[rpd] Last Call for "AFPUB-2016-GEN-001-DRAFT-04 - Internet Number Resources Review by AFRINIC"

[Mark Elkins]

I also (still) oppose the policy.

AfriNIC works on a slow start mechanism, so the first allocation of IPv4
addresses is usually small unless well justified by documentation. Any
additional space requests have to show utilisation of the existing space
(to a particular percentage) and again more space needs to be well
justified.

This Audit proposal suggests that AfriNIC has failed to enforce their
rules - so what would be different a second time around?
Companies do close down - and space is returned. People notice when this
happens because payments are not made.

On the other hand, people using the space continue to pay for it. 

I do believe that the threat of being sued is really - which leaves
AfriNIC open to that possibility - something I'd rather simply not see.

The Audit proposal is really all about clawing back IPv4 - not ASNs or
IPv6. The sooner that IPv4 is totally exhausted, the better, or rather,
the sooner we ignore IPv4 in favour of IPv6, the better.


On Tue, 2017-06-27 at 17:06 +0200, Nishal Goburdhan wrote:
> 
> On 27 Jun 2017, at 12:56, Kris Seeburn <seeburn.k at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> > I oppose the policy
> 
> 
> i do too.  
> 
> 
> > I still stand opposed to the policy. People just call it an Andrew
> > or liquid audit policy or a cloud innovations policy audit. Let’s
> > not hide and get off with it.
> 
> 
> or,  said earlier, audit everyone.  equally.  no member is more
> special than any other. 
> and small members are just as guilty of resource abuse as large ones.
> something that's been said before but the author's haven't ack'd.
>  :-/
> 
> --n.