[rpd] Proposal Update received: Internet Number Resources Review by AFRINIC

Tue Jun 25 06:15:59 UTC 2019

@Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com> ,

So if I deduce your statement correctly, you are likely intimidating the
entire community with the probability of litigation if the said INR review
policy is passed and implemented by staff?

You might want to correct that wrong impression or feelings I might be
having as a neutral community member?

Caleb Ogundele

On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 6:58 AM Andrew Alston <
Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com> wrote:

> Caleb -
>
> I assure you that if a review is conducted that results in the revocation
> of space - litigation will result - It does not matter how the policy was
> passed - why it was passed - or how it was passed - litigation will happen.
>
> Let us not be naive here - let’s take off our technocrat tinted glasses
> and accept pragmatic reality - the day an organization attempts to
> effectively shutter another - the legal processes will be invoked.
>
> Will the litigant be successful? Depends on the case - will it happen
> however? I can guarantee it. Why - because revocation of space will result
> in companies going out of business and jobs being lost - and said companies
> will fight that in court all day every day - without blinking.
>
> Be that case on the monopoly nature of an rir - be that case of the right
> of an organization to dictate how an entity can use integers on the
> internet - or for anything else - heard it will be, do not doubt that.
> So - affront on the community or not - winnable or not - there will be
> litigation - and that costs money - and hence - it is still a fair question
> as to how such litigation will be funded should this policy ever come to
> fruition, and the first question is how much it is envisaged that will cost.
>
> Andrew
>
> Liquid Telecommunications - Group Head Of IP Strategy
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Caleb Olumuyiwa Ogundele <muyiwacaleb at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 25, 2019 8:01:22 AM
> *To:* Andrew Alston; Jordi Palet Martinez
> *Cc:* Timothy Ola Akinfenwa; rpd List
> *Subject:* Re: [rpd] Proposal Update received: Internet Number Resources
> Review by AFRINIC
>
> Hello Andrew,
>
> While I have been on the sidelines viewing different opinions. Here are my
> general thoughts:
>
> 1. If the community passes the review policy, there can never be any
> threat of court action that can see the light of day. It is a community
> effort in fairness to the community. Therefore, it is cost ineffective to
> put a price on a legitimate action passed by the entire community. If rough
> consensus is reached, the Governance committee appeals exhausted and board
> approval actions as a result of a bottom-up approach, the court action is
> an affront and challenging the entire community who approves the same
> policy in question in court. In this case, the AFRINIC community court does
> not need any cost on litigation to project cost implication for that policy.
>
> 2. Dewole earlier provided a guidance on audit with an example from the
> RIPE region. While this is an operational matter to be determined by the
> staff/CEO, there is no need to preempt an action that is yet to get
> community approval by rough consensus.
>
> 3. While soliloquizing to myself:- "if RIPE has a similar policy for
> audit, and we as a region have received and adopted some policies from that
> same region, why not do a review of the INR before considering the Inter
> RIR transfer?" Perhaps, it will create a balance as you need to first carry
> out a review(taking stock), see what you have left before welcoming other
> visitors into the house to share in the meal that is being served.
>
> 4. This is supposed to go to another thread but I will mention it here in
> passing. @Jordi Palet Martinez <jordi.palet at consulintel.es> should
> consider or reveal to the community the *minimum and maximum block of IPs*
> in the Inter RIR transfer policy that can be transferred in his policy
> update. It might perhaps, help the community build trust and he gets the
> needed support he wants
>
> Caleb Ogundele
>
> On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 4:24 AM Andrew Alston <
> Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com> wrote:
>
>> Very simple reason actually - it puts a barometer on how the belief this
>> will result in litigation.
