I think all policies (if we really intend to implement them) must be
clear and leave no room for variable interpretation as ambiguity will
put additional burdens of interpretation on staff.
If the community's preference is for the 24-month window to become
invalid on allocation/assignment of new resources, then the policy
(proposal) should state it clearly; If on the other hand, the intention
is for the 24-month window to stay in place come-what-may, it's better
for the policy (proposal) to be explicit about it.
Please see below, additional questions for the community to consider.
Hopefully, they can be discussed and the authors can (if they so
choose,) take the inputs from the community into their modified proposal.
3.3.2 Selected:
A member is selected because of an internal report or due to a lack of
contact between the AFRINIC and the member.
Q1. Do we presently have an existing (effective) structure (apart from
billing) that measures degree of contact with members?
If there is no agreed means of measuring the degree contact, we need to
define degrees of contact so that "lack of contact" (as referred to in
the proposal) can be measured objectively.
/Perhaps as a first step for ensuring regular contact without using up
too many resources, this proposal might want to borrow a leaf from
RIPE's Assisted Registry Check (ARC). See
https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/resource-management/assisted-registry-check/
/Basically, the RIR does a consistency check on members'//Registry,
Resource, and Route/rDNS information and then//sends emails to the
contacts on file showing their view. They then schedule a telephone call
to work with the member and fix any identified issues. //
/
/My understanding from RIPE is that these non-invasive checks sometimes
reveal issues that may warrant more detailed investigation. The primary
model is by random checks but done in a manner that checks every member
at least once in 3 years //(given the size of RIPE)//. They also have
ARCs that are initiated as a result of information received from the
member or third parties. /
Q2. Can reachability/cooperation of a member for such a consistency
check-and-fix activity as described above be used to measure the degree
of contact?
Q3. Given the fact that time taken for consistency checks are more
predictable, can these be implemented as a preliminary step in
addressing the "lack of investigation" problem as well as the concern
about taking up much of members' and/or AFRINIC hostmasters' time?
Regards,
Dewole.
(with apologies for continuing the cross-posting between RPD and
Community-discuss)
On 15/11/2016 20:18, sergekbk wrote:
Hello Dewole,
Thanks for this comment.
The limit of 24 months applies to a member based on ressources
portfolio. If the portfolio changes with new allocation, member
can be audited anytime on the new ressources if required.
Is this clear enough or shall we make it explicit ?
Kind Regards.
*/Serge Ilunga/*
*/Cell: +243814443160/*
*/Skype: sergekbk/*
*/R.D.Congo/*
-------- Original message --------
From: Dewole Ajao <[email protected]>
Date: 11/15/2016 11:38 (GMT+01:00)
To: Arnaud AMELINA <[email protected]>, "rpd >> AfriNIC Resource
Policy" <[email protected]>, General Discussions of AFRINIC
<[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Update to Resources review policy
proposal
Thanks for working to apply the community's input to your proposal,
Arnaud.
To test the proposed re-wording, consider the following sequence of
events:
Member XYZ initiates self-requested review;
Review is completed by AFRINIC in X weeks;
After review, Member XYZ applies for "large chunk" of number resources;
Member XYZ receives "large chunk" of number resources in say 60 days;
Member XYZ happens to make some unacceptable use of (previous or new)
number resources and it somehow becomes known to the community;
Regardless of convincing evidence, Member XYZ cannot be subjected to a
review until 24 months have elapsed since the last review.
Is this a design feature or a bug?
Regards,
Dewole.
On 15/11/2016 10:48, Arnaud AMELINA wrote:
Hi community !
Following, recent discussions and in accordance with text proposal
from Owen and others contributors, authors propose this as
replacement to the section 3.3.3
-'---old version---''
3.3.3 Reported: Here, members are reviewed either because:
a. They have requested the review themselves or
b. There has been a community complaint made against them that
warrants investigation.
----new version-----
3.3.3 Reported: Here, members are reviewed either because:
a..They have requested the review themselves or
b. There has been a community complaint made against them that
warrants investigation. Complaints shall be backed by evidence and
AFRINIC staff shall evaluate the facts as appropriate to conduct
the review. However this review is not applicable to a member on
which a full review has been completed in the preceding 24 months.
Regards.
Arnaud.
_______________________________________________
Community-Discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
_______________________________________________
Community-Discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
