Re: [rpd] Afrinic policy proposal‹Afrinic Service guild lines

[Andrew Alston]

Writing in my personal capacity and in no way should what follows be construed as representative of the board of AfriNIC or any other organisation with which I am associated.

Comments inline below
1.Afrinic should make decision on subsequent allocation requests based on Afrinic   policy, and conclude a request no longer than the 20% of the total period AFRNIC approves the resources for. (E.g. If Afrinic is issuing resources to its member to meet its 12 months needs, the longest waiting time for Afrinic allocation process should not be longer than 20%*12month, to cope with 80% utilization requirement for additional allocation). If Afrinic was not able to make decision on a certain request within this period, for each additional month beyond this period, the requesting member should receive percentage of the requested period of the total request until such decision has been made, in order to protect member from smooth running of its business.
 I don’t see the need for this, and I don’t agree with the premise behind it.  I think all allocation processing times should be standardised and a suitable SLA to members implemented and adhered to.
2.Afrinic should publish standardized base information request for each typical type of resource allocation.
I have no issue with this point, though I would request the author to be a LOT more specific in exactly what type of base should be published here.

3.Afrinic should not store, request any marketing or business related none-technical information from its member, for example, customer data, marketing channel, and marketing budget.
I have no real objection to this point

4.Afrinic allocations should be solely made based on current policy, no other factor other than policy should infer with afrinic’s decision on processing allocation requests.
This is already covered in the bylaws and in the current PdP process, so this point is redundant.

5.Unless otherwise appealed, Afrinic board should not be directly involved in IP allocation process.
That is currently the case and the bylaws back it up, again the point is redundant

6.For the interest of overall policy development process, other RIR staff as well as it's governing body personnel(advisor or board member, for example) should not be involve in Afrinic policy development process.
I have a strong problem with this, board members are also generally community members, and while they may not be involved wearing their board hats, this would exclude someone who gets elected to the board from participating in the PdP in their personal/business capacity.  This would discourage strong voices in the community for ever applying to run for board.  I would oppose ANY policy that had something similar to this in it.

7.Afrinic policy working group chair election should be conducted independent from Afrinic board nomination committee, candidates should be free of any requirement.

That would violate the current bylaws, and the PdP does not override the bylaws.  If you want this point, request a change in the bylaws and get it passed at an AGMM by a 2/3rds majority via a special resolution (the process for changing the bylaws is well documented in the bylaws).

Thanks

Andrew


________________________________
DISCLAIMER: This email contains proprietary information some or all of which may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this email, please notify the author by replying to this email. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose, copy, print, or rely on this email. We cannot accept liability for any statements made which are clearly the sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of this company or one of its agents.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20141026/4ae97888/attachment.html>