Search RPD Archives
[rpd] [Community-Discuss] Update to Resources review policy proposal
abel ELITCHA
kmw.elitcha at gmail.com
Wed Nov 16 15:58:53 UTC 2016
Hi Mark,
"Number resources are public/community good" thus anyone must seek its
good usage! A good and honest reading of the url you pointed indicated a
completely different understanding.
--abel
2016-11-16 15:40 GMT+00:00 Mark Elkins <mje at posix.co.za>:
> 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@
> 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@
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
>
>
--
--Abel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20161116/0170c950/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the RPD
mailing list