<div dir="ltr"><div>Hi Mark,</div><div><br></div>"Number resources are public/community good" thus anyone must seek its good usage! A good and honest reading of the url you pointed indicated a completely different understanding.<br><div><br></div><div>--abel</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">2016-11-16 15:40 GMT+00:00 Mark Elkins <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mje@posix.co.za" target="_blank">mje@posix.co.za</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">What was the motive for this policy?<br>
<br>
+------------------------<br>
| stockpiling and non-efficient use<br>
+------------------------<br>
<br>
What did it go out to fix in the first place?<br>
<br>
A thought in the back of my head is this would be used to mainly audit<br>
people with lots of space?<br>
<br>
+-----------------------------<wbr>---<br>
| 3.3 Classes of review: Members to be reviewed shall be selected<br>
| according to the following classes:<br>
|<br>
| 3.3.1 Random: The member is chosen by AFRINIC at random between<br>
| members of the following categories:<br>
|<br>
| Medium and above<br>
| IPv6-only Large<br>
| EU-AS<br>
+-----------------------------<wbr>---<br>
<br>
So we ignore smallish LIR's<br>
but not smallish EU's<br>
I think less than medium EU's should also be ignored.<br>
Do we really need to include IPv6 today?<br>
<br>
<br>
+-----------------------------<wbr>---<br>
<span class="">| 3.3.2 Selected:<br>
|<br>
| A member is selected because of an internal report or due to a lack<br>
| of contact between the AFRINIC and the member.<br>
|<br>
</span><span class="">| 3.3.3 Reported: Here, members are reviewed either because:<br>
|<br>
</span><span class="">| They have requested the review themselves or<br>
</span><span class="">| There has been a community complaint made against them<br>
| that warrants investigation.<br>
</span>+-----------------------------<wbr>--<br>
<br>
If people report "out of business" businesses with IP Resources, no problem.<br>
<br>
However, it appears that anyone (including a non-member) can call for a<br>
review of a large member. Still sounds like an excuse for a witch hunt.<br>
This needs to be much better worded control.<br>
<br>
1 - Only Members (preferably in "Good Standing") can file a report.<br>
<br>
2 - They can only do so if they are within 50% of the size (in contested<br>
address space) of the Member they are calling out. Perhaps a "Group<br>
Action" can be established to achieve this requirement.<br>
<br>
3 - They can expect to be audited themselves - especially if the<br>
requested audit comes out clean.<br>
<br>
4 - On the other hand, the AFRINIC Board can always call for an Audit (I<br>
trust them).<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Anyway, where do I find the complete current Draft? I've been looking at:-<br>
<br>
<a href="http://afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposals/1827-internet-number-resources-review-by-afrinic" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://afrinic.net/en/<wbr>community/policy-development/<wbr>policy-proposals/1827-<wbr>internet-number-resources-<wbr>review-by-afrinic</a><br>
<div><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
<br>
On 16/11/2016 12:43, Andrew Alston wrote:<br>
> So,<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> I have a hypothetical question – and it will become a lot less<br>
> hypothetical once I’ve run the numbers which I’m currently doing.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> Let’s say we implement this audit policy – and then – because we have to<br>
> act consistently – we act against every member who is not announcing<br>
> space because they cannot justify not announcing it – and we terminate<br>
> their membership.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> Are the authors of this policy and those supporting it prepared to bear<br>
> the cost of the fee increases that would be necessary to back fill the<br>
> loss in revenue that would effectively bankrupt AfriNIC? Running<br>
> through the preliminary statistics – firstly the auditing process would<br>
> be immensely expensive in HR cost – secondly – termination of members<br>
> that aren’t “legitimately” announcing space by rough calculations could<br>
> cost AfriNIC in excess of 15% of its revenue by the latest numbers<br>
> available in the financial reports and correlating the unannounced space<br>
> that is allocated with the billing file.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> Now, some would argue that is all the more reason to implement the audit<br>
> policy – but here is a wake up call – the space you would recover in<br>
> that call on those calculations – amounts to less than 10% of space that<br>
> AfriNIC has allocated legitimately since May – so effectively, for the<br>
> gain of looking tough and being rigid, we may end up bankrupting the<br>
> organisation while recovering potentially a /15 worth of space.<br>
