Search RPD Archives
[rpd] [Community-Discuss] Update to Resources review policy proposal
Saul Stein
saul at enetworks.co.za
Tue Nov 22 11:10:06 UTC 2016
Hi Andrew,
That is a personal/emotional response. Personally I work on fact, not
fiction or assumptions.
We need to vote and come to a consensus based on fact and not fiction, so
perhaps the authors could respond with what the real issue is that they are
trying to resolve.
(this proposal insinuates that the host masters aren’t evaluating
application properly so really what is going on here?)
Thanks
Saul
From: Andrew Alston [mailto:Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com]
Sent: 22 November 2016 11:46 AM
To: Saul Stein <saul at enetworks.co.za>; Badru Ntege
<badru.ntege at nftconsult.com>; Dewole Ajao <dewole at forum.org.ng>; sergekbk
<sergekbk at gmail.com>; Arnaud AMELINA <amelnaud at gmail.com>; rpd >> AfriNIC
Resource Policy <rpd at afrinic.net>
Subject: RE: [rpd] [Community-Discuss] Update to Resources review policy
proposal
Saul,
As I have stated – due to all evidence presented to me – and while I cannot
go beyond the evidence presented to me and this is merely an opinion,
because I am not a mind reader, my opinion is that there are motivations
behind this policy which are not being clearly stated. I personally believe
that this policy is designed to give a platform to after specific
individuals who there is a mistaken belief are misusing resources because
people don’t like the fact that they got them in the first place in full
compliance with the policies.
I personally believe that there is a reason why the authors of this policy
have refused to put the safe guards in place that have been requested,
including the mandatory disclosure of the complainant to the person who is
being complained about, and the reasons strike me as deeply nefarious.
As I said – that is a personal opinion, I leave everyone else to review
everything I have said in previous emails and come to their own conclusions
as to the real motivations behind this. My objections to this policy stand
based on its ease at which it can be used by operators to harass other
operators with absolutely no recourse to the one being harassed. My
objections to this policy also stand based on the fact that there is
absolutely zero evidence provided that the abuse that the authors claim this
policy is attempting to deal with exist at all, and based on that the policy
is attempting to deal with a situation that is entirely hypothetical while
having serious ramifications. My objections to this policy stand, based on
the fact that as of yet, no one is prepared to state how these audits are
meant to occur, or on what basis a complainant can trigger an audit and what
evidence they have to provide to substantiate their complaint, other than
lack of visibility in the routing table. And if we use visibility in the
routing table – the total amount of space is so negligible in the context of
allocations the policy has absolutely zero purpose other than to hurt
AfriNIC revenues.
Andrew
From: Saul Stein [mailto:saul at enetworks.co.za]
Sent: 22 November 2016 12:07
To: Badru Ntege <badru.ntege at nftconsult.com
<mailto:badru.ntege at nftconsult.com> >; 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
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]
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 <mailto:dewole at tinitop.com> <dewole at tinitop.com>
Date: 11/15/2016 11:38 (GMT+01:00)
To: Arnaud AMELINA <mailto:amelnaud at gmail.com> <amelnaud at gmail.com>, "rpd
>> AfriNIC Resource Policy" <mailto:rpd at afrinic.net> <rpd at afrinic.net>,
General Discussions of AFRINIC <mailto:community-discuss at afrinic.net>
<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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20161122/25e0d788/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the RPD
mailing list