<div dir="auto">+1</div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">Le mar. 22 sept. 2020 à 01:17, Fernando Frediani <<a href="mailto:fhfrediani@gmail.com">fhfrediani@gmail.com</a>> a écrit :<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<p>I fully agree with Gregoire comments.<br>
</p>
<p>I want to highlight perhaps the most important part: "Cochairs
appear to be deciding and injecting new issues not previously
mentioned in working group. Not following due process of hearing
authors and the hurry to decide for working group is unacceptable.
The cochairs report must rather provide an open issues list of
outstanding issues for working group to deliberate on. There had
been no attempt by cochairs to gauge consensus throughout the
meeting. "<br>
</p>
<p>I also I urge the co-chairs to reconsider all decisions made
during the last PPM and give chance to the WG to appropriately
address the open issues and come to the best conclusions for the
region. Such unilateral decisions by the co-chair are very
concerning and unprecedented.<br>
</p>
<p>Fernando<br>
</p>
<div>On 21/09/2020 13:30, Gregoire EHOUMI
via RPD wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="auto">Dear Co-chairs and WG </div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
During the AFRINIC-32 PPM which was held last week, the
proceedings and decisions made by cochairs, raised many
concerns. Below are some of them.<br>
The video of the meeting is publicly available.<br>
<br>
<br>
<b>Concern-1 objections management<br>
————</b><br>
cochairs chose some objections raised and even not-raised, did
not say why comments and explanations provided by authors and
the participants on the raised and discussed issues were
unsatisfactory. <br>
<br>
Few examples<br>
<br>
⁃ Abuse contact proposal<br>
<br>
The valid and unresolved objections according to co-chairs
decisions were:<br>
• Definition of abuse<br>
• GDPR compliance <br>
• Impact of legacy resources<br>
<br>
<br>
⁃ RPKI ROAs for Unallocated and Unassigned AFRINIC Address
Spaces <br>
<br>
The valid and unresolved objections according to cochairs were:<br>
• AS0 ROA validity<br>
• Certain fear in the community that this proposal may help
staff reclaim resources if members failed to pay membership
fees.<br>
• Lack of a certain mitigation provision APNIC has in their
policy<br>
<br>
-WG guidelines and procedures<br>
<br>
The valid and unresolved objections according to cochairs were:<br>
<br>
• the proposed appointment of cochairs by consensus will create
more problems for this community. <br>
• Cochairs should not have hands in consensus <br>
• also Board interference.<br>
<br>
⁃ Inter-RIR transfer proposals <br>
<br>
On the 3 proposals being discussed <br>
<br>
Cochairs decided that :<br>
• one is far from reaching consensus as incompatible with ARIN
as per staff.<br>
• The other 2 are closer</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
<b><br>
Concern-2 fairness in the proceeding <br>
——————————————————</b><br>
• When rendering their decisions and contrary to what was
announced, Cochairs did not question all authors of transfer
policy proposals showing bias<br>
<br>
• Staff’s demand to the WG to allow them to request official
compatibility analysis on each of the proposals from other RIRs
was denied <br>
<br>
• Authors were not even given chance to respond to the point
with ARIN <br>
<br>
<br>
<b>Concern-3 unilateral decisions by cochairs<br>
————————————————————</b><br>
• cochairs decided that Afrinic service region need an inter-RIR
transfer policy as matter as urgency and can’t wait anymore <br>
<br>
• Cochairs decided that among the 3 proposals, the one which
aims to establish an efficient and business-friendly mechanism
to allow a number of resources to be transferred from/to other
regions, should be pushed forward <br>
<br>
• Cochairs refused to consider the issues and the implementation
challenges raised by the staff impact assessment on proposal<br>
<br>
• Cochairs decided on which amendments should be made to the
selected proposal for it to move forward.<br>
<br>
1- Add 12 months delay for a source to be eligible to receive
allocation from AFRINIC<br>
<br>
2- Remove clause for legacy status after transfer <br>
<br>
3-Fix clarity on notifications to the other RIRs after the
transfer<br>
<br>
It is obvious that 1) contradicts both problem statement and
solution of the proposal preferred by cochairs.<br>
<br>
Cochairs appear to be deciding and injecting new issues not
previously mentioned in working group. Not following due process
of hearing authors and the hurry to decide for working group is
unacceptable. The cochairs report must rather provide an open
issues list of outstanding issues for working group to
deliberate on. There had been no attempt by cochairs to gauge
consensus throughout the meeting. <br>
<br>
In the view of all these violations of the PDP, I urge you to
reconsider all decisions made during the last PPM and give
chance to the WG to appropriately address the open issues and
come to the best conclusions for the region.<br>
<br>
--<br>
Gregoire Ehoumi ( on behalf of the authors of WG guidelines and
procedures and AFRINIC Number Ressources transfer proposals)</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto" style="font-size:100%;color:#000000">
<div>-------- Original message --------</div>
<div>From: ABDULKARIM OLOYEDE <a href="mailto:oloyede.aa@unilorin.edu.ng" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer"><oloyede.aa@unilorin.edu.ng></a>
