[rpd] RPD Digest, Vol 152, Issue 8

Mon May 13 12:42:44 UTC 2019

I agree with Paul , the problems of this proposal are glaring, if the
contents are found in existing policies there definitely no need for
additional policy.
Lets further explain terms that are vague for better apprehension which
will aid sound use of resources and birth efficient users.

Francis S. Ahile

On Sun, May 12, 2019, 13:00 <rpd-request at afrinic.net> wrote:

> Send RPD mailing list submissions to
>         rpd at afrinic.net
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>         https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>         rpd-request at afrinic.net
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>         rpd-owner at afrinic.net
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of RPD digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. RPD : Prolicy proposal "Internet Number Resources review by
>       AFRINIC" informations update (Paul Lam)
>    2. Re: RPD : Policy proposal "Internet Number Resources review
>       by AFRINIC" informations update (Big Jayz)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sat, 11 May 2019 21:45:05 +0700
> From: Paul Lam <thisispaullam at gmail.com>
> To: "rpd at afrinic.net" <rpd at afrinic.net>
> Subject: [rpd] RPD : Prolicy proposal "Internet Number Resources
>         review by AFRINIC" informations update
> Message-ID:
>         <CADZR81=TO-x-rYWLpu9=R=
> ZkySN8aVUkcOumQEEaDUq1zHxQEw at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Hi
>
> Many of you have already stated the problems of this proposal. I think this
> proposal is in fact quite unnecessary - we can find most of the content in
> existing policies and the RSA already. What?s the point of having an
> additional policy when most things are there already?
>
> Additionally, most of the terms are not explained clearly. What is
> ?regular?? (Monthly, quarterly, annually)? What?s the duration of each
> review?
>
> And does the review really guarantee a better use of resource? What if it?s
> just passed from one inefficient user to the other?
>
> Fairly speaking, this proposal seems to me a mere waste of time and money.
>
> Paul
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20190511/ee21d50d/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sun, 12 May 2019 02:18:10 +0100
> From: Big Jayz <jjamesonuh at gmail.com>
> To: Melvin Cheng <melvinc0730 at gmail.com>
> Cc: rpd at afrinic.net
> Subject: Re: [rpd] RPD : Policy proposal "Internet Number Resources
>         review by AFRINIC" informations update
> Message-ID:
>         <CABZOdDoY4Bp7G50ZKoRjLG8PN8+7ahvpM+RG=
> DDzhXvxbeVjNg at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> If end-users will lose their connectivity to the internet during a switch
> process from one ISP to another due to inefficient utilization of
> resources, then I think the authors of this proposal should go back and
> review the draft. At the end, all discussions on this platform is geared
> towards making the internet affordable and accessible within the region.
>
> On Sat, May 11, 2019, 10:17 Melvin Cheng <melvinc0730 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > 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
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20190512/b5f4779e/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of RPD Digest, Vol 152, Issue 8
> ***********************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20190513/07307c14/attachment.html>