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

Tue Nov 22 10:08:43 UTC 2016

Throwing good money after bad money . Thorough Audits are costly.

Christopher.

________________________________
From: Kevin Kamonye <kevin.kamonye at gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2016 12:53:09 PM
To: Saul Stein
Cc: rpd >> AfriNIC Resource Policy
Subject: Re: [rpd] [Community-Discuss] Update to Resources review policy proposal

It looks likes it is starting to sink in that v6 will eventually mean less relevance for Afrinic and co.

Kevin

On 22 November 2016 at 12:07, Saul Stein <saul at enetworks.co.za<mailto:saul at enetworks.co.za>> wrote:
Have I perhaps missed the point here, but what is the purpose of this policy?

1)      Is the purpose that there is no current way to reclaim resources fraudulently applied for?

2)      Preserve v4 space (but this policy would have to be for v6 too – I’d hate to have to audit all that space)

3)      To remove space that people are no longer using?

4)      Preserve v4 space?

It is one thing saying that there is a need to audit, but for what purpose? And by purpose I am including the ultimate goal and objectives, since there is no point in saying lets audit and then there is no ramifications expect to AFRINIC earning less revenue from the resources it charges for.

From: Badru Ntege [mailto:badru.ntege at nftconsult.com<mailto:badru.ntege at nftconsult.com>]
Sent: 17 November 2016 07:09 AM
To: Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com<mailto:Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com>>; Dewole Ajao <dewole at forum.org.ng<mailto:dewole at forum.org.ng>>; sergekbk <sergekbk at gmail.com<mailto:sergekbk at gmail.com>>; Arnaud AMELINA <amelnaud at gmail.com<mailto:amelnaud at gmail.com>>; rpd >> AfriNIC Resource Policy <rpd at afrinic.net<mailto:rpd at afrinic.net>>
Subject: Re: [rpd] [Community-Discuss] Update to Resources review policy proposal

On 11/16/16, 1:43 PM, "Andrew Alston" <Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com<mailto:Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com>> 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.

I hardly believe that a drop in 15% of revenue would bankrupt AfriNIC ??.    If that’s the case then our problems are bigger than an Audit.  Which I definitely doubt.

Lets not add scary variables to support opposition to a policy.

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<mailto:sergekbk at gmail.com>>; 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

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<mailto:RPD at afrinic.net> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd

_______________________________________________
RPD mailing list
RPD at afrinic.net<mailto: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/20161122/2effbe65/attachment-0001.html>