[rpd] Policy Proposal: in-region vs out-of-region use of resources, and restrictions thereon

[Mike Silber]

Hi Owen

I understand you are in defensive mode here (or maybe you are being paid by line of text). I do appreciate that you (at least) have been honest in your engagement and have behaved with integrity through this process (whether i agree with you or not) unlike the astroturf armies being deployed to parrot nonsense.

However I don’t understand your attack on the suggestion. Jaco is doing exactly what you have been calling for on the list for weeks (months): a policy solution for what is seen by some (many) as a problem. He is avoiding the weaponised (weaponisable) audit policy that many of us disagreed with and which did not reach consensus. He is avoiding staff intervention that could be capricious and that has caused the current fracas with your employer.

Further responses in-line.

Regards

Mike



> On 29 Jul 2021, at 03:16, Owen DeLong via RPD <rpd at afrinic.net> wrote:

> 



> 

> It’s equally clear that section 3.4 is a broad-brush set of goals for how the organization should conduct itself, not a binding limitation on the members of the organization.

> 


I don’t see how this is relevant. Jaco is describing a problem statement.


> 

> Yes. Cloud innovation is domiciled in the Seychelles and has operations in other parts of Africa as well as in countries outside of Africa.

> 

Again - this is not an attack on your employer. Can we move on and consider the bigger picture please?


>> It is also implied here that the resources are for use within the African continent. 

> 

> Implied how?

> 

> The statement is that the member must provide services in the region. It says nothing about what percentage of services provided by the member must be in region.


And the question being asked is whether this should change? I for one think that a change would give a lot more certainty and avoid the possibility of capricious action.

> 

>> Over the last while it's become apparent that many people are extremely unhappy about the fact that Afrinic resources are being used off-continent.  Based on the above I think it's a fair assumption/expectation (as well as appropriate) that at least the majority of issued resources should be used in-region (In particular IPv4 resources).

> 

> If you believe that, then there should be policy to that effect placed in the CPM through the PDP.


This is exactly what Jaco is suggesting. I am not sure why you are being deliberately obtuse?

However, before one submits a policy proposal, one is welcome to come to the mailing list to seek input and feedback for what will (hopefully) become a first draft.

> 

>> I believe it to be appropriate at this time to state this as policy in the CPM, and thereby to make the general sentiment I've seen plain as day.  This should then apply to all issued resources retrospectively as well.  Not only newly issued resources (which is currently already dealt with from the soft landing policy).

> 

> The only way to achieve that is to create a proposal, fill out a proposal template, submit it and convince the community to come to consensus around the proposal.

> 

> Anything else is an end run on the community driven bottom up consensus process which must be followed for policy to remain valid.


See above. I am not sure why you are being deliberately obtuse?

> 

>> 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

> 

> Percentages are dangerous here. The 50% mark has precedent in LACNIC, but frankly, it has also stymied international development of organizations in the LACNIC region.

> 

I am not sure I accept your conclusion?

Are you suggesting that LACNIC is somehow “missing out” because your client’s business model does not work there?

AFAIK, the folks in-region seem to think it is working just fine ….


> Doesn’t this also become further moot if the Resource Transfer Policy which achieved consensus is (as some claim is mandatory) becomes ratified by the board?

> 

It may be, or maybe not. However does make your client’s intentions crystal clear regarding the African continent. 


> Even in my opinion, while the Board Prerogative proposed policy has valid grounds for rejection by the board (it is a bylaw matter and out of scope for the PDP as it seeks to control the powers of the board), the Resource Transfer Policy is 100% in scope and the PDP was followed in its reaching consensus. As such, it is hard to imagine the board having any valid basis to refuse to ratify it.

> 

Off topic.


>> 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?

> 

> You’re also going to need to find a way to carefully define “use in region”. If an ISP in the region is terminating a circuit between said ISP and a customer out of region, is the utilization of the IP Addresses by that customer considered in-region usage or out-of-region usage?

> What if the ISP in region is terminating a circuit with a customer out of region, but that customer has a backbone that includes sites in-region?

> 

Valid comments. Thanks for raising the challenges.


> The vast number of corner cases and the difficulty of addressing them is the reason that this kind of policy utterly fell flat the last time it was proposed many years ago. Suggest you review that record.

> 

My recall is slightly different as to why the previous attempt failed. That was before we had the astroturf armies deployed to limit discussion in the PDP - so you may be correct.

No harm trying again …. certainly more productive than the current waste of time and space on this list.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20210729/8dba288c/attachment-0001.html>