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

[Kofi ANSA AKUFO]

On 21 September 2014 12:22, Ernest <ernest at afrinic.net> wrote:

> Adiel Akplogan wrote thus on 9/20/14, 11:41 PM:
> > Hello Boubakar,
> >
> > On Sep 20, 2014, at 23:28 PM, Boubakar Barry
> > <boubakarbarry at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> The number of posts in this thread and the discussions held in
> >> Djibouti show that the community wants clarification on this
> >> allocation.
> >>
> >> In the best interest of our organisation (i.e. AfriNIC) and in
> >> order to restore trust, Management and Board should take this
> >> seriously and provide adequate responses to the issues raised.
> >
> > This allocation has followed the same process and procedure as
> > any other requests sent to the IP analysts. In term of
> > application and interpretation of the current policy nothing in
> > this one was different. I think the RS team will be sending all
> > the clarifications on the process shortly. Beyond that, I think
> > there is a lot of emotional speculation that we need to avoid to
> > be dragged into … as you said in the interest of the
> > organisation.
>
>
> Further to Adiel's mail above:
>
> We have studied the community's concerns and comments (in this
> thread) regarding the address resource 154.80.0.0/12 that was
> allocated to Cloud Innovation on 2013-Jul-24.
>
> Although we cannot divulge detailed information due to
> confidentiality requirements, let us take this opportunity to point
> out the following:
>
> o The request was received and evaluated as usual, against
> compliance with all criteria in the IPv4 Allocation Policy and it
> fully satisfied all eligibility requirements.
>
>
Great


> o Being a large chunk of space, the hostmaster team provided an
> evaluation report to executive management (which contained the
> evaluation process and the team’s recommended decision on the
> request). Management consequently approved its issuance.
>
> Thank you for the clarification.


> o The current IPv4 allocation policy does not contain any
> restrictions to out-of-region address space usage specifically when
> end-users of that space are located out of region. What IP analysts
> examine is the legal existence of the requestor (and its
> infrastructure that supports services to be provided) in the region.
> Where customers are located is generally not the IP Analysts main
> concern unless there is observed incoherence in the request.
>
>
Which means our current IPv4 policies needs amendment to fall inline  or
concretely reflect the regions development agenda without stiffening
expansion of services to other regions.


> o We have in the past few meetings informed the community (in the
> policy implementation report) about the observed increase in
> requests from companies registered in our region of service (with
> evidence of their infrastructure hosted in the region) but
> planning to provide services that are used by customers out of
> region. We informed the community with intent that the community
> considers a policy around this issue if deemed necessary.
>
>
Should we interpret this as "content which promote the regions development"
should be KEY in any amendment proposed?


> We would like to state here that as long as a request has adhered to
> policy, AFRINIC will in most cases approve it, unless there are
> other visible factors impeding its approval (and needing further
> study and perhaps escalation).
>

Again any proposal to amend current policy should spell out a clear
escalation process to include the member community.

Thank you

Cheers

K.


>
> Regards,
> Ernest.
>
> _______________________________________________
> rpd mailing list
> rpd at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20140921/834e7d9c/attachment.html>