[AFRINIC-rpd] New Policy Proposal: Inter RIR IPv4 Address Transfers (AFPUB-2013-V4-001-DRAFT-01)

[Sunday Folayan]

Andrew and all,

You are entitled to your views. Mine remains that the community should 
hold the Board accountable, which in turn should hold management 
accountable. The "What" and "How" we can recommend. That is what I call 
lighting candles instead of cursing the darkness.

While I agree with you that some individual's acts in the past have been 
an affront on the community, We have all risen up to confront such and 
the will of the majority has always prevailed. I am sure you, APB, Nii, 
Delong and a host of other mike dons are not tired of doing that.

I have no objections to discussions of issues of accountability and 
responsibility, and in any form. I will indeed welcome the allocation of 
more time at meetings for the community to scrutinize the report of the 
Board and the Auditors. The report of the Auditors should also include 
key performance indicators as set by the Board (Which should take the 
input of the community), beyond financials.

Overall, It is a learning experience for some members the Board and 
staff, and I salute those who have consistently improved themselves and 
AfriNIC in that process. I wish them all, the very best.

Sunday.

On 16/01/2013 00:25, Andrew Alston wrote:
> Hi Adiel,
>
> I write this email was some trepidation, but there are things implied in
> your mail to this list that I feel I have no option but to respond to.
>
> You imply that the I attempt to solve problems through the PDP list, that is
> actually accurate, where I believe that AfriNIC allocation policies are
> failing on a holistic level far beyond one or two individual applications.
>
> Let us look for a second at the policies I have discussed on this list.
>
> There was a policy put forward in Tanzania about the distribution of address
> space, which I withdrew after opposition from the floor, that was completely
> unassociated with any application.
>
> There was a policy proposal muted on the list with regards to the
> classification of higher education institutes as end users instead of LIR's.
> The reason this was never put to formal policy, was because the community
> indicated on this list that that was the assumed and de-facto position and
> that such a policy was not necessary because of the de-facto position.  I
> still have my doubts about this, since AfriNIC did attempt to classify
> universities as LIR's, and if such a de-facto position existed, this would
> not have happened, but the community spoke, so I listened.
>
> The other policy proposal currently under discussion of which I am co-author
> concerns the allocation of space to Higher Education again, and sets
> specific ratios.  I stand by this as well, as I do believe that the needs of
> higher education, who are the traditional sources for innovation and the
> parents of the Internet as we know it today justify such a policy and the
> removal of subjective evaluation of requests and complex red tape.
>
> Beyond that, I challenge you to show me where else I have attempted to use
> this process in any other way.
>
> We have discussed many times the statements about concurrency of usage that
> were made to me, and as you rightly point out, I have brought up this
> position multiple times on the list.  Why?  AfriNIC has yet to justify to me
> why in the process of three completely separate applications for three
> different institutions, the goal posts and the amount of documentation for
> each increased each time over a period of less than 4 months.  The only
> explanation I was given was on the concurrency argument which did not exist
> in the first two applications.  There is inconsistency and subjectivity
> being applied here.
>
> You have also said to me that I believe there are problems with AfriNIC that
> I am overstating, and I will say,  I have not attempted, and will not
> attempt, to address these issues via policy.  However, I have raised some of
> these issues on this list since AfriNIC does not provide another forum for
> discussion of such issues which is taken into consideration.  At the AfriNIC
> meetings after the board feeds back to the community, we have what, an hour
> to actually be heard from the floor. Considering the number of people in the
> room each time, and considering these meetings only take place once every 6
> months, this is hardly adequate, leaving this list as the only forum to
> discuss issues that are extremely relevant.
>
> We, as Africans, have a critical need for a strong and robust RIR that is
> beyond reproach and question from the rest of the world.  AfriNIC provides
> us a critical service.  Think on what is at stake here in terms of the
> Internet industry, it was the very same internet industry that allowed
> connectivity to people who used that connectivity to bring about some pretty
> amazing changes on this continent.  It was with the help of the Internet
> that the Arab Spring actually happened as one extreme example.  If resources
> that allow the internet on this continent to function are not adequately
> managed and allocated on a fair, equitable an non-subjective basis, we risk
> damaging the structure of the internet on this continent as a whole.  As
> such, yes, I stand up and speak when I see things that I view as flaws in
> the current organization, because to stay silent when things aren't going
> right is to be complicit in what is going wrong.
>
> I have raised the issue of SLA's on this list earlier today, and I stand by
> that.
> I stand by the questions I have raised about the fact that AfriNIC's
> allocation process takes longer to allocate resources than other regions,
> which we remain one of the most expensive RIR's in the world.
> I stand by the questions I have raised both on this list and at meetings
> about why an organization that has 40 staff has so few people in a position