</div>
<div>Date: 2020-09-20 8:06 p.m. (GMT-05:00) </div>
<div>To: rpd List <a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer"><rpd@afrinic.net></a> </div>
<div>Subject: [rpd] Decisions and summary on policy proposals
discussed during the online Policy meeting (AFRINIC 32) </div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
<div dir="ltr"><br clear="all">
<div>
<div data-smartmail="gmail_signature" dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<p style="margin:0in 0in 8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-PH">Dear PDWG
Members,</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-PH"> Please
find below a summary for
each of the proposal
discussed during the
just concluded online
policy meeting of
AFRINIC 32 </span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 8pt 0.5in;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-PH">1.<span>
</span></span><span lang="EN-PH">Simple PDP
Update </span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-PH">This policy
defines consensus. It
also
proposes that a policy
discussed at the PPM
does not need to come
back for
another PPM for the
Co-chairs to arrive at a
decision. This can help
in
streamlining the work
during the PPM and
encourages people to use
the mailing
list. </span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-PH">There were
lots of irrelevant
objections on
the mailing list such as
someone registering many
emails. We believe that
this
does not matter because
rough consensus is not
about numbers but
quality
objections.</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt 0.5in;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-PH">However,
there is strong
opposition to this
policy based on the
following: </span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt 1.25in;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-PH">a.<span>
</span></span><span lang="EN-PH">Oppose the
policy because of
the way the consensus is
reached. This proposal
proposes that the
consensus be
reached through a
balance of the mailing
list/forum and not at
the PPM. This
endangers fair consensus
and hijacks the
policymaking process.
Based on
experience, it is during
the PPM that most
community members focus
on policies.
</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt 1.25in;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-PH">b.<span>
</span></span><span lang="EN-PH">Issues
around how the chairs
should drop proposals.</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt 1.25in;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-PH">c.<span>
</span></span><span lang="EN-PH">Trust in
the mailing list: Some
strongly believe that
anonymous contribution
should be allowed while
some
believes it should not.</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt 1.25in;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-PH">d.<span>
</span></span><span lang="EN-PH">Issues
around having more than
1 PPM per year and
Online PPM because of
volunteer burnout. We
are all
volunteers and it’s a
night job for us. More
PPMs mean more time to
volunteer
and more chances for
burnouts </span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 8pt 1.25in;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-PH">e.<span>
</span></span><span lang="EN-PH">Some
members of the Community
thinks only burning or
polarizing issues should
be brought to the PPM.</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-PH">Chairs
Decision: No Consensus</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-PH"> </span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-PH"> </span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt 0.5in;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-PH">2.<span>
</span></span><span lang="EN-PH">PDP Working
Group </span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt 0.5in;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-PH">This
proposal aims at
allowing most of the
decisions including
chair elections to be
determined via
consensus. This can be
reasonable when
the community has the
same goal. However,
there were a number of
objections to
it. These are:</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt 1.25in;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-PH">a.<span>
</span></span><span lang="EN-PH">Entrusting
the WG to make their
decisions by consensus
and the appointment of
their co-chairs by
consensus do
not make sense and is
only utopic.</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt 1.25in;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-PH">b.<span>
</span></span><span lang="EN-PH">People are
not policy
proposals, and thus
choosing by consensus is
splitting hairs with the
election
process we already have.
Save the consensus for
the proposals, and the
election
for people.</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt 1.25in;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-PH">c.<span>
</span></span><span lang="EN-PH">Consensus
may even take months,
and this can’t fly when
we want to put people in
the vacant roles.</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt 1.25in;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-PH">d.<span>
</span></span><span lang="EN-PH">Co-chairs
should not have a
hand in the consensus,
but only sit back and
let the community decide
for
themselves.