> Alternatively, from any logical business perspective – that money would<br>
> have to be recovered from the members who are legitimately announcing<br>
> space – because it certainly can’t just disappear.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> So, has anyone ACTUALLY thought through the implications of this<br>
> policy? I remain firmly opposed.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> Andrew<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
</div></div>> *From:*Dewole Ajao [mailto:<a href="mailto:dewole@forum.org.ng">dewole@forum.org.ng</a>]<br>
> *Sent:* 16 November 2016 12:52<br>
> *To:* sergekbk <<a href="mailto:sergekbk@gmail.com">sergekbk@gmail.com</a>>; Arnaud AMELINA<br>
<span class="">> <<a href="mailto:amelnaud@gmail.com">amelnaud@gmail.com</a>>; rpd >> AfriNIC Resource Policy <<a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net">rpd@afrinic.net</a>>;<br>
> General Discussions of AFRINIC <<a href="mailto:community-discuss@afrinic.net">community-discuss@afrinic.net</a><wbr>><br>
</span>> *Subject:* Re: [Community-Discuss] Update to Resources review policy<br>
<span class="">> proposal<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> I think all policies (if we really intend to implement them) must be<br>
> clear and leave no room for variable interpretation as ambiguity will<br>
> put additional burdens of interpretation on staff.<br>
><br>
> If the community's preference is for the 24-month window to become<br>
> invalid on allocation/assignment of new resources, then the policy<br>
> (proposal) should state it clearly; If on the other hand, the intention<br>
> is for the 24-month window to stay in place come-what-may, it's better<br>
> for the policy (proposal) to be explicit about it.<br>
><br>
> Please see below, additional questions for the community to consider.<br>
> Hopefully, they can be discussed and the authors can (if they so<br>
> choose,) take the inputs from the community into their modified proposal.<br>
><br>
> 3.3.2 Selected:<br>
><br>
><br>
> A member is selected because of an internal report or due to a lack of<br>
> contact between the AFRINIC and the member.<br>
><br>
> Q1. Do we presently have an existing (effective) structure (apart from<br>
> billing) that measures degree of contact with members?<br>
> If there is no agreed means of measuring the degree contact, we need to<br>
> define degrees of contact so that "lack of contact" (as referred to in<br>
> the proposal) can be measured objectively.<br>
><br>
</span>> /Perhaps as a first step for ensuring regular contact without using up<br>
<span class="">> too many resources, this proposal might want to borrow a leaf from<br>
> RIPE's Assisted Registry Check (ARC). See<br>
</span>> <a href="https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/resource-management/assisted-registry-check/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.ripe.net/manage-<wbr>ips-and-asns/resource-<wbr>management/assisted-registry-<wbr>check/</a><br>
><br>
> /Basically, the RIR does a consistency check on members' Registry,<br>
<span class="">> Resource, and Route/rDNS information and then sends emails to the<br>
> contacts on file showing their view. They then schedule a telephone call<br>
</span>> to work with the member and fix any identified issues. /<br>
><br>
> /My understanding from RIPE is that these non-invasive checks sometimes<br>
<span class="">> reveal issues that may warrant more detailed investigation. The primary<br>
> model is by random checks but done in a manner that checks every member<br>
> at least once in 3 years (given the size of RIPE). They also have ARCs<br>
> that are initiated as a result of information received from the member<br>
</span>> or third parties. /<br>
<span class="">><br>
> Q2. Can reachability/cooperation of a member for such a consistency<br>
> check-and-fix activity as described above be used to measure the degree<br>
> of contact?<br>
><br>
> Q3. Given the fact that time taken for consistency checks are more<br>
> predictable, can these be implemented as a preliminary step in<br>
> addressing the "lack of investigation" problem as well as the concern<br>
> about taking up much of members' and/or AFRINIC hostmasters' time?<br>
><br>
> Regards,<br>
> Dewole.<br>
> (with apologies for continuing the cross-posting between RPD and<br>
> Community-discuss)<br>
><br>
> On 15/11/2016 20:18, sergekbk wrote:<br>
><br>
> Hello Dewole,<br>
><br>
><br>
> Thanks for this comment.<br>
> The limit of 24 months applies to a member based on ressources<br>
> portfolio. If the portfolio changes with new allocation, member<br>
> can be audited anytime on the new ressources if required.<br>
><br>
> Is this clear enough or shall we make it explicit ?<br>
><br>
> Kind Regards.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
</span>> */Serge Ilunga/*<br>
><br>
> */Cell: <a href="tel:%2B243814443160" value="+243814443160">+243814443160</a>/*<br>
><br>
