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

[rpd] [PDWG-Appeal] REPORT ON Appeal against the non-consensus determination on proposal AFPUB-2019-GEN-006-DRAFT02 (RPKI R

Fernando Frediani fhfrediani at
Tue Mar 9 23:06:22 UTC 2021

Unfortunatelly, you keep confusing things and making certain assumptions
that aren't correct.
First ARIN is an exotic scenario different from everything else. Thing
that apply there (thankfully) don't apply to any other RIR.

Expedited process in LACNIC does NOT mean the same thing we are
discussing here. Expedited process in LACNIC means shorter times for
discussion, Chairs reviews, ratification by the Board to then be
presented in a Public Forum afterwards (the last one is what makes it to
be more expedited). Also and more importantly all this is fully covered
by the PDP which has been previously approved by the community and
ratified by the Board. Nowhere in the LACNIC PDP mentions anything
related to the possibility that Board can adopt policies by itself
without any input of the community, exactly as it is expected by ICP-2 a
base condition for any RIR to start exist as a RIR to always have the
involvement of all stakeholders.

It does not matter that bylaws give the Board authority to implement
emergency policies. That is a void thing. Bylaws do not govern the PDP
and will never. If someone one day had the idea to put that in the
bylaws of any RIR that person probably didn't know what he was doing as
that cannot exist in practice. If a Board would dare to assume they can
do that by themselves they would put the RIR in big trouble against not
only its own regional community but also international community that
would seriously dispute that action.

I fail to understand why you seem to defend this prerogative is valid
just because they are written in the bylaws. Have already discussed that
bylaws govern the organization for legal effects only. Policy
Development and Internet business in general concerns much broader
audience is something that is much beyond the bylaws of an organization.


On 09/03/2021 19:46, Owen DeLong wrote:

> It has already happened more than once within the ARIN region and in

> both cases, the boards emergency action was subsequently ratified by

> the AC based on positive feedback from the community.


> I have not found examples of use of this emergency authority in other

> RIRs, though I believe the expedited community process has been used

> in LACNIC at least once.


> APNIC put this slide deck out in 2013:

> Policy Development Processes in the APNIC › assets

> › apnic-policy-process-ga4

> <>


> Search for Emergency and you will find a slide that clearly states

> that the bylaws in APNIC give the board authority to implement

> emergency policies. In fact, the bylaws grant the APNIC

> EC even broader powers than that, Part V, section 30 paragraph “e”:


> e. to consider broad Internet policy issues in order to ensure

> that APNIC’s policies and strategies fully respond to the

> constantly changing Internet environment;



> RIPE appears to have no emergency process.

> LACNIC has an expedited policy process, but it is community driven.


> We’ve already covered the details of the AFRINIC Bylaws and what is

> specified there in previous posts.


>> On Mar 8, 2021, at 6:32 PM, Fernando Frediani <fhfrediani at

>> <mailto:fhfrediani at>> wrote:


>> Hi Owen


>> I believe your understanding is very wrong regarding RIR prerogatives

>> regarding PDP, but I will not continue this discussion as we are

>> starting to go in circles.


> I’m aware of this. I’ve presented documents, bylaws, and other

> information which shows my understanding to be correct. You continue

> to deny these facts, yet you’ve offered nothing concrete to support

> your position.


>> I just hope no Board on any RIR ever commit the mistake to believe

>> they can make policies by themselves just because they believe this

>> is their right to do for "some emergency or noble reason" and "for

>> the good of community".


> I think that the likelihood of a board going rogue in an RIR is

> relatively low, but even if that does happen, there are safeguards in

> place to limit how rogue they can go. In all cases, the membership can

> eventually replace a rogue board through the election process. Most of

> the emergency policy authorities of the board(s) have limits and/or

> requirements for subsequent review and usually ratification by the

> community of their actions. The community generally has the power to

> reverse any such policy through the applicable PDP.


> Owen



>> Fernando


>> On 08/03/2021 17:14, Owen DeLong wrote:


>>>> On Mar 3, 2021, at 18:15 , Fernando Frediani <fhfrediani at

>>>> <mailto:fhfrediani at>> wrote:


>>>> Owen, I believe you are confusing things here. Perhaps you are

>>>> applying some ARIN specific scenario you may know better to all

>>>> other RIRs which is incorrect.

>>> Please stop making assumptions about me. You are not correct.