>>
>> Further to that - since ultimately it is the members who fund afrinic and
>> it is the members who will bear the cost of any litigation that goes
>> against afrinic in this regard - because it is the members money - I would
>> like to know potentially what this policy will cost afrinic and what it
>> could do to fees - and that could be heavily dependent on the legal side of
>> things in this particular case
>>
>>
>> Liquid Telecommunications - Group Head Of IP Strategy
>> ------------------------------
>> *From:* Timothy Ola Akinfenwa <akin.akinfenwa at uniosun.edu.ng>
>> *Sent:* Monday, June 24, 2019 6:16:42 PM
>> *To:* Andrew Alston
>> *Cc:* Ish Sookun; rpd List
>> *Subject:* Re: [rpd] Proposal Update received: Internet Number Resources
>> Review by AFRINIC
>>
>> Hello Andrew,
>> While I also agree that Staff provide information on the likely financial
>> implication for the audit, I don't understand why there should be a
>> separate allocation for litigation.
>>
>> Is it wise for an organisation to budget funds for likely court cases
>> when instead they should strive to prevent one in the first place?
>>
>> For me, I think it is critical to ensure that Staff actions on any audit
>> review does not amount to litigation. And this may be captured as a
>> suggestion in the policy as well, if necessary.
>>
>> Best!
>>
>> Sent from my OnePlus mobile device! </>$aa;
>>
>> On Mon, 24 Jun 2019, 3:53 PM Andrew Alston, <
>> Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I would agree that these numbers would be useful - and must in addition
>>> include contingent liability allocation for litigation that could result
>>> due to implementation of this policy
>>>
>>> Andrew
>>>
>>> Liquid Telecommunications - Group Head Of IP Strategy
>>> ------------------------------
>>> *From:* Ish Sookun <ish.sookun at lasentinelle.mu>
>>> *Sent:* Monday, June 24, 2019 5:39:19 PM
>>> *To:* rpd at afrinic.net
>>> *Subject:* Re: [rpd] Proposal Update received: Internet Number
>>> Resources Review by AFRINIC
>>>
>>> Dear PDWG Co-Chairs,
>>>
>>> It was expressed during the last meeting that this policy will have
>>> financial implications on AfriNIC due to costs associated to auditing.
>>>
>>> Is it possible to obtain an approximate cost figure (from staff) that
>>> such audits would entail?
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Ish Sookun
>>>
>>> On 6/8/19 10:24 PM, Dewole Ajao wrote:
>>> > Dear PDWG members,
>>> >
>>> > This is to inform you that authors of the policy proposal named
>>> "Internet Number Resources Review by AFRINIC" have submitted an updated
>>> version (Draft version 8) as included below. The URL will be shared once
>>> published online.
>>> >
>>> > Please take some time to go through the proposal contents and provide
>>> your feedback.
>>> >
>>> > Thank you.
>>> > PDWG Co-Chairs
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > ------------------------------------------------------------
>>> >
>>> > ------------------- Begin
>>> >
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> >
>>> >     Name : Internet Number Resources Review by AFRINIC (Draft 8)
>>> >     Ref. Name: AFPUB-2016-GEN-001-DRAFT08
>>> >     Status: Under Discussion
>>> >     Date: 7 June 2019
>>> >
>>> > Authors:
>>> >         (a) Amelina A. A. Arnaud | <arnaud.amelina at togorer.tg
>>> > <mailto:arnaud.amelina at togorer.tg>> | AUF/TogoRER
>>> >         (b) Jean-Baptiste Millogo |<jean.millogo at orange.com
>>> > <mailto:jean.millogo at orange.com>>| Orange Burkina
>>> >         (c) Marcus ADOMEY  <madomey at ug.edu.gh
>>> > <mailto:madomey at ug.edu.gh>>  | University of Ghana
>>> >
>>> > 13.0 Summary of the Problem Being Addressed by this Policy Proposal
>>> >
>>> > As Internet Number resources are finite, their allocation is based on
>>> > the operational needs of end-users and Internet Services Providers,
>>> > while avoiding stockpiling in accordance with RFC7020, IPv4 Allocation
>>> > Policy CPM 5.5, IPv6 Allocation and assignment policy CPM 6.5 and
>>> Policy
>>> > for Autonomous System Numbers (ASN) Management in the AFRINIC region
>>> CPM
>>> > 7.0.Section 4 of the Registration Service Agreement (RSA) provides the
>>> > framework for investigations of the usage of allocated Internet Number
>>> > resources, defines members’ obligation to cooperate and the measures to
>>> > be taken by AFRINIC in case of failure to comply. The lack of such
>>> > investigation or regular control can lead to inefficient usage of the
