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

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

Arnaud AMELINA amelnaud at
Wed May 15 14:44:12 UTC 2019

See inline ...

Le dim. 12 mai 2019 à 19:58, Lee Howard <lee.howard at> a écrit :

> I think it is possible for a proposal to be completely sound, and still
> not achieve consensus. Sincere people can have different opinions about how
> best to serve the community, and that is healthy for the community.
> Agree. When we share same objectives and values for the RIR and the
community, agree on problem to be solved, we may disagree on how to solve
the problem...
We either work out a consensual approach or just agree.. to do nothing is
also all cases there should always be a  positive takeaway.

> I have reread the proposed policy. 13.4(C) says:
> C)  Any Internet Number Resources recovered under this policy may be
> assigned/allocated under existing Allocation and Assignment Policies.
> As I understand the existing policies, in the next few months we will
> enter Exhaustion Phase 2, where only a single /12 remains for allocation
> (with another /12 reserved for something). If addresses are recovered under
> this proposal, could it bring us back to Phase 1, or would we still be in
> Phase 2? I'm not sure that can be addressed in this proposal; it may need a
> different proposal.
> I would suggest another proposal more appropriate to address this

> Also, I think the proposal intends that "Breach of AFRINIC policies" would
> include not having 50% utilization within twelve months of allocation. It
> is unclear to me from the text of the proposal whether all addresses would
> be reclaimed, or only the non-compliant allocation, or only the portion
> that is non-compliant. For example, if I have a total of a /19, and my
> latest allocation was a /22, and I've only assigned one /24 from the latest
> allocation, would AFRINIC reclaim three /24s, the /22, or the /19?
> A clarification on which resources would be reclaimed would address
> Melvin's concern about end users being disconnected. I suggest:
> "AFRNIC shall initiate the resource recovery process on the portion of
> addresses found to be noncompliant."
> Any action is on allocations found  to  be noncomplaint  as each
allocation has its own justification and must be evaluated as such.
Section  13.4 uses the expression “affected blocks”
Your text suggestion makes it clearer and we will consider it.

> The wording in 13.3.3(B) says I won't be audited again for 24 months if I
> have the same resources (portfolio). But if I get another /22, I might get
> another complete audit?  Would it be reasonable to ask that the audited
> resources can't be audited again, but new ones can? Either that, or that an
> organization that has been audited can't be audited for 24 months. I think
> random audit should be included (that is, the 24 month window does not
> currently cover 13.3.2 (random audit)).
> The idea is to avoid  the review of the same allocation in 24 months..
with focus on audit caused by reports to avoid abuse..
You have a good point here too. Adding this limit to random  review makes

> I'm not certain whether I would support or oppose this proposal. I support
> clarity.
> Just stay with  your support to the clarity... clarity may lead to  good

> Lee
> Arnaud on behalf of authors

> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the RPD mailing list