From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com Thu Jan 16 08:41:05 2014 From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji) Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 09:41:05 +0100 Subject: [AFRINIC-rpd] AFRINIC 19 - Minutes of the PDWG meeting in Abidjan, Cote d'Ivoire Message-ID: Dear members, This is to notify that the minutes from the AFRINIC19 PDWG Sessions are now published at: http://www.afrinic.net/en/library/policies/archive/ppm-minutes/989-pdwg-meeting-minutes-afrinic19 We apologies for the delay in publishing this minutes as it was due to circumstances beyond our control. Regards Seun Ojedeji and Emile Milandou, AFRINIC PDWG co-chairs. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dawda.jatta at utg.edu.gm Thu Jan 16 10:43:03 2014 From: dawda.jatta at utg.edu.gm (Dawda Jatta) Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 10:43:03 +0000 Subject: [AFRINIC-rpd] AFRINIC 19 - Minutes of the PDWG meeting in Abidjan, Cote d'Ivoire In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks for the update Seun. On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 8:41 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: > Dear members, > > This is to notify that the minutes from the AFRINIC19 PDWG Sessions are > now published at: > > > http://www.afrinic.net/en/library/policies/archive/ppm-minutes/989-pdwg-meeting-minutes-afrinic19 > > We apologies for the delay in publishing this minutes as it was due to > circumstances beyond our control. > > > Regards > > Seun Ojedeji and Emile Milandou, > > AFRINIC PDWG co-chairs. > > > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > -- Best Regards, Dawda Jatta -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jacksonmuthi at gmail.com Thu Jan 16 12:32:28 2014 From: jacksonmuthi at gmail.com (Jackson Muthili) Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 15:32:28 +0300 Subject: [AFRINIC-rpd] AFRINIC 19 - Minutes of the PDWG meeting in Abidjan, Cote d'Ivoire In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 11:41 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: > Dear members, > > This is to notify that the minutes from the AFRINIC19 PDWG Sessions are now > published at: > > http://www.afrinic.net/en/library/policies/archive/ppm-minutes/989-pdwg-meeting-minutes-afrinic19 Thank you. > Some members suggested that from the discussions online, there is > perception that it is difficult for HEIs to get resources from > AFRINIC, where perhaps AFRINIC is requesting too much detail and > seems to not fully understand network plans provided by the HEI. > It was suggested that these are problems that can be addressed > internally through staff training or process changes, rather than > a change to the current IPv4 policy. When a request is big it doesn't matter if its origin is HEI, it is expected that Afrinic applies more scrutiny. This method applies everywhere. A 1m USD bank loan application will be processed with greater scrutiny than a 1000USD loan. Risk of fraud is higher with size of application. Therefore I don't put Afrinic at fault for requesting too much detail from HEI or anybody with a large application. > There were also come concerns about the possibility that HEIs > could acquire IPv4 address space under this policy once ratified > and trade those addresses outside the region for huge monetary > gains. And this ties to my point above. > After analyzing the discussions in the meeting, the Chair > determined that there was no consensus on the proposal, and that > it goes back to the mailing list for further discussion. I suggest that authors withdraw thiis HEI special policy immediately. > Out of region resource usage (especially for IPv4 resources) was > discussed, and the issue of many operators setting up in Africa > to serve international customers, resulting in IPv4 addresses > being used outside Africa. Some noted that this is actually a > good thing, and that it is difficult to determine realistically > what counts as usage out of the region since anyone can do > business anywhere even if resources have been issued to a company > in the region. I agree that it is hard to cleary determine what counts as out of region use. I reccomend Afrinic to apply more scrutiny on a company registered offshore. That is is the first sign of possible fraud with intent to use out of region. From ernest at afrinic.net Mon Jan 27 07:49:46 2014 From: ernest at afrinic.net (Ernest) Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 11:49:46 +0400 Subject: [AFRINIC-rpd] Call for Comments on the (draft) Resource Policy Manual Message-ID: <52E60F9A.3080808@afrinic.net> Dear Colleagues, Further to our communication during the AFRINIC19 Public Policy Meeting, the first draft of the AFRINIC Resource Policy Manual (RPM) is now published for the community?s review, input and comments. Please browse to: http://www.afrinic.net/en/library/cfc/964-resource-policy-manual-draft?showall=1 The RPM is a collection of all currently active policy proposals, arranged into one document for ease of reference and update. Please review the draft and submit any comments on the document by 30th March 2014. A final draft shall be published and presented to the AFRINIC Board for approval ? upon which, the official RPM shall be effective 30th April 2014. Regards, Ernest. From ernest at afrinic.net Wed Jan 29 07:53:28 2014 From: ernest at afrinic.net (Ernest) Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 11:53:28 +0400 Subject: [AFRINIC-rpd] Fwd: [sig-policy] prop-111-v001: Request-based expansion of IPv6 default allocation size In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <52E8B378.90707@afrinic.net> FYI, A new policy proposal in the Asia Pacific region suggests a minimum IPv6 allocation of up to a /29 (based on the fact that currently, an allocated /32 is picked out of a reserved /29). As this is the same IPv6 reservation practice at AFRINIC, you may find this proposal interesting. (The proposal text follows below). Regards, Ernest. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > prop-111-v001: Request-based expansion of IPv6 default allocation size > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Author: Tomohiro Fujisaki > fujisaki at syce.net > > > 1. Problem statement > -------------------- > > Currently, IPv6 minimum allocation size to LIRs is defined as /32 in > the "IPv6 address allocation and assignment policy", while APNIC > currently reserves up to /29 for each /32 allocation. It's better to > expand this minimum allocation size up to /29 since: > > - For traffic control purpose, some LIRs announce address blocks > longer than /32 (e.g. /35). However, some ISPs set filters to block > address size longer than /32. If LIRs have multiple /32, they can > announce these blocks and its reachability will be better than > longer prefix. > > - If an LIR needs address blocks larger than /32, LIRs may tend to > announce as a single prefix if a /29 is allocated initially at > once. i.e., total number of announced prefixes in case 1 may be > smaller than in case 2. > > case 1: > The LIR obtains /29 at the beginning of IPv6 network construction. > > case 2: > The LIR obtains /32, and /31, /30 additionally with the subsequent > allocation mechanism. > > - Before sparse allocation mechanism implemented in late 2008, /29 > was reserved for all /32 holders by sequence allocation mechanism > in the early years. It is possible to use these reserved > blocks efficiently with this modification. > > > 2. Objective of policy change > ----------------------------- > > This proposal modifies the eligibility for an organization to receive > an initial IPv6 allocation up to a /29 by request basis. > > > 3. Situation in other regions > ----------------------------- > > RIPE-NCC: > The policy "Extension of IPv6 /32 to /29 on a per-allocation vs > per-LIR basis" is adopted in RIPE-NCC and LIRs in RIPE region can get > up to /29 by default. > > > 4. Proposed policy solution > ---------------------------- > > - Change the text to "5.2.2 Minimum initial allocation size" of > current policy document as below: > > Organizations that meet the initial allocation criteria are > eligible to