>>> > Internet Number resources, to stockpiling and other type of abuses.
>>> >
>>> > 13.0.1 Summary of How this Proposal Addresses the Problem
>>> >
>>> > In order to ensure efficient and appropriate use of resources, AFRINIC
>>> > shall conduct regular reviews of resource utilisation held by its
>>> > members. This would allow recovery of any type of resource, where usage
>>> > is not in compliance with the RSA. Those resources can be reallocated
>>> > for better usage.
>>> >
>>> > 13.0.2 Proposal
>>> >
>>> > The policy proposal will modify the CPM as follows:
>>> >
>>> > Insert a section 13 to the CPM as follows:
>>> >
>>> > 13.0 Internet Number Resources Review
>>> >
>>> > Regular reviews of resource utilisation are conducted by AFRINIC to
>>> > ensure efficient and appropriate usage of resources. This allows for
>>> > recovery of any type of resource where usage is not in compliance with
>>> > the RSA; to allow such resources to be reallocated for better usage.
>>> >
>>> > 13.1 The reviews shall be based on compliance with the terms outlined
>>> in
>>> > the RSA and Allocation/Assignment Policies.
>>> >
>>> > 13.2 The reviews cover all allocated/Assigned resources, but priority
>>> > goes to IPv4 and ASN mappable to two-octet ASN.
>>> >
>>> > 13.3 Classes of review: Members to be reviewed shall be selected
>>> > according to the following classes:
>>> >
>>> > 13.3.1 Random
>>> >
>>> > The member is chosen by AFRINIC at random between the members who has
>>> > not been reviewed for any other reasons in  the preceding 24 months.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > 13.3.2 Selected
>>> >
>>> >  Member is selected because of an internal report or due to a lack of
>>> > contact between the AFRINIC and the member.
>>> >
>>> > 13.3.3 Reported:
>>> >
>>> > Here, members are reviewed either because:
>>> >
>>> > A) They have requested the review themselves or
>>> >
>>> > B) There has been a community complaint made against them that warrants
>>> > investigation. Complaints shall be backed by evidence and AFRINIC staff
>>> > shall evaluate the facts as appropriate to conduct the review. However
>>> > this review is not applicable to a member  with the same resources
>>> > portfolio on which a full review has been completed in the preceding 24
>>> > months.
>>> >
>>> >  AFRINIC staff may, at its sole discretion, after having assessed the
>>> > nature of the evidence found in the community complaint, require that
>>> > such evidence be (i) submitted in the form of a sworn affidavit or (ii)
>>> > declared to be true before a Commissioner of Oath.
>>> >
>>> > 13.4 In case of non-compliance and if evidence has been established in
>>> > accordance with:
>>> >
>>> > •    Breach of AFRINIC policies
>>> > •    Breach of the provisions of the registration service agreement or
>>> > other legal agreements between the organisation holding the resource
>>> and
>>> > AFRINIC.
>>> >
>>> > AFRNIC shall initiate the resource recovery process on the portion of
>>> > addresses found to be noncompliant.
>>> >
>>> > A) AFRINIC shall attempt to contact the organisation and correct any
>>> > discrepancy towards the RSA. Except in cases of fraudulent resource
>>> > acquisition or  unlawful usage and abuse, the organization shall be
>>> > given a minimum of six(6) months to effect the return of the resources.
>>> >
>>> > If the organisation is cooperative and working in good faith to
>>> > substantially restore compliance or has a valid need for additional
>>> time
>>> > to renumber out of the affected blocks, AFRINIC shall negotiate a
>>> longer
>>> > term.
>>> >
>>> > The acceptance level of compliance and duration of the longer term are
>>> > at AFRINIC staff discretion.
>>> >
>>> > B) If the situation cannot be rectified and the member did not transfer
>>> > the resources to meet other AFRINIC-approved needs as per adopted
>>> policies
>>> >
>>> >  AFRINIC shall publish the resources to be recovered for a period of
>>> > three (3) months; during which the organisation may at any time, seek
>>> > compliance or transfer the resources to other members
>>> >
>>> >  After this period, the resource shall be recovered and therefore the
>>> > records of the previous holder of the recovered resource shall be
>>> > updated in AFRINIC’s databases.
>>> >
>>> > C)  Any Internet Number Resources recovered under this policy may be
>>> > assigned/allocated under existing Allocation and Assignment Policies.
>>> >
>>> > 13.5 Appeal procedure
>>> >
