<div dir='auto'><div><span style="font-family: sans-serif;">Hi,</span><div dir="auto" style="font-family: sans-serif;"><br></div><div dir="auto" style="font-family: sans-serif;">The debate over this policy has continued to loop over and over without an end</div><div dir="auto" style="font-family: sans-serif;"><br></div><div dir="auto" style="font-family: sans-serif;">My question is, what is really significant about this review policy ?</div><div dir="auto" style="font-family: sans-serif;"><br></div><div dir="auto" style="font-family: sans-serif;">I do not consider the problems of the review proposal to be a problem because it seems not to assure or gauranty a better solution to how resources are used...approach is zero.</div><div dir="auto" style="font-family: sans-serif;"><br></div><div dir="auto" style="font-family: sans-serif;"> On the other hand, this policy does not consider or protect the interest of the end-users because this review according to the proposal states that if an ISP is found to have violated the rules, resources will be taken back .</div><div dir="auto" style="font-family: sans-serif;"> </div><div dir="auto" style="font-family: sans-serif;">This same review proposal consists of series of grammatical and paragraphing error, terms are not well defined or used appropriate.</div><div dir="auto" style="font-family: sans-serif;"><br></div><div dir="auto" style="font-family: sans-serif;">I feel every thing is fine we should just work towards deploying the trend and not worrying about a matter that is really not an issue.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On May 12, 2019 7:03 PM, rpd-request@afrinic.net wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><p dir="ltr">Send RPD mailing list submissions to
<br>
rpd@afrinic.net
<br>
<br>
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
<br>
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
<br>
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
<br>
rpd-request@afrinic.net
<br>
<br>
You can reach the person managing the list at
<br>
rpd-owner@afrinic.net
<br>
<br>
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
<br>
than "Re: Contents of RPD digest..." </p><p dir="ltr"><br></p><p dir="ltr"><br></p><p dir="ltr">Today's Topics:
<br>
<br>
1. Re: RPD : Prolicy proposal "Internet Number Resources review
<br>
by AFRINIC" informations update (Owen DeLong)
<br>
2. Re: RPD : Prolicy proposal "Internet Number Resources review
<br>
by AFRINIC" informations update (Daniel Yakmut)
<br>
<br>
<br>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
<br>
<br>
Message: 1
<br>
Date: Sun, 12 May 2019 10:10:16 -0700
<br>
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
<br>
To: "Marcus K. G. Adomey" <madomey@hotmail.com>
<br>
Cc: Melvin Cheng <melvinc0730@gmail.com>, "rpd@afrinic.net"
<br>
<rpd@afrinic.net>
<br>
Subject: Re: [rpd] RPD : Prolicy proposal "Internet Number Resources
<br>
review by AFRINIC" informations update
<br>
Message-ID: <FDFAF2F5-2273-4EE6-987E-DC43D2BE8C95@delong.com>
<br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
> On May 12, 2019, at 08:37 , Marcus K. G. Adomey <madomey@hotmail.com> wrote:
<br>
>
<br>
> Hi Melvin
<br>
>
<br>
>
<br>
> I can see you suddenly have interests for the review policy proposal. Please review RPD and PPMs archives as it is not productive to replay old discussions.
<br>
>
<br>
>
<br>
> Please could you provide answers to the following questions
<br>
>
<br>
>
<br>
>
<br>
>
<br>
> > This policy has a lot of problems.
<br>
>
<br>
>
<br>
>
<br>
>
<br>
> It is not constructive in a working group to just say policy has a lot of problems without listing the problems you see. Please list all the problems and propose texts to address them?
<br>
>
<br>
>
<br>
It is not legitimate to insist that those who feel your proposal is flawed must provide text to address those problems. However, let me propose text which would solve all of the problems with this policy so that it cannot be said that I did not do so?
<br>
<br>
Please replace the entire proposal with the what is between the BEGIN and END tags below. That will solve all of the problems:
<br>
<br>
?? BEGIN ??
<br>
?? END ??
<br>
<br>
I think you must agree that this text is very succinct and does not create any new policy problems like the current proposal.
<br>
<br>
While it may not solve all of the problems you intend with your current problem statement, I believe it does, in fact, solve all of the material defects of this proposal and offers a vastly superior policy alternative. (In other words: current policy is a vastly superior policy alternative to the current proposal).
<br>
<br>
> > The other is the potential of end-users being disconnected due to the review. I think we have to bear in mind that, end-users have no clue about the review.
<br>
>
<br>
>
<br>
>
<br>
>
<br>
> Please show which part of policy proposal requires disconnecting end users? The numbers are requested and allocated to serve end-users and I don't see how review will lead to disconnecting these users.
<br>
>
<br>
Marcus, are you truly so divorced from reality that you do not understand that if you successfully and effectively revoke the resources of an ISP that by definition, you have disconnected the customers of said ISP that were using those resources?
<br>
<br>
If not, then I can only assume that you believe that any such revocation will be without actual effect on the internet. If you truly believe that, then you believe that it is OK to render the AfriNIC registration process meaningless compared to operational practice and you wish to create a separation between the two. I realize that currently the two are joined only through the voluntary cooperation of ISPs, but I think it is irresponsible at best to attempt to end that cooperation.
<br>
<br>
Owen
<br>
<br>
>
<br>
>
<br>
>
<br>
> Thanks
<br>
>
<br>
>
<br>
> From: Melvin Cheng <melvinc0730@gmail.com>
<br>
> Sent: Saturday, May 11, 2019 9:15 AM
<br>
> To: rpd@afrinic.net
<br>
> Subject: [rpd] RPD : Prolicy proposal "Internet Number Resources review by AFRINIC" informations update
<br>
>
<br>
> Hi
<br>
>
<br>
> The debate over this policy has been for ages. I really think that if an issue has been discussed over and over again, there must be something fundamentally wrong about it. It?s quite obvious that this proposal draws way more controversy than the others - its own existence in a way seems to be a source of extreme disputes among the community, as we have seen in Tunisia. I was in fact there myself.
<br>
>
<br>
> This policy has a lot of problems. Intrinsically, as a policy itself, it is not well defined. A lot of terms remain unclear. For example, as Owen has also pointed out earlier, the term ?annual meaningful report? is an ambiguous term. What is a ?meaningful? report? To whom? What are the factors? How is ?meaningful? defined? 100 people can have 100 definitions of ?meaningful?. If the report is deemed as something crucial to this proposal, then the author shall better define and address it. Honestly speaking, although this proposal has been ?re-proposed? over and over, I do not see any improvements in it. More precisely, I barely see any changes made in the new proposal when comparing to the previous one. I would expect the authors to make some adjustments when so many issues have not been addressed in previous meetings before they posted them again, even just as gesture of their sincerity. You can?t just post something that?s almost identical by pretending your audience were blind.
<br>
>
<br>
> On the other hand, this policy is not realistic at all. Afrinic does not have the financial power to conduct such a big quantity of reviews within its regions. It?s quiet easy to imagine that because of this lack of financial backup, reviews are done unfairly and unjustly. For example, some users are screened while the others are not because Afrinic runs out of money during the process of review. This may, at the worst, can lead to Afrinic?s bankruptcy, which I am sure none of us would wish that to happen.
<br>
>
<br>
> The other is the potential of end-users being disconnected due to the review. I think we have to bear in mind that, end-users have no clue about the review. However, according to this proposal, if an ISP is found to have violated the rule (ie, inefficient utilisation of resources), their IPs will be taken back by Afrinic and re-allocate to others. End-user will lost connectivity to the Internet during this process even they have no idea what is going on. This is unfair to them. After all, connectivity to the Internet shall come as the priority over any other things. What this policy will bring is quiet the opposite.
<br>
>
<br>
> Having said so much, I think my stand is quite clear. This proposal is not well drafted and the authors haven?t well considered its potential problems. It?s impractical when considering Afrinic?s current situation.
<br>
>
<br>
> Let?s not forget about this. if something has been doubted by people over and over again, there must be something wrong about it.
