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

[ALAIN AINA]

> On 29 Jun 2017, at 08:32, Nishal Goburdhan <nishal at controlfreak.co.za> wrote:
> 
> 
>> On 29 Jun 2017, at 09:22, ALAIN AINA <aalain at trstech.net> wrote:
>>> On 28 Jun 2017, at 07:04, Nishal Goburdhan <nishal at controlfreak.co.za> wrote:
>>> On 27 Jun 2017, at 18:56, Tutu Ngcaba <pan.afrikhan at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 27 Jun 2017 6:10 p.m., "Nishal Goburdhan" <nishal at controlfreak.co.za> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> 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.    :-/
>>>> 
>>>> Woooza  bra,
>>>> 
>>>> but this must be the case for sure. no one shall be special at all and for i know its review for all who it applied at the time and shall be for all the people who the afrinic given ip address from the big one to the small one. I agree like this.
>>> 
>>> i'm glad you agree.
>>> except, that's not what the policy text reads.  
>>> 
>>> i don't have a problem with audits;  but do it across the board (if at all).
>>> -then- determine, if, resource wise, this is useful, or not.
>> 
>> 
>> The proposal  defines 3 classes:
>> 
>> - random : limited to certain level of membership
>> - reported
>> 
>> But  also 
>> ***
>> 13.3.2 Selected
>> A member is selected because of an internal report or due to a lack of contact between the AFRINIC and the member.
>> *****
>> This class allows the review of  any member which according to AFRINIC does not comply
> 
> 
> thanks, i saw that.
> however, i did not understand the reason for "- random : limited to certain level of membership”

In case of non-compliance, higher impact. 

> when you could simply write: 
> “All resource members would be subjected to an audit, at least once every Z period”

By default all ressources are subjected  to an audit as specified by  RSA and the allocation/assignment policies.

The review policy proposal defines how AFRINIC could best conduct these reviews:

- Randomly select ressources
- Attend to reported  ressources
- Select ressources  for internal reasons

All at staff discretion...


> 
> i think my text is cleaner, but i might be biased  :-)
> 
> (and to give you some context, my bias would also ask afrinic to start with the resources referenced by the AIRRS report, if that’s still running!)

I don't know if AIRRS  is still running, but we do have a similar tool here: http://196.200.57.137/africa-bgp/

AFRINIC could this tool or any other to feed  the   "selected  class” and start immediately

—Alain

> 
> 
> 
>>>> if small have idle they must return it. if big have idle they must also returned it. they the afrinic shall give the one who also need also instead of big or small keeping idle for so so long.
>>> 
>>> that's not going to happen;   the "transfer" policy removed the incentive to do the "Right Thing”.
>> 
>> 
>> The intra-RIR transfer policy allows a ressource holder to transfer idle space to meet another member IPv4 need  approved by AFRINIC. Otherwise  you should return idle  to AFRINIC or be forced by an review.
> 
> 
> and again, i ask - why would the resource holder not simply have returned this to afrinic (which, is what tutu thought would be the case, and, what should have been the natural terms of the *contract* (aka RSA) under which these resources were issued), and have the requestor go through the otherwise standardised "needs based process" at afrinic (which, would be a lot less work).
> 
> i stand by my initial assertion above, even though i recognise that it’s not worth debating this any more.  
> i was simply telling tutu that what he thought would happen, would not be the case.
> 
> —n.