Search RPD Archives
Limit search to: Subject & Body Subject Author
Sort by:

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

Nishal Goburdhan nishal at
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 
> practice.

#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 
> that
> 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 
> by
> 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 
micromanaging them..

wait ..

> 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 
region’s *future*.

however, i do not support this policy.


More information about the RPD mailing list