> */Skype: sergekbk/*<br>
><br>
> */R.D.Congo/*<br>
><br>
> -------- Original message --------<br>
><br>
> From: Dewole Ajao <<a href="mailto:dewole@tinitop.com">dewole@tinitop.com</a>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:dewole@tinitop.com">dewole@tinitop.com</a>><br>
<span class="">><br>
> Date: 11/15/2016 11:38 (GMT+01:00)<br>
><br>
</span>> To: Arnaud AMELINA <<a href="mailto:amelnaud@gmail.com">amelnaud@gmail.com</a>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:amelnaud@gmail.com">amelnaud@gmail.com</a>>,<br>
<span class="">> "rpd >> AfriNIC Resource Policy" <<a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net">rpd@afrinic.net</a>><br>
</span>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net">rpd@afrinic.net</a>>, General Discussions of AFRINIC<br>
> <<a href="mailto:community-discuss@afrinic.net">community-discuss@afrinic.net</a><wbr>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:community-discuss@afrinic.net">community-discuss@<wbr>afrinic.net</a>><br>
<div><div class="h5">><br>
> Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Update to Resources review policy<br>
> proposal<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> Thanks for working to apply the community's input to your proposal,<br>
> Arnaud.<br>
><br>
> To test the proposed re-wording, consider the following sequence of<br>
> events:<br>
><br>
> Member XYZ initiates self-requested review;<br>
> Review is completed by AFRINIC in X weeks;<br>
> After review, Member XYZ applies for "large chunk" of number resources;<br>
> Member XYZ receives "large chunk" of number resources in say 60 days;<br>
> Member XYZ happens to make some unacceptable use of (previous or<br>
> new) number resources and it somehow becomes known to the community;<br>
> Regardless of convincing evidence, Member XYZ cannot be subjected to<br>
> a review until 24 months have elapsed since the last review.<br>
><br>
> Is this a design feature or a bug?<br>
><br>
> Regards,<br>
><br>
> Dewole.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> On 15/11/2016 10:48, Arnaud AMELINA wrote:<br>
><br>
> Hi community !<br>
> Following, recent discussions and in accordance with text<br>
> proposal from Owen and others contributors, authors propose this<br>
> as replacement to the section 3.3.3<br>
><br>
> -'---old version---''<br>
><br>
> 3.3.3 Reported: Here, members are reviewed either because:<br>
><br>
> a. They have requested the review themselves or<br>
> b. There has been a community complaint made against them that<br>
> warrants investigation.<br>
><br>
> ----new version-----<br>
><br>
> 3.3.3 Reported: Here, members are reviewed either because:<br>
><br>
> a..They have requested the review themselves or<br>
> b. There has been a community complaint made against them that<br>
> warrants investigation. Complaints shall be backed by evidence<br>
> and AFRINIC staff shall evaluate the facts as appropriate to<br>
> conduct the review. However this review is not applicable to a<br>
> member on which a full review has been completed in the<br>
> preceding 24 months.<br>
><br>
> Regards.<br>
><br>
> Arnaud.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> ______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
><br>
> Community-Discuss mailing list<br>
><br>
</div></div>> <a href="mailto:Community-Discuss@afrinic.net">Community-Discuss@afrinic.net</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:Community-Discuss@afrinic.net">Community-Discuss@<wbr>afrinic.net</a>><br>
><br>
> <a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/<wbr>mailman/listinfo/community-<wbr>discuss</a><br>
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> ______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
> RPD mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net">RPD@afrinic.net</a><br>
> <a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/<wbr>mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><br>
><br>
<br>
</div></div><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">--<br>
Mark James ELKINS - Posix Systems - (South) Africa<br>
<a href="mailto:mje@posix.co.za">mje@posix.co.za</a> Tel: <a href="tel:%2B27.128070590" value="+27128070590">+27.128070590</a> Cell: <a href="tel:%2B27.826010496" value="+27826010496">+27.826010496</a><br>
For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: <a href="https://ftth.posix.co.za" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://ftth.posix.co.za</a><br>
<br>
</font></span><br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
RPD mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net">RPD@afrinic.net</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/<wbr>mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div><font color="#073763" face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif">--Abel</font></div><div><span style="font-family:'comic sans ms',sans-serif"><br><br></span></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>
</div>