Search RPD Archives
[rpd] Last Call for "AFPUB-2016-GEN-001-DRAFT-04 - Internet Number Resources Review by AFRINIC"
amelnaud at gmail.com
Tue Jul 18 18:10:15 UTC 2017
Le 18 juil. 2017 16:46, "Owen DeLong" <owen at delong.com> a écrit :
On Jul 16, 2017, at 09:24 , Marcus K. G. Adomey <madomey at hotmail.com> wrote:
Kindly read my reaction to your email in line.
Get Outlook for Android <https://aka.ms/ghei36>
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 gmail.com> 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.
Not having direct AfriNIC resources does not eliminate selfish interest in
this specific policy. Your email of July 15, 2016, stated the opposite in
“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". .
Yes… That statement is true, and, as I clarified for Boubaker, any AfriNIC
resources which we may be using (I don’t actually have a tally off the top
of my head) are provided to us by AfriNIC member LIRs or their subordinates
and not directly by AfriNIC. I believe that most of the resources we are
using within the AfriNIC service region are resources which we deployed in
Africa from our pools granted to us by RIPE and/or APNIC.
So, while this policy does not and likely will not directly impact us, we
do, in fact, care what happens to the ecosystem in Africa. I am opposed to
this policy on the grounds that it endangers the continued survival of
AfriNIC as an organization which I believe would be bad for the entire
internet and especially the internet in Africa.
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.
I was not opposed to the establishment of AfriNIC and any such claim is
specious. Yes, at the time, I called AfriNIC vaporware because it was being
argued on the ARIN list that a policy should be passed in the ARIN region
because it would get implemented in AfriNIC when it came into existence
anyway. At that time, AfriNIC was, in fact, vaporware. It did not yet exist
as a functioning RIR.
Indeed, if I were opposed to the existence of AfriNIC, the quickest and
easiest thing I could do would be to support this very proposal as I think
it is, indeed, one of the quickest and surest ways to endanger AfriNIC as
Your characterization of my opposition to the proposal is also fallacious.
I opposed on the grounds that I did not believe such a special policy
exemption should be granted to AfriNIC when there was need for said policy
exemption throughout the ARIN region, including those parts of it which
later became part of the AfriNIC service region. I will note that the
outcome of that debate was for Adiel and I to come to an agreement to both
support each other’s policy proposals. Mine which provided the same relief
to the entire ARIN region (which ended up being adopted) and Adiel’s which
provided relief only to those portions of the ARIN region (at the time) in
Africa (which was rendered moot by the adoption of my proposal).
Please review your memory of history for accuracy before using it to accuse
me of such actions.
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.
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"
I have provided the substantive grounds on which I oppose the policy. I
have other responsibilities and the creation of such a policy simply isn’t
a sufficient priority for me to engage in the exercise you request.
If contributing to the improvement of this policy proposal (being
discussed since may 2016) is not a sufficient priority for you, do not
destroy what others have taken to build.
There is a full consensus on the list on the principle of review (including
What Is then expected from all participants in the PDP is to contribute to
improve the proposal on the table to make it a consensual document.
Not doing so and repeating what others have said add no value.
The policy is harmful because:
1. It does not restrain the frequency of AfriNIC reviews based on
unsubstantiated claims by third parties.
2. It provides for rather draconian resource revocation on potentially
3. It does not provide discretion for staff to dismiss or disregard
4. Refer to Ashok’s laundry list of legal problems with the proposal.
There may well be additional issues, but those are sufficient to justify my
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)).
Are you saying that members of this community don’t know what is good for
No, that is not what I said at all and I have great difficulty
understanding how you arrived at that from my statement above.
I am saying that the textual similarity of this proposal and the ARIN
section 12 taken out of context can be misleading because the consequences
when you integrate this policy into the context of other AfriNIC policies
and the AfriNIC RSA and legal environment is radically different from the
consequences when you integrate ARIN NRPM section 12 into ARIN policy and
the ARIN RSA and the legal environment in which ARIN operates.
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.
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.
This is a rather odd statement.
I’ve never tried to claim that my voice stands above the community, nor
have I ever wanted to stop the community from doing what is good for the
region and the internet.
Indeed, I oppose this policy because I believe it would be:
1. Bad for AfriNIC as an organization.
2. Bad for the AfriNIC community.
3. Bad for the internet.
4. Bad for the region.
I can understand and accept that you have a different conclusion and
believe the policy would be good for those same groups, but claiming that
your belief is correct and that mine is false and based strictly on
self-interest is both incorrect and tantamount to an ad hominem attack not
permitted under the RPD list rules.
On 12 Jul 2017 9:29 pm, "Arnaud AMELINA" <amelnaud at gmail.com> wrote:
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
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:
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
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 afrinic.net> a écrit :
Find for your consideration my final assessment of the proposed policy
RPD mailing list
RPD at afrinic.net
RPD mailing list
RPD at afrinic.net
RPD mailing list
RPD at afrinic.net
RPD mailing list
RPD at afrinic.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the RPD