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

Tue Apr 9 19:32:30 UTC 2019

Hello, Paschal Ochang

Thanks for your interest in this policy proposal.

As expected this proposal was discussed intensively during the last meeting
and after the meeting as i am sure you followed.

In Hammamet, Some participants expressed the fear that end-users loose
connectivity if the reclaim not done carefully and members not giving
enough time.

In response to these constructive suggestions, Co-authors propose a
substantial (not only editorial) amendment to the section 13.4, paragraph
A)

See below:

Version 6.0 (old text)
===========

13.4 In case of non-compliance and if evidence has been established in
accordance with:
• Breach of AFRINIC policies
• Breach of the provisions of the registration service agreement or other
legal agreements between the organization holding the resource and AFRINIC.

AFRNIC shall initiate the resource recovery process.

A) AFRINIC shall attempt to contact the organization and correct any
discrepancy towards the RSA.

Version 7.0 (new text)
===========

13.4 In case of non-compliance and if evidence has been established in
accordance with:

•    Breach of AFRINIC policies
•    Breach of the provisions of the registration service agreement or
other legal agreements between the organization holding the resource and
AFRINIC.

AFRNIC shall initiate the resource recovery process.

A) AFRINIC shall attempt to contact the organization and correct any
discrepancy towards the RSA. Except in cases of fraudulent resource
acquisition or  unlawful usage and abuse, the organization shall be given a
minimum of six months to effect the return of the resources.

If the organization is cooperative and working in good faith to
substantially restore compliance or has a valid need for additional time to
renumber out of the affected blocks, AFRINIC shall negotiate a longer term.

The acceptance level of compliance and duration of the longer term are at
AFRINIC staff discretion.

Regards

Arnaud

Le lun. 8 avr. 2019 à 22:39, Paschal Ochang <pascosoft at gmail.com> a écrit :

> I think the authors of this proposal have tried their best to provide some
> editorial output.  However, I think a clear meaning of the word update as
> regards to the proposal should ball down to applying meaningful changes to
> the proposal and not mere editorial changes which prevents a metamorphosis
> of this proposal and still reflects previous interpretations.
>
> On Monday, April 8, 2019, Omo Oaiya <Omo.Oaiya at wacren.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 8 Apr 2019, at 13:26, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Apr 8, 2019, at 03:58, Omo Oaiya <Omo.Oaiya at wacren.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 8 Apr 2019, at 06:40, Frank Habicht <geier at geier.ne.tz> wrote:
>>
>> Dear PDWG and chairs,
>>
>> On 07/04/2019 22:30, Sander Steffann wrote:
>>
>> Op 7 apr. 2019, om 19:52 heeft Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> het
>> volgende geschreven:
>>
>> ...
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>> I agree with what Owen and Sander have written. There are fundamental
>> questions about this policy. There is disagreement whether a policy like
>> this is needed in the first place - I also feel that existing mechanisms
>> in the RSA are sufficient.
>>
>>
>>
>> I would beg to differ.   Accountability is a basic issue that has to be
>> addressed.  The problem statement of the policy proposal references the RSA
>> and its limitations.
>>
>>
>> You can differ all you want, but I don’t agree with the problem
>> statement. I don’t feel that there is insufficient accountability in the
>> existing mechanisms. There may be an operational (not policy or
>> contractual) deficiency in that staff may not be making adequate use of the
>> existing tools for accountability. I’m not convinced that is the case, but
>> even if it is, the way to address that is through discussion of the
>> issue(s) with the CEO and management, not through vague and poorly written
>> policy with massive potential for abuse.
>>
>>
>> What is useful in my opinion for objectors would be to avoid me too’s and
>> add specific objections to the list of issues Owen has raised, and let
>> their resolution or the authors inability to address them guide the chairs
>> and community in reaching consensus (or not).
>>
>>
>> Whether or not you like the fact that multiple parties have similar
>> objections to the ones I have raised, I believe there is value in the
>> community seeing that dissent is not from a single individual, but from
>> multiple parties.
>>
>> Certainly if they have additional objections, I encourage them to express
>> those as well, but the me too’s have value as well.
>>
>> Please stop with your continued efforts to silence or curtail expressions
>> of opposition to proposals you favor.
>>
>>
>> You seem confused.  I am asking for constructive comments so we can have
>> a useful discussion, something you seem to have missed in your opinionated
>> outburst.   This precisely what we need to avoid to move forward in AFRINIC
>> and for the Chairs to note.
>>
>> Omo
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20190409/80fe79f9/attachment-0001.html>