[rpd] New Proposal - "Internet Number Resources Audit by AFRINIC (AFPUB-2016-GEN-001-DRAFT01)"

[Benjamin Eshun]

When I first read this proposal, my first reaction was does AFRINIC really
need this proposal because surely an organisation of its stature should
already have every mechanism in place to enforce compliance to its own RSA
and Allocation/Assignment Policies.  And if it didn't then this proposal
should have been approved yesterday, and I frankly don't see how and why it
should be opposed. What is quite worrying to me is that the opposition is
coming from a not an ordinary member but rather a Board member who is
suppose to protect the interest of this community.


On Sun, May 22, 2016 at 6:12 AM, Andrew Alston <
Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com> wrote:

>
> I will strongly oppose this policy – it is impractical, unenforceable and
> hugely open to abuse.  Organisation X doesn’t like Organisation Y,
> Organisation X goes to AfriNIC and goes “omg I think someone is not using
> their space properly”, Organisation Y is now under audit and wasting
> valuable time and effort when its entirely possible their space usage is
> entirely legitimate.  Not to mention wasting AfriNIC time and resources.
>

Whatever the technological challenges are in implementing this proposal, at
the very least from the administrative and policy perceptive this should be
enforced. "Its one thing setting speed limits on the highways, its another
thing having the technology and resources to enforce it. But the at the
very least once I decide to over speed then I know I'm breaking the law,
and that in itself is a cheap deterrent without the technology and
resources."

The job is the Board and the AFRINIC organisation is then to look for the
technology and resources to enforce it.  It's that simple.


> Seriously – lets get real for a second – let go of the absolute paranoia
> that’s floating around and realise IPv4 is dead, move on, get some v6, and
> stop stressing ourselves out about v4 (and wasting precious time and
> resources trying to micro manage something that should be 6 foot under the
> ground already)
>

If this is truly the case Andrew, why don't you preach this message to
those that are advocating for a secondary IPv4 market and trying to get our
dead IPv4. They should leave us alone to have our antiquated IPv4 to
building our infrastructure and networks.

 I fully support this proposal.

Benjamin
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20160522/45174900/attachment-0001.html>