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

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

Owen DeLong owen at
Mon Apr 29 00:52:23 UTC 2019

> On Apr 28, 2019, at 11:01 , Gregoire Ehoumi <gregoire.ehoumi at> wrote:
> Owen,
> > The proposal would still be unnecessary and duplicative, but at least if those changes were
> > made, it would be less harmful.
> Be less harmful and now deserve working group's consensus ? 
No, it would still not get my consent. I would still oppose it because it’s still unnecessary and duplicative and policy which is unnecessary and duplicative is not a positive step for the community.

> I can see you moved from  "i oppose, withdraw it or let it expire " to a different position.  Good. Wish you stay consistent this time.
No, I was specifically asked what changes would make it less harmful and I answered that specific question. There’s nothing you can do without virtually eliminating the entire policy to make this policy something I would not oppose as being unnecessary and duplicative.

> —Gregoire
I hope that clarifies the situation.


> ------ Original message------
> From: Owen DeLong
> Date: Sun, Apr 28, 2019 8:31 AM
> To: Benjamin Eshun;
> Cc: rpd;
> Subject:Re: [rpd] RPD : Prolicy proposal "Internet Number Resources review by AFRINIC" informations update
> > On Apr 27, 2019, at 01:38 , Benjamin Eshun  wrote:
> > 
> > Owen,
> > 
> > On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 4:05 AM Owen DeLong  wrote:
> >> 
> >> Let???s recognize that the policy is unnecessary and the RSA is currently sufficient as it is.
> >> 
> > At least we agree partial here that the current RSA is currently
> > sufficient as it is.  Because stated in Section 6 (d) (i) (d)
> > ???Acknowledges: (i) that this agreement shall at all times be subjected
> > to adopted policies;??? .
> > There are no polices to guide staff  on how to investigate (review)
> > the applicant???s utilisation of the number resources already assigned.
> > Hence I fail to see how this policy is unnecessary.
> There???s no policy that tells the staff how to run the whois software either, yet
> we have a working whois system.
> Proscription of how the staff goes about accomplishing their oversight functions
> is not a policy matter. It???s a matter for the board and management of AfriNIC.
> It???s procedure, not policy.
> > 
> >> 
> >> The truth that this policy is unnecessary, duplicative, and potentially harmful?
> > 
> > I have proved that this policy is very necessary and rather seeks to
> > provide a framework in which staff can use to ensure transparency,
> > objectivity and fairness in the review of  assigned resources.
> No, you have not. The policy remains unnecessary, duplicative, and potentially harmful.
> This policy is a giant step away from fairness as it offers a disproportionate denial of service
> attack vector against large resource holders.
> >> The truth that the community has repeatedly rejected this policy and it is unlikely to come to consensus?
> >> The truth that the authors changes to between the previous version and the current version are minimal and fail to address the majority of objections?
> >> The truth that many of the objections to this proposed policy have existed almost as long as the policy and still remain unaddressed by the authors?
> >> 
> > I fail to see the objection that was  raised and not addressed by the
> > authors, except the objections that this policy is costly and time
> > consuming for staff, if not, unnecessary,  duplicative  and harmful
> > The proposal has a long life and I see efforts of the authors to
> > address  real objections. What I have not seen is propositions to
> > improve and make things harmless.
> I provided a substantial list a few weeks ago??? Perhaps you should read it.
> You want to make it harmless, then do the following at a minimum:
> 	1.	Remove the provisions requiring staff to investigate a signed complaint even
> 		if they feel the complaint is specious at best.
> 	2.	Take out the random complete audits.
> 	3.	Quantify and place strong limits on what staff can and can???t demand or do
> 		during such a review.
> 	4.	Prohibit the possibility of multiple simultaneous reviews of the same organization.
> 	5.	Ideally, specify that no additional reviews can be started against an organization
> 		from the time a review begins until the end of the 24th month after the review
> 		has concluded. (The current language about after a full review is completed
> 		is vague and leaves open the possibility of declaring an earlier review not
> 		to have been ???full??? whatever that???s supposed to mean.
> The proposal would still be unnecessary and duplicative, but at least if those changes were
> made, it would be less harmful.
> Owen
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at <mailto:RPD at>
> <>

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

More information about the RPD mailing list