Search RPD Archives
[rpd] RPD : Prolicy proposal "Internet Number Resources review by AFRINIC" informations update
owen at delong.com
Tue May 14 19:26:30 UTC 2019
> On May 14, 2019, at 1:34 AM, Marcus K. G. Adomey <madomey at hotmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
Yep, but you posted it to a public mailing list, therefore comment on your post by any and all on the list is fair game.
> 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?
It’s the same outcome. I agree this could be a problem. However, a policy proposal which seeks to exacerbate and expand the scope of this problem isn’t an improvement to that situation.
> What happened to the end users when AFRINIC closes members ?
> https://afrinic.net/stats/closures <https://afrinic.net/stats/closures>
Presumably in the majority of cases here, AfriNIC is not “closing the member” so much as the members’ businesses have ceased and the resources reclaimed by AfriNIC for non-payment or other reason as a result. Obviously when an ISP shuts down, their customers suffer as a result. This cannot be avoided. However, as stated above, a policy which seeks to expand the scope and exacerbate the negative consequences here is not an improvement over the current situation.
> 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.....?
Not at all. I’m saying that there are already sufficient mechanisms in place to address that and as is suggested by the evidence you present above, they are working. Expanding that and providing an avenue for attack by competitors or other unfriendly actors through AfriNIC does not improve the situation in any way, and it does have negative consequences.
> ARIN should not have requested the return of the fraudulent 750,000 IPs because of the potentially impact on end users?
> https://www.arin.net/vault/about_us/media/releases/20190513.html <https://www.arin.net/vault/about_us/media/releases/20190513.html>
I never said that. I’ve never objected to the existing mechanisms already in place in policy and in the RSA.
This is not a binary question here, Marcus. There are questions of degree. You keep trying to reframe the discussion as some sort of all or nothing black or white question, but it is not. There is no binary proposal on the table. There is existing policy which is somewhere between all or nothing and there is this proposal which is also between all or nothing. The difference is in how far towards all negative or how far towards no enforcement we want to go. The current policy is a lot less negative unintended consequences, but provides slightly less enforcement. The proposal adds a little to enforcement, but seems to me that it will greatly expand the negative (presumably) unintended consequences.
> 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.
Sure there is… Poor record keeping… The resources may well be in valid use, but the ISP in question fails to properly account for that use during a review and the resources are, therefore reclaimed.
Point to the section of your proposal where that is prevented?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the RPD