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)"

Andrew Alston Andrew.Alston at
Fri May 27 05:28:07 UTC 2016


Would the authors of this policy support an amendment to say that

A.) Complaints must be PUBLIC, including the name and corporate affiiliation of the complaining entity clearly stated, with  ALL evidence backing the complaint be published BEFORE the audit begins
B.) Complaints must be backed by Prima Facie evidence to back them up and so as to avoid frivolous complaints that simply tie up resources and are used to harass members
C.) That no member may be audited under this process more than once in a 12 month period.

The issue of if I will support this policy if the above 3 are implemented remains up in the air, but I will guarantee that I will not support it without those 3 amendments.


From:  Omo Oaiya <Omo.Oaiya at<mailto:Omo.Oaiya at>>
Date: Friday, 27 May 2016 at 7:04 AM
To: "AfriNIC RPD MList." <rpd at<mailto:rpd at>>
Subject: Re: [rpd] New Proposal - "Internet Number Resources Audit by AFRINIC (AFPUB-2016-GEN-001-DRAFT01)"

On 22 May 2016 at 21:32, Nishal Goburdhan <nishal at<mailto:nishal at>> wrote:
i support the intent of the policy :-)  but then, i think that most rational persons would.

indeed ....especially now the authors and Owen have shown that most rational people do support such policies globally.

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*.

Your claims about the cost and overheads on AFRINIC staff made me take a closer look. The claims are baseless and cloud objective discussion of the policy.  Anyone who thinks there will be any significant change in work done in Mauritius is wrong.

In 3.3a, b and c, the authors propose classes of audit to make it efficient and cost-effective. On analysis, their proposal works.

a - Random - from Medium and Above, IPv6-only Large, EU-AS

b - Selected - This covers what AFRINIC currently does through initial allocation reviews, additional allocations reviews and any other internal reviews

c - Reported - Allows complaints about resource usage to be investigated - this could come from any member of the community, law enforcement, governments, CSIRTs,  peers, etc.  Also allows members to request self-audit .

As at 24/05  (a) constituted less than 9% of the total membership - 117 out of a total 1703 including legacy.

LIR Medium and above : 112
End-users Medium and above: 5
IPv6-only Large: 0
EU-AS: 0

In terms of actual mechanism, a complaint registration form that collects enough information for an investigation is easy enough to provide.

however, i do not support this policy.

What do you and the others with similar claims say now your assumptions have been proven wrong?


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the RPD mailing list