receive an initial allocation of /32. For allocations > up to /29 no additional documentation is necessary. > > - Add following text in the policy document: > > for Existing IPv6 address space holders > > LIRs that hold one or more IPv6 allocations are able to request > extension of each of these allocations up to a /29 without meeting > the utilization rate for subsequent allocation and providing > further documentation. > > > 5. Explain the advantages of the proposal > ----------------------------------------- > > - It will be possible for LIRs to control traffic easier. > - It is possible to use current reserved blocks efficiently. > > > 6. Explain the disadvantages of the proposal > -------------------------------------------- > > Some people may argue this will lead to inefficient utilization of > IPv6 space. However, the space up to /29 is reserved by APNIC > secretariat for each /32 allocation. > > > 7. Impact on resource holders > ----------------------------- > NIRs must implement this policy if it is implemented by APNIC. From owen at delong.com Wed Jan 29 14:27:11 2014 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 06:27:11 -0800 Subject: [rpd] Re: [AFRINIC-rpd] [sig-policy] prop-111-v001: Request-based expansion of IPv6 default allocation size In-Reply-To: <52E8B378.90707@afrinic.net> References: <52E8B378.90707@afrinic.net> Message-ID: <3110734F-E20D-4C89-9F4C-A9B1887C61FE@delong.com> I would like to strongly encourage AfriNIC to move away from /29 reservations and use sparse allocation (or bisection). APNIC switched to this some time ago, but the /29s of which they speak are the reservations between early IPv6 allocations. As you may know, I have some operational experience with IPv6 address plans for a wide variety of organizations. That experience is what lead to the structure of the current ARIN IPv6 allocation and assignment policies. While I will not presume to claim that those policies are perfect, I do believe that they provide a much better (and easier to understand) framework for allocating/assigning IPv6 addresses than the other current policies at this time. Owen On Jan 28, 2014, at 11:53 PM, Ernest wrote: > FYI, > > A new policy proposal in the Asia Pacific region suggests a minimum > IPv6 allocation of up to a /29 (based on the fact that currently, an > allocated /32 is picked out of a reserved /29). > > As this is the same IPv6 reservation practice at AFRINIC, you may > find this proposal interesting. (The proposal text follows below). > > Regards, > Ernest. > >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> prop-111-v001: Request-based expansion of IPv6 default allocation size >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Author: Tomohiro Fujisaki >> fujisaki at syce.net >> >> >> 1. Problem statement >> -------------------- >> >> Currently, IPv6 minimum allocation size to LIRs is defined as /32 in >> the "IPv6 address allocation and assignment policy", while APNIC >> currently reserves up to /29 for each /32 allocation. It's better to >> expand this minimum allocation size up to /29 since: >> >> - For traffic control purpose, some LIRs announce address blocks >> longer than /32 (e.g. /35). However, some ISPs set filters to block >> address size longer than /32. If LIRs have multiple /32, they can >> announce these blocks and its reachability will be better than >> longer prefix. >> >> - If an LIR needs address blocks larger than /32, LIRs may tend to >> announce as a single prefix if a /29 is allocated initially at >> once. i.e., total number of announced prefixes in case 1 may be >> smaller than in case 2. >> >> case 1: >> The LIR obtains /29 at the beginning of IPv6 network construction. >> >> case 2: >> The LIR obtains /32, and /31, /30 additionally with the subsequent >> allocation mechanism. >> >> - Before sparse allocation mechanism implemented in late 2008, /29 >> was reserved for all /32 holders by sequence allocation mechanism >> in the early years. It is possible to use these reserved >> blocks efficiently with this modification. >> >> >> 2. Objective of policy change >> ----------------------------- >> >> This proposal modifies the eligibility for an organization to receive >> an initial IPv6 allocation up to a /29 by request basis. >> >> >> 3. Situation in other regions >> ----------------------------- >> >> RIPE-NCC: >> The policy "Extension of IPv6 /32 to /29 on a per-allocation vs >> per-LIR basis" is adopted in RIPE-NCC and LIRs in RIPE region can get >> up to /29 by default. >> >> >> 4. Proposed policy solution >> ---------------------------- >> >> - Change the text to "5.2.2 Minimum initial allocation size" of >> current policy document as below: >> >> Organizations that meet the initial allocation criteria are >> eligible to receive an initial allocation of /32. For allocations >> up to /29 no additional documentation is necessary. >> >> - Add following text in the policy document: >> >> for Existing IPv6 address space holders >> >> LIRs that hold one or more IPv6 allocations are able to request >> extension of each of these allocations up to a /29 without meeting >> the utilization rate for subsequent allocation and providing >> further documentation. >> >> >> 5. Explain the advantages of the proposal >> ----------------------------------------- >> >> - It will be possible for LIRs to control traffic easier. >> - It is possible to use current reserved blocks efficiently. >> >> >> 6. Explain the disadvantages of the proposal >> -------------------------------------------- >> >> Some people may argue this will lead to inefficient utilization of >> IPv6 space. However, the space up to /29 is reserved by APNIC >> secretariat for each /32 allocation. >> >> >> 7. Impact on resource holders >> ----------------------------- >> NIRs must implement this policy if it is implemented by APNIC. > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd From list-admin at afrinic.net Mon Feb 3 06:40:49 2014 From: list-admin at afrinic.net (list-admin at afrinic.net) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2014 08:40:49 +0200 Subject: [rpd] Monthly statistics for mailing-list: rpd@afrinic.net Message-ID: <201402030640.s136enmc012277@ns1.afrinic.net> Monthly statistics for mailing-list: rpd at afrinic.net (Generated at: Mon Feb 3 06:40:46 UTC 2014) Statistics for month: January 2014 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ***** Authors with the most number of messages posted: +----+-----Author-----------------------------------+--Msg-+-Percent-+ | 1 | ernest at afrinic.net | 2 | 33.33 % | | 2 | seun.ojedeji at gmail.com | 1 | 16.67 % | | 3 | dawda.jatta at utg.edu.gm | 1 | 16.67 % | | 4 | jacksonmuthi at gmail.com | 1 | 16.67 % | | 5 | owen at delong.com | 1 | 16.67 % | +----+----------------------------------------------+------+---------+ | | other | 0 | 0.00 % | +----+----------------------------------------------+------+---------+ ***** Authors with the largest total size of messages posted: +----+-----Author-------------------------------------------+-KBytes-+ | 1 | dawda.jatta at utg.edu.gm | 1.5 | | 2 | seun.ojedeji at gmail.com | 1.3 | | 3 | ernest at afrinic.net | 1.0 | | 4 | owen at delong.com | 1.0 | | 5 | jacksonmuthi at gmail.com | 0.8 | +----+------------------------------------------------------+--------+ ***** Authors with the largest average size of messages posted: +----+-----Author--------------------------------------------+-bytes-+ | 1 | dawda.jatta at utg.edu.gm | 1575 | | 2 | seun.ojedeji at gmail.com | 1287 | | 3 | owen at delong.com | 994 | | 4 | jacksonmuthi at gmail.com | 842 | | 5 | ernest at afrinic.net | 521 | +----+-------------------------------------------------------+-------+ ***** Top subjects by popularity: +----+----Subject-----------------------------------+--Msg-+-Percent-+ | 1 | [AFRINIC-rpd] AFRINIC 19 - Minutes of the PD | 2 | 33.33 % | | 2 | [AFRINIC-rpd] AFRINIC 19 - Minutes of the PD | 1 | 16.67 % | | 3 | [AFRINIC-rpd] Call for Comments on the (draf | 1 | 16.67 % | | 4 | [AFRINIC-rpd] Fwd: [sig-policy] prop-111-v00 | 1 | 16.67 % | | 5 | [rpd] Re: [AFRINIC-rpd] [sig-policy] prop-11 | 1 | 16.67 % | +----+----------------------------------------------+------+---------+ | | other | 0 | 0.00 % | +----+----------------------------------------------+------+---------+ ***** Graph showing number of messages written during hours of day: 100% -----------------------#------------------------- - 2 90% -----------------------#------------------------- msgs 80% -----------------------#------------------------- 70% -----------------------#------------------------- 60% -----------------------#------------------------- 50% -------------#-----#-#-#-------#----------------- 40% -------------#-----#-#-#-------#----------------- 30% -------------#-----#-#-#-------#----------------- 20% -------------#-----#-#-#-------#----------------- 10% -------------#-----#-#-#-------#----------------- * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * hour 0 5 11 17 23 ***** Graph showing number of messages written during days of month: 100% -------------------------------#------------------------------- - 3 90% -------------------------------#------------------------------- msgs 80% -------------------------------#------------------------------- 70% -------------------------------#------------------------------- 60% -------------------------------#-------------------------#----- 50% -------------------------------#-------------------------#----- 40% -------------------------------#-------------------------#----- 30% -------------------------------#---------------------#---#----- 20% -------------------------------#---------------------#---#----- 10% -------------------------------#---------------------#---#----- * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * day 1 6 12 18 24 31 ***** Graph showing number of messages written during days of week: 100% -------------#--------------- - 3 90% -------------#--------------- msgs 80% -------------#--------------- 70% -------------#--------------- 60% ---------#---#--------------- 50% ---------#---#--------------- 40% ---------#---#--------------- 30% -#-------#---#--------------- 20% -#-------#---#--------------- 10% -#-------#---#--------------- * * * * * * * Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun ***** Longest message: Author : owen at delong.com Subject : [rpd] Re: [AFRINIC-rpd] [sig-policy] prop-111-v001: Request-based Date : Wed, 29 Jan 2014 06:27:11 -0800 Size : 4945 bytes ***** Most popular subject: Subject : [AFRINIC-rpd] AFRINIC 19 - Minutes of the PDWG meeting in No. of msgs: 2 Total size : 5050 bytes ***** Final summary: Total number of messages: 6 Total number of different authors: 5 Total number of different subjects: 5 Total size of messages (w/o headers): 16006 bytes Average size of a message: 2667 bytes -- Regards, AFRINIC _____________________ powered by grepmail and MailListStat From babusha at afrinic.net Mon Feb 10 07:03:14 2014 From: babusha at afrinic.net (Babusha Radhakissoon) Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 11:03:14 +0400 Subject: [rpd] Call for Volunteers - 2014 Nominations Committee In-Reply-To: <52F8790F.2020606@afrinic.net> References: <52F8790F.2020606@afrinic.net> Message-ID: <52F879B2.6090101@afrinic.net> Dear Colleagues, As is customary, there will be several elections held in our community during 2014 as follows: ? 06/2014: AFRINIC Board (3 seats - Indian Ocean, Central Africa and Non-Geo) ? 06/2014: Policy Development Working Group: 1 co-Chair. ? 11/2014: NRO-NC/ICANN ASO AC (1 Representative) Per Section 9 of the AFRINIC by-laws, a Nominations Committee (NomCom) appointed by the Board must work to ensure that appropriate candidates are nominated to contest for open seats and that all elections are successfully conducted according to current procedures. The NomCom shall be composed of 4 members as follows: ? 1 member selected from within the AFRINIC Board ? 3 members selected by the AFRINIC Board from the community. We are now looking for volunteers from the community to fill the three open positions on the 2014 NomCom.For fairness, volunteers are expected to not be from a region where a Board seat is up for renewal. Responsibilities of the NomCom are defined in section 9 of the AFRINIC bylaws and comprise of the following. ? Call for candidates for all open elections (above). ? Describe all criteria and qualifications for eligibility to stand for election. ? Where necessary, interview candidates prior to final candidate slate. ? Communicate the final list of candidates for any election. AFRINIC staff will provide logistical support to the NomCom throughout their mandate. Such support includes publication of the list of nominees, compilation of comments, mailing list moderation, website update, communication with nominees and other duties pertaining to the roles and responsibilities of the NomCom. NomCom members are expected to: ? Be neutral: Have no interest in the results of the elections. ? Be trusted members of the AFRINIC community. ? Have good knowledge of the AFRINIC business environment. ? Do their best to fulfill their responsibilities without financial remuneration. If you are interested to serve on the 2014 NomCom, please send your expression of interest, including a short biography, by email to legal at afrinic.net before Friday 21^st February 2014 at 20:00 UTC. More information: http://www.afrinic.net/en/library/news/997-nomcom-volunteers Regards, -- __________________________ Babusha Radhakissoon Social Media/Online Engagement Officer, AFRINIC Ltd. t: +230 403 5100 | f: +230 466 6758 | tt: @afrinic | w: www.afrinic.net facebook.com/afrinic | flickr.com/afrinic | youtube.com/afrinicmedia ___________________________ Join us at AIS'14 in Djibouti, 25 May - 6 June 2014 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com Wed Feb 19 15:36:52 2014 From: Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com (Andrew Alston) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 15:36:52 +0000 Subject: [rpd] Merges/Acquisitions/Closures document Message-ID: Hi All, I?m putting this as a general question to the Policy list and I would also like AfriNIC response to this. AfriNIC has a document referenced at the following location: http://www.afrinic.net/en/library/membership-documents/921-mergers-acquisitions-takeovers-and-closures-of-lirend-user Now this to me looks distinctly like policy, though it has NOT been through the PDP list. So I would like to ask, does this document pre-date the PdP or did it bypass the PdP entirely? In either case, with it NOT being a document that has gone through the PdP, should a member or individual wish changes in this document, is it possible to propose policy that amends this document to address omissions etc? If this document does NOT pre-date the PdP, can we also please get an explanation from AfriNIC as to why this was not put through the policy process since my reading of this document is that it contains elements which are very definitely questions of policy which is the remit and mandate of the PdP. Thanks Andrew Alston ________________________________ DISCLAIMER: This email contains proprietary information some or all of which may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this email, please notify the author by replying to this email. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose, copy, print, or rely on this email. We cannot accept liability for any statements made which are clearly the sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of this company or one of its agents. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dogwallah at gmail.com Wed Feb 19 15:41:09 2014 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 10:41:09 -0500 Subject: [rpd] Merges/Acquisitions/Closures document In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Looks to me like a set of procedures, not policies. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 10:36 AM, Andrew Alston < Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com> wrote: > Hi All, > > I'm putting this as a general question to the Policy list and I would > also like AfriNIC response to this. > > AfriNIC has a document referenced at the following location: > > > http://www.afrinic.net/en/library/membership-documents/921-mergers-acquisitions-takeovers-and-closures-of-lirend-user > > Now this to me looks distinctly like policy, though it has NOT been > through the PDP list. So I would like to ask, does this document pre-date > the PdP or did it bypass the PdP entirely? > > In either case, with it NOT being a document that has gone through the > PdP, should a member or individual wish changes in this document, is it > possible to propose policy that amends this document to address omissions > etc? > > If this document does NOT pre-date the PdP, can we also please get an > explanation from AfriNIC as to why this was not put through the policy > process since my reading of this document is that it contains elements > which are very definitely questions of policy which is the remit and > mandate of the PdP. > > Thanks > > Andrew Alston > > > ------------------------------ > DISCLAIMER: This email contains proprietary information some or all of > which may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. If > an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this email, please > notify the author by replying to this email. If you are not the intended > recipient, you must not use, disclose, copy, print, or rely on this email. > We cannot accept liability for any statements made which are clearly the > sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of this company or one of its > agents. > > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com Wed Feb 19 15:48:06 2014 From: Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com (Andrew Alston) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 15:48:06 +0000 Subject: [rpd] Merges/Acquisitions/Closures document In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi McTim, See this is my question. If this IS a set of procedures, then things it lacks clarity on either need more process, or policy. An example (which I assume that up till now would be dealt with under this policy): A holding company owns 8 op-co?s. Those entities continue to exist, but the holding companies wishes to merge all their resources into the holding company to create a single administrative entity which then sub-assigns to its op-co?s. Now, technically this is not a merger nor an acquisition, and the IP space will continue to be USED by the entities that it was assigned to and for the same purpose. However, it is merged into the holding the company so that there is ONE member and ONE administrative entity. Is a situation like that covered under this document? My reading is, not entirely, but its so damn close, that to cover a situation like that would require some minor additions / re-works of that document. Now, does that require a request to AfriNIC or can that situation be handled through the PdP to modify a document that wasn?t authored through the PdP? Thoughts? Andrew From: McTim > Date: Wednesday 19 February 2014 at 6:41 PM To: Andrew Alston > Cc: "rpd at afrinic.net" > Subject: Re: [rpd] Merges/Acquisitions/Closures document Looks to me like a set of procedures, not policies. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 10:36 AM, Andrew Alston > wrote: Hi All, I?m putting this as a general question to the Policy list and I would also like AfriNIC response to this. AfriNIC has a document referenced at the following location: http://www.afrinic.net/en/library/membership-documents/921-mergers-acquisitions-takeovers-and-closures-of-lirend-user Now this to me looks distinctly like policy, though it has NOT been through the PDP list. So I would like to ask, does this document pre-date the PdP or did it bypass the PdP entirely? In either case, with it NOT being a document that has gone through the PdP, should a member or individual wish changes in this document, is it possible to propose policy that amends this document to address omissions etc? If this document does NOT pre-date the PdP, can we also please get an explanation from AfriNIC as to why this was not put through the policy process since my reading of this document is that it contains elements which are very definitely questions of policy which is the remit and mandate of the PdP. Thanks Andrew Alston ________________________________ DISCLAIMER: This email contains proprietary information some or all of which may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this email, please notify the author by replying to this email. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose, copy, print, or rely on this email. We cannot accept liability for any statements made which are clearly the sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of this company or one of its agents. _______________________________________________ rpd mailing list rpd at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd ________________________________ DISCLAIMER: This email contains proprietary information some or all of which may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this email, please notify the author by replying to this email. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose, copy, print, or rely on this email. We cannot accept liability for any statements made which are clearly the sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of this company or one of its agents. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com Wed Feb 19 19:21:30 2014 From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 20:21:30 +0100 Subject: [rpd] Merges/Acquisitions/Closures document In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hello Andrew, On 19 Feb 2014 16:49, "Andrew Alston" wrote: > > Hi McTim, > > See this is my question. If this IS a set of procedures, then things it lacks clarity on either need more process, or policy. > > An example (which I assume that up till now would be dealt with under this policy): > > A holding company owns 8 op-co's. Those entities continue to exist, but the holding companies wishes to merge all their resources into the holding company to create a single administrative entity which then sub-assigns to its op-co's. Now, technically this is not a merger nor an acquisition, and the IP space will continue to be USED by the entities that it was assigned to and for the same purpose. However, it is merged into the holding the company so that there is ONE member and ONE administrative entity. > > Is a situation like that covered under this document? The way I understand the document, I think your scenario is not applicable as the merger referred on the guideline is based on entities(organisations) and not on resource OR better put, a merger needs to happen at organisation level before resource update can be considered (2.1..... Following this policy guideline, AFRINIC must ensure that for each merger and/or takeover, the resulting organization is planning to continue using the allocated/assigned number resources for the original criteria under which these resources were issued.....). Cheers Disclaimer: My individual view (not Co-chairs') sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From saul at enetworks.co.za Thu Feb 20 06:43:29 2014 From: saul at enetworks.co.za (Saul Stein) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2014 08:43:29 +0200 Subject: [rpd] Merges/Acquisitions/Closures document In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <18cd01cf2e07$107b5280$3171f780$@enetworks.co.za> Hi I have had a different but similar problem in the past: We opened a pop in another region, not connected to our existing infrastructure, so it has its own AS. Since we hadn't used out 75% IP allocation, we were not able to get IP space for this region (no problem with additional AS number). I didn't go into it in depth, but guess it fell foul partially to this policy. The guys at AFRINIC all understood the problem, but due to "policy", the only way around was to join again and let the other region be a second AFRINIC member at additional cost. From: rpd-bounces at afrinic.net [mailto:rpd-bounces at afrinic.net] On Behalf Of Seun Ojedeji Sent: 19 February 2014 09:22 PM To: Andrew Alston Cc: rpd Subject: Re: [rpd] Merges/Acquisitions/Closures document Hello Andrew, On 19 Feb 2014 16:49, "Andrew Alston" > wrote: > > Hi McTim, > > See this is my question. If this IS a set of procedures, then things it lacks clarity on