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

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

Arnaud AMELINA amelnaud at
Thu May 2 20:21:51 UTC 2019

Owen see in line ...

Le lun. 29 avr. 2019 à 05:57, Owen DeLong <owen at> a écrit :

> + The proposal is unnecessary as the useful portions are already
>> enshrined in existing policy
>> and the RSA.
> Hummmm ! Can you please point to these documents and sections ?
> I’ve already pointed to the documents… They are the consolidated policy
> manual and the registration services agreement.
> The policy manual provides several provisions about how number resources
> are allocated and to be used within the AfriNIC
> region. These are distributed throughout the policy manual.

I thought we were looking for reference in the policy manual about how  to
review usage of the allocated ressources  and not how ressources are
allocated  and supposed to used.

> The ability for AfriNIC to verify compliance and to rescind resources in a
> case of fraudulent representations or other violations
> of AfriNIC policy by the resource holder is enshrined in the RSA.

We agreed on this long ago: "AFRINIC reserved right to review and members
obligation to cooperate." ... and working here on community consensus
approach to such  reviews and avoid the diktat  of Staff.

> Unfortunately, I’m having trouble finding the RSA on the
> AfriNIC web site. Searches for RSA and Registration Services Agreement do
> not turn up the actual RSA for reasons passing
> understanding (perhaps someone from staff will be kind enough to fix this).

I thought you read the RSA several times  before  pointing to it and knew
where to find it

> I did finally find it following some links related to becoming a resource
> member here:

When  you found it, quote it faithfully  and don't change the meaning of
some sections to match what you have in mind.

> Relevant sections are:
> 1.(a).(v)
> 1.(b)
> 1.(c)
> 2.(b)
> 2.(d)
> 2.(e)
> 2.(f)
> 2.(g)
> 3. in its entirety
> 4.(b)
> 4.(c)
> 6.(a)
> 6.(b)
> 6.(c)
> 6.(d)
> 7 in its entirety
> 11.(d).(iii) et. seq.
> 11.(e)
> 13 in its entirety

Nothing new here. All of these are well known and discussed before. The
problem  statement of the proposal mentioned section 4 of the RSA "

> Of those, the most important and most directly related sections are:
> 1.(b) (the power of AfriNIC to amend policies)
> 2.(b) (accurate information required in application)
> 2.(d) (requirement to keep supplied information current)
> 2.(f) (requirement to provide relevant information online)
> 2.(g) (requirement to maintain accurate contact information on file)
> 3.(a) (applicant accepts subjugation to AfriNIC policies)
> 3.(b) (applicant accepts subjugation to AfriNIC internal business process
> and policies)
> 4.(b) (applicants obligation to cooperate)
> Specifically 4.(b).(ii) Applicants obligation to cooperate with AfriNIC
> investigation reviewing applicant’s utilization. (mis-spelled in the RSA as
> utiliSation, btw)

How important is this for the current discussions? you want to have some
discussions on "utilisation" vs "utilization" ? *This is another exemple of
your failure to accept other views.*

>  4.(c).(i) and (ii) (commitment to use services sold for purpose requested
> and commitment to full and unreserved compliance with policies,
> respectively)
> 4.(c).(iii) AfriNIC’s right to investigate or cause to be investigated the
> applicant’s use of services by appropriate and competent authority(ies).
> — In this context, I believe AfriNIC itself constitutes an appropriate and
> competent authority.

*Where did you get the "service sold" from ?*
The exact is as follow
" (i)  Commits itself to using the services *solely* for the purpose for
which it was requested."

RIRs and AFRINIC  in particular has never sold services.
*You seem to purse the same agenda as your contractor .*

> There’s nothing useful in this policy that isn’t already provided for in
> the above referenced sections of the RSA and the existing number resource
> policies.

> 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.
> [.....]

On behalf of the authors
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the RPD mailing list