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

[rpd] RPD : Prolicy proposal "Internet Number Resources review by AFRINIC" informations update

Sander Steffann sander at
Sun Apr 7 19:30:03 UTC 2019

Hi Owen,

> Op 7 apr. 2019, om 19:52 heeft Owen DeLong <owen at> het volgende geschreven:
> This change is trivial and does not address the vast majority of issues raised with the previous version of the proposal.
> I hereby request that if the authors will not allow this proposal to expire as it should, that they at least provide a substantive update which addresses the majority of the issues raised to date:
> 	+	Potential for abuse of the complaint process as a DOS attack on large organizations
> 	+	The proposal is unnecessary as the useful portions are already enshrined in existing policy
> 		and the RSA.
> 	+	Please also address the grammatical errors (e.g. “within the four weeks.”)
> 	+	The term “annual meaningful report” is not defined. Specifically, what constitutes “meaningful” in this context
> 		and, absent a clear definition, how is this decided by whom?
> 	+	There is no provision for satisfactory outcome without a complete review by AfriNIC staff, even if it is
> 		obvious that there is no need for further action. This is unnecessarily costly to both AfriNIC and the
> 		organization being reviewed.
> 	+	As written, in the reported case, AfriNIC staff cannot reject a review where the evidence supported
> 		does not justify one. They can insist upon a sworn submission of the complaint and evidence, but,
> 		the policy does not give the discretion to reject or ignore a specious sworn complaint. This is a
> 		clear path to abuse.
> 	+	The numbering of the paragraphs outside of the actual policy being coincident with the numbering
> 		of the paragraphs in the proposal should be eliminated. It should be clear and unambiguous which
> 		text is intended to be applied to the policy manual and which is metadata for the proposal.
> 	+	The mechanism of priority in 13.2 and, indeed, the meaning of “priority is given” is undefined.
> 	+	13.3.1 does not define the intended fraction of members to be reviewed in any given time period.
> 		Is AfriNIC expected to conduct 5 random reviews per year, or 500?
> 	+	The 24 month exemption in section 13.3.3 ignores the fact that “full review completed” is vague and
> 		opens multiple channels of abuse…
> 		-	What constitutes a full vs. partial review?
> 		-	In the case where AfriNIC has satisfied itself after reviewing 80% or even 90% of an organizations
> 			resources and AfriNIC terminates the review process, does that constitute completion of a full
> 			review, or, is such an organization subject to being put through the full process all over again
> 			within 24 months?
> 		-	Can additional complaints filed during a review trigger additional reviews contemporaneously?
> Most, if not all of these problems have been reported previously. It’s likely there are other problems remaining as well,
> but the above is based on a fresh review of the text below.
> I renew my call for the authors to recognize that this proposal at best causes more problems than it solves and lacks community consensus or any likelihood of achieving community consensus.
> At a minimum, I ask that the authors either withdraw the proposal or provide a substantial update which addresses each and every concern stated above.

Thank you for providing this guidance Owen. I think this is how policy development should be done: clearly state the objections, and discuss potential solutions (or the lack thereof) from there. If the points mentioned above cannot be resolved then this proposal will never get consensus and should be dropped. Wasting time on a proposal that will not get consensus is a waste of everybody's time.

I ask the chairs to keep track of the progress towards getting consensus, but also to accept that if/when it becomes clear that consensus cannot be reached  to respect that outcome. There is no shame in not getting consensus.


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP
URL: <>

More information about the RPD mailing list