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

[Nishal Goburdhan]

On 22 May 2016, at 13:21, Benjamin Eshun wrote:

> 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.

ok, so using that logic, can is there another RIR that has successfully 
shown, how this can be done?  the case across the world, seems to be 
that this is too much effort, for too little gain.  so, honestly, unless 
there’s some magician that can show how/why this is likely to be 
different in africa, it’s reasonable to assume that this is also going 
to be the case here.
as a paying member, i want afrinic - using its limited resources - to 
prioritise that, which will take us forward.

but then, i don’t know any magicians.


> 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.

can we stop this now please;  the only person that speaks for the board, 
is the Chair.
board members - whether we agree with them, or whether they are right, 
or not - are entitled to have their opinions.


> 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 general “please use these resources in africa” is already 
implicitly defined in afrinic’s allocation policies;  ask any 
hostmaster.
ie. the spirit of:  “AfriNIC allocates resources … for use … in 
Africa”  etc.
so, using the analogy above, the “speed-limit” that’s being 
requested, is already set.
what’s missing is, the “technology” that’s referenced above.  
and this “technology” hasn’t actually been explained in the 
policy, so, there’s not really much to go on.
so, go ahead;  try to find a fair, foolproof, easy, and inexpensive way 
to police this.  if/when we get to this stage when this looks like it 
will be completed, it’ll likely be worthless at that time because, by 
then, it won’t be just the Cool Kids that will be running IPv6, 
everyone will be doing it.

<insert gratuitous alanis morissette quote here>

—n.