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

Tue Nov 22 23:59:52 UTC 2016

Hi Saul please you can find the porpose at section 1. And section 2.  As
below.

1. As Internet Number resources are finite, their allocation is based on
the operational needs of end-users and Internet Services Providers, while
avoiding stockpiling in accordance with RFC7020, IPv4 Allocation Policy CPM
5.5, IPv6 Allocation and assignment policy CPM 6.5 and Policy for
Autonomous System Numbers (ASN) Management in the AFRINIC region CPM 7.0.

Section 4 of the Registration Service Agreement (RSA) provides the
framework for investigations of the usage of allocated Internet Number
resources, defines members’ obligation to cooperate and the measures to be
taken by AFRINIC in case of failure to comply.

The lack of such investigation or regular control can lead to inefficient
usage of the Internet Number resources, to stockpiling and other type of
abuses.

2.0 Summary of How this Proposal Addresses the Problem

In order to ensure efficient and appropriate use of resources, AFRINIC
shall conduct regular reviews of resource utilization held by its members.
This would allow recovery of any type of resource, where usage is not in
compliance with the RSA. Those resources can be reallocated for better
usage.

Please IMHO

This should not be authors against authors. The proposal is a community
work.

Regards

Arnaud

Le 22 nov. 2016 09:07, "Saul Stein" <saul at enetworks.co.za> a écrit :

> 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>; 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 11/16/16, 1:43 PM, "Andrew Alston" <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 <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
> <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 <%2B243814443160>*
>
> *Skype: sergekbk*
>
> *R.D.Congo*
>
> -------- Original message --------
>
> From: Dewole Ajao <dewole at tinitop.com> <dewole at tinitop.com>
>
> Date: 11/15/2016 11:38 (GMT+01:00)
>
> To: Arnaud AMELINA <amelnaud at gmail.com> <amelnaud at gmail.com>, "rpd >>
> AfriNIC Resource Policy" <rpd at afrinic.net> <rpd at afrinic.net>, General
> Discussions of AFRINIC <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
>
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________ 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/20161122/f576bbae/attachment-0001.html>