> to respond to allocation requests.  You state in your mail that 43% of staff
> deal with allocations.  If that is the case, why is it that in querying the
> status of applications I have been told on numerous occasions that people
> are either on leave, off sick or travelling.
> I stand by the questions as to the financial transparency of the
> organization, considering that the questions were raised in Tanzania and I
> do not believe have ever been adequately answered.
> I stand by the questions with regards to the Annual report due to this
> membership base.  I realize that under the company bylaws, which were
> created as a result of Mauritian law, members of AfriNIC are not "full
> members", and such status only applies to board members, however, I stand by
> the fact that the membership on this continent which pays AfriNIC the money
> it uses to operate deserve full transparency.
> I stand by the fact that it is unacceptable for something as critical as an
> IXP to be waiting 3 months for more address space after they have run out,
> despite the fact that AfriNIC is directly involved in the creation of more
> IXPs.
> I stand by the fact that it is unacceptable that a financial institution
> would choose to remain single homed rather than apply for provider
> independent address space because of fear of the complex process that
> AfriNIC subjects them to.
> I stand by the fact that I questioned the complete farce that was the
> election process in Gambia, and I stand by the fact that I objected in
> Gamiba to the unveiling of a secret ballot, which until there was mass
> protest from the floor was being permitted to go ahead by AfriNIC's legal
> counsel.
> I stand by the fact that I object to NomCom attempting to shut down
> discussion from the floor ahead of the floor electing the very people who
> have to represent them to AfriNIC.
>
> I have not attempted to address ANY of these issues through policy, instead,
> I have raised the points and requested discussion, and I stand by those.
>
> So yes, I am loud and outspoken, and yes, some would view that as
> disruptive, but I live my life by the philosophy that it is possible to
> bring about change through the use of one's ability to speak.  Speaking ones
> views in a public forum often results in arguments, hurt feelings, and
> bitterness.  That is because we cannot allow agree, and I do not ask for
> anyone on this list to actually agree with me, infact, I welcome and
> encourage anyone who disagrees with what I say to engage me and debate these
> things.  I am open to having my mind changed, as I have demonstrated through
> the withdrawl of both the Tanzanian policy and the EU/LIR policy.  However,
> I also believe as I stated in Tanzania, that this community to often sits
> silent while issues occur and are not addressed.  I cannot in good
> conscience do that.
>
> The fastest way to silence a critic is to address the issues, yet the
> subjective evaluation of space requests, the bizarre allocation times, the
> billing problems and the lack of transparency still persist.
>
> These my thoughts and my views, and  I believe I have now said enough on
> this issue, so while we continue to debate the policy proposal at hand, I
> will now let this rest unless the community has feedback and input to which
> I will respond, beyond that, I hope and pray that AfriNIC will provide this
> community more time and more space on the floor in Lusaka later this year to
> be heard, and that attempts to silence the voices of the community within
> that forum will not be repeated.
>
> Andrew
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: rpd-bounces at afrinic.net [mailto:rpd-bounces at afrinic.net] On Behalf Of
> Adiel Akplogan
> Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 10:53 PM
> To: rpd at afrinic.net List
> Subject: Re: [AFRINIC-rpd] New Policy Proposal: Inter RIR IPv4 Address
> Transfers (AFPUB-2013-V4-001-DRAFT-01)
>
> Hello Andrew,
>
> On 2013-01-15, at 17:53 PM, Andrew Alston <alston.networks at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Obviously though, first prize in my book is to use the remaining pool in
> Africa, and get it allocated.  THIS is where I believe that AfriNIC is
> currently failing, and failing badly.  Because of the current process, the
> delays, the back and forth, the moving goal posts, the inconsistency and the
> lack of service we are seeing out of the organization, there is a resistance
> among many to apply for space.
>
> You have to substantiate more the fact the current process is what make IP
> usage low in AFRINIC service region.  That is too simplistic and naive view
> which I beg not to share. Not that I'm dismissing some of the issues you had
> or raising.
>
> Remember, IP addresses are not resources that we are requested just to give
> away to the first person that come and ask them (even if in our internal
> policy we put emphasis on helping small requestors to get what they need as
> easily as possible but still inline with policies). Demonstrated needs is
> still at play. The IP Analysts (aka Hostmasters) have the responsibility to
> do due diligence on all requests they receive and particularly for big
> requests and/or suspicious ones. They have the ability to use their
> judgement and assessment based on policy and information requestors provide
> and they are allowed to ask any questions they need to ensure that the
> request and the need are genuine and real. That is what the IPv4 allocation
> policy request them (and AFRINIC as company to do). If the community want to
> soften the process then we first need to change/review the IPv4 Allocation
> policy (not only for education or High education as the connectivity need
> can be extrapolate across the border) which could be seen as a good thing to
> do at some extend.
>
> On a separate note you keep coming with the statement that you were told
