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

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

Marcus K. G. Adomey madomey at
Wed Apr 10 13:12:14 UTC 2019

Dear AfriNIC Community,

When I started reading the reaction of Owen on this policy, I was tempted to respond to him in line but after reading the entire email, few issues are worth being pointed out.

1 – his inability to distinguish between policy and implementation procedure,

2 – the irrelevant comments about the format which have no bearings of the substance of the policy, and finally

3 – his incoherence regarding need for this policy.

The most outrageous in the above is the third point. Although he claimed that the policy is unnecessary, he was at the same time making suggestions on how the authors can make the proposal better.

But if you take the necessary stand, you will conclude that this incoherence is normal especially coming from someone who supported the proposal at its inception, got conflicted and change his mind, his heart and stomach speaking at the same time.

There are enough evidences on his case in the archives and I won't replay them here.

Nothing will stop this community's determination to decide for itself, to improve accountability and better manage the scarce number resources provided to it for a better Internet in AFRICA.

We've shown AFRINIC was not vaporware.

From: Owen DeLong <owen at>
Sent: Sunday, April 7, 2019 5:52:48 PM
To: Arnaud AMELINA
Cc: Adewole Ajao; Sami Salih; Marcus Adomey; SamiSalih; rpd >> AfriNIC Resource Policy; Dewole Ajao
Subject: Re: [rpd] RPD : Prolicy proposal "Internet Number Resources review by AFRINIC" informations update

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.


On Apr 6, 2019, at 8:12 AM, Arnaud AMELINA <amelnaud at<mailto:amelnaud at>> wrote:

Hi Ernest and Co-chairs,

Please find below an update of our Policy proposal "Internet Number Resources Review by AFRINIC", for future discussions on the list.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Begin ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Name : Internet Number Resources Review by AFRINIC (Draft 7)
    Ref. Name: AFPUB-2016-GEN-001-DRAFT07
    Status: Under Discussion
    Date: 6 April 2019

        (a) Amelina A. A. Arnaud | <arnaud.amelina at<mailto:arnaud.amelina at>> | AUF/TogoRER
        (b) Jean-Baptiste Millogo |<jean.millogo at<mailto:jean.millogo at>>| Orange Burkina
        (c) Marcus ADOMEY  <madomey at<mailto:madomey at>>  | University of Ghana

13.0 Summary of the Problem Being Addressed by this Policy Proposal

As Internet Number resources are finite, their allocation is based on the operational needs of end-users and Internet Services Providers, while avoiding stockpiling in accordance with RFC7020, IPv4 Allocation Policy CPM 5.5, IPv6 Allocation and assignment policy CPM 6.5 and Policy for Autonomous System Numbers (ASN) Management in the AFRINIC region CPM 7.0.Section 4 of the Registration Service Agreement (RSA) provides the framework for investigations of the usage of allocated Internet Number resources, defines members’ obligation to cooperate and the measures to be taken by AFRINIC in case of failure to comply. The lack of such investigation or regular control can lead to inefficient usage of the Internet Number resources, to stockpiling and other type of abuses.

13.0.1 Summary of How this Proposal Addresses the Problem

In order to ensure efficient and appropriate use of resources, AFRINIC shall conduct regular reviews of resource utilization held by its members. This would allow recovery of any type of resource, where usage is not in compliance with the RSA. Those resources can be reallocated for better usage.

13.0.2 Proposal

The policy proposal will modify the CPM as follows:

Insert a section 13 to the CPM as follows:

13.0 Internet Number Resources Review

Regular reviews of resource utilization are conducted by AFRINIC to ensure efficient and appropriate usage of resources. This allows for recovery of any type of resource where usage is not in compliance with the RSA; to allow such resources to be reallocated for better usage.

13.1 The reviews shall be based on compliance with the terms outlined in the RSA and Allocation/Assignment Policies.

13.2 The reviews cover all allocated/Assigned resources, but priority goes to IPv4 and ASN mappable to two-octet ASN.

13.3 Classes of review: Members to be reviewed shall be selected according to the following classes:

13.3.1 Random

The member is chosen by AFRINIC at random between the membership.

13.3.2 Selected

 Member is selected because of an internal report or due to a lack of contact between the AFRINIC and the member.