either need more process, or policy. > > An example (which I assume that up till now would be dealt with under this policy): > > A holding company owns 8 op-co's. Those entities continue to exist, but the holding companies wishes to merge all their resources into the holding company to create a single administrative entity which then sub-assigns to its op-co's. Now, technically this is not a merger nor an acquisition, and the IP space will continue to be USED by the entities that it was assigned to and for the same purpose. However, it is merged into the holding the company so that there is ONE member and ONE administrative entity. > > Is a situation like that covered under this document? The way I understand the document, I think your scenario is not applicable as the merger referred on the guideline is based on entities(organisations) and not on resource OR better put, a merger needs to happen at organisation level before resource update can be considered (2.1..... Following this policy guideline, AFRINIC must ensure that for each merger and/or takeover, the resulting organization is planning to continue using the allocated/assigned number resources for the original criteria under which these resources were issued.....). Cheers Disclaimer: My individual view (not Co-chairs') sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Kivuva at transworldafrica.com Thu Feb 20 07:57:30 2014 From: Kivuva at transworldafrica.com (Kivuva) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2014 10:57:30 +0300 Subject: [rpd] Merges/Acquisitions/Closures document In-Reply-To: <18cd01cf2e07$107b5280$3171f780$@enetworks.co.za> References: <18cd01cf2e07$107b5280$3171f780$@enetworks.co.za> Message-ID: Using Saul's experience, should this "policy" go to PDP? ______________________ Mwendwa Kivuva, Nairobi, Kenya. twitter.com/lordmwesh google ID | Skype ID: lordmwesh On 20 February 2014 09:43, Saul Stein wrote: > Hi > > > > I have had a different but similar problem in the past: > > We opened a pop in another region, not connected to our existing > infrastructure, so it has its own AS. Since we hadn't used out 75% IP > allocation, we were not able to get IP space for this region (no problem > with additional AS number). I didn't go into it in depth, but guess it fell > foul partially to this policy. > > > > The guys at AFRINIC all understood the problem, but due to "policy", the > only way around was to join again and let the other region be a second > AFRINIC member at additional cost. > > > > *From:* rpd-bounces at afrinic.net [mailto:rpd-bounces at afrinic.net] *On > Behalf Of *Seun Ojedeji > *Sent:* 19 February 2014 09:22 PM > *To:* Andrew Alston > *Cc:* rpd > > *Subject:* Re: [rpd] Merges/Acquisitions/Closures document > > > > Hello Andrew, > > On 19 Feb 2014 16:49, "Andrew Alston" > wrote: > > > > Hi McTim, > > > > See this is my question. If this IS a set of procedures, then things it > lacks clarity on either need more process, or policy. > > > > An example (which I assume that up till now would be dealt with under > this policy): > > > > A holding company owns 8 op-co's. Those entities continue to exist, but > the holding companies wishes to merge all their resources into the holding > company to create a single administrative entity which then sub-assigns to > its op-co's. Now, technically this is not a merger nor an acquisition, and > the IP space will continue to be USED by the entities that it was assigned > to and for the same purpose. However, it is merged into the holding the > company so that there is ONE member and ONE administrative entity. > > > > Is a situation like that covered under this document? > > The way I understand the document, I think your scenario is not applicable > as the merger referred on the guideline is based on entities(organisations) > and not on resource OR better put, a merger needs to happen at organisation > level before resource update can be considered (2.1..... Following this > policy guideline, AFRINIC must ensure that for each merger and/or takeover, > the resulting organization is planning to continue using the > allocated/assigned number resources for the original criteria under which > these resources were issued.....). > > Cheers > Disclaimer: My individual view (not Co-chairs') > sent from Google nexus 4 > kindly excuse brevity and typos. > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com Thu Feb 20 08:13:10 2014 From: Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com (Andrew Alston) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2014 08:13:10 +0000 Subject: [rpd] Merges/Acquisitions/Closures document In-Reply-To: References: <18cd01cf2e07$107b5280$3171f780$@enetworks.co.za> Message-ID: <7FF93785BD2D534EA45841A8AAA1D89B2EDFD38F28@liquid-exch.liquidtelecom.local> Tough question, I have to say for me, if you aggregate the space into a single organization that is sub-assigning to the op-co's, you SHOULD need to follow the standard utilization rules to get more space. That being said, keep in mind that IP space is not necessarily tied to an ASN, and yes, I know it's horrible and it results in deaggregation, but in Saul's case there is nothing stopping him as an LIR doing a sub-assignment to the other company which would then push him over the 75% mark on the holding company, then applying for more space under the holding company. This would be completely within the rules and totally legitimate. Thanks Andrew From: lordmwesh at gmail.com [mailto:lordmwesh at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Kivuva Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2014 10:58 AM To: Saul Stein Cc: Seun Ojedeji; Andrew Alston; rpd Subject: Re: [rpd] Merges/Acquisitions/Closures document Using Saul's experience, should this "policy" go to PDP? ______________________ Mwendwa Kivuva, Nairobi, Kenya. twitter.com/lordmwesh google ID | Skype ID: lordmwesh On 20 February 2014 09:43, Saul Stein > wrote: Hi I have had a different but similar problem in the past: We opened a pop in another region, not connected to our existing infrastructure, so it has its own AS. Since we hadn't used out 75% IP allocation, we were not able to get IP space for this region (no problem with additional AS number). I didn't go into it in depth, but guess it fell foul partially to this policy. The guys at AFRINIC all understood the problem, but due to "policy", the only way around was to join again and let the other region be a second AFRINIC member at additional cost. From: rpd-bounces at afrinic.net [mailto:rpd-bounces at afrinic.net] On Behalf Of Seun Ojedeji Sent: 19 February 2014 09:22 PM To: Andrew Alston Cc: rpd Subject: Re: [rpd] Merges/Acquisitions/Closures document Hello Andrew, On 19 Feb 2014 16:49, "Andrew Alston" > wrote: > > Hi McTim, > > See this is my question. If this IS a set of procedures, then things it lacks clarity on either need more process, or policy. > > An example (which I assume that up till now would be dealt with under this policy): > > A holding company owns 8 op-co's. Those entities continue to exist, but the holding companies wishes to merge all their resources into the holding company to create a single administrative entity which then sub-assigns to its op-co's. Now, technically this is not a merger nor an acquisition, and the IP space will continue to be USED by the entities that it was assigned to and for the same purpose. However, it is merged into the holding the company so that there is ONE member and ONE administrative entity. > > Is a situation like that covered under this document? The way I understand the document, I think your scenario is not applicable as the merger referred on the guideline is based on entities(organisations) and not on resource OR better put, a merger needs to happen at organisation level before resource update can be considered (2.1..... Following this policy guideline, AFRINIC must ensure that for each merger and/or takeover, the resulting organization is planning to continue using the allocated/assigned number resources for the original criteria under which these resources were issued.....). Cheers Disclaimer: My individual view (not Co-chairs') sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. _______________________________________________ rpd mailing list rpd at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd ________________________________ DISCLAIMER: This email contains proprietary information some or all of which may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this email, please notify the author by replying to this email. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose, copy, print, or rely on this email. We cannot accept liability for any statements made which are clearly the sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of this company or one of its agents. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From adiel at afrinic.net Thu Feb 20 10:26:44 2014 From: adiel at afrinic.net (Adiel Akplogan) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2014 14:26:44 +0400 Subject: [rpd] Merges/Acquisitions/Closures document In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <69413D81-E8C8-41E3-8D05-69EA0A61FA47@afrinic.net> Hello Andrew, On 2014-02-19, at 19:36 PM, Andrew Alston wrote: > I?m putting this as a general question to the Policy list and I would also like AfriNIC response to this. > > AfriNIC has a document referenced at the following location: > > http://www.afrinic.net/en/library/membership-documents/921-mergers-acquisitions-takeovers-and-closures-of-lirend-user > > Now this to me looks distinctly like policy, though it has NOT been through the PDP list. So I would like to ask, does this document pre-date the PdP or did it bypass the PdP entirely? I don't know what you mean by "pre-date" the PDP as the PDP start with the existence of AFRINIC as RIR (it just had few lifting (2) since 2004). This document has been produced as guideline and approved as such (in 2004 - AFRINIC-1) and not as a policy (that is why it is not listed in the policies section of the web site). Now if the community (you) want to change it to a specific policy or create a policy that covers some aspects that it does not cover in its present format, I don't see any reason not to initiate it. > In either case, with it NOT being a document that has gone through the PdP, should a member or individual wish changes in this document, is it possible to propose policy that amends this document to address omissions etc? Possible. > If this document does NOT pre-date the PdP, can we also please get an explanation from AfriNIC as to why this was not put through the policy process since my reading of this document is that it contains elements which are very definitely questions of policy which is the remit and mandate of the PdP. As explained above. Note that there are many other guideline/supporting documents published in this same category of our online library (under "Member Support Documents"). Thanks. - a. > Andrew Alston > > > DISCLAIMER: This email contains proprietary information some or all of which may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this email, please notify the author by replying to this email. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose, copy, print, or rely on this email. We cannot accept liability for any statements made which are clearly the sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of this company or one of its agents. > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 313 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From adiel at afrinic.net Thu Feb 20 10:30:55 2014 From: adiel at afrinic.net (Adiel Akplogan) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2014 14:30:55 +0400 Subject: [rpd] Merges/Acquisitions/Closures document In-Reply-To: <7FF93785BD2D534EA45841A8AAA1D89B2EDFD38F28@liquid-exch.liquidtelecom.local> References: <18cd01cf2e07$107b5280$3171f780$@enetworks.co.za> <7FF93785BD2D534EA45841A8AAA1D89B2EDFD38F28@liquid-exch.liquidtelecom.local> Message-ID: On 2014-02-20, at 12:13 PM, Andrew Alston wrote: > ... > ? but in Saul?s case there is nothing stopping him as an LIR doing a sub-assignment to the other company which would then push him over the 75% mark on the holding company, then applying for more space under the holding company. > > This would be completely within the rules and totally legitimate. Absolutely correct. - a. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 313 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From saul at enetworks.co.za Thu Feb 20 10:43:28 2014 From: saul at enetworks.co.za (Saul Stein) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2014 12:43:28 +0200 Subject: [rpd] Merges/Acquisitions/Closures document In-Reply-To: References: <18cd01cf2e07$107b5280$3171f780$@enetworks.co.za> <7FF93785BD2D534EA45841A8AAA1D89B2EDFD38F28@liquid-exch.liquidtelecom.local> Message-ID: <19df01cf2e28$9af746a0$d0e5d3e0$@enetworks.co.za> >> . but in Saul's case there is nothing stopping him as an LIR doing a sub-assignment to the other company which would then push him over the 75% mark on the >holding company, then applying for more space under the holding company. > >> This would be completely within the rules and totally legitimate. >Absolutely correct. Just because something is legitimate because it is within the rules, doesn't mean that is makes sense or that it should be like that at all! That is like saying if it aint broke, don't fix.... which is what I think Andrew is after, is to make things work better! From ondouglas at gmail.com Thu Feb 20 11:16:30 2014 From: ondouglas at gmail.com (Douglas Onyango) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2014 12:16:30 +0100 Subject: [rpd] Merges/Acquisitions/Closures document In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Andrew, > http://www.afrinic.net/en/library/membership-documents/921-mergers-acquisitions-takeovers-and-closures-of-lirend-user > Now this to me looks distinctly like policy, though it has NOT been through > the PDP list. >From the abstract and the contents of this document, it is clear that this is a set of guidelines meant to help members. Bearing in mind the general relationship between policy and guidelines and also the wording, I feel this guideline is in support rather than at a tangent with any policy So I would like to ask, does this document pre-date the PdP > or did it bypass the PdP entirely? Seeing that this is a guideline rather than a policy, I think this question is moot. > In either case, with it NOT being a document that has gone through the PdP, > should a member or individual wish changes in this document, is it possible > to propose policy that amends this document to address omissions etc? I think the fundamentals of the PDP will reign here: If you can establish that there is a current problem/gap and establish that the best way to resolve it is through policy, then fundamentally: yes. However, I am keen on understanding the nature of modifications you would like. Me thinks updating the guideline will give you a better turnaround time. Notwithstanding the above, I would like to say your particular predicament "8 Opcos bringing their resources under the same administration" looks to me like a "Change in Operating Organisation" which I believe is covered sufficiently by this guideline and other documents. Regards, From adiel at afrinic.net Thu Feb 20 14:20:27 2014 From: adiel at afrinic.net (Adiel Akplogan) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2014 18:20:27 +0400 Subject: [rpd] Merges/Acquisitions/Closures document In-Reply-To: <19df01cf2e28$9af746a0$d0e5d3e0$@enetworks.co.za> References: <18cd01cf2e07$107b5280$3171f780$@enetworks.co.za> <7FF93785BD2D534EA45841A8AAA1D89B2EDFD38F28@liquid-exch.liquidtelecom.local> <19df01cf2e28$9af746a0$d0e5d3e0$@enetworks.co.za> Message-ID: <07D535A9-17C3-47D6-B990-34086F4B83E8@afrinic.net> On 2014-02-20, at 14:43 PM, Saul Stein wrote: >>> . but in Saul's case there is nothing stopping him as an LIR doing a > sub-assignment to the other company which would then push him over the 75% > mark on the >holding company, then applying for more space under the holding > company. >> >>> This would be completely within the rules and totally legitimate. > >> Absolutely correct. > > Just because something is legitimate because it is within the rules, doesn't > mean that is makes sense or that it should be like that at all! > > That is like saying if it aint broke, don't fix.... which is what I think > Andrew is after, is to make things work better! ? and I'm not sure why you think I meant the contrary. I just confirm Andrew's option of legitimately using sub-allocations to solve your issue differently. No link with the need for a new policy or not. - a. