[rpd] Last Call - RPKI ROAs for Unallocated and Unassigned AFRINIC Address Space AFPUB-2019-GEN-006-DRAFT03.

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ]

Hi Anthony,

 

I’ve responded to all that, let me try again:

 
I’ve not ignored your request (I’ve in fact responded to all your points in this emails thru your own questions and questions from others). I said that the impact analysis already confirmed that there are NO legal implications, as they indicated “No comments”. further to that, it is up to the legal team to respond and they did, just look at the session video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBFqiz6M8fc, minute 2:15). The legal counsel (Ashok) responded.
Legal team could include a clearer sentence in the impact assessment if they have anything to say, I think it is quite clear that is not the case. Stating responsibility for liability it is a generic question NOT JUST for this policy proposal. I don’t recall if this is stated in the bylaws or the RSA, but definitively IT IS NOT specific to this or any other proposal.
If AFRINIC makes a mistake in the whois, legal implications maybe the same as if they make a mistake in the AS0. There may be even a small difference in favor of AS0 because you can decide NOT TO USE IT, it is voluntarily. However, you may be enforced to use whois for many other reasons.
Where in the PDP states that every policy must include mitigations plans? Can you show us other policies that have that? In my opinion mitigations plans for *anything* that may break in AFRINIC (or any other RIR) systems, are a very generic operational aspect, again, not JUST for this policy.
It is plain WRONG that “most” have rejected this proposal, on the other way around! This proposal has been submitted at the moment to 4 RIRs (including AFRINIC – note that not yet submitted to ARIN, it will come). In 3 of them (including AFRINIC), consensus has been declared, 1 of them already implemented (APNIC), 1 implementing (LACNIC), 1 rejected it, and I explained that many folks in the community were in favor but chairs declared no-consensus (even if one of the chairs, at least, was clearly against). The appeal process in RIPE has demonstrated that it is not fair, this is why, even if I was about to appeal this decision (even if I was not the author in RIPE), I decided to hold it until I can submit again this proposal and the appeal problem is fixed (in progress). In summary I don’t think the reasons for declaring no-consensus were justified at all: following the same reasons many other proposals that reached consensus in RIPE, could haven’t got it. However, you should note that even if is good to understand if other RIRs are doing the same, it is not a reason neither for doing it or not doing it. It just a reference. It will be good to have more agreement among the regions, yes, definitively, but sometimes it is a matter of time. Some other proposals reached consensus in RIPE (such as Inter-RIR) and not in AFRINIC, so you can use your rational in the other way around.
Other RIRs that have adopted the proposal, the same as *other proposals*, have not explicitly said anything about legal liability, because as said in my explanation above, this is a generic aspect for the complete operational model of the RIRs, not just *this proposal*.
 

 

Regards,

Jordi

@jordipalet

 

 

 

El 6/6/21 17:57, "Anthony Ubah" <ubah.tonyiyke at gmail.com> escribió:

 

Dear PDWG,

 

Regarding this policy, I didn't throw my weight on it for one reason. There is a gray area which requires clarity and may turn around to hunt service providers and resource owner in the long run. 

I directed a question to the Legal team at the hearing of this policy, multiple times, and it was inexplicably ignored by Jordi, the Co-chairs and perhaps the legal team, and I still sought clarity on it. 

 

My question remains; In a situation where, due to human or machine error AS0 is injected by AFRINIC on already assigned resources, and expectedly this result in service disconnection, thus DOS, causing an SLA breach with service end users. Who bears the final brunt for the consequences (e.g.poor QoS, fines, revenue cut, and loss of customers), Afrinic or resource owner?

 

I still insist this policy isn't ripe, because;

1. The Legal team must include this on the impact assessment, clearly stating responsibility for liability.

2. The policy must include text stating these policies and mitigation plans.

3. Since it has become a trend to follow other RIRs, why do you think most have rejected this policy so far?

4. How did the RIRs who have adopted this policy tackled this scenario legally?

 

Best Regards,

Anthony Ubah 

 

 

On Fri, Jun 4, 2021 at 11:00 AM PDWG Chair <dacostadarwin at gmail.com> wrote:

Dear PDWG, 

 

This is to announce the official start of the last call period for the following policy proposal (in line with the  provisions of the CPM):

 

RPKI ROAs for Unallocated and Unassigned AFRINIC Address Space AFPUB-2019-GEN-006-DRAFT03

URL:  https://afrinic.net/policy/proposals/2019-gen-006-d3

 

The proposal reached rough consensus at the Public Policy Meeting held 2-3 June 2021 in online format. This last call period will run for a period of two weeks as a minimum. The closing date will be communicated to the mailing list depending on the feedback received. 

 

Regards,

PDWG Co-Chairs.

 

_______________________________________________
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 



**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
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.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20210606/b81f9041/attachment-0001.html>