[rpd] Larus foundation and Afrinic PDP

[Owen DeLong]

>> Indeed, Madhvi herself has stated that in-region members who have out-of-region customers were not in violation of AfriNIC policy by assigning addresses to them:

>> 

>> https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2013/003577.html <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2013/003577.html>

> I don't think Madhvi has said so in the URL above and I do agree that having out-of-region customers does not put in violation of policy by default.




> 

> What she described is more interesting:

> --------

> AFRINIC has again received a request in which an LIR located in its service region has ISPs incorporated outside the AFRINIC service region as customers and the majority of the allocations are assigned to these customers' customers.

> --------

> 


You left out the part here:

>It so happens that I presented a policy implementation experience report

>during the most recent AIS meeting in Lusaka in which I elaborated on

>the issues that Registration Services at AFRINIC encountered including

>similar to this and tried its best to overcome. The presentation is

>available at the link below and we at AFRINIC hope that the community

>will address them & come will clear answers to them.

Where Madhvi admits that despite RSD’s attempts to violate policy and refuse to issue the addresses, they
were eventually instructed to issue the addresses pursuant to the policy as written.

You may not like the policy. You may want to change the policy. If so, there’s a mechanism for doing that.

However, pushing for RSD to violate policy is not the right answer.


> I would like to know how afrinic hostmasters made their decisions on this request even with the policies in force at the time.

> Whatever was their decisions, it does not really matter. What matters is for Afrinic to show the world that the way the numbers are being used now match the approved justified needs.


The policy as it stands now remains somewhat ambiguous, though the soft landing policy (note that the above exchange and the issuances referenced occurred prior to SL taking effect) does have additional restrictions which might preclude these particular issuances.


>> She asked the community to develop clear policy guidance in this area. While she does claim that registration services did their best to violate policy and limit such registrations, in reality, that is an admission of improper conduct. While some may feel that registration services was doing the right thing, the reality is that if the policies are wrong, we as a community should discuss and change them. AfriNIC staff and management should not be substituting their judgment for that of the community except in dire cases of emergency. In such a case, the board does have the power to implement emergency policy or suspend any policy which is problematic.

> 

> Whatever policies and guidelines we put in place, evaluation of requests will always depend on interpretation, level of collaboration of the requester, with final decision to staff considering various other factors related to the resources which here is scare resources(IPv4).

> The "coach and approve"  method adopted seems normal considering the different level of experience and expertise in the region. 


Agreed. I have no problem with the eventual actions taken by staff. You are the one claiming that the resources should not have been issued.


>> If you don’t like the policy by which Larus acquired its addresses, then by all means propose amendments.

> 

> Hmmm. Change of laws only disposes for future 

> I think the community is no longer interested on how these 6 millions of IPv4 were allocated, but more interested on how they are being used.


Actually, if you read the RSA, new policies are binding on existing allocations/assignments.


>> Making accusations against a company which has not violated policy simply because your idea of how the policy should be implemented differs from the actual wording of the policy is disingenuous at best.

>> 

>> Owen

> 

> I thought it is normal for the community to care about how members and in particular "large members" are doing with the numbers. As said above, it is now about "show, explain and justify how they are used and what is seen publicly" even in the absence of policy, RSA has provisions for such activity


You are entirely welcome to “care”. However, making accusations without evidence is not normal, nor should it be tolerated.

Do you really think any member should have the right to audit any or every other member’s usage? I think that is a very bad precedent to set. I think it is a dysfunctional idea in the best of circumstances. The present environment is quite far from the best of circumstances.


Owen


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20200223/98fc5654/attachment.html>