010-v4-003/AFPUB-2010-v4-006)
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 web site 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), Dr 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 Dr Nii Quaynor. Cathy Aronson, from the
ARIN Advisory Council, and Mark Elkins in response 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 Dr
Nii Quaynor, Dr Viv Padayatchy,
Dr Paulos Nyirenda as well as Ashok Radhakissoon, AfriNIC's legal adviser.
The Interim co-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)
http://www.afrinic.net/docs/policies/AFPUB-2010-v4-005.htm
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
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