Search RPD Archives
[AFRINIC-rpd] New Policy Proposal: Inter RIR IPv4 Address Transfers (AFPUB-2013-V4-001-DRAFT-01)
alston.networks at gmail.com
Wed Jan 16 16:45:28 UTC 2013
Except for the situation we had where if I recall, board members were
elected for the north African region who were eventually removed for never
attending a meeting or participating in the board. (Someone correct me if
I'm wrong here, but that is the information given to me).
What happens those in that region?
Furthermore, board members elected by the community? That may be the case
after the next round of elections once electronic voting is in place and we
eliminate the proxy voting system, at current, if I recall there were just
on 100 votes cast in Gambia for board seats, in excess of half of those
votes were carried by 3 individuals due to the proxy system... we have 1600
members... did the community REALLY elect their board?
From: rpd-bounces at afrinic.net [mailto:rpd-bounces at afrinic.net] On Behalf Of
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 6:35 PM
To: Owen DeLong
Cc: rpd at afrinic.net
Subject: Re: [AFRINIC-rpd] New Policy Proposal: Inter RIR IPv4 Address
Use your board member for your region to raise operational matters for
afrinic to implement. It is reason why you elect those guys,
I am concern that Afrinic members according to Mauritius legal acts do not
have any powers?!
Why is this the case?
Must Afrinic legally be formed in another country which law recgonizes
rightful powers of its members?
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 12:03 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
> Sent from my iPad
> On Jan 15, 2013, at 9:47 PM, Sunday Folayan <sfolayan at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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.
>> 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
>>> 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
>>> 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
>>> 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
>>> 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
>>> 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
>>> 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.
>>> -----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>
>>>> 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
>>> rpd mailing list
>>> rpd at afrinic.net
>> 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
>> rpd mailing list
>> rpd at afrinic.net
> rpd mailing list
> rpd at afrinic.net
rpd mailing list
rpd at afrinic.net
More information about the RPD