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

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

Lu Heng at
Wed Nov 23 21:26:29 UTC 2016


I'd like to contribute my own 2 cents.

Let's assume, this policy really putting into action and found a policy
breach, stay with me with the example(so let's say the policy in fact works
on its purpose of finding policy breach):

National telecom A from country B has a lot of its practice that not
following the policy,Afrinic therefore by RSA trying to reclaim the address
from the national telecom A from the requested audit.

Because of the reclamation, a lot of people lost their connection in
country B.

National telecom taking Afrinic to court and country B government talking
to UN and ITU to dismiss Afrinic.

Does Afrinic, being an 30 people organization with only 4 million dollar in
budget, even stay a chance to fight them at all?

So this reclamation will risk the very existence of Afrinic, for a maybe a
/15 misused address, seriously is it worth it for the community as a whole?

Maybe some would claim that not every company has 4 million in budget, not
every member that Afrinic are not able to fight in court, the simple truth
is, the one are smaller than Afrinic in size and budget, their space will
be small enough that will not make difference for the community(audit an
/22 and get it back will really worth nothing to the community, and you can
hardly call /22 stock piling as well).

And any company go though RIR process and justified their need in which is
greater than, let's say, /16, will surely have multiple times size of
Afrinic with much stronger financial power, Afrinic can not afford fighting
them in court under today's condition. Let's face it, Afrinic has no real
enforcement power like some might think it does, Afrinic is an registration
service, it already does everything it can during the process issuing the
IP address to make sure fair distribution according to the policy, and keep
the whois database accurate, that is all what community ask them to do, and
that is all what Afrinic capable of doing.

There is no single RIR, RIPE NCC being 5 times bigger budget than Afrinic
included, are able to reclaim address from member who do not need them
anymore, and that is the exact reason why we have a transfer policy in most
of the region now. People transferring are clearly not needing address
anymore, why none of RIR today reclaim them from the holder? There might be
quite few argument to that, but the one I understand is, none of them able
to, most large block holder, if not all, are multiple size of the RIR both
in number of staff and financial power, sometime even in political
influence, and it is really not worth to risk all the member fees to fight
an single member(or multiple members, consider the amount of transfer
happening every month). *Market works better than central planning*,
communist country learned this in hard way.

*What is the normal practice in every region until now, is that, assignment
can be cancelled by RIR, however, allocation are untouchable once it is
issued, no RIR has ever in history claimed back an allocation from member
due to insufficient usage. *Not to mention Afrinic being the smallest,
least funded RIR among them all.

Let's distribute the rest v4 at fair pace, and stop asking Afrinic acting
as communist country's central government, *all Afrinic has is an database,
with 30 people maintain it under 4 million USD budget,* the only reason all
those government and large telecom leave Afrinic alone, is because Afrinic
does not claim any power but only maintain the database, once Afrinic claim
its power to manage whole continent's infrastructure(like one of the
hostmaster mistakenly claimed in one of Afrinic meeting), it will simply be
the day Afrinic ends as we know it. *For that power, we will need a much
bigger Afrinic with each country's gov setting on the board to decided
things(and enforce it with real power), just like you see in most
international governing organizations.*

So please keep Afrinic doing registration service alone, like Rob, the
first RIPE chair and much respected globe community member once said, *RIR
are bookkeepers, nothing more.* The wise man help establish the RIR system
as we know it today, and I believe its bookkeeper analogy are what protect
the RIR's very existence for past 3 decates.

Otherwise, you will need not just a policy to make the intend of this
policy work, *you will need high level enforcement power from the each
countries' government, and you will need a much bigger Afrinic, or rather,
"Africa internet government".*

On 22 November 2016 at 17:46, Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston at
> wrote:


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>; Andrew Alston <
Andrew.Alston 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

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
<badru.ntege at>]
*Sent:* 17 November 2016 07:09 AM
*To:* Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston 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

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


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 <dewole at>]
*Sent:* 16 November 2016 12:52
*To:* sergekbk <sergekbk at>; Arnaud AMELINA <amelnaud at>;
rpd >> AfriNIC Resource Policy <rpd at>; General Discussions of
AFRINIC <community-discuss at>
*Subject:* Re: [Community-Discuss] Update to Resources review policy

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
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

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 <%2B243814443160>*

*Skype: sergekbk*


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

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

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

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

----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

_______________________________________________ RPD mailing list
RPD at

RPD mailing list
RPD at

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

More information about the RPD mailing list