Additionally, the
consensus process is not
feasible with a
deadline.</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt 1.25in;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-PH">e.<span>
</span></span><span lang="EN-PH">Focus on
polishing the current
electoral process
instead of complicating
other untested forms of
“election”.</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt 1.25in;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-PH">f.<span>
</span></span><span lang="EN-PH">The current
status quo’s
election should be the
only option in choosing
for the roles, and not
through
less transparent means.</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 8pt 1.25in;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-PH">g.<span>
</span></span><span lang="EN-PH">Board would
be interfering too
much on issues that deal
with PDP</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-PH">Chairs
Decision: No
Consensus</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-PH"> </span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 8pt 0.5in;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-PH">3.<span>
</span></span><span lang="EN-PH">Chairs
Election Process </span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-PH">This
proposal aims at
introducing an online
voting system for the
Co-Chairs election. The
following are the
opposition to
this proposal. </span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt 1.25in;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-PH">a.<span>
</span></span><span lang="EN-PH">This policy
reduces
participation. Equal
representation is
violated because the
board has
unprecedented power. </span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt 1.25in;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-PH">b.<span>
</span></span><span lang="EN-PH">There is
also not enough
information on the
logistics of the vote
(e-voting).</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt 1.25in;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-PH">c.<span>
</span></span><span lang="EN-PH">There is a
contradiction <strike>on </strike>when
the term ends during the
meeting. “The term ends
during the first PPM
corresponding to the end
of the term for which
they were appointed” is
not
clear enough, and “A
term may begin or end no
sooner than the first
day of the
PPM and no later than
the last day of the PPM
as determined by mutual
agreement
of the current Chair and
the new Chair”
contradicts each other.</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt 1.25in;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-PH">d.<span>
</span></span><span lang="EN-PH">Gender
restriction on 3.3.1.3 ,
some community members
argue it is impractical
and maybe even unfair if
we
force both chairs to
have different genders.</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 8pt 1.25in;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-PH">e.<span>
</span></span><span lang="EN-PH">Issues
around which voter's
register should be
adopted </span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-PH">Chairs
Decision: No Consensus</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-PH"> </span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 8pt 0.5in;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-PH">4.<span>
</span></span><span lang="EN-PH">Board
Prerogatives </span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-PH">This
proposal aims at
clarifying how the
board and the PDWG
works. However, there
were a few oppositions
to this proposal except
for a specific section.
</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt 1.25in;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-PH">a.<span>
</span></span><span lang="EN-PH">It seems
like a piecemeal
approach
to dealing with issues.
</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 8pt 1.25in;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-PH">b.<span>
</span></span><span lang="EN-PH">Opposition
to the section below</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif" class="MsoNormal"><i><span lang="EN-PH">“As an
exception of the
preceding
paragraph, in the
absence of elections
processes for aspects
related to the PDP
(co-chairs, appeal
committee), those
aspects will be still
handled by the board
in consultation with
the community.
However, this is also
a temporary measure
and also specific
draft policy proposals
should be introduced
for that</span></i><span lang="EN-PH">”. The
authors agreed to remove
the above section hence</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-PH">Chairs
Decision: Consensus
provided the
above section is removed
</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-PH"> </span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 8pt 0.5in;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-PH">5.<span>
</span></span><span lang="EN-PH">Policy
Compliance Dashboard</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-PH">The policy
proposal seeks to
provide a
framework or a policy
compliance dashboard be
developed by AFRINIC and
incorporated in
myAFRINIC (and future
member’s communication
platforms). It will
allow a periodic review
of the policy
compliance status of
each member. It will
also enable members to
receive
automated notifications
for any issue. Staff
will receive repeated
warnings of
lack of compliance or
severe violations
enshrined in the CPM.
However, there
are several oppositions
to this proposal, such
as:</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt 1.25in;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-PH">a.<span>
</span></span><span lang="EN-PH">This policy
seems to be redundant
of the status quo as
violations are already
checked and processed by
the human
staff.</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt 1.25in;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-PH">b.<span>
</span></span><span lang="EN-PH">There is
already an existing
system of guidelines on
keeping track of the
violations of members.</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt 1.25in;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-PH">c.<span>
</span></span><span lang="EN-PH">The policy
is not binding and
does not enforce members
actually to follow the
rules and not violate
policies.