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 313 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From tespok at tespok.co.ke Thu Feb 20 14:50:11 2014 From: tespok at tespok.co.ke (Fiona Asonga) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2014 17:50:11 +0300 (EAT) Subject: [rpd] Merges/Acquisitions/Closures document In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5d701bf4-608e-4d4e-8f3a-96e017e6b1c6@mx-ix-nbo.tespok.co.ke> Hallo All I think the scenario described is likely to recur sooner. If a company wished to consolidate its operation and have one administrative entity it can neither be a merger nor acquisition. It is simply a change of internal processes. To the extend that the change has an impact on our current policies by identifying a gap then the policy should be updated. If it is an AFRINIC procedure; these are guided by policies discussed and agreed upon by members. I think we should be asking is; against what policy were the Afrinic procedures being discussed developed. kind regards Fiona Asonga Chief Executive Officer Telecommunications Service Providers Association of Kenya/ Kenya Internet Exchange Point Member Strategic Committee of the Africa Computer Emergency Response Team NRO Number Council http://www.nro.net/about/number-council.html ASO Address Council http://aso.icann.org/ac/ 14 th Floor, Bruce House Standard Street Tel: +254 20 2245 036 Cell: +254 721 713 504 Website: www.tespok.or.ke ?Industry voice in Telecommunications, Providing Policy and Direction within the Industry and Government? Zimbra Blog: Zimbra 8 Public Courses Are Now Available! http://bit.ly/1jlqhl0 ----- Original Message ----- | Hi McTim, | See this is my question. If this IS a set of procedures, then things | it lacks clarity on either need more process, or policy. | An example (which I assume that up till now would be dealt with under | this policy): | A holding company owns 8 op-co?s. Those entities continue to exist, | but the holding companies wishes to merge all their resources into | the holding company to create a single administrative entity which | then sub-assigns to its op-co?s. Now, technically this is not a | merger nor an acquisition, and the IP space will continue to be USED | by the entities that it was assigned to and for the same purpose. | However, it is merged into the holding the company so that there is | ONE member and ONE administrative entity. | Is a situation like that covered under this document? My reading is, | not entirely, but its so damn close, that to cover a situation like | that would require some minor additions / re-works of that document. | Now, does that require a request to AfriNIC or can that situation be | handled through the PdP to modify a document that wasn?t authored | through the PdP? | Thoughts? | Andrew | From: McTim < dogwallah at gmail.com > | Date: Wednesday 19 February 2014 at 6:41 PM | To: Andrew Alston < andrew.alston at liquidtelecom.com > | Cc: " rpd at afrinic.net " < rpd at afrinic.net > | Subject: Re: [rpd] Merges/Acquisitions/Closures document | Looks to me like a set of procedures, not policies. | -- | Cheers, | McTim | "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A | route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel | On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 10:36 AM, Andrew Alston < | Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com > wrote: | | Hi All, | | | I?m putting this as a general question to the Policy list and I | | would | | also like AfriNIC response to this. | | | AfriNIC has a document referenced at the following location: | | | http://www.afrinic.net/en/library/membership-documents/921-mergers-acquisitions-takeovers-and-closures-of-lirend-user | | | Now this to me looks distinctly like policy, though it has NOT been | | through the PDP list. So I would like to ask, does this document | | pre-date the PdP or did it bypass the PdP entirely? | | | In either case, with it NOT being a document that has gone through | | the PdP, should a member or individual wish changes in this | | document, is it possible to propose policy that amends this | | document | | to address omissions etc? | | | If this document does NOT pre-date the PdP, can we also please get | | an | | explanation from AfriNIC as to why this was not put through the | | policy process since my reading of this document is that it | | contains | | elements which are very definitely questions of policy which is the | | remit and mandate of the PdP. | | | Thanks | | | Andrew Alston | | | DISCLAIMER: This email contains proprietary information some or all | | of which may be legally privileged. It is for the intended | | recipient | | only. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this | | email, please notify the author by replying to this email. If you | | are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose, copy, | | print, or rely on this email. We cannot accept liability for any | | statements made which are clearly the sender's own and not | | expressly | | made on behalf of this company or one of its agents. | | | _______________________________________________ | | | rpd mailing list | | | rpd at afrinic.net | | | https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd | | DISCLAIMER: This email contains proprietary information some or all | of which may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient | only. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this | email, please notify the author by replying to this email. If you | are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose, copy, | print, or rely on this email. We cannot accept liability for any | statements made which are clearly the sender's own and not expressly | made on behalf of this company or one of its agents. | _______________________________________________ | rpd mailing list | rpd at afrinic.net | https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tespok at tespok.co.ke Sun Feb 23 12:02:06 2014 From: tespok at tespok.co.ke (Fiona Asonga) Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2014 15:02:06 +0300 (EAT) Subject: [rpd] Implementation of Global Policy for Post Exhaustion IPV4 Allocation Mechanism In-Reply-To: <4a7768d8-0b08-4edf-b09c-0d45137d7323@mx-ix-nbo.tespok.co.ke> Message-ID: Hallo All IANA is seeking your guidance on the interpretation of the Global Policy for Post Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation Mechanisms by the IANA, which was ratified in May 2012 . http://www.icann.org/en/resources/policy/global-addressing/allocation-ipv4-post-exhaustion The global policy states that "Allocations from the IANA may begin once the pool is declared active." It is not clear whether this means that allocation from the Recovered IPv4 Pool should be made straight away or whether they should happen at the start of the next "IPv4 allocation period," the "6-month period following 1 March or 1 September." IANA hopes we can advise them on the intended meaning of this sentence, so that they can implement the policy appropriately. There are two options to decide on here: 1. Resolved (date) In implementing The Global Policy for Post Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation Mechanisms by the IANA, ICANN staff should begin allocations from the Recovered IPv4 pool immediately after the pool is declared active. -or- 2. Resolved (date) In implementing The Global Policy for Post Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation Mechanisms by the IANA, ICANN staff should begin allocations from the Recovered IPv4 pool at the start of the first allocation period after the pool is declared active. Our conclusion will be weighed against the feedback from the other RIR regions and contribute towards enabling IANA correctly implement the policy. ASO members from all the