Search RPD Archives
Limit search to: Subject & Body Subject Author
Sort by:

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

Saul Stein saul at
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?)



From: Andrew Alston [mailto:Andrew.Alston at]
Sent: 22 November 2016 11:46 AM
To: Saul Stein <saul at>; Badru Ntege 
<badru.ntege at>; Dewole Ajao <dewole at>; sergekbk 
<sergekbk at>; Arnaud AMELINA <amelnaud at>; rpd >> AfriNIC 
Resource Policy <rpd at>
Subject: RE: [rpd] [Community-Discuss] Update to Resources review policy 


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.


From: Saul Stein [mailto:saul at]
Sent: 22 November 2016 12:07
To: Badru Ntege <badru.ntege at 
<mailto:badru.ntege at> >; Andrew Alston 
<Andrew.Alston at <mailto:Andrew.Alston at> >; 
Dewole Ajao <dewole at <mailto:dewole at> >; sergekbk 
<sergekbk at <mailto:sergekbk at> >; Arnaud AMELINA 
<amelnaud at <mailto:amelnaud at> >; rpd >> AfriNIC Resource 
Policy <rpd at <mailto:rpd at> >
Subject: RE: [rpd] [Community-Discuss] Update to Resources review policy 

Have I perhaps missed the point here, but what is the purpose of this 

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]
Sent: 17 November 2016 07:09 AM
To: Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston at 
<mailto:Andrew.Alston at> >; Dewole Ajao <dewole at 
<mailto:dewole at> >; sergekbk <sergekbk at 
<mailto:sergekbk at> >; Arnaud AMELINA <amelnaud at 
<mailto:amelnaud at> >; rpd >> AfriNIC Resource Policy 
<rpd at <mailto:rpd at> >
Subject: Re: [rpd] [Community-Discuss] Update to Resources review policy 

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


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 

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.


From: Dewole Ajao [mailto:dewole at]
Sent: 16 November 2016 12:52
To: sergekbk <sergekbk at <mailto:sergekbk at> >; Arnaud 
AMELINA <amelnaud at <mailto:amelnaud at> >; rpd >> AfriNIC 
Resource Policy <rpd at <mailto:rpd at> >; General 
Discussions of AFRINIC <community-discuss at 
<mailto:community-discuss at> >
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

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 

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 

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?

(with apologies for continuing the cross-posting between RPD and 

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


-------- Original message --------

From: Dewole Ajao  <mailto:dewole at> <dewole at>

Date: 11/15/2016 11:38 (GMT+01:00)

To: Arnaud AMELINA  <mailto:amelnaud at> <amelnaud at>, "rpd 
 >> AfriNIC Resource Policy"  <mailto:rpd at> <rpd at>, 
General Discussions of AFRINIC  <mailto:community-discuss at> 
<community-discuss at>

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?



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 

-'---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 

----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.



Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss at <mailto:Community-Discuss at>

_______________________________________________ RPD mailing list 
RPD at <mailto:RPD at>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the RPD mailing list