<html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0cm;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0cm;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style>
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">So,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Let me raise another major concern with this policy.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">On at least one occasion – AFRINIC has revoked member space for not being used in the matter for which it was applied for.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Now – that sets precedent – one of the criteria for audit is – what was the space applied for.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Firstly – There is space that applied for to be used on dialup networks in years past – and by the letter of the MSA and the current standing allocation policy, using that space for anything else – would invalidate the space. While because
sanity has prevailed in the past – this hasn’t been strictly enforced – this policy opens the door to a massive problem here – because dial up networks etc – don’t exist anymore – people have moved to FTTH and other technologies – and suddenly now face an
audit policy that could potentially strip them of their space.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">This also then leads to another issue – the issue of equitable application of policy. A policy has to be uniformly applied – and currently the policy allows for the audit to be done using the reason for application as a criterion for audit.
That implies that the reason for every application is documented and can be used. However, it is a _<i>fact</i>_ that a *<b>LARGE</b>* amount of this documentation is missing due to a corruption issue that occurred. I tell the community this not because
I gained this knowledge as a board member – in fact I can explicitly state that this came to my attention *<b>AFTER</b>* I left the board – when I requested copies of all documentation pertaining to every application ever made by Liquid and its sub-companies
– and discovered that AfriNIC could not provide it, because the attachments associated with most of those applications were corrupted – and those attachments speak to the nature of use of the space.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I have since had confirmation from AFRINIC that indeed – a large amount of application documentation that was in attachments is corrupt and gone – therefore – AFRINIC may be able to audit against application reason for recent applications
– however – they cannot audit against applications that preceed the date when that data corruption happened – and as such the policy cannot be uniformly applied in its current form.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Unless the policy is modified to explicitly state the IP usage reason is excluded from audit criterion – anything any risks the policy being applied in a non-uniform manner that is prejudicial to a segment of the members.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">This alone is reason that this policy in its current form – cannot – and should not – pass.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Andrew<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black">From: </span></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black">Dabu Sifiso <dabu.sifiso@yandex.com><br>
<b>Date: </b>Friday, 30 November 2018 at 20:25<br>
<b>To: </b>"rpd@afrinic.net" <rpd@afrinic.net><br>
<b>Subject: </b>Re: [rpd] Opposing the last call made on the review policy<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Has AFRINIC ever revoked resources as a consequence of a targeted audit at the moment?<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Why were the resources being audited, what was the initial grounds to start the review?<br>
How much resources did it recover?<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On what grounds did they recover the space, what were the violations?<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Does anyone have any link to the session where this was discussed now?<br>
I read all the opposition emails, but I didn't see the session where the chairs declared consensus and no emails were sent by them yet to announce last call.<br>
I would like to make my own mind on what happened in the room.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">30.11.2018, 09:58, "Eucharia Maryann" <eucharianene@gmail.com>:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">In my honest opinion I don't think that it is wise to consider a policy that will do us more harm than good, the review policy will put the end users and their business at risk and the end users are those we are suppose to protect their
interest but now we are creating policy that will endanger their lives and business this is because the end users are not aware of the punishment and the troubles they will get into if an ISP violates the law or if an ISP is found wanting. Therefore, I am
suggesting that we withdraw the last call that was made on that policy so that we will not end up creating problem instead of solving problem.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal">, <o:p></o:p></p>
<p>_______________________________________________<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">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
</body>
</html>