<br>
>
<br>
> Cheers
<br>
> Melvin
<br>
> _______________________________________________
<br>
> RPD mailing list
<br>
> RPD@afrinic.net
<br>
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
<br>
<br>
-------------- next part --------------
<br>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
<br>
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20190512/a6588a90/attachment-0001.html>
<br>
<br>
------------------------------
<br>
<br>
Message: 2
<br>
Date: Sun, 12 May 2019 18:56:21 +0100
<br>
From: Daniel Yakmut <yakmutd@googlemail.com>
<br>
To: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
<br>
Cc: Melvin Cheng <melvinc0730@gmail.com>, "rpd >> AfriNIC Resource
<br>
Policy" <rpd@afrinic.net>
<br>
Subject: Re: [rpd] RPD : Prolicy proposal "Internet Number Resources
<br>
review by AFRINIC" informations update
<br>
Message-ID:
<br>
<CAB3X6mdZEGG_hhivXaub4m+=ASvf_sG_+qwJmykYBo8FWn5cfw@mail.gmail.com>
<br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
<br>
<br>
Owen,
<br>
<br>
Indeed you gave the point blank solution to what I personally have been
<br>
advocating.
<br>
<br>
Cheers
<br>
Daniel
<br>
<br>
On Sun, May 12, 2019, 6:14 PM Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
<br>
<br>
>
<br>
>
<br>
> On May 12, 2019, at 08:37 , Marcus K. G. Adomey <madomey@hotmail.com>
<br>
> wrote:
<br>
>
<br>
> Hi Melvin
<br>
>
<br>
> *I can see you suddenly have interests for the review policy proposal.
<br>
> Please review RPD and PPMs archives as it is not productive to replay
<br>
> old discussions.*
<br>
>
<br>
> *Please could you provide answers to the following questions *
<br>
>
<br>
>
<br>
>
<br>
> > This policy has a lot of problems.
<br>
>
<br>
>
<br>
>
<br>
> *It is not constructive in a working group to just say policy has a lot of
<br>
> problems without listing the problems you see. Please list all the problems
<br>
> and propose texts to address them?*
<br>
>
<br>
> It is not legitimate to insist that those who feel your proposal is flawed
<br>
> must provide text to address those problems. However, let me propose text
<br>
> which would solve all of the problems with this policy so that it cannot be
<br>
> said that I did not do so?
<br>
>
<br>
> Please replace the entire proposal with the what is between the BEGIN and
<br>
> END tags below. That will solve all of the problems:
<br>
>
<br>
> ?? BEGIN ??
<br>
> ?? END ??
<br>
>
<br>
> I think you must agree that this text is very succinct and does not create
<br>
> any new policy problems like the current proposal.
<br>
>
<br>
> While it may not solve all of the problems you intend with your current
<br>
> problem statement, I believe it does, in fact, solve all of the material
<br>
> defects of this proposal and offers a vastly superior policy alternative.
<br>
> (In other words: current policy is a vastly superior policy alternative to
<br>
> the current proposal).
<br>
>
<br>
> > The other is the potential of end-users being disconnected due to the
<br>
> review. I think we have to bear in mind that, end-users have no clue about
<br>
> the review.
<br>
>
<br>
>
<br>
>
<br>
> *Please show which part of policy proposal requires disconnecting end
<br>
> users? The numbers are requested and allocated to serve end-users and I
<br>
> don't see how review will lead to disconnecting these users.*
<br>
>
<br>
> Marcus, are you truly so divorced from reality that you do not understand
<br>
> that if you successfully and effectively revoke the resources of an ISP
<br>
> that by definition, you have disconnected the customers of said ISP that
<br>
> were using those resources?
<br>
>
<br>
> If not, then I can only assume that you believe that any such revocation
<br>
> will be without actual effect on the internet. If you truly believe that,
<br>
> then you believe that it is OK to render the AfriNIC registration process
<br>
> meaningless compared to operational practice and you wish to create a
<br>
> separation between the two. I realize that currently the two are joined
<br>
> only through the voluntary cooperation of ISPs, but I think it is
<br>
> irresponsible at best to attempt to end that cooperation.
