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

[Owen DeLong]

> On May 2, 2019, at 13:21 , Arnaud AMELINA <amelnaud at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Owen see in line ...
> 
> Le lun. 29 avr. 2019 à 05:57, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com <mailto:owen at delong.com>> 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.

Those are necessary in order to operationalize the text found in the RSA which authorizes the review. You can’t take one without the other. Context is key.

The whole is different from the individual parts.

> 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.

For clarity, should diktat be dictate or is it some term with which I am unfamiliar?

Well… IMHO, that combined with the other information above and below renders this policy redundant and unnecessary. You are free to disagree.
 
> 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 have read the RSA several times before. It was provided to me in PDF form by individuals who were requesting that I review specific provisions
for them. Even if I had found it on the website before, nothing guarantees that either:
	1.	It would still be in the same place
	2.	I’d remember how to get to it.

>  
> 
> I did finally find it following some links related to becoming a resource member here:
> https://afrinic.net/membership/agreements#rsa <https://afrinic.net/membership/agreements#rsa>
> 
> When  you found it, quote it faithfully  and don't change the meaning of some sections to match what you have in mind.

I have not changed meaning of anything.

>  
> 
> 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 “

You asked me to state which sections are relevant to resource review and I have done that.

> 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.

I wasn’t aware that there was controversy or alternative views on the correct spelling of utilization. If you are telling me that utilisation [sic] is a correct spelling, then I apologize and gladly accept your view in this context.

It’s not important to the current discussion at all. Merely something I noticed along the way and noted in an effort to allow the RSA to be improved. If you do not report a problem, you can hardly expect the problem to be fixed.
 
> 	 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 ? 

I believe that’s overzealous autocorrect of a different typo on my part. I apologize for the error, there was no malice. I agree the correct word is solely.

> 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 .

No, I never meant to claim RIRs sold resources. It was a typographical error complicated by autocorrect. Nothing more, nothing less.

>  
> 
> 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.
>> 
> 
> [.....]
> 
> Arnaud 
> On behalf of the authors 

So I notice you have no reply beyond criticizing my typo after criticizing my reporting of the typo in the RSA. Very interesting indeed.

Owen


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20190503/7c7ecab9/attachment.html>