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

[rpd] Policy Compliance Dashboard Policy Proposal: Impact Assessment & Summary of Objections

Fri Nov 12 16:06:41 UTC 2021

Hi Chairs, all,


There was a mistake in the web site in the publication of this version. The authors wrote in the original word document:

“Contractual non-compliance, such as unauthorized transfers, lack of payment or document fraud, once confirmed, will be cause of the revocation of the services and member closure, following the RSA”,  but the web site was saying “will be because”. This should be corrected, even if there is a new version, as it is not consistent which what the authors have submitted.


In version 2, the staff suggested “will cause”, and the authors agree with that. This is the only change we agreed because we believe that the impact assessment is wrong.


This is the response that we provided to the staff (sorry the typos, it looks like I made a lot of errors when typing that text, but here I’m reproducing exactly the email to the staff on 4th November):


Now, I’m reading the legal assesment, and there is a big problem in how your legal department is understanding the mandate provided to AFRINIC by the ICP-2 and the PDP.


If we follow what the legal assesment is indicating, then *every* policy proposal may fail to be ratified, as all them may be perceived as “taking over” the AFRINIC job. If this was the case, NONE of the other RIRs could have also adopted many policy proposals! It is absolutely ridiculous.


The community has the *right* on TOP of AFRINIC to regulate the usage of the resources. If under the Mauritius law this is perceived as an encroachment, then the problem is that the bylaws are very very very poorly writen and that need to be fixed, or the community shall call for a different entity than AFRINIC to take over this job. Note that I’m not in favour of that, but this can easily be the result if one after other policy proposal is not ratified by this wrong perception.


The PDP is able to manage the internal procedures of AFRINIC the same as in other RIRs. I agree that micromanagment is not always good, but the limit is fuzzy in what it is and what not micro-management, and the community has the right to draw that limit.


The proposal is not amending the RSA, but setting some details of how the RSA should be implemented. As such the community can perfectly define that there is an “allowance” of failures (everybody can make a mistake), and this is set by the 3 violations in 12 months. Note that the previous version didn’t mention timing as it was trying to find a balance to avoid micro-management and only setting the “flow” of the process. The staff suggested that we need to fix timing, and now the legal assesment complains about that. So how come?


I will prefer not having timing and giving the freedom to the staff, but you asked for that! In other RIRs the timing was not required.


At the same time the community has the *right* to decide if a single breach which can be resolved when notified, can be considered an RSA breach or we want to set several, and this is not against the RSA. Note that aspects such as frauds on documents, etc., aren’t subjected to this timing.


The proposal is not, in any case, restricting AFRINIC to start an investigation *at any time* as indicated by the legal assesment (b), is only saying that even if the investigation is started before, and notified to the resource member, it shall respect the timing and providing suficient oportunities to resolve it, before starting a revocation.


(d) is also incorrect, because the timing provided is not contradicting the RSA, neither fixing the timing based on the RSA renewal time, but on the first lack of complaince of a member and the 12 months after that.


So unless you have a concrete *proposed text* to find an agreement to ensure that the proposal is not according to Mauritius laws considered an encroachment (which I don’t think it is the case), we can’t, at this point, modify the proposal.


As a consecuence, not having concrete proposed text to avoid the legal staff worries, I don’t think we need a new version for correcting the web site publication error, and shall be corrected in the web site and IA, right?



This is clearly responding to all the points that you raised as “concerns”, which clearly are invalid, because the legal assessment is invading the powers of the community on top of the organization.


Once more I shall remember that the staff assessment is only suggestions (which usually are very good, but very unfortunate in this case) and indications of the impact, but they can *never* be considered as objections to a proposal.








El 4/11/21 16:53, "PDWG Chair" <vincent at> escribió:


Dear PDWG,


We are pleased to announce that:-

a.    The impact assessment of the policy proposal Policy Compliance Dashboard, ID AFPUB-2021-GEN-003-DRAFT01 has been published at 



d.    The summary of the concerns/objections on this proposal until 3 Nov 2021 is as follows:-

We request the authors  to consider the pending concerns/objections and that an update of their proposal can be submitted until 10 November 2021 at 23h59 


We encourage the PDWG to discuss the merits of the proposal by keeping this discussion thread using the following guidelines :-

a.    Do you agree with the problem statement and proposal as written?

b.    Have you encountered an issue similar to the problem statement in the proposal?

c.    Do you have any objections to the proposal as written. If yes, please state the sections and document your objections.

d.    Are there any areas in the proposal that are ambiguous? If yes, please provide the changes you would like to propose.



Vincent Ngundi & Darwin Da Costa


_______________________________________________ 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.

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

More information about the RPD mailing list