>>> > Reviewed members who are not satisfied have the right to appeal against
>>> > the results on the review within the four weeks following communication
>>> > of the results by AFRINIC. Appeals shall follow an arbitration process
>>> > as provided for in the
>>> > Code de Procedure Civile (Code of Civil Procedure) of the Republic of
>>> > Mauritius. AFRINIC may, on request from an aggrieved party, suggest a
>>> > pool of arbitrators who shall be knowledgeable volunteers from the
>>> > community.
>>> >
>>> > 13.6 Compliance Report
>>> >
>>> > AFRINIC shall publish an annual meaningful report describing review
>>> > activities, in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations.
>>> >
>>> > 13.7 Acknowledgements
>>> >
>>> > The authors thank Ms Wafa Dahmani Zaafouri (become Afrinic GC Chair),
>>> Mr
>>> > Serge ILUNGA (become Afrinic Board member)  and Mr Alain P. Aina for
>>> > their  contributions  in the development of this Policy proposal.
>>> >
>>> > The authors also thank the community for the discussions and
>>> contributions.
>>> >
>>> > 4.0 Revision History
>>> >
>>> > 18 May 2016
>>> >   Version 1.0
>>> > - First Draft AFPUB-2016-GEN-001-DRAFT01
>>> > - Posted on RPD list
>>> >
>>> > 05 Aug 2016
>>> >   Version 2.0
>>> > - Second Draft AFPUB-2016-GEN-001-DRAFT02
>>> > - Change on the policy’s name
>>> > - Addition of the Acknowledgement section
>>> > - Rephrasing of section 3.3.3
>>> >
>>> > 18 Nov 2016
>>> > Version 3.0
>>> > - Third Draft AFPUB-2016-GEN-001-DRAFT03
>>> > - Update of section 3.3.3 from discussions on mailing list
>>> > - Update of section 3.7 (Acknowledgements) to thank the community for
>>> > discussions and contributions
>>> >
>>> > 11 Apr 2017
>>> > Version 4.0
>>> > - Fourth Draft AFPUB-2016-GEN-001-DRAFT04
>>> > - Update and Rephrasing of section 3.4
>>> > - Update and Rephrasing of section 3.5
>>> > - Update and Rephrasing of section 3.6
>>> >
>>> > 21 Oct. 2107
>>> > Version 5.0
>>> > - Fifth Draft AFPUB-2016-GEN-001-DRAFT05
>>> > - Adding the paragraph C to 13.3.3. according to the legal counsel
>>> > proposition
>>> > - Rephrasing the paragraph 13.5 to comply with staff and legal
>>> assessment
>>> > - Rephrasing the paragraph 13.6 to comply with staff assessment and
>>> > avoid any ambiguity
>>> > - Changing the co-authors list
>>> > - Updating the Acknowledgement session
>>> > - Amending 13.4 (B) to  reflect the Transfer policies
>>> >
>>> > 06 Apr. 2018
>>> > Version 6.0
>>> > - Sixth Draft AFPUB-2016-GEN-001-DRAFT06
>>> > - Removing categorisation between membership in random class section
>>> 13.3.1
>>> >
>>> > 06 Apr. 2019
>>> > Version 07
>>> > - Seventh Draft AFPUB-2016-GEN-001-DRAFT07
>>> > - Modifying section 13.4 Paragraph A) to clarify the resources recovery
>>> > process: set conditions  under which a member could be given longer
>>> term
>>> >  to effect the return of  affected resources.
>>> >
>>> > 29 may. 2019
>>> > Version 08
>>> > -  Eighth Draft AFPUB-2016-GEN-001-DRAFT08
>>> > -  Section 13.3.1 changes to  : "..The member is chosen by AFRINIC at
>>> > random between the members who has not been reviewed for any other
>>> > reasons in  the preceding 24 months."
>>> > -  Section  13.4  last paragraph changes to : "AFRINIC shall initiate
>>> > ... on the portion of addresses found to be noncompliant."
>>> > -   Section 13.5 changes to  “Reviewed members who are not satisfied
>>> > have the right to appeal against the results on the review within the
>>> > four weeks following communication of the results by AFRINIC……..”
>>> > -  Typos and grammatical errors fixed.
>>> >
>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> > End
>>> >
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > RPD mailing list
>>> > RPD at afrinic.net
>>> > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
>>> >
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> RPD mailing list
>>> RPD at afrinic.net
>>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> RPD mailing list
>>> RPD at afrinic.net
>>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> RPD mailing list
>> RPD at afrinic.net
>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
>>
>
>
> --
> *Ogundele Olumuyiwa Caleb*
> *muyiwacaleb at gmail.com <muyiwacaleb at gmail.com>*
> *234 - 8077377378*
> *234 - 07030777969*
>

-- 
*Ogundele Olumuyiwa Caleb*
*muyiwacaleb at gmail.com <muyiwacaleb at gmail.com>*
*234 - 8077377378*
*234 - 07030777969*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20190625/67ccfca8/attachment-0001.html>