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

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

Marcus K. G. Adomey madomey at
Sun Jul 16 16:24:43 UTC 2017

Hi Owen,

Kindly read my reaction to your email in line.



Get Outlook for Android<>

From: Owen DeLong
Sent: Saturday, July 15, 01:59
Subject: Re: [rpd] Last Call for "AFPUB-2016-GEN-001-DRAFT-04 - InternetNumber Resources Review by AFRINIC"
To: Lydea Akiriza
Cc: rpd List

On Jul 14, 2017, at 07:37 , Lydea Akiriza <akirizal at<mailto:akirizal at>> wrote:

With this input Arnaud, I am inclined to support this policy...

Personal opinion here as well is that for as long as we are "two" communities in "one", we àre going to keep taking 5steps forward and 8backward.  Everyone is pulling the rope toward themselves, this to me is one hell of a selfish community trend that should be dropped effective immediately, else we hold on to it at our own peril.

As neither I, nor my company have any direct AfriNIC resources, I have no selfish motive whatsoever in this policy.

============= Marcus

Not having direct AfriNIC resources does not eliminate selfish interest in this specific policy. Your email of July 15, 2016, stated the opposite in the following:

“I work for a company which has substantial operations in the AfriNIC service region. We care very deeply about what happens and whether you like it or not, as a result, I am, in fact, a member of the community and not an outsider at this point". [1].

Your record of opposition to the establishment of AfriNIC and how you labelled it “Vaporware” has been previously pointed out.  In the several discussions on the proposal, you were allied with those who oppose on fallacious grounds citing risks that cannot be proven, never proposing text to improve the policy.  Some in your cohort opposing the policy are known to have direct conflict of interest.


Nonetheless, even though I am the author and architect of the ARIN resource review policy, I cannot support this policy as it is currently written.

As many have pointed out, this policy has several important and harmful differences from the ARIN policy.

=========== Marcus

The last time I checked,  the co-Chairs have an open issues list but as you insist, would you update and clarify how harmful the policy is?  And be constructive to propose text instead of "I don't support policy"


The differences may not be readily apparent because of the context of the entirety of the policy manuals in question (AfriNIC policy combined with this policy produces a very different and distinct result vs. ARIN policy including ARIN section 12 (resource reviews)).

=========== Marcus
Are you saying that members of this community don’t know what is good for them?


I will not restate all my previously stated objections here now, but to claim that anyone opposing this policy is doing so for selfish reasons is as erroneous as it is inappropriate.

============ Marcus
Your haste to respond to this,  your negativity and repeated attempts to assume the high ground over the community are clear indications of what  to expect from you in this review policy discussion.

Your voice counts as  other voices so you will never stop this community from doing what is good for the region and the Internet.




On 12 Jul 2017 9:29 pm, "Arnaud AMELINA" <amelnaud at<mailto:amelnaud at>> wrote:
Dear Ashok,

Thank you very much for your responses.

1. We are still in agreement that the review can be done by AFRINIC through a policy proposal as you stated all time.

2. According to your own legal assessment, there seems to be some risks associated to the review as mandated by this version of the policy proposal.

3. You agree that these risks can be managed

And your response states:

- There is no problem with 13.3.2 (Selected scenario)

- There is no problem with 13.3.3.a (reported scenario: members asked to be reviewed)

You also said nothing about about 13.3.1(Random scenario) and we therefore assume you are fine with that too.

Your concern lies with 13.3.3.b ( Reported Scenario): community complaint made against a member that warrants investigation.

A. Your main concern is about the reliability, admissibility and authenticity of the evidences to be provided by the third party to AFRINIC while reporting a ressource and you said:

“ I shall never advise AFRINIC to embark upon an exercise where it will have to shoulder an obligation to test the reliability, admissibility and authenticity of such facts/data/information submitted by a third party.”

Yes, it is the responsibility of the source of complaint to provide enough information to convince Afrinic to engage in the evaluation of the evidence/facts and a subsequent investigation if required.  As such there is no need for a legal document.  If supporting legal documents are required by Afrinic or provided by the source, this must be done through the appropriate mechanism which the legal counsel shall indicate to AFRINIC.

The current version of the 13.3.3.b is PDPWG consensual version introduced since version 3.0. Authors would not object to reverting to the original version of the text which says:

c) Reported:
The members have requested the audit themselves or there has been a community complaint made against them that requires investigation.

B. Your other concern is about the appeal process, and you said :

“Whether you segregate the appeals as against (i) the result of the review or (ii) actions taken by AFRINIC based on the result of the review, in both cases AFRINIC is a party thereto. It cannot, consequently, put up a mechanism to have its own action reviewed. It simply does not make sense.

This is why since the beginning, we made a reference to the "Mauritius Code of Civil Procedure" where the process for arbitration is already provided for."

The focus in this policy proposal is on appeal process for the result of a review. The appeal for action taken based on result of review clearly fall under the Mauritius code of civil procedure as the RSA is governed by the Mauritius laws and the RSA has no other arbitration mechanism.

The RSA has all the provisions for indemnification, liabilities, etc and the community trust the organization supported by its legal counsel to do the right things and stand to defend it everywhere.

As this proposal is describing how AFRINIC shall conduct the review mandated by the RSA and policies, it is proposed (by AFRINIC community) that in case of disagreement on the result of review done by AFRINIC Ltd (which are mostly based on compliance to policies), a reviewed member is given a chance (not mandatory) to challenge the review results before an appeal panel of knowledgeable volunteers from the community. The Panel conclusion on the result of the review is final, but does not prevent the appeal against action taken by AFRINIC.

Hope this Helps

—Arnauld (on behalf of the authors)

Le 10 juil. 2017 11:08, "Ashok Radhakissoon" <ashok at<mailto:ashok at>> a écrit :
Dear All,
Find for your consideration my final assessment of the proposed policy under reference.
Legal Adviser

RPD mailing list
RPD at<mailto:RPD at>

RPD mailing list
RPD at<mailto:RPD at>

RPD mailing list
RPD at<mailto:RPD at>

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

More information about the RPD mailing list