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

Sun May 12 17:56:21 UTC 2019

Owen,

Indeed you gave the point blank solution to what I personally have been
advocating.

Cheers
Daniel

On Sun, May 12, 2019, 6:14 PM Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:

>
>
> On May 12, 2019, at 08:37 , Marcus K. G. Adomey <madomey at hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Melvin
>
> *I can see you suddenly  have interests for the review policy proposal.
> Please review  RPD  and PPMs  archives as it is not  productive to replay
> old discussions.*
>
> *Please could you provide answers to the following questions *
>
>
>
> > This policy has a lot of problems.
>
>
>
> *It is not constructive in a working group to just say policy has a lot of
> problems without listing the problems you see. Please list all the problems
> and propose texts to address them?*
>
> It is not legitimate to insist that those who feel your proposal is flawed
> must provide text to address those problems. However, let me propose text
> which would solve all of the problems with this policy so that it cannot be
> said that I did not do so…
>
> Please replace the entire proposal with the what is between the BEGIN and
> END tags below. That will solve all of the problems:
>
> —— BEGIN ——
> —— END ——
>
> I think you must agree that this text is very succinct and does not create
> any new policy problems like the current proposal.
>
> While it may not solve all of the problems you intend with your current
> problem statement, I believe it does, in fact, solve all of the material
> defects of this proposal and offers a vastly superior policy alternative.
> (In other words: current policy is a vastly superior policy alternative to
> the current proposal).
>
> > The other is the potential of end-users being disconnected due to the
> review. I think we have to bear in mind that, end-users have no clue about
> the review.
>
>
>
> *Please show which part of policy proposal requires disconnecting end
> users?  The numbers are requested and allocated to serve end-users and I
> don't see how review will lead to disconnecting these users.*
>
> Marcus, are you truly so divorced from reality that you do not understand
> that if you successfully and effectively revoke the resources of an ISP
> that by definition, you have disconnected the customers of said ISP that
> were using those resources?
>
> If not, then I can only assume that you believe that any such revocation
> will be without actual effect on the internet. If you truly believe that,
> then you believe that it is OK to render the AfriNIC registration process
> meaningless compared to operational practice and you wish to create a
> separation between the two. I realize that currently the two are joined
> only through the voluntary cooperation of ISPs, but I think it is
> irresponsible at best to attempt to end that cooperation.
>
> Owen
>
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Melvin Cheng <melvinc0730 at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Saturday, May 11, 2019 9:15 AM
> *To:* rpd at afrinic.net
> *Subject:* [rpd] RPD : Prolicy proposal "Internet Number Resources review
> by AFRINIC" informations update
>
> Hi
>
> The debate over this policy has been for ages. I really think that if an
> issue has been discussed over and over again, there must be something
> fundamentally wrong about it. It’s quite obvious that this proposal draws
> way more controversy than the others - its own existence in a way seems to
> be a source of extreme disputes among the community, as we have seen in
> Tunisia. I was in fact there myself.
>
> This policy has a lot of problems. Intrinsically, as a policy itself, it
> is not well defined. A lot of terms remain unclear. For example, as Owen
> has also pointed out earlier, the term “annual meaningful report” is an
> ambiguous term. What is a “meaningful” report? To whom? What are the
> factors? How is “meaningful” defined? 100 people can have 100 definitions
> of “meaningful”. If the report is deemed as something crucial to this
> proposal, then the author shall better define and address it. Honestly
> speaking, although this proposal has been “re-proposed” over and over, I do
> not see any improvements in it. More precisely, I barely see any changes
> made in the new proposal when comparing to the previous one. I would expect
> the authors to make some adjustments when so many issues have not been
> addressed in previous meetings before they posted them again, even just as
> gesture of their sincerity. You can’t just post something that’s almost
> identical by pretending your audience were blind.
>
> On the other hand, this policy is not realistic at all. Afrinic does not
> have the financial power to conduct such a big quantity of reviews within
> its regions. It’s quiet easy to imagine that because of this lack of
> financial backup, reviews are done unfairly and unjustly. For example, some
> users are screened while the others are not because Afrinic runs out of
> money during the process of review. This may, at the worst, can lead to
> Afrinic’s bankruptcy, which I am sure none of us would wish that to happen.
>
> The other is the potential of end-users being disconnected due to the
> review. I think we have to bear in mind that, end-users have no clue about
> the review. However, according to this proposal, if an ISP is found to have
> violated the rule (ie, inefficient utilisation of resources), their IPs
> will be taken back by Afrinic and re-allocate to others. End-user will lost
> connectivity to the Internet during this process even they have no idea
> what is going on. This is unfair to them. After all, connectivity to the
> Internet shall come as the priority over any other things. What this policy
> will bring is quiet the opposite.
>
> Having said so much, I think my stand is quite clear. This proposal is not
> well drafted and the authors haven’t well considered its potential
> problems. It’s impractical when considering Afrinic’s current situation.
>
> Let’s not forget about this. if something has been doubted by people over
> and over again, there must be something wrong about it.
>
> Cheers
> Melvin
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20190512/87b0162c/attachment-0001.html>