</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt 1.25in;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-PH">d.<span>
</span></span><span lang="EN-PH">Ignorance
could be a convenient
excuse for violations
because one could claim
that they never got
notified
about their violations.</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt 1.25in;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-PH">e.<span>
</span></span><span lang="EN-PH">There is no
comprehensive
system on how the board
should take proper
actions once members
violate policies,
nor does it give
guidelines based on the
severity of the
violations.</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt 1.25in;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-PH">f.<span>
</span></span><span lang="EN-PH">This policy
takes away
resources that could be
used for more beneficial
pursuits to AFRINIC for
something existing in
the system.</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 8pt 1.25in;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-PH">g.<span>
</span></span><span lang="EN-PH">It an
administrative process,
and this should be left
to staff</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-PH">Chairs
Decision: NO rough
Consensus</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-PH"> </span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 8pt 0.5in;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-PH">6.<span>
</span></span><span lang="EN-PH">Abuse
Contact Update </span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-PH">The
proposal makes it
mandatory for AFRINIC
to include in each
resource registration, a
contact where network
abuse from
users of those resources
will be reported.
The proposal whois DB
attribute (abuse-c) to
be used to publish abuse
public contact
information. There’s
also a process to ensure
that the recipient
must receive abuse
report and that contacts
are validated by AFRINIC
regularly. However,
there some opposition to
the proposal there are:</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt 1.25in;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-PH">a.<span>
</span></span><span lang="EN-PH">Staff
analysis on how it
affects
legacy holder not
conclusive (not sure
why this should affect
legacy holders) </span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt 1.25in;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-PH">b.<span>
</span></span><span lang="EN-PH">The
proposal doesn’t state
what
will be the consequences
of one member fails to
comply. Why are we
creating the
abuse contact when there
is no consequence for
not providing the abuse
contact </span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt 1.25in;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-PH">c.<span>
</span></span><span lang="EN-PH">Abuse
contact email and issues
with GDPR concerning the
whois database</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt 1.25in;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-PH">d.<span>
</span></span><span lang="EN-PH">No proper
definition of the
term Abuse</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 8pt 1.25in;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-PH">e.<span>
</span></span><span lang="EN-PH">To force
members to reply to
their
abuse email is not in
the scope of AFRINIC.</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-PH">Chairs
Decision: No rough
consensus </span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-PH"> </span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 8pt 0.5in;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-PH">7.<span>
</span></span><span lang="EN-PH">RPKI ROAs
for Unallocated and
Unassigned AFRINIC
Address Space</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-PH">The
proposal instructs
AFRINIC to create
ROAs for all unallocated
and unassigned address
space under its control.
This
will enable networks
performing RPKI-based
BGP Origin Validation to
easily
reject all the bogon
announcements covering
resources managed by
AFRINIC.
However, there are many
oppositions such as: </span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt 1.25in;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-PH">a.<span>
</span></span><span lang="EN-PH">Allowing
resource holders to
create AS0/ ROA will
lead to an increase of
even more invalid
prefixes in the
routing table.</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt 1.25in;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-PH">b.<span>
</span></span><span lang="EN-PH">Revocation
time of AS0 state,
and the time for new
allocation doesn’t
match. </span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt 1.25in;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-PH">c.<span>
</span></span><span lang="EN-PH">Other RIRs
don’t have a similar the
policy therefore, it can
not be effective</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt 1.25in;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-PH">d.<span>
</span></span><span lang="EN-PH">This will
become a uniform
policy if it is not
globally implemented,
which causes additional
stress. </span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt 1.25in;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-PH">e.<span>
</span></span><span lang="EN-PH">Validity
period: if members
decide to implement it,
is it not
better to recover the
space if it is kept
unused for too long?</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt 1.25in;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-PH">f.<span>
</span></span><span lang="EN-PH">How do we
revoke the ROA? How long
does it take to revoke
it (chain/ refreshing )?</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt 1.25in;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-PH">g.<span>
</span></span><span lang="EN-PH">What
happens if AFRINIC
accidentally issues a
ROA for an address in
error?</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt 1.25in;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-PH">h.<span>
</span></span><span lang="EN-PH">It also
might affect the
neighbours and involves
monitoring of
unallocated spaces.</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 8pt 1.25in;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-PH">i.<span>
</span></span><span lang="EN-PH">Possibility
of it being used
against a member who is
yet to pay dues.</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-PH">Suggestions
were made to improve the
policy
such as </span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt 135pt;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-PH">a)<span>
</span></span><span lang="EN-PH">The
automatic creation of
AS0
ROAs should be limited
to space that has never
been allocated by an RIR
or part
of a legacy allocation.</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt 135pt;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-PH">b)<span>
</span></span><span lang="EN-PH">AFRINIC
should require the
explicit consent of the
previous holder to issue
AS0 ROAs in respect of
re-claimed, returned,
etc, space.</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt 135pt;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-PH">c)<span>
</span></span><span lang="EN-PH">Any ROAs
issued under this policy
should be issued and
published in a way that
makes it operationally
easy
for a relying party to
ignore them (probably by
issuing under a separate
TA).</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 8pt 135pt;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-PH">d)<span>
</span></span><span lang="EN-PH">The
proposal should include
the
clause “as used in APNIC
as to dues not paid on
time.”</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-PH">Chairs
Decision: No consensus</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-PH"> </span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 8pt 0.5in;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-PH">8.<span>
</span></span><span lang="EN-PH">IPv4
Inter-RIR Resource
Transfers (Comprehensive
Scope)</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-PH">The
proposal puts in place a
mechanism to
transfer IPv4 and (some
ASN) resources between
AFRINIC and other RIRs
and between
AFRINIC
members/entities. Some
conditions are attached
to the source and
recipient
based on need and
disclosure made. The
inter-RIR transfers will
be suspended if
the number of outgoing
IPv4 addresses exceeds
the incoming ones for
six consecutive
months. However, there
are oppositions to it</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt 1.25in;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-PH">a.<span>
</span></span><span lang="EN-PH">ASN
Transfer is not
necessary</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt 1.25in;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-PH">b.<span>
</span></span><span lang="EN-PH">Issue of
board inferring: no
board in all of the five
RIRs have ever been
involved in deciding a
transfer or
allocating IP address.
It is not the board's
responsibility.</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 8pt 1.25in;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-PH">c.<span>
</span></span><span lang="EN-PH">Suspending
clause with no
reinstalling clause.
This mainly makes the
policy potentially
invalid. </span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-PH">Chairs
Decision: No consensus.</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-PH"> </span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt 0.5in;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-PH">9.<span>
</span></span><span lang="EN-PH">AFRINIC
Number Resource
Transfer</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt 1.25in;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-PH">a.<span>
</span></span><span lang="EN-PH">Not
realistic for one-way
inter
RIR resource transfer as
it has to be reciprocal.
One way would never
happen as
only global resources
can come in and go out </span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt 1.25in;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-PH">b.<span>
</span></span><span lang="EN-PH">It would be
difficult for the
recipient
to follow the rules of
AFRINIC if they are not
in the African region.</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt 1.25in;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-PH">c.<span>
</span></span><span lang="EN-PH">No need for
ASN transfer. If
one is moving regions
and doesn't have an ASN
in the new region, it
can request
and receive from the
local RIRs</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 8pt 1.25in;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-PH">d.<span>
</span></span><span lang="EN-PH">Additional
attributes create
none-operational
complexity in the whois
database.</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-PH">Chairs
Decision: No consensus.</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-PH"> </span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 8pt 0.5in;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-PH">10.<span>
</span></span><span lang="EN-PH">Resource
Transfer Policy</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-PH">This
proposal aims to
introduce Inter RIR
transfer. However, it
has the following
opposition </span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt 1.25in;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-PH">a.<span>
</span></span><span lang="EN-PH">Issues with
Legacy holder
transfer is potentially
considered
none-reciprocal by ARIN</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 8pt 1.25in;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-PH">b.<span>
</span></span><span lang="EN-PH">Potential
abuse of AFRINIC free
pool without the time
limit of receiving an
allocation from AFRINIC.</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-PH">Chairs
Decision: The proposal
is the least
contested of all the 3
competing proposals.
However because of the
community’s
desire and clear
expression for the need
for an Inter RIR
transfer, we, the
Co-chairs, believe that
in the interest of
the community we should
focus on a proposal
rather than several
similar ones.
This desire was clearly
expressed at the AFRINIC
31 meeting in Angola.
Therefore, We suggest
that the authors of this
proposal make the
following
amendments: </span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt 0.5in;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-family:Symbol" lang="EN-PH">·<span>
</span></span><span lang="EN-PH">5.7.3.2
Source entities are not
eligible to receive
further IPv4 allocations
or assignments from
AFRINIC for 12 months
period after
the transfer.</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 8pt 0.5in;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-family:Symbol" lang="EN-PH">·<span>
</span></span><span lang="EN-PH">5.7.4.3.
Transferred legacy
resources will still be
regarded as legacy
resources.</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-PH">Chairs
Decision: Provided that
the above are
amended, the decisions
is Rough Consensus is
achieved </span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-PH"> </span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif" class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-PH">Based on
the above, The updated
version of the
follow proposal which
achiev</span></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div></blockquote></div>