> that "if a student is in a Lab he is not using his mobile because it is off
> so you can not plan 3 IP address per student in your planing" and conclude
> from that that the hostmasters are being difficult and sometime even
> "incompetent". First I think you need separate informal discussion that you
> can have with staff and hostmasters when you pushing them to the edge (I
> know you had personal informal discussion with the staff on various matters
> where you try to push them hard toward you views) where they can tell you
> things that may engage them as individual and not AFRINIC in such informal
> discussion. Sometime it is just to push you as well to the edge to see how
> far you are serious with your arguments . it is for you to prove them wrong
> with facts. When you have escalated these requests to me I have checked all
> the ticketing system for such statement and I can't find any (member of the
> team though agree that they told you that in a discussion because you have
> not given valid justification at the first place as they have requested you
> . so that was just one statement amongst others to push so that you disclose
> the real justifications of your requests - Which you eventually did as
> requested and got what you needed). If you submitted a complex request you
> should expect a complex evaluation process (at least based on the current
> IPv4 policy). Does it happen to you to think that practices can be different
> from one lab to another and from an university to another? Your 3:1 ratio is
> not something that is true and demonstrable everywhere;  somewhere it can be
> less and other place an context even more (based on current need). The
> current utilisation and the 12 month plan are basically what Hostmasters use
> to evaluate a request. I have been quiet on many of your statements on the
> Hostmaster interaction with you but there are also many faces to the story
> that you do not disclose fully. We are still in a full need demonstration
> based allocation. If the community want that to change then a policy need to
> be proposed.
>
> You may have a point on some aspects of you frustration on delay but they do
> not justify your desire to set a policy that suite your own case in every
> corner and every time you face an unusual situation. If a an operator being
> a University or not start with a huge request (/14 and more) with no
> background whatsoever on the previous utilisation (legacy) of resources they
> have been using over the past 20 years . it is obvious that if you have not
> kept good track of your records and internal usage justifications, when you
> are asked 20 years down the road to justify it will look a lot of work, but
> hey you need to do it. The Hostmasters have handled more than 120 requests
> last years and none have been really rejected (and only very few are pending
> additional information from requestor). Yes some took time because they have
> to ask all kind of questions and get justification for usage. This generally
> happen for big requests and some which are not straight forward. If people
> take the usage and the request of resources seriously and they have all
> their facts right the process is generally fast. We have had several cases
> where things went well and smoothly. There are some tweak here and there to
> adjust process to the growth and believe me we are working hard on that over
> the past few months. But woking on that also need other resources than IP
> analysts and you are the first to complain that there are too much people
> doing other things. Here is the distribution of resources used/allocated per
> activity within AFRINIC:
>
> Registration Service:  47%
> Community Outreach:     3%
> Policy Development:     7%
> Training               12%
> IpV6 Outreach:          8%
> Software Maintenance:  11%
> Administration:        11%
>
> Almost half of our current resources are used to support Registration
> service. You can not only look at those who have the title of Hostmaster but
> also to all the other who allow them to the job right. The current ratio of
> request per day per hostmaster is 2 in average (not only for new
> membership/allocations but all other members requests). This is generally
> reported in Registration Service report during each AFRINIC meeting.
>
> We agree that there are things that need to be addressed/improved in term of
> process and procedure, but you need not to look at things only from one side
> of the fence. We have taken full note of the outcome of the past community
> survey and integrated many aspect in our strategy for 2013 and related
> budget currently in discussion. And we closely looking at further enforcing
> some of our commitments in term of service quality.
>
> Thank you and as you know I'm alway available to discuss any issue that you
> can have and address them.
>
> We are working and willing to work for the advancement of the region and our
> community. But we can not expect AFRINIC to solve all the problem of the
> continent and be on all front with it current resources and get perfection
> from everywhere. I'm hereby committing AFRINIC to seriously (we are already
> doing it) look at all issues raised in a sustainable way.
>
> - a.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rpd mailing list
> rpd at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd
>
> _______________________________________________
> rpd mailing list
> rpd at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd
>


-- 
--------------------------------------------------------
Sunday Adekunle Folayan
     blog: http://www.sundayfolayan.name.ng
    email: sfolayan at skannet.com.ng, sfolayan at gmail.com
    phone: +234-802-291-2202
    skype: sfolayan
     fcbk: www.facebook.com/sfolayan
    tweet: sfolayan
linkedin: sfolayan
---------------------------------------------------------