[rpd] Fwd: [IANAOversight] IANA Numbering Services SLA Draft Call for Comments

[Owen DeLong]

> On May 3, 2015, at 13:35 , Nii Narku Quaynor <quaynor at ghana.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On May 3, 2015, at 17:42, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> On May 2, 2015, at 14:02 , Nii Narku Quaynor <quaynor at ghana.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>>> On May 2, 2015, at 13:24, Alan Barrett <alan.barrett at afrinic.net> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Sat, 02 May 2015, Nii Narku Quaynor wrote:
>>>>> Is there an accompanying SLA between Afrinic and LIRs to share?
>>>> 
>>>> The relationship between Afrinic and LIRs is goverened by the
>>>> registration service agreement <http://www.afrinic.net/en/services/rs/rsa>..
>>>> 
>>>> This agreement says that "AFRINIC shall provide the services applied for under the present agreement in terms of the "best effort" criterion".
>>> Thanks. The import of the question was that while Afrinic on one hand ask SLA from ICANN on the other offers "best effort" service to LIRs which is not symmetric thus wondered if corresponding enhancement to RSA would be appropriate for members
>> 
>> There is a huge difference between the relationship RIR<->IANA vs. RIR<->LIR, so I think attempting to seek symmetry in the contracts on that basis is probably ill-advised.
>> 
> 
> I note that even different objects may have some properties in common so these relationships IANA<->RIR and RIR<->LIR being different may be insufficient to conclude they don't have SLA as a common property

Permit me to be more precise as my shorthand appears to have triggered a response that does not reflect my intended meaning.

The funding of the IANA by the various RIRs is generally more than sufficient to run things on a better than best-effort basis.

OTOH, most of the RIRs run much tighter budgets compared to their responsibilities than the IANA.

So, do you think it would be a good idea to raise the AfriNIC fees to a level consistent with the SLA you are describing? I personally think it would not be so good.

> The issue in a steward-less multi-stakeholder environment is that we have to be more accountable to each other thus why not improve  the RIR accountability ? Is an SLA in RIR<->LIR relation such an issue? It's a good thing to have!

I’m not saying that there shouldn’t be an SLA, but I think best-effort is a perfectly acceptable SLA for the current circumstance and funding. To the best of my knowledge, we basically have that already through the RSA.

Do you feel there is something missing in the RSA that should be contained in a separate SLA?

> This shows a good list for accountability 
> https://www.nro.net/about-the-nro/rir-accountability <https://www.nro.net/about-the-nro/rir-accountability>
> so we need to review afrinic accountability and community engagement as well perhaps periodically 

Sure… I’m not opposed to that. But I would oppose an effort to impose an SLA on AfriNIC that would create a substantially higher economic burden without offering significant benefit to the community as I don’t think raising AfriNIC fees absent substantial community benefit is justified.

> In Afrinic, service level and dispute resolution have been discussed but inconclusively and may be additional important ingredients of accountability for all RIRs 

It’s almost always good to engage in some amount of collective self-evaluation periodically. If you think I was disputing that, I apologize for the miscommunication. However, you seemed to be suggesting that an identical SLA level be proposed, not just that an SLA be studied. It is my opinion that an identical SLA would be ill advised for the reasons stated above.

Owen

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20150503/52601031/attachment.html>