>>>> AfriNic exist as any other institution and have a bylaws that

>>>> govern the organization for legal and financial proposals within a

>>>> country. But to be and operate as a RIR it must have some

>>>> recognition from different stakeholders as for example community,

>>>> other internet organizations and ICANN which requires certain

>>>> standards of operation and which are much beyond what the bylaws do

>>>> for the organization.

>>> Actually, ICANN does not have the authority to sanction new RIRs.

>>> The IANA is involved in that process.


>>> As I understand it, the empowered community through the NRO controls

>>> the awarding of the IANA functions contract which is currently

>>> awarded to ICANN and subcontracted too PTI. (I’m still not 100%

>>> clear on the relationship between ICANN and PTI).


>>>> Different from what you said that PDWG is NOT a concession that the

>>>> Board give to the community. If it was like that and Board by its

>>>> own could make up Internet policies by its own, the organization

>>>> would certainly not be recognized as a RIR, but just a normal

>>>> organization and those policies would be useless.

>>> I did not say that the PDWG is a concession given to the community

>>> to the board. I stated that in terms of corporate governance and

>>> operation, any authority that the PDWG has is granted to it by the

>>> board and/or the bylaws of the organization.


>>> This is technically true of every RIR, whether you like it or not.

>>> It’s also true that in order to become accredited through ICP-2,

>>> something like the PDWG must be a structural component of the

>>> organization at the time sanction is granted by the NRO and IANA.


>>>> It the Board of any RIR would ever call that prerogative to

>>>> themselves alone the organization would still exist legally but it

>>>> would lack community, other internet organizations and mainly ICANN

>>>> (IANA/PRI whatever you may like to call) recognition as a RIR which

>>>> MUST operate under certain standards which some of them are guided

>>>> by ICP2 and which different from what you believe is the guide

>>>> document not only to be used one-off to form a new RIR by for a RIR

>>>> to remain recognized as such and operate within those principles.

>>> That’s not entirely clear. I do agree that there is some power of

>>> ISPs to disregard the RIR system or a particular RIR and develop

>>> some other basis for registering unique numeric identifiers.

>>> However, I think that in reality, any such event occurring in any

>>> cohesive way would be nearly impossible in the most collegial of

>>> situations, let alone the current environment.


>>>> Or do you really thing that if any Board would retain the

>>>> prerogative to make policies only by themselves the community,

>>>> ICANN and even many of its members would still keep recognizing it

>>>> as a RIR ?

>>> Every RIR board has the prerogative to make policies by themselves

>>> (with the possible exception of RIPE-NCC, I have not reviewed their

>>> bylaws). It is rarely used, but every RIR has an emergency policy

>>> process where the board can enact a policy change. Each of those

>>> processes also has a procedure for subsequent review, input,

>>> comment, and/or revision/repeal by the community, but given that

>>> there is a limit to the speed with which the community can act and

>>> the boards have no such limitation, a board that wanted to act in

>>> bad faith could easily abuse this authority.


>>>> Therefore CPM is not and cannot be governed by any RIR bylaws and

>>>> why Board cannot adopt policies unless that permission is given by

>>>> the community after due process.

>>> The CPM is absolutely governed by the bylaws and the board can

>>> absolutely do so. The CPM is a corporate operational document of the

>>> organization, whether you like it or not. Sure, the community could

>>> create some other structure with a fork of the CPM or even a brand

>>> new version and call that new structure authoritative for number

>>> resource registrations in the region. However, getting that new

>>> structure accepted by consensus of the community, let alone

>>> sanctioned under ICP-2 would be a pretty hard uphill battle.


>>> Owen


>>>> Fernando


>>>> On 03/03/2021 17:33, Owen DeLong wrote:

>>>>> Fernando,


>>>>> You are living in a fantasy world if you believe this. The bylaws

>>>>> are effectively the constitution

>>>>> of the organization and are the primary document by which the

>>>>> organization is governed. The

>>>>> Community does not have standing to control or override them, nor

>>>>> to change them. The

>>>>> Membership may change the bylaws by resolution at a members

>>>>> meeting. The community

>>>>> cannot.


>>>>> The community receives what powers it has by grant from the bylaws

>>>>> and/or the board. This is

>>>>> the way that the corporate governance structure of AFRINIC is set

>>>>> up and as near as I can tell,

>>>>> that’s true across the board of all of the RIRs with the possible

>>>>> exception of RIPE-NCC (though

>>>>> I believe it’s actually true there as well, technically).