regions have been requested to get feedback from their regions. kind regards Fiona Asonga Chief Executive Officer Telecommunications Service Providers Association of Kenya/ Kenya Internet Exchange Point Member Strategic Committee of the Africa Computer Emergency Response Team NRO Number Council http://www.nro.net/about/number-council.html ASO Address Council http://aso.icann.org/ac/ 14 th Floor, Bruce House Standard Street Tel: +254 20 2245 036 Cell: +254 721 713 504 Website: www.tespok.or.ke ?Industry voice in Telecommunications, Providing Policy and Direction within the Industry and Government? Zimbra Blog: Celebrate! It?s Community Manager Appreciation Day! http://bit.ly/1e3C1cq -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dogwallah at gmail.com Fri Feb 21 13:09:27 2014 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2014 08:09:27 -0500 Subject: [rpd] Implementation of Global Policy for Post Exhaustion IPV4 Allocation Mechanism In-Reply-To: References: <4a7768d8-0b08-4edf-b09c-0d45137d7323@mx-ix-nbo.tespok.co.ke> Message-ID: Hi Fiona, Since we have 2 of the authors of the policy from our region, let's ask them what was their intent when writing the policy? I think it is a question about "re-arranging the deck chairs" and will have little to no impact on our region, but as always, could be wrong! In other words, I have no strong opinion either way. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 7:02 AM, Fiona Asonga wrote: > Hallo All > > IANA is seeking your guidance on the interpretation of the Global Policy > for Post Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation Mechanisms by the IANA, which was > ratified in May 2012. > http://www.icann.org/en/resources/policy/global-addressing/allocation-ipv4-post-exhaustion > > The global policy states that "Allocations from the IANA may begin once > the pool is declared active." It is not clear whether this means that > allocation from the Recovered IPv4 Pool should be made straight away or > whether they should happen at the start of the next "IPv4 allocation > period," the "6-month period following 1 March or 1 September." > > IANA hopes we can advise them on the intended meaning of this sentence, so > that they can implement the policy appropriately. > > There are two options to decide on here: > > 1. Resolved (date) In implementing The Global Policy for Post Exhaustion > IPv4 Allocation Mechanisms by the IANA, ICANN staff should begin > allocations from the Recovered IPv4 pool immediately after the pool is > declared active. > > -or- > > 2. Resolved (date) In implementing The Global Policy for Post Exhaustion > IPv4 Allocation Mechanisms by the IANA, ICANN staff should begin > allocations from the Recovered IPv4 pool at the start of the first > allocation period after the pool is declared active. > > Our conclusion will be weighed against the feedback from the other RIR > regions and contribute towards enabling IANA correctly implement the > policy. ASO members from all the regions have been requested to get > feedback from their regions. > > kind regards > > > Fiona Asonga > Chief Executive Officer > Telecommunications Service Providers Association of Kenya/ Kenya Internet > Exchange Point > Member Strategic Committee of the Africa Computer Emergency Response Team > > *NRO Number Council* *http://www.nro.net/about/number-council.html* > > *ASO Address Council* *http://aso.icann.org/ac/* > > > 14th Floor, Bruce House > Standard Street > > Tel: +254 20 2245 036 > Cell: +254 721 713 504 > > Website: www.tespok.or.ke > > > > *"Industry voice in Telecommunications, Providing Policy and Direction * > *within the Industry and Government"* > > > Zimbra Blog: Celebrate! It's Community Manager Appreciation Day! > http://bit.ly/1e3C1cq > > > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ondouglas at gmail.com Mon Feb 24 13:41:32 2014 From: ondouglas at gmail.com (Douglas Onyango) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 14:41:32 +0100 Subject: Fwd: [rpd] Implementation of Global Policy for Post Exhaustion IPV4 Allocation Mechanism In-Reply-To: References: <4a7768d8-0b08-4edf-b09c-0d45137d7323@mx-ix-nbo.tespok.co.ke> Message-ID: Hello Fiona, The original intent of the authors aside, the statement: "Allocations from the IANA may begin once the pool is declared active." appears to in principle accommodate immediately allocation as well as an alignment with the allocation periods --- (option A & B). For this reasons, I will concentrate my contribution around which option is better for us as a community rather than dwell on which one is correct. Now considering that 1. Option A is a one-time after which all subsequent allocations should be aligned with the "allocation period" 2. I don't see any logical reason why I would want RIR xxx with less than a /9 to wait for the "Allocation period" for resource allocation 3. It is unlikely that AFRINIC will be the first RIR to have less than a /9 (unlikely to suffer from the wait in B) My view for AFRINIC is neutral, but my global view is in support of option A Regards, From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com Mon Feb 24 14:26:28 2014 From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 15:26:28 +0100 Subject: [rpd] Implementation of Global Policy for Post Exhaustion IPV4 Allocation Mechanism In-Reply-To: References: <4a7768d8-0b08-4edf-b09c-0d45137d7323@mx-ix-nbo.tespok.co.ke> Message-ID: Hello Douglas,all While i am also neutral on this interpretation as either way works for our community. I think by option A, it will mean line 2 and 3 on the policy (in bold below) will be 'somewhat' invalid. So in the name of ''sticking to the entire guideline'' i go for option 2 as per Fiona's mail > When one of the RIRs declares it has less than a total of a /9 in its > inventory, the Recovered IPv4 pool will be declared active, and IPaddresses from the Recovered > IPv4 Pool will be allocated as follows: > > - Allocations from the IANA may begin once the pool is declared active. > - *In each "IPv4 allocation period", each RIR will receive a single > "IPv4 allocation unit" from the IANA.* > - *An "IPv4 allocation period" is defined as a 6-month period > following 1 March or 1 September in each year.* > > Regards My personal views On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 2:41 PM, Douglas Onyango wrote: > Hello Fiona, > The original intent of the authors aside, the statement: "Allocations > from the IANA may begin once the pool is declared active." appears to > in principle accommodate immediately allocation as well as an > alignment with the allocation periods --- (option A & B). > For this reasons, I will concentrate my contribution around which > option is better for us as a community rather than dwell on which one > is correct. > > Now considering that > 1. Option A is a one-time after which all subsequent allocations > should be aligned with the "allocation period" > 2. I don't see any logical reason why I would want RIR xxx with less > than a /9 to wait for the "Allocation period" for resource allocation > 3. It is unlikely that AFRINIC will be the first RIR to have less than > a /9 (unlikely to suffer from the wait in B) > > My view for AFRINIC is neutral, but my global view is in support of option > A > > > Regards, > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng * -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ondouglas at gmail.com Mon Feb 24 15:21:33 2014 From: ondouglas at gmail.com (Douglas Onyango) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 16:21:33 +0100 Subject: [rpd] Implementation of Global Policy for Post Exhaustion IPV4 Allocation Mechanism In-Reply-To: References: <4a7768d8-0b08-4edf-b09c-0d45137d7323@mx-ix-nbo.tespok.co.ke> Message-ID: Hi Seun, On 24 February 2014 15:26, Seun Ojedeji wrote: > community. I think by option A, it will mean line 2 and 3 on the policy (in > bold below) will be 'somewhat' invalid. So in the name of ''sticking to the > entire guideline'' i go for option 2 as per Fiona's mail >> Allocations from the IANA may begin once the pool is declared active. >> In each "IPv4 allocation period", each RIR will receive a single "IPv4 >> allocation unit" from the IANA. