<div dir="ltr"><div>See inline ...<br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">Le dim. 12 mai 2019 à 19:58, Lee Howard <<a href="mailto:lee.howard@retevia.net">lee.howard@retevia.net</a>> a écrit :<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><br><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></div></blockquote><div>Agree. When we share same objectives and values for the RIR and the
community, agree on problem to be solved, we may disagree on how to
solve the problem... <br>We either work out a consensual approach or
just agree.. to do nothing is also fine...in all cases there should
always be a positive takeaway. <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><p>
</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;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial;display:inline;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;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial;display:inline;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></div></blockquote><div>I would suggest another proposal more appropriate to address this <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><p>
</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;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial;display:inline;float:none">AFRNIC shall
initiate the resource recovery process on the portion of
addresses found to be noncompliant."<br>
</span></p>
<p><br></p></div></blockquote><div>Any action is on allocations found to be noncomplaint as each
allocation has its own justification and must be evaluated as such.<br>Section 13.4 uses the expression “affected blocks”<br>Your text suggestion makes it clearer and we will consider it. <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><p>
</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></div></blockquote><div>The idea is to avoid the review of the same allocation in 24 months.. with focus on audit caused by reports to avoid abuse.. <br>You have a good point here too. Adding this limit to random review makes sense. <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><p>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>I'm not certain whether I would support or oppose this proposal.
I support clarity.</p>
<p><br></p></div></blockquote><div>Just stay with your support to the clarity... clarity may lead to good destination <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><p>
</p>
<p>Lee</p>
<p><br></p></div></blockquote><div>Arnaud on behalf of authors <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><p>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
RPD mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" target="_blank">RPD@afrinic.net</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><br>
</blockquote></div></div>