>>>>> To the best of my knowledge, this structure is required for legal

>>>>> compliance in virtually ever

>>>>> Jurisdiction and it is not (to the best of my knowledge) legally

>>>>> possible to create a structure

>>>>> where an unaccountable community holds the fiduciary control of an

>>>>> organization (which

>>>>> is what you are essentially claiming here).


>>>>> Owen





>>>>>> On Mar 3, 2021, at 5:50 AM, Fernando Frediani

>>>>>> <fhfrediani at <mailto:fhfrediani at>> wrote:


>>>>>> Owen, the Board does not have the power to modify the CPM even on

>>>>>> a emergency basis. This applies on ARIN where you may be more

>>>>>> used with but not here in AfriNic as the community didn't gave

>>>>>> that prerogative to them and it does not matter they are the

>>>>>> responsible for the RIR. CPM is not something regulated by the

>>>>>> bylaws.


>>>>>> Fernando


>>>>>> On 03/03/2021 04:09, Owen DeLong via RPD wrote:

>>>>>>> Could the AFRINIC Board please explain this? The AC should not

>>>>>>> be under a gag order or prvented

>>>>>>> from continuing its processing of the appeals on its docket

>>>>>>> (which are in progress as specified in the

>>>>>>> ToR).


>>>>>>> Also, under the existing rules, it is my opinion that the AC

>>>>>>> should either reject this request to reconsider

>>>>>>> or accept it in a timely manner. In the event they accept it,

>>>>>>> then this is an appeal that remains in progress

>>>>>>> and is no longer complete and they should proceed with it

>>>>>>> despite the resignations as specified in the

>>>>>>> ToR.


>>>>>>> We really must start following the rules we have established and

>>>>>>> not having the board and others

>>>>>>> making up random new rules as they see fit.


>>>>>>> If you don’t like the rules or feel that the rules do not fit

>>>>>>> the situation, then there are defined processes

>>>>>>> by which they can be modified. Those processes have rules and

>>>>>>> exist to protect the rights of the

>>>>>>> community as well as the board. The board has full power to

>>>>>>> modify the ToR or the CPM on an

>>>>>>> emergency basis if needed, so there really is no excuse for not

>>>>>>> doing this properly.




>>>>>>> Owen





>>>>>>>> On Mar 2, 2021, at 1:21 AM, paulos at

>>>>>>>> <mailto:paulos at> wrote:


>>>>>>>> Diren,


>>>>>>>> Please note that the Appeal Committee has been gagged by the

>>>>>>>> Afrinic Board Chair and

>>>>>>>> hence is currently unable to handle such requests.


>>>>>>>> Regards,


>>>>>>>> Paulos

>>>>>>>> ========================

>>>>>>>> Dr Paulos Nyirenda


>>>>>>>> ------- Forwarded message follows -------

>>>>>>>> Date sent:Mon, 01 Mar 2021 15:13:39 +0100

>>>>>>>> From:diren at <mailto:diren at>

>>>>>>>> To:pdwg-appeal at

>>>>>>>> Subject:Re: [PDWG-Appeal] [rpd] REPORT ON Appeal against the

>>>>>>>> non-consensus

>>>>>>>> determination on proposal AFPUB-2019-GEN-006-DRAFT02 (RPKI ROAs for

>>>>>>>> Unallocated and Unassigned AFRINIC Address Space



>>>>>>>> Good day! As you asked, I´ve collected to you several necessary

>>>>>>>> docs and

>>>>>>>> attached them to the email. If you really will want to find

>>>>>>>> some info,

>>>>>>>> you know, whom to ask.



>>>>>>>> On 2021-02-07 20:48,  wrote:

>>>>>>>>> Could the Appeal Committee respond to this, and reconsider the

>>>>>>>>> work

>>>>>>>>> they are doing, as I just explained in my previous email,

>>>>>>>>> taking the

>>>>>>>>> inputs of the Recall Committee?


>>>>>>>>> Regards,


>>>>>>>>> Jordi


>>>>>>>>> @jordipalet


>>>>>>>>> El 26/1/21 12:14, "JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD" <rpd at>

>>>>>>>>> escribi:


>>>>>>>>> In case the Appeal Committee is not subscribed to the RPD list.


>>>>>>>>> Waiting for your response.


