[rpd] [Community-Discuss] Update to Resources review policy proposal

Wed Nov 16 13:06:47 UTC 2016

Dewole,
Inline below are comments.
Serge IlungaCell: +243814443160Skype: sergekbkR.D.Congo-------- Original message --------From: Dewole Ajao <dewole at forum.org.ng> Date: 11/16/2016  10:51  (GMT+01:00) To: sergekbk <sergekbk at gmail.com>, Arnaud AMELINA <amelnaud at gmail.com>, "rpd >> AfriNIC Resource Policy" <rpd at afrinic.net>, General Discussions of AFRINIC <community-discuss at afrinic.net> Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Update to Resources review policy proposal 

    I think all policies (if we really intend to implement them) must
      be clear and leave no room for variable interpretation as
      ambiguity will put additional burdens of interpretation on staff.

    If the community's preference is for the 24-month window to
      become invalid on allocation/assignment of new resources, then the
      policy (proposal) should state it clearly; If on the other hand,
      the intention is for the 24-month window to stay in place
      come-what-may, it's better for the policy (proposal) to be
      explicit about it.++++++++++++To avoid any ambiguity, see an updated version 3.3.3 of:

-'---old version---''

3.3.3 Reported: Here, members are reviewed either because:

a. They have requested the review themselves or

b. There has been a community complaint made against them that warrants investigation. 

----new version-----

3.3.3 Reported: Here, members are reviewed either because:

a..They have requested the review themselves or
b. There has been a community complaint made against them that warrants investigation. Complaints shall be backed by evidence and AFRINIC  staff  shall evaluate the facts as appropriate to conduct the review. However this review is not applicable to a member  with the same resources portfolio on which a full review has been completed in the preceding 24 months.+++++++++++++
    Please see below, additional questions for the community to
      consider. Hopefully, they can be discussed and the authors can (if
      they so choose,) take the inputs from the community into their
      modified proposal.

    3.3.2 Selected:

      A member is selected because of an internal report or due to a
      lack of contact between the AFRINIC and the member.
    Q1. Do we presently have an existing (effective) structure (apart
      from billing) that measures degree of contact with members? 

      If there is no agreed means of measuring the degree contact, we
      need to define degrees of contact so that "lack of contact" (as
      referred to in the proposal) can be measured objectively. 

      Perhaps as a first step for ensuring regular contact without
        using up too many resources, this proposal might want to borrow
        a leaf from RIPE's Assisted Registry Check (ARC). See
https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/resource-management/assisted-registry-check
    Basically, the RIR does a consistency check on members'
        Registry, Resource, and Route/rDNS information and then
        sends emails to the contacts on file showing their view. They
        then schedule a telephone call to work with the member and fix
        any identified issues. 

    My understanding from RIPE is that these non-invasive checks
        sometimes reveal issues that may warrant more detailed
        investigation. The primary model is by random checks but done in
        a manner that checks every member at least once in 3 years (given
        the size of RIPE). They also have ARCs that are initiated
        as a result of information received from the member or third
        parties. 

    Q2. Can reachability/cooperation of a member for such a consistency
    check-and-fix activity as described above be used to measure the
    degree of contact?

    Q3. Given the fact that time taken for consistency checks are more
    predictable, can these be implemented as a preliminary step in
    addressing the "lack of investigation" problem as well as the
    concern about taking up much of members' and/or AFRINIC hostmasters'
    time? ++++++++++

For the other concerns, it is out of scope for the policy to go inside such implementation details.

 It is Afrinic internal operations staff to define on how they deal with members in operations or when implementing RSA.
++++++++++

    Regards,

    Dewole.

    (with apologies for continuing the cross-posting between RPD and
    Community-discuss)
With Regards.

    On 15/11/2016 20:18, sergekbk wrote:

      Hello Dewole,

          Thanks for this comment.

          The limit of 24 months applies to a member based on
          ressources  portfolio.  If  the portfolio  changes with new
          allocation,   member can be audited  anytime on the new
          ressources if required.
        Is this clear enough or shall we make  it explicit  ?

          Kind Regards.

        Serge Ilunga
        Cell: +243814443160
        Skype: sergekbk
        R.D.Congo

        -------- Original message --------
        From: Dewole Ajao <dewole at tinitop.com> 
        Date: 11/15/2016 11:38 (GMT+01:00) 
        To: Arnaud AMELINA <amelnaud at gmail.com>, "rpd
          >> AfriNIC Resource Policy" <rpd at afrinic.net>,
          General Discussions of AFRINIC
          <community-discuss at afrinic.net> 
        Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Update to Resources review
          policy proposal 

      Thanks for working to apply the community's input to your
        proposal, Arnaud. 

      To test the proposed re-wording, consider the following
        sequence of events:

      Member XYZ initiates self-requested review;

        Review is completed by AFRINIC in X weeks;

        After review, Member XYZ applies for "large chunk" of number
        resources;

        Member XYZ receives "large chunk" of number resources in say 60
        days;

        Member XYZ happens to make some unacceptable use of (previous or
        new) number resources and it somehow becomes known to the
        community;

        Regardless of convincing evidence, Member XYZ cannot be
        subjected to a review until 24 months have elapsed since the
        last review.

      Is this a design feature or a bug?

      Regards,
      Dewole.

      On 15/11/2016 10:48, Arnaud AMELINA
        wrote:

          Hi community !

            Following, recent discussions and in accordance with text
            proposal from Owen and others contributors, authors propose
            this as replacement to the section 3.3.3
          -'---old version---''
          3.3.3 Reported: Here, members are reviewed either
            because:
          a. They have requested the review themselves or

            b. There has been a community complaint made against them
            that warrants investigation. 
          ----new version-----
          3.3.3 Reported: Here, members are reviewed either
            because:
          a..They have requested the review themselves or

            b. There has been a community complaint made against them
            that warrants investigation. Complaints shall be backed by
            evidence and AFRINIC  staff  shall evaluate the facts as
            appropriate to conduct the review. However this review is
            not applicable to a member  on which a full review has been
            completed in the preceding 24 months.
          Regards.
          Arnaud. 

        _______________________________________________
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss at afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20161116/3cebed25/attachment-0001.html>