Search RPD Archives
[rpd] Policy Proposal: in-region vs out-of-region use of resources, and restrictions thereon
silber.mike at gmail.com
Thu Jul 29 09:30:19 UTC 2021
I fully agree with the approach of addressing the in-region issue through bottom-up, consensus driven policy (rather than “audit” policies of dubious provenance or staff driven approaches).
Of course the trolls and astroturfers will come out - just ignore them.
Responses in-line below.
> On 28 Jul 2021, at 14:41, Jaco Kroon <jaco at uls.co.za> wrote:
> Hi All,
> I request from the community opinions on the following:
> 1. If you had to assign a percentage to out-of-region use, what percentage of resources allocated from AFRINIC would be considered "fair usage" for out of region use (I'm thinking "At least 50% of issued resources should be used in-region", or then "less than 50% of resources may be used out-of-region"); and
Forward looking (as we don’t have a fixed percentage in the soft-landing policy) I would suggest “no more than 10% without reasonable justification”.
However, to address the issue you would need to have retrospective effect (which may not be permissible - I will reserve my comments), I don’t think we can require more than 50%+1
> 2. Assuming that a policy gets passed to enforce some form of in-region use - what would be an acceptable amount of time to provide members to comply (I'm thinking either 6 or 12 months, definitely no longer than 18 unless someone can justify that sensibly) with respect to existing resources?
Agreed 12 months (unless a reasonable justifications provided).
> You're welcome to differentiate between different types of resources (for example, I don't think it makes sense to have to get a separate AS number just because a company is multi-continent, so here as long as the AS is also used in-region). Space on v6 is of such a nature that I'm inclined to say "who cares".
I think this works.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the RPD