>>>>>>>>> Regards,


>>>>>>>>> Jordi


>>>>>>>>> @jordipalet


>>>>>>>>> El 26/1/21 11:50, "JORDI PALET MARTINEZ"

>>>>>>>>> <jordi.palet at> escribi:


>>>>>>>>> Hi Wafa, all,


>>>>>>>>> First of all, dont take anything that I say personally, but in

>>>>>>>>> general I see a total failure of the Appeal Committee and lack of

>>>>>>>>> compliance with the PDP.


>>>>>>>>> Your judgment must be on the grounds of a correct decision of the

>>>>>>>>> chairs.


>>>>>>>>> In taking such decision the Appeal Committee must be based on

>>>>>>>>> facts,

>>>>>>>>> never on personal opinions (from the community or the chairs

>>>>>>>>> or the

>>>>>>>>> Appeal Committee itself). Being based on objective facts means

>>>>>>>>> checking if what the policy proposal said, what were the

>>>>>>>>> objections,

>>>>>>>>> and if those objections *are real*, not just illusions or lack of

>>>>>>>>> knowledge or untrue or personal preferences.


>>>>>>>>> If the Appeal Committee doesnt have the right knowledge, as I

>>>>>>>>> already said I believe was the reason the chairs took the wrong

>>>>>>>>> decision, then they should ask for help to the staff or third

>>>>>>>>> parties.


>>>>>>>>> Any objection to a policy proposal must be duly justified and that

>>>>>>>>> justification not addressed by the authors or other community

>>>>>>>>> members.


>>>>>>>>> Any policy proposal that has objections, the objections MUST BE

>>>>>>>>> VALID, even if the objections come from 99% of the community. This

>>>>>>>>> is not democracy, is not number of votes or voices, is based on

>>>>>>>>> non-addressed objections. It is not based on untrue

>>>>>>>>> objections. None

>>>>>>>>> of the objections to this policy proposal were valid. They are

>>>>>>>>> mostly based on lack of sufficient knowledge, and never lack of

>>>>>>>>> knowledge can be a VALID reason. Again, not only the authors, but

>>>>>>>>> many other expert community members have confirmed that those

>>>>>>>>> objections are invalid.


>>>>>>>>> A policy proposal never can be based in I dont like it. You need

>>>>>>>>> to state I dont like it because it breaks this RFC (for example).

>>>>>>>>> And even in that cases authors can respond showing why the

>>>>>>>>> perception of breaking this RFC is wrong (so addressing the

>>>>>>>>> objection will nullify it). Policies are not based on personal

>>>>>>>>> preferences, but in what is the best *technically correct choice*

>>>>>>>>> for the community.


>>>>>>>>> Last but not least, the Appeal Committee seems to be working as a

>>>>>>>>> democratic body, which is wrong. ALL THE PDP is based in consensus

>>>>>>>>> approach. The Appeal Committee must also follow that approach,

>>>>>>>>> otherwise, it is breaking the ICP-2, which is the higher

>>>>>>>>> mandate of

>>>>>>>>> how the policy making process works. If 3 members of the Appeal

>>>>>>>>> Committee believe that the opposition was correct, they should

>>>>>>>>> *demonstrate with facts why* and this must be done using the

>>>>>>>>> responses provided by the authors and community to those

>>>>>>>>> objections.


>>>>>>>>> If 3 members of the Appeal Committee believe that any of the

>>>>>>>>> objections has not been addressed, they need to *demonstrate why*,

>>>>>>>>> taking in consideration the community and author responses, and

>>>>>>>>> those must be crystal clear in the report, which is not the case.


>>>>>>>>> The Appeal Committee must respond to the authors, in a consensus

>>>>>>>>> based approach, not a democratic one to all what the authors

>>>>>>>>> confirmed in the Appeal Document.


>>>>>>>>> Note also that there is a paragraph in the Appeal Report that

>>>>>>>>> completely kills the PDP and demonstrates that the Appeal

>>>>>>>>> Committee



>>>>>>>>> The 3 members who observed significant opposition to the policy,

>>>>>>>>> however, also observed that it is the PDWG that builds

>>>>>>>>> consensus and

>>>>>>>>> decides whether issues of opposition are addressed to the

>>>>>>>>> satisfaction of the PDWG which is where the PDP requires that

>>>>>>>>> consensus is assessed by the Co-Chairs.


