Search RPD Archives
[rpd] [Community-Discuss] Update to Resources review policy proposal
Mark Elkins
mje at posix.co.za
Wed Nov 16 15:40:05 UTC 2016
What was the motive for this policy?
+------------------------
| stockpiling and non-efficient use
+------------------------
What did it go out to fix in the first place?
A thought in the back of my head is this would be used to mainly audit
people with lots of space?
+--------------------------------
| 3.3 Classes of review: Members to be reviewed shall be selected
| according to the following classes:
|
| 3.3.1 Random: The member is chosen by AFRINIC at random between
| members of the following categories:
|
| Medium and above
| IPv6-only Large
| EU-AS
+--------------------------------
So we ignore smallish LIR's
but not smallish EU's
I think less than medium EU's should also be ignored.
Do we really need to include IPv6 today?
+--------------------------------
| 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.
|
| 3.3.3 Reported: Here, members are reviewed either because:
|
| They have requested the review themselves or
| There has been a community complaint made against them
| that warrants investigation.
+-------------------------------
If people report "out of business" businesses with IP Resources, no problem.
However, it appears that anyone (including a non-member) can call for a
review of a large member. Still sounds like an excuse for a witch hunt.
This needs to be much better worded control.
1 - Only Members (preferably in "Good Standing") can file a report.
2 - They can only do so if they are within 50% of the size (in contested
address space) of the Member they are calling out. Perhaps a "Group
Action" can be established to achieve this requirement.
3 - They can expect to be audited themselves - especially if the
requested audit comes out clean.
4 - On the other hand, the AFRINIC Board can always call for an Audit (I
trust them).
Anyway, where do I find the complete current Draft? I've been looking at:-
http://afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposals/1827-internet-number-resources-review-by-afrinic
On 16/11/2016 12:43, Andrew Alston wrote:
> So,
>
>
>
> I have a hypothetical question – and it will become a lot less
> hypothetical once I’ve run the numbers which I’m currently doing.
>
>
>
> Let’s say we implement this audit policy – and then – because we have to
> act consistently – we act against every member who is not announcing
> space because they cannot justify not announcing it – and we terminate
> their membership.
>
>
>
> Are the authors of this policy and those supporting it prepared to bear
> the cost of the fee increases that would be necessary to back fill the
> loss in revenue that would effectively bankrupt AfriNIC? Running
> through the preliminary statistics – firstly the auditing process would
> be immensely expensive in HR cost – secondly – termination of members
> that aren’t “legitimately” announcing space by rough calculations could
> cost AfriNIC in excess of 15% of its revenue by the latest numbers
> available in the financial reports and correlating the unannounced space
> that is allocated with the billing file.
>
>
>
> Now, some would argue that is all the more reason to implement the audit
> policy – but here is a wake up call – the space you would recover in
> that call on those calculations – amounts to less than 10% of space that
> AfriNIC has allocated legitimately since May – so effectively, for the
> gain of looking tough and being rigid, we may end up bankrupting the
> organisation while recovering potentially a /15 worth of space.
> Alternatively, from any logical business perspective – that money would
> have to be recovered from the members who are legitimately announcing
> space – because it certainly can’t just disappear.
>
>
>
> So, has anyone ACTUALLY thought through the implications of this
> policy? I remain firmly opposed.
>
>
>
> Andrew
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:*Dewole Ajao [mailto:dewole at forum.org.ng]
> *Sent:* 16 November 2016 12:52
> *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.
>
> 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?
>
> Regards,
> Dewole.
> (with apologies for continuing the cross-posting between RPD and
> Community-discuss)
>
> 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> <mailto:dewole at tinitop.com>
>
> Date: 11/15/2016 11:38 (GMT+01:00)
>
> To: Arnaud AMELINA <amelnaud at gmail.com> <mailto:amelnaud at gmail.com>,
> "rpd >> AfriNIC Resource Policy" <rpd at afrinic.net>
> <mailto:rpd at afrinic.net>, General Discussions of AFRINIC
> <community-discuss at afrinic.net> <mailto: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 <mailto:Community-Discuss at afrinic.net>
>
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
>
--
Mark James ELKINS - Posix Systems - (South) Africa
mje at posix.co.za Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496
For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: https://ftth.posix.co.za
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3854 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20161116/deeb389b/attachment.p7s>
More information about the RPD
mailing list