Search RPD Archives
[rpd] New Proposal - "Internet Number Resources Audit by AFRINIC (AFPUB-2016-GEN-001-DRAFT01)"
nishal at controlfreak.co.za
Sun May 22 20:32:07 UTC 2016
On 22 May 2016, at 18:17, Omo Oaiya wrote:
> Surely auditing to be sure that already allocated
> resources are used as agreed or recovered and reallocated is good
#1 - when someone applies for address space, there are checks and
balances that afrinic staff currently perform before handing out any
#2 - if the org come back for more, they’re first asked to show
efficient use of the earlier gotten space.
this is *CURRENT* practice already.
since there is scant detail in the policy, can one of the authors
explain what’s new here?
is the intent to tell the hostmaster team *what* checks to perform? i
don’t think that’s what you want a policy to do.
> The RSA is an agreement with the community.
no, it isn’t. the signed RSA is the legal agreement between the
prospective resource member, and afrinic (the organisation).
that doesn’t really have anything to do with the (afrinic) community.
> No reason why the community shouldn't be empowering the staff to act
> on a section of the agreement.
seeing as how this is something they already do in #2 above, i’m not
sure how going back to check on existing allocations adds to the
efficacy of the hostmaster team’s work, eh? or how, as i’ve said -
this is anything new - except, that now it mandates (because .. y’know
- it’s a policy) that the hostmaster team *must* audit Q members per
year. with no details on the what/how/who - which, is what folks much
smarter than i am, have said is a *Very Difficult Thing* to do
accurately .. but which could likely get done about the time that the
free pool runs out, once everyone finishes bike-shedding.
> We have had some members challenge the staff in the past, suggesting
> they were overreaching in their requirements.
> A policy that guides the staff makes a whole lot of sense to me
> As for the practicalities, I suggest one of two things
> 1) We do not micromanage and let the staff determine how to be guided
> available policies on the matter
> 2) We suggest amendments that can contribute towards limiting any
> perceived overheads in enforcing
many people have come to the mic, warning about putting operational
issues into policy. and yet this seems to be the intent here.
first there’s a call for policy (which, in afrinic terms, means MUST
do) according to a very rigid set of parameters.
then there’s a call, to not micro-manage.
a problem - and perhaps we can be guided by the actual hostmasters here
since they are the ones on the front lines - is that if we do not give
them a rigid enough set of criteria (via policy) it’s easy for a
miscreant to claim that they (the hostmasters) would be acting
*contrary* to policy. but by codifying that policy, you’re
> I support the policy.
i support the intent of the policy :-) but then, i think that most
rational persons would. but i think that the important part of this is
being done now by staff, and, just probably not being communicated. i
worry that the burden that this creates will end up simply costing
potential resource members even more. and diverting afrinic’s meagre
resources from matters that should be addressed, as part of this
however, i do not support this policy.
More information about the RPD