13.3.3 Reported: Here, members are reviewed either because:

A) They have requested the review themselves or

B) There has been a community complaint made against them that warrants investigation. Complaints shall be backed by evidence and AFRINIC staff shall evaluate the facts as appropriate to conduct the review. However this review is not applicable to a member  with the same resources portfolio on which a full review has been completed in the preceding 24 months.

 AFRINIC staff may, at its sole discretion, after having assessed the nature of the evidence found in the community complaint, require that such evidence be (i) submitted in the form of a sworn affidavit or (ii) declared to be true before a Commissioner of Oath.

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.

B) If the situation cannot be rectified and the member did not transfer the ressources to meet other AFRINIC-approved needs as per adopted policies

 AFRINIC shall publish the resources to be recovered for a period of three (3) months; during which the organization may at any time, seek compliance or transfer the ressources to other members

 After this period, the resource shall be recovered and therefore the records of the previous holder of the recovered resource shall be updated in AFRINIC’s databases.

C)  Any Internet Number Resources recovered under this policy may be assigned/allocated under existing Allocation and Assignment Policies.

13.5 Appeal procedure

Reviewed members who are not satisfied have the right to appeal against the result within the four weeks. Appeals shall follow an arbitration process as provided for in the
Code de Procedure Civile (Code of Civil Procedure) of the Republic of Mauritius. AFRINIC may, on request from an aggrieved party, suggest a pool of arbitrators who shall be knowledgeable volunteers from the community.

13.6 Compliance Report

AFRINIC shall publish an annual meaningful report describing review activities, in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations.

13.7 Acknowledgements

The authors thank Ms Wafa Dahmani Zaafouri (become Afrinic GC Chair), Mr Serge ILUNGA (become Afrinic Board member)  and Mr Alain P. Aina for their  contributions  in the development of this Policy proposal.

The authors also thank the community for the discussions and contributions.

4.0 Revision History

18 May 2016
  Version 1.0
- First Draft AFPUB-2016-GEN-001-DRAFT01
- Posted on RPD list

05 Aug 2016
  Version 2.0
- Second Draft AFPUB-2016-GEN-001-DRAFT02
- Change on the policy’s name
- Addition of the Acknowledgement section
- Rephrasing of section 3.3.3

18 Nov 2016
Version 3.0
- Third Draft AFPUB-2016-GEN-001-DRAFT03
- Update of section 3.3.3 from discussions on mailing list
- Update of section 3.7 (Acknowledgements) to thank the community for discussions and contributions

11 Apr 2017
Version 4.0
- Fourth Draft AFPUB-2016-GEN-001-DRAFT04
- Update and Rephrasing of section 3.4
- Update and Rephrasing of section 3.5
- Update and Rephrasing of section 3.6

21 Oct. 2107
Version 5.0
- Fifth Draft AFPUB-2016-GEN-001-DRAFT05
- Adding the paragraphe C to 13.3.3. according to the legal counsel proposition
- Rephrasing the paragraphe 13.5 to comply with staff and legal assessment
- Rephrasing the paragraphe 13.6 to comply with staff assessment and avoid any ambiguity
- Changing the co-authors list
- Updating the Acknowledgement session
- Amending 13.4 (B) to  reflect the Transfer policies

06 Apr. 2018
Version 6.0
- Sixth Draft AFPUB-2016-GEN-001-DRAFT06
- Removing categorization between membership in random class section 13.3.1

06 Apr. 2019
Version 07
- Seventh Draft AFPUB-2016-GEN-001-DRAFT07
- Modifying section 13.4 Paragraph A) to clarify the resources recovery process: set conditions  under which a member could be given longer term  to effect the return of the resources.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------- End ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Le mar. 3 avr. 2018 à 07:51, Ernest Byaruhanga <ernest at<mailto:ernest at>> a écrit :
Hi Arnaud,

On 31 Mar 2018, at 18:41, Arnaud AMELINA <amelnaud at<mailto:amelnaud at>> wrote:

Dear PDWG,
As you can see through the Lagos PPM minutes [1],  all  pending legal concerns  have been addressed. Last suggestion  received abiut removing categories in section 13.3.1( make the random selection applies to all members)  was  accepted by working group and  will reflect  in the next version  to come.

While awaiting the new version, please send any new comments, suggestions you may have on the proposal [2]


Please send the new version well ahead of the recommended CPM 3.4.2 deadline to allow reasonable time for staff's assessment of the updated proposal.

RPD mailing list
RPD at<mailto:RPD at>

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

More information about the RPD mailing list