[rpd] Re: [afnog] A typical case of abuse of our resources!!!

[Kofi ANSA AKUFO]

On 19 September 2014 20:20, Sunday Folayan <sfolayan at gmail.com> wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Dear Koffi and Omo,
>
> I am not holding brief for any applicant or hostmaster, but if a
> request comes, that shows that an LIR can, and will allocate a /12,
> you want AfriNIC to allocate a /22? Is that the interpretation of 8.3?
> to wit:
>
> <BEGIN 8.3>
> AFRINIC shall apply a slow start mechanism to all new LIRs. With
> respect to allocations made by AFRINIC, the first allocation an LIR
> receives will be the size of the minimum practical allocation
> described in Section 8.2 (a) unless otherwise justified.
> The slow start policy is used by all RIR's to prevent allocations of
> large blocks of address space that may then remain substantially
> unassigned. AFRINIC implements the slow start mechanism in a
> consistent and fair manner for every LIR, and will apply the same
> principles and standards to every applicant for address space.
> <END 8.3>
>
> What about the last clause ... "unless otherwise justified?". Are you
> saying that:
>   o Applicant did not provide justification
>   o Applicant provided justification but was not ok with hostmasters
>   o Applicant provided justification and it was ok
>   o Applicant provided fraudulent justification
>   o None of the above.
>
>
Sunday I believe AFRINIC hostmasters and management should answer this
question. AFRINIC board is appointed by the member community and should
assist to get the answers.

Omo's email further gives nuances to some preferential actions, apart
> from previous accusations of corruption. What exactly are we dealing
> with?
>
>
AFRINIC hostmasters make recommendations to AFRINIC management with respect
to allocations greater than /17. Again what recommendation did the
hostmasters make to management?

Who constitute and what criteria is used to approve such huge allocations?

Cheers

K.


Let me summarize Andrew's email again: When a Board begins to reach
> into operational matters not clearly in its charter or schedule, or
> not specifically assigned by policy, it is recipe for disaster.
>
> Sunday.
>
> On 19/09/2014 16:21, Omo Oaiya wrote:
> > On 19 September 2014 14:51, Kofi ANSA AKUFO <kofi.ansa at gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Who approved such huge chunk /12 (over a million IPv4 addresses)
> >> in a first (initial) time request? What does the current policies
> >> say about such requests? What was the out come of the results of
> >> hostmasters evaluation? Did hostmasters make any recommendation
> >> to management?
> >
> >
> >
> > This connects with the clarity I requested.   Policy seems to be
> > quite clear to me in AFPUB-2005-v4-001 (8.2 -8.3) but others might
> > have other interpretation.
> >
> > As much as we want different,  Universities and NRENs are being
> > treated in line with policy.  Why was this allocation treated
> > differently?  Are there any others getting preferential treatment
> > that is not guided by "rule of law"?
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________ rpd mailing list
> > rpd at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd
> >
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUHFfjAAoJEH6UvSz6fA253IgIAIMJ1rn7D+kRAgOsn90cc5M2
> 5uRdrHVT4Dh/v1HcPj0PbYVgzKdLxAj1qsQFeeqXO6Rl2D1XYPQ1vRmtV0W54yeU
> dmLrXk5xejJhuaNsJYbWRTOjIPzCeHC1N4HcAuBRosRVsbPwfHUwEvymog0g1ZWg
> uVWnc96i7ck/37+fyjSqwDSoBVDhLRrjzdcSADrGFGfoZHwmfeJJU0Lp1otskBX7
> YE99fPs/nzJagRoPPuJbW+xxi/6beKkShu1BOO+Zi6/74NpJN85wWVaXpRdGXJHW
> Wt9f7Opb1XvY9kNue73J9P3dXFsUIaNxc0w193U13BptmQ/KeRNGhhxuifqS0OQ=
> =AnYV
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20140919/8daf3d3c/attachment.html>