<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class="gmail_quote"><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" class=""><p class="">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 class=""><br class="">
</p><p class="">A clarification on which resources would be reclaimed would
address Melvin's concern about end users being disconnected. I
suggest:</p><p class=""><br class="">
</p><p class="">"<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" class="">AFRNIC shall
initiate the resource recovery process on the portion of
addresses found to be noncompliant."<br class="">
</span></p><p class=""><br class=""></p></div></blockquote><div class="">Any action is on allocations found to be noncomplaint as each
allocation has its own justification and must be evaluated as such.<br class="">Section 13.4 uses the expression “affected blocks”<br class="">Your text suggestion makes it clearer and we will consider it. <br class=""></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div>Even here you are still not entirely clear… For example, let’s issue a hypothetical /18 to an organization which expects to use 50% of it within 12 months.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>Their economy goes into the toilet and sales are 45% of expected. They end up allocating only 24% of the address space as a result.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>Which of the following would be reclaimed?</div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>a)<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Entire /18 because they failed to utilize 50% of it</div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>b)<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>52% of the /18 because they utilized 24% and should, therefore, keep 48% of it?</div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>c)<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Some other fraction of the space in question?</div><div><br class=""></div><div>Should the amount they keep (if any) be rounded up to a bit alignment or do we wish to fragment the routing table?</div><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class="gmail_quote"><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" class=""><p class="">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 class="">
</p><p class=""><br class=""></p></div></blockquote><div class="">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 class="">You have a good point here too. Adding this limit to random review makes sense. <br class=""></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div>So a large organization that grew over time is subject to potential repeated reviews against each allocation within 24 months based on targeted subsequent complaints?</div><div><br class=""></div><div>You don’t see a problem with this approach?</div><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class="gmail_quote"><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" class=""><div class="">
<br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><p class=""><br class="">
</p><p class="">I'm not certain whether I would support or oppose this proposal.
I support clarity.</p><p class=""><br class=""></p></div></blockquote><div class="">Just stay with your support to the clarity... clarity may lead to good destination <br class=""></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div>I likewise support clarity. Absent clear modifications, I oppose the proposal.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>Owen</div><div><br class=""></div></body></html>