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

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

Marcus K. G. Adomey madomey at
Tue May 14 08:34:51 UTC 2019

Hi Owen,

I wrote the mail in English and the first line clearly shows that it was intended to Melvin. I had asked him specific questions with an objective to engage him constructively and address issues he was trying to bring up.

For the point on users being disconnected when allocations are revoked, let me draw your attention back to the following:

Members by requesting the right to use INRs are bound by some obligations. Section 4 (b)  of the RSA gives an example of behavior of   members which may:
. (1)  entail revocation or withholding of the service supplied by AFRINIC;

. (2)  be taken into account by AFRINIC in its evaluation for further and future assignment or allocation of number resources;

. (3)  lead to the closure of an LIR and termination of the agreement by AFRINIC.

What happened to the end users when AFRINIC take actions prescribed above?

What happened to the end users when AFRINIC closes members ?

Are you saying because  of end users  loosing connectivity with some ISPs  not fulfilling obligations toward the community regarding the right to use INRs, we should accept deviance including frauds, unlawful usage.....?

ARIN  should not have requested the return of the fraudulent  750,000 IPs because of the  potentially impact on end users?

The whole point of the review is to determine compliance which means  usage of INR and there is no way INR which have been determined to be in usage by  legitimate users through the said review would be revoked to cause denial of service to end users. There is just no way.

From: Owen DeLong <owen at>
Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2019 5:10:16 PM
To: Marcus K. G. Adomey
Cc: Melvin Cheng; rpd at
Subject: Re: [rpd] RPD : Prolicy proposal "Internet Number Resources review by AFRINIC" informations update

On May 12, 2019, at 08:37 , Marcus K. G. Adomey <madomey at<mailto:madomey at>> 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.



From: Melvin Cheng <melvinc0730 at<mailto:melvinc0730 at>>
Sent: Saturday, May 11, 2019 9:15 AM
To: rpd at<mailto:rpd at>
Subject: [rpd] RPD : Prolicy proposal "Internet Number Resources review by AFRINIC" informations update


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.

RPD mailing list
RPD at<mailto:RPD at>

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

More information about the RPD mailing list