<br>
>
<br>
> Owen
<br>
>
<br>
>
<br>
>
<br>
>
<br>
> Thanks
<br>
>
<br>
> ------------------------------
<br>
> *From:* Melvin Cheng <melvinc0730@gmail.com>
<br>
> *Sent:* Saturday, May 11, 2019 9:15 AM
<br>
> *To:* rpd@afrinic.net
<br>
> *Subject:* [rpd] RPD : Prolicy proposal "Internet Number Resources review
<br>
> by AFRINIC" informations update
<br>
>
<br>
> Hi
<br>
>
<br>
> The debate over this policy has been for ages. I really think that if an
<br>
> issue has been discussed over and over again, there must be something
<br>
> fundamentally wrong about it. It?s quite obvious that this proposal draws
<br>
> way more controversy than the others - its own existence in a way seems to
<br>
> be a source of extreme disputes among the community, as we have seen in
<br>
> Tunisia. I was in fact there myself.
<br>
>
<br>
> This policy has a lot of problems. Intrinsically, as a policy itself, it
<br>
> is not well defined. A lot of terms remain unclear. For example, as Owen
<br>
> has also pointed out earlier, the term ?annual meaningful report? is an
<br>
> ambiguous term. What is a ?meaningful? report? To whom? What are the
<br>
> factors? How is ?meaningful? defined? 100 people can have 100 definitions
<br>
> of ?meaningful?. If the report is deemed as something crucial to this
<br>
> proposal, then the author shall better define and address it. Honestly
<br>
> speaking, although this proposal has been ?re-proposed? over and over, I do
<br>
> not see any improvements in it. More precisely, I barely see any changes
<br>
> made in the new proposal when comparing to the previous one. I would expect
<br>
> the authors to make some adjustments when so many issues have not been
<br>
> addressed in previous meetings before they posted them again, even just as
<br>
> gesture of their sincerity. You can?t just post something that?s almost
<br>
> identical by pretending your audience were blind.
<br>
>
<br>
> On the other hand, this policy is not realistic at all. Afrinic does not
<br>
> have the financial power to conduct such a big quantity of reviews within
<br>
> its regions. It?s quiet easy to imagine that because of this lack of
<br>
> financial backup, reviews are done unfairly and unjustly. For example, some
<br>
> users are screened while the others are not because Afrinic runs out of
<br>
> money during the process of review. This may, at the worst, can lead to
<br>
> Afrinic?s bankruptcy, which I am sure none of us would wish that to happen.
<br>
>
<br>
> The other is the potential of end-users being disconnected due to the
<br>
> review. I think we have to bear in mind that, end-users have no clue about
<br>
> the review. However, according to this proposal, if an ISP is found to have
<br>
> violated the rule (ie, inefficient utilisation of resources), their IPs
<br>
> will be taken back by Afrinic and re-allocate to others. End-user will lost
<br>
> connectivity to the Internet during this process even they have no idea
<br>
> what is going on. This is unfair to them. After all, connectivity to the
<br>
> Internet shall come as the priority over any other things. What this policy
<br>
> will bring is quiet the opposite.
<br>
>
<br>
> Having said so much, I think my stand is quite clear. This proposal is not
<br>
> well drafted and the authors haven?t well considered its potential
<br>
> problems. It?s impractical when considering Afrinic?s current situation.
<br>
>
<br>
> Let?s not forget about this. if something has been doubted by people over
<br>
> and over again, there must be something wrong about it.
<br>
>
<br>
> Cheers
<br>
> Melvin
<br>
> _______________________________________________
<br>
> RPD mailing list
<br>
> RPD@afrinic.net
<br>
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
<br>
>
<br>
>
<br>
> _______________________________________________
<br>
> RPD mailing list
<br>
> RPD@afrinic.net
<br>
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
<br>
>
<br>
-------------- next part --------------
<br>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
<br>
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20190512/87b0162c/attachment.html>
<br>
<br>
------------------------------
<br>
<br>
Subject: Digest Footer
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________
<br>
RPD mailing list
<br>
RPD@afrinic.net
<br>
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
<br>
<br>
<br>
------------------------------
<br>
<br>
End of RPD Digest, Vol 152, Issue 10
<br>
************************************
<br>
</p>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div></div>