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

[Owen DeLong]

> 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. 

Even here you are still not entirely clear… For example, let’s issue a hypothetical /18 to an organization which expects to use 50% of it within 12 months.

Their economy goes into the toilet and sales are 45% of expected. They end up allocating only 24% of the address space as a result.

Which of the following would be reclaimed?
	a)	Entire /18 because they failed to utilize 50% of it
	b)	52% of the /18 because they utilized 24% and should, therefore, keep 48% of it?
	c)	Some other fraction of the space in question?

Should the amount they keep (if any) be rounded up to a bit alignment or do we wish to fragment the routing table?

> 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 sense. 

So a large organization that grew over time is subject to potential repeated reviews against each allocation within 24 months based on targeted subsequent complaints?

You don’t see a problem with this approach?

> 
> 
> 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 destination 

I likewise support clarity. Absent clear modifications, I oppose the proposal.

Owen

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20190515/f8ba5f43/attachment-0001.html>