<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 5/12/19 11:37 AM, Marcus K. G.
Adomey wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:DB7PR06MB4842ACC4BB1A495760B204BEB90E0@DB7PR06MB4842.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
<style type="text/css" style="display:none;"> P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;} </style>
<hr style="display:inline-block;width:98%" tabindex="-1">
<div id="divRplyFwdMsg" dir="ltr"><font style="font-size:11pt"
face="Calibri, sans-serif" color="#000000"><b>From:</b> Melvin
Cheng <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:melvinc0730@gmail.com"><melvinc0730@gmail.com></a><br>
<b>Sent:</b> Saturday, May 11, 2019 9:15 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net">rpd@afrinic.net</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [rpd] RPD : Prolicy proposal "Internet Number
Resources review by AFRINIC" informations update</font>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div dir="auto">
<div dir="auto">Hi</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">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. </div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>I think it is possible for a proposal to be completely sound, and
still not achieve consensus. Sincere people can have different
opinions about how best to serve the community, and that is
healthy for the community. <br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p> <br>
</p>
<p>I have reread the proposed policy. 13.4(C) says:</p>
<p><span style="color: rgb(255, 102, 0); font-family: Roboto,
sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal;
font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-caps: normal;
font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2;
text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none;
white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;
-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255,
255); text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-color:
initial; display: inline !important; float: none;">C) Any
Internet Number Resources recovered under this policy may be
assigned/allocated under existing Allocation and Assignment
Policies.</span></p>
<p><span style="color: rgb(255, 102, 0); font-family: Roboto,
sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal;
font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-caps: normal;
font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2;
text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none;
white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;
-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255,
255); text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-color:
initial; display: inline !important; float: none;"><br>
</span></p>
<p>As I understand the existing policies, in the next few months we
will enter Exhaustion Phase 2, where only a single /12 remains for
allocation (with another /12 reserved for something). If addresses
are recovered under this proposal, could it bring us back to Phase
1, or would we still be in Phase 2? I'm not sure that can be
addressed in this proposal; it may need a different proposal.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Also, I think the proposal intends that "Breach of AFRINIC
policies" would include not having 50% utilization within twelve
months of allocation. It is unclear to me from the text of the
proposal whether all addresses would be reclaimed, or only the
non-compliant allocation, or only the portion that is
non-compliant. For example, if I have a total of a /19, and my
latest allocation was a /22, and I've only assigned one /24 from
the latest allocation, would AFRINIC reclaim three /24s, the /22,
or the /19?</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>A clarification on which resources would be reclaimed would
address Melvin's concern about end users being disconnected. I
suggest:</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>"<span style="color: rgb(255, 102, 0); font-family: Roboto,
sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal;
font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-caps: normal;
font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2;
text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none;
white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;
-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255,
255); text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-color:
initial; display: inline !important; float: none;">AFRNIC shall
initiate the resource recovery process on the portion of
addresses found to be noncompliant."<br>
</span></p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>The wording in 13.3.3(B) says I won't be audited again for 24
months if I have the same resources (portfolio). But if I get
another /22, I might get another complete audit? Would it be
reasonable to ask that the audited resources can't be audited
again, but new ones can? Either that, or that an organization that
has been audited can't be audited for 24 months. I think random
audit should be included (that is, the 24 month window does not
currently cover 13.3.2 (random audit)).<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>I'm not certain whether I would support or oppose this proposal.
I support clarity.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Lee</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
</body>
</html>