>>>>>>>>> The PDP states clearly that the Appeal Committee need to

>>>>>>>>> review the

>>>>>>>>> chairs decision. If the chairs have considered as VALID objections

>>>>>>>>> that OBJECTIVELY ARE INVALID, it is clear that the Appeal

>>>>>>>>> Committee

>>>>>>>>> must declare the lack of consensus declaration is invalid, and

>>>>>>>>> consequently, the proposal reached consensus.


>>>>>>>>> Lets go the details and I ask the Appeal Committee to respond to

>>>>>>>>> each of the objections included and refuted in the Appeal

>>>>>>>>> Document:


>>>>>>>>> 2.1.   a. Allowing resource holders to create AS0/ ROA will

>>>>>>>>> lead to

>>>>>>>>> an increase of even more invalid prefixes in the routing table


>>>>>>>>> Following RFC6483, section 4 (A ROA with a subject of AS 0 (AS 0

>>>>>>>>> ROA) is an attestation by the holder of a prefix that the prefix

>>>>>>>>> described in the ROA, and any more specific prefix, should not be

>>>>>>>>> used in a routing context) resource holders, as part of the RPKI

>>>>>>>>> system already can and actually do this (example IXPs), in

>>>>>>>>> fact they

>>>>>>>>> do. This has been explained several times, including my

>>>>>>>>> presentation

>>>>>>>>> at the PPM. The proposal is just adding light about actual facts

>>>>>>>>> regarding this aspect, not changing anything, so it cant be a

>>>>>>>>> valid

>>>>>>>>> objection for the policy proposal.


>>>>>>>>> 2.2.   b. Revocation time of AS0 state, and the time for new

>>>>>>>>> allocation doesnt match


>>>>>>>>> This is not true, again a misunderstanding about how RPKI

>>>>>>>>> works. The

>>>>>>>>> authors and other several community experts have discussed this in

>>>>>>>>> the list. If you get number resources from AFRINIC, normally you

>>>>>>>>> dont announce them in minutes, or hours, or even days. There is

>>>>>>>>> some work to do in your network, you need to do changes in systems

>>>>>>>>> and routers, and this takes hours, and normally you cant touch

>>>>>>>>> systems during the day, but only in maintenance windows in the

>>>>>>>>> night. That means that if AFRINIC revokes an AS0 certificate, it

>>>>>>>>> will be done in a few minutes during the day. So even if the

>>>>>>>>> worldwide caches take hours to see that, there is no negative

>>>>>>>>> impact.


>>>>>>>>> In addition to that, this it can be improved thru

>>>>>>>>> implementation, as

>>>>>>>>> I already explained also in the list. The staff could tentatively

>>>>>>>>> release from the AS0 the resources that they plan to allocate

>>>>>>>>> once a

>>>>>>>>> week or every couple of days, etc. For example, when they are

>>>>>>>>> processing a request, and they are pending on final documentation,

>>>>>>>>> the RSA signature for new members, or the review with the

>>>>>>>>> member of

>>>>>>>>> the justified need. Many other examples can be provided about

>>>>>>>>> how to

>>>>>>>>> do it. The proposal doesnt go into any of those details, because

>>>>>>>>> the understanding is that those are too depth operational, and in

>>>>>>>>> fact the staff could decide an approach during the implementation,

>>>>>>>>> and based on experience improve it afterwards.


>>>>>>>>> The conclusion is that there is no such matching, neither

>>>>>>>>> unmatching, so this cant be taken as a valid objection for the

>>>>>>>>> proposal.


>>>>>>>>> 2.3.   c. Other RIRs dont have a similar the policy therefore, it

>>>>>>>>> can not be effective


>>>>>>>>> All the policies have different discussions in different RIRs at

>>>>>>>>> different times. This policy is already available (reached

>>>>>>>>> consensus

>>>>>>>>> and implemented) in APNIC and LACNIC (reached consensus, being

>>>>>>>>> implemented). There is work being done in ARIN and RIPE (the first

>>>>>>>>> proposal was not accepted), not yet public. So, this is untrue if

>>>>>>>>> you look at all the RIRs.


>>>>>>>>> The effectivity of a policy is not only related to how many RIRs

>>>>>>>>> implement it. In this case, any RIR having this policy is actually

>>>>>>>>> stronger than the other RIRs not having it, in terms of routing

>>>>>>>>> security. It shows the commitment of that RIR about the RPKI usage

>>>>>>>>> with all its possibilities. It facilitates the operators in the

>>>>>>>>> region and outside the region to identify in a simpler and

>>>>>>>>> automated

>>>>>>>>> way, what prefixes should not be in the routing tables and

>>>>>>>>> consequently allow them in an opt-in basis, to discard them.

