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"

Andrew Alston Andrew.Alston at
Wed Jul 19 01:22:22 UTC 2017


Sorry, but your conclusion here is wrong.  There is NO expectation on anyone on this list to “find consensus” for something that people believe is fundamentally flawed. That is tantamount to saying that because everyone agrees that shutdown’s are bad there is an expectation that everyone find a way to improve the anti-shutdown policy until it finds consensus.  That is simply not the case, and while I personally believe that such a policy is a good idea, albeit with massive improvements, I also know that it is myself, and my co-authors responsibility if we want it, to find text that the majority can agree with, it is not everyone’s responsibility to suddenly do the authors work for them.

The right of review is already in the RSA – many have pointed that out – I do not believe that this policy is either necessary or will be to the benefit of AFRINIC – indeed I believe it is blatantly harmful, and I personally, question the motivations under which the policy was written – but that is a personal opinion that I choose not to elaborate on.  But Arnaud, please, do not tell me, or anyone, that there is an “expectation” that we come to support something that we believe is flawed, unnecessary, harmful and broken – just because you and some others feel it’s a good idea.

You have no *right* to have a policy supported – and the expectation on the PDP as far as I am concerned is to decide if a policy makes sense – and if it does – support it – if it does not – reject it – and everyone on this list has equal say.  Right now, you have a substantial number of people saying – this policy as it stands makes no sense – and they have done exactly what they should do in the case of a good faith belief that a policy is not in the interests of the organization or the community – those who disagree with what it says – have rejected it.  That is EXACTLY how this process is meant to be work.  In the same way, as much as my co-authors and I believed (and if I am correct, still believe, as has been stated in various places over various times), that the academic policy proposed way back when made sense and was a good idea – the community chose to reject it because people felt that myself and my co-authors were wrong.  Again, the process worked – people did not agree – they stated so – the policy did not find consensus.

My problem here is – when a policy finds consensus when authored by a section of this community – the process is “working”, when a policy gets thrown out because some in the community feels its harmful and a bad idea, suddenly there are proposals to rewrite the PDP to make it easier to ramrod proposals through and the process is “broken”.  There is a word for this – and I do not need to quote the word itself – merely the dictionary definition of said word: “the practice of claiming to have higher standards or more noble beliefs than is the case.”


From: Arnaud AMELINA <amelnaud at>
Date: Wednesday, 19 July 2017 at 02:10
To: Owen DeLong <owen at>
Cc: "rpd >> AfriNIC Resource Policy" <rpd at>
Subject: Re: [rpd] Last Call for "AFPUB-2016-GEN-001-DRAFT-04 - Internet Number Resources Review by AFRINIC"

Le 18 juil. 2017 16:46, "Owen DeLong" <owen at<mailto:owen at>> a écrit :

On Jul 16, 2017, at 09:24 , Marcus K. G. Adomey <madomey at<mailto:madomey at>> wrote:

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].

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 an organization.

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.
=========== 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"

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 yourself).

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 shaky evidence.
3. It does not provide discretion for staff to dismiss or disregard specious complaints.
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 opposition.

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?

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.
============ 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.

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<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><>

RPD mailing list
RPD at<mailto:RPD at><>

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

More information about the RPD mailing list