Search RPD Archives
[rpd] [Community-Discuss] Update to Resources review policy proposal
ALAIN AINA
aalain at nsrc.org
Wed Nov 16 17:30:57 UTC 2016
> On Nov 16, 2016, at 8:14 PM, Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com> wrote:
>
> I actually disagree with this stance Mark,
>
> I believe that if any member, irrespective of size, is subject to the policy, then policy should apply to ALL members.
>
> I see absolutely no reason that if someone can request an audit on a medium or large member, then by the same token, a member holding a /24 should be subject to the same conditions.
Please read the proposal again http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposals/1827-internet-number-resources-review-by-afrinic <http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposals/1827-internet-number-resources-review-by-afrinic>
3.1 The reviews shall be based on compliance with the terms outlined in the RSA and Allocation/Assignment Policies.
3.2 The reviews cover all allocated/Assigned resources, but priority goes to IPv4 and ASN mappable to two-octet ASN.
And the 3.3 defines classes which cover all.
—Alain
>
> I point out at that the vast majority of space that is allocated and not in the tables is held by members who are holding /24s, 23/s and /22s, that analysis was clear.
>
> Also, differentiating between end users and LIR's in this regard is also problematic. If you are going to make people subject to audit under a policy which is rife for witch hunts and abuse - then make EVERYONE subject to it. Anything else again, makes me question the real motivations behind this policy. I have to wonder if this policy not in fact designed so that people can demand audits on specific companies and individuals that they not prepared to name on this, and that the real motivation behind this policy is to give them grounds for a witch hunt rather than having anything to do with conservation or efficient use of resources.
>
> I have these thoughts based on the fact that up until now, no one has shown ANY substantial evidence of resources being used outside of policy, nor have I seen any willingness to put proper protections in place, nor have I seen pre-emptive moves by supports of this policy to justify their usage publically when questioned, despite supporting a policy that if applied to them would mandate that AfriNIC makes public disclosure of the findings of investigations - but curiously enough - I then discover that those same people are not subject to their own audit policy because of their membership category.
>
> I'm not saying anything dodgy is going on here for certain... but I will say that I am beginning to openly question the motivations for the policy and until proven wrong by the authors through proper substantiated evidence, those doubts will linger in my mind, and every member of this list looking at policies like this, should take a long hard introspective look and ensure they understand the true motivations behind the document.
>
> Andrew
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Elkins [mailto:mje at posix.co.za]
> Sent: 16 November 2016 18:40
> To: rpd >> AfriNIC Resource Policy <rpd at afrinic.net>
> Subject: Re: [rpd] [Community-Discuss] Update to Resources review policy proposal
>
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20161116/61921f6d/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the RPD
mailing list