[rpd] Policy Impact (was Re: Cloud Innovation Displays Very Poor, If Not Criminal, Netizenship)

[Daniel Yakmut]

The current title of this post is misleading. Please can we put our
discussions in perspective so that we can follow.

I was reading the content of Alain's posting and I got worried it was
totally different from the title of the post. Pls can that be corrected.

Simply,
Daniel

On Jun 23, 2020 7:32 PM, "ALAIN AINA via RPD" <rpd at afrinic.net> wrote:


>

> > On 3 Jun 2020, at 17:58, Patrick Okui <pokui at psg.com> wrote:

> >

> > On 3 Jun 2020, at 15:58 EAT, ALAIN AINA via RPD wrote:

> >

> >> While we wait for new proposals which will probably come from the

> current discussions, shouldn’t we revive and fix what went wrong with these

> proposals?

> >

> > +1

> >

> > Thanks for directing the discussion towards the policies we have on the

> table.

> >

>

>

> Hello,

>

> Let me start with my recollection of the facts around the 2 proposals I

> mentioned earlier from Afrinic-31 meeting minutes:

> https://afrinic.net/ast/afrinic31-ppm-minutes-en.pdf

>

> 1- "Abuse contact”

>

> [......]

> An overview of reactions from delegates and Remote Participants:

>

> Some delegates supported the policy

>

> Some delegates did not support the policy

>

> A question was asked as to whether AFRINIC staff evaluated the workload

> for the proposal ?

> As per Madhvi, this will be done and communicated at a later stage. If a

> lot of emails are sent, then it is a lot of work.

>

> Co-Chairs Decision: Back to Mailing list for further discussion

>

> —

>

> 2- "AS0 ROA "

>

> [.....]

> An overview of reactions from delegates and Remote Participants:

>

> The proposal has no issues as written however there are technical

> realities that must be taken into

> consideration, we should not forget that up to now, some of the Bogon,

> where you get on the Bogon

> sometimes it is difficult to be removed. Or you may have some delays, when

> the certificate expire or

> the ROA revoked, the bogon list caches across the globe may take time to

> update as they are all

> not in sync in real time

>

> This could have been a global policy instead of going region by region.

> The Authors should probably

> coordinate with the authors of the similar policy in the APNIC region and

> people at NRO. Global

> policies requires action from PTI/IANA.

>

> What is the validity period or window to determine that the prefix is

> useful to the one it was assigned

> to before AFRINIC takes it back to the free space?

>

> We are not talking about withdrawing the IP space but rather withdraw the

> ROA.

>

> Comparing it with some of the existing policies on the ground, like the

> review policy, are you looking

> at this to be a substitute? Because you can easily use this to audit,

> right? Are you using this policy

> as an alternative to the one that is currently under proposal? Because if

> it is passed, you can use

> it for auditing.

>

> The policy should be fine-tuned towards AFRINIC and avoid cut and paste.

>

> A similar policy is accepted and adopted in APNIC and in a few weeks it

> will be adopted by RIPE

> and so on, and authors have trust that the AFRINIC staff can build it.

>

> A clarification made that in RPKI, ROA’s are not withdrawn, you have to

> revoke ROA’s. This

> process needs to be well thought of.

>

> The policy proposal covers only space allocated and assigned by AFRINIC,

> it does not cover legacy

> space.

>

> Co-Chairs Decision: Rough Consensus

>

>

> After an extended last call period , Cochairs concluded:

> https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2020/010391.html

> [.......]

>

> “We have also critically examined the response(s) from the authors and we

> still believe that this proposal requires more discussion on a number of

> the issue raised hence we are not yet recommending it for ratification. *

>

> We also understand that the community has a diverse voice on this

> proposal. However, Co-chairs want to emphasise the fact that we are human

> beings. If anyone finds some error in our decisions you are welcome to

> appeal it in line with the CPM.

> —-

>

> Reflections and way forward

>

> What were the objections raised by the delegates who did not support the

> “abuse contact” proposal?

>

> What are the open issues?

>

> There has been silence and no discussions since Luanda., while further

> discussions are expected.

>

> As for “AS0 ROA” proposal, the arbitration of the appeal committee, also

> desired by the co-chairs in their final decision did not occur.

>

> While some do think a new appeal can still be filed, no open issues list

> has been presented and no discussions on  this proposal as well since the

> last call.

>

> If we do nothing, I dread a ‘bis repetita’ at the next PPM.

>

> HTH,

>

> —Alain

>

>

>

>

> >

> > _______________________________________________

> > 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

>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20200623/7dd2d5cc/attachment.html>