>>>>>>>>> So, it

>>>>>>>>> is in the other way around, any RIR with this policy could be said

>>>>>>>>> that it is more effective (even if it is not probably the right

>>>>>>>>> wording for this topic) that the others. We should rather say that

>>>>>>>>> a RIR with this policy is offering a more secure view of their

>>>>>>>>> routing information.


>>>>>>>>> In addition to that, there are policies in AFRINIC which arent

>>>>>>>>> available in other RIRs. That, clearly, doesnt make them invalid

>>>>>>>>> (or in other words, this is an invalid objection  is good that all

>>>>>>>>> RIRs do the same, but is not always the case, or not at the same

>>>>>>>>> time), clearly this shows that this cant be taken as a valid

>>>>>>>>> objection against this policy proposal.


>>>>>>>>> 2.4.   d. This will become a uniform policy if it is not globally

>>>>>>>>> implemented, which causes additional stress


>>>>>>>>> This is almost a duplicate of the previous one. Absolutely not. We

>>>>>>>>> can add that the way we suggest the staff, and they confirmed,

>>>>>>>>> with

>>>>>>>>> an independent TAL protects, as intended by the proposal, the

>>>>>>>>> resources of the RIR implementing it, not creating any issues in

>>>>>>>>> what is done in other RIRs to any operator, so it cant be taken as

>>>>>>>>> a valid objection against this policy proposal.


>>>>>>>>> It is difficult to understand what it means additional stress in

>>>>>>>>> this context, but clearly, it will be in the other way around. As

>>>>>>>>> more RIRs implement it, less manual work in terms of filtering, is

>>>>>>>>> needed to be done by operators, if they opt to use the AS0 ROA

>>>>>>>>> service from the RIRs that have implemented it. So, it is not

>>>>>>>>> correct and thus, not a valid objection.


>>>>>>>>> If the question is about if this policy should be a Global Policy,

>>>>>>>>> the response has also been provided in the discussion. Ideally, a

>>>>>>>>> Global Policy will be only able to protect the IANA unallocated

>>>>>>>>> resources, but not the resources that IANA already allocated

>>>>>>>>> to each

>>>>>>>>> RIR. In fact, Im already working (when time permits it will be

>>>>>>>>> made

>>>>>>>>> public) in a Global Policy for that, but this is irrelevant versus

>>>>>>>>> having a policy at every RIR (or a few of them), so again,

>>>>>>>>> objectively not a valid objection.


>>>>>>>>> 2.5.   e. Validity period:   if members decide to implement it, is

>>>>>>>>> it not better to recover the space if it is kept unused for too

>>>>>>>>> long?


>>>>>>>>> This doesnt make sense, at least not as worded. This is not about

>>>>>>>>> recovering space, no relation. It is the unused space hold by

>>>>>>>>> AFRINIC, regardless of if it was never allocated/assigned,

>>>>>>>>> returned

>>>>>>>>> by members, or recovered by AFRINIC. Once more, not a valid

>>>>>>>>> objection.


>>>>>>>>> 2.6.   f. How do we revoke the ROA? How long does it take to

>>>>>>>>> revoke

>>>>>>>>> it (chain/ refreshing )?


>>>>>>>>> This looks the same as 2.2 above. It doesnt matter in practice, if

>>>>>>>>> it takes minutes or hours or even days. Community and staff

>>>>>>>>> provided

>>>>>>>>> some facts about this, just to cite a couple of them:


>>>>>>>>> [1]


>>>>>>>>> [2]


>>>>>>>>> 2.7.   g. What happens if AFRINIC accidentally issues a ROA for an

>>>>>>>>> address in error?


>>>>>>>>> What happens if AFRINIC accidentally issues a ROA without an

>>>>>>>>> address

>>>>>>>>> already allocated to members?


>>>>>>>>> Exactly the same if the existing RPKI fails, and thats why there

>>>>>>>>> are monitoring systems in place and as reported by the staff

>>>>>>>>> impact

>>>>>>>>> analysis, this proposal will ensure that the monitoring is

>>>>>>>>> improved,

>>>>>>>>> so it is actually helping on the right direction, not in the other

>>>>>>>>> way around.


>>>>>>>>> Further to that, because the systems of operators have caches,

>>>>>>>>> it is

>>>>>>>>> all depending (for the existing TAL and for the new one

>>>>>>>>> implemented

>>>>>>>>> with this proposal) on how much time it takes to AFRINIC to

>>>>>>>>> resolve

>>>>>>>>> the error and the specific configuration of the operators and if

>>>>>>>>> they actually drop invalid prefixes or they only create alerts,

>>>>>>>>> trigger some processes, etc. Note that RPKI doesnt force the

>>>>>>>>> operators to drop the prefixes even if they are using RPKI, there

>>>>>>>>> are different ways to take advantage of this.


>>>>>>>>> This proposal doesn't change that, it is provided as an opt-in

>>>>>>>>> service and consequently it is not a valid objection.


>>>>>>>>> 2.8.   h. It also might affect the neighbours and involves

>>>>>>>>> monitoring of unallocated spaces


>>>>>>>>> It is not clear if neighbours here is referring to BGP peering

>>>>>>>>> ones.


>>>>>>>>> The same monitoring that right now is done AFRINIC for

>>>>>>>>> unallocated/unassigned spaces could be improved with this

>>>>>>>>> proposal.

>>>>>>>>> AFRINIC already, today, needs to make sure that they get alerts if

>>>>>>>>> unallocated/unassigned space appears in the routing tables,

>>>>>>>>> because

>>>>>>>>> that may imply that a member may be violating the RSA, bylaws,

>>>>>>>>> policies, etc.


>>>>>>>>> Exactly the same as for operators connected to Internet with BGP.

>>>>>>>>> The proposal allows them, as an opt-in service, to improve if they

>>>>>>>>> wish, the automation of all that, and to use the service in

>>>>>>>>> the way

>>>>>>>>> they decide. The proposal is not forcing operators any specific

>>>>>>>>> usage for the service, it is entirely at their own

>>>>>>>>> decision/discretion.


>>>>>>>>> This proposal ensures that the service is improved so,

>>>>>>>>> hijacking of

>>>>>>>>> unused space is less prone to occur, thats the purpose of the

>>>>>>>>> proposal and RPKI, increase the routing security, without

>>>>>>>>> making it

>>>>>>>>> mandatory for any operator. Consequently, once more, this cant be

>>>>>>>>> considered a valid objection.


>>>>>>>>> 2.9.   i. Possibility of it being used against a member who is yet

>>>>>>>>> to pay dues


>>>>>>>>> According to AFRINIC bylaws and RSA, AFRINIC has the obligation to

>>>>>>>>> avoid members not paying to stop using the resources, so they are

>>>>>>>>> available to other members.


>>>>>>>>> It will be unfair and discriminatory to other members not

>>>>>>>>> doing so,

>>>>>>>>> and thats the reason, even if we dont have this proposal, AFRINIC

>>>>>>>>> could at any time, following the bylaws and RSA, do whatever

>>>>>>>>> actions, including legal and technical ones, to make sure that

>>>>>>>>> unallocated, or unassigned, or returned, or recovered

>>>>>>>>> resources are

>>>>>>>>> not used. As part of those actions, AFRINIC could even ask in

>>>>>>>>> courts

>>>>>>>>> to stop routing those resources, even to other operators. It is

>>>>>>>>> AFRINIC duty, practically will probably not make sense in terms of

>>>>>>>>> the cost (unless a major hijacking of AFRINIC resources occurs).

>>>>>>>>> Most probably just the cooperation among operators, without any

>>>>>>>>> legal requirement, will make that happen. So, this proposal doesnt

>>>>>>>>> change that in the sense of adding to AFRINIC any new prerogative

>>>>>>>>> because already have that right and duty regarding the responsible

>>>>>>>>> use of the resources only to the allocated/assigned parties and in

>>>>>>>>> compliance with the legal bindings.


>>>>>>>>> To further explain this, if a member decides to stop paying,

>>>>>>>>> AFRINIC, following legal bindings, will follow a procedure to

>>>>>>>>> try to

>>>>>>>>> fix it, and if it doesnt succeed, will remove whois data (which in

>>>>>>>>> turn will cause the removal of route objects that depend on them),

>>>>>>>>> RDNS (which means the address space becomes in general unusable),

>>>>>>>>> etc.


>>>>>>>>> Clearly, once more, this cant be considered a valid objection, on

>>>>>>>>> the other way around is a fundamental AFRINICs right and duty.


>>>>>>>>> I urge you to respond to each of those objections, accepted by the

>>>>>>>>> chairs to declare the lack of consensus, that the authors and

>>>>>>>>> other

>>>>>>>>> community members DEMONSTRATED with OBJECTIVE information, are

>>>>>>>>> invalid.


>>>>>>>>> Again, please, Appeal Committee members, respond OBJECTIVELY AND


>>>>>>>>> detailed demonstration of why the Appeal Committee (not individual

>>>>>>>>> members) say each of those objections has not been addressed,

>>>>>>>>> while

>>>>>>>>> the authors and community believe otherwise.


>>>>>>>>> This is what we expect from an Appeal Committee, to OBJECTIVELY

>>>>>>>>> review what the chairs objserved, when the Appeal Document clearly

>>>>>>>>> demonstrated that it is invalid and consequently the chairs took a

>>>>>>>>> wrong decision, based on personal preferences of community members

>>>>>>>>> or lack of knowledge, or other not objective or untrue facts.


>>>>>>>>> Regards,


>>>>>>>>> Jordi


>>>>>>>>> @jordipalet


>>>>>>>>> El 22/1/21 13:59, "wafa Dahmani" <wafatn7604 at> escribi:


>>>>>>>>> Dear Community,


>>>>>>>>> This is to inform you that the Report on Appeal against the

>>>>>>>>> non-consensus determination on proposal AFPUB-2019-GEN-006-DRAFT02

>>>>>>>>> (RPKI ROAs for Unallocated and Unassigned AFRINIC Address Space

>>>>>>>>> Draft 2) and the minutes have been published following the links

>>>>>>>>> below:



>>>>>>>>> df




>>>>>>>>> Best Regards


>>>>>>>>> Wafa Dahmani


>>>>>>>>> Chair of the Appeal Committee


>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ RPD mailing list

>>>>>>>>> RPD at


>>>>>>>>> **********************************************

>>>>>>>>> IPv4 is over

>>>>>>>>> Are you ready for the new Internet ?


>>>>>>>>> The IPv6 Company


>>>>>>>>> This electronic message contains information which may be

>>>>>>>>> privileged

>>>>>>>>> or confidential. The information is intended to be for the

>>>>>>>>> exclusive

>>>>>>>>> use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty

>>>>>>>>> authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the

>>>>>>>>> contents

>>>>>>>>> of this information, even if partially, including attached

>>>>>>>>> files, is

>>>>>>>>> strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If

>>>>>>>>> you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure,

>>>>>>>>> copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information,

>>>>>>>>> even if partially, including attached files, is strictly

>>>>>>>>> prohibited,

>>>>>>>>> will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the

>>>>>>>>> original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.


>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ RPD mailing list

>>>>>>>>> RPD at

>>>>>>>>> ********************************************** IPv4 is over

>>>>>>>>> Are you

>>>>>>>>> ready for the new Internet ? The

>>>>>>>>> IPv6

>>>>>>>>> Company


>>>>>>>>> This electronic message contains information which may be

>>>>>>>>> privileged

>>>>>>>>> or confidential. The information is intended to be for the

>>>>>>>>> exclusive

>>>>>>>>> use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty

>>>>>>>>> authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the

>>>>>>>>> contents

>>>>>>>>> of this information, even if partially, including attached

>>>>>>>>> files, is

>>>>>>>>> strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If

>>>>>>>>> you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure,

>>>>>>>>> copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information,

>>>>>>>>> even if partially, including attached files, is strictly

>>>>>>>>> prohibited,

>>>>>>>>> will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the

>>>>>>>>> original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.




>>>>>>>>> Links:

>>>>>>>>> ------

>>>>>>>>> [1]

>>>>>>>>> [2]

>>>>>>>> ------- End of forwarded message -------


>>>>>>>> <-><><->_______________________________________________

>>>>>>>> RPD mailing list

>>>>>>>> RPD at


>>>>>>> _______________________________________________

>>>>>>> RPD mailing list

>>>>>>> RPD at <mailto:RPD at>


>>>>>> _______________________________________________

>>>>>> RPD mailing list

>>>>>> RPD at <mailto:RPD at>



>>>> _______________________________________________

>>>> RPD mailing list

>>>> RPD at <mailto:RPD at>




>> _______________________________________________

>> RPD mailing list

>> RPD at <mailto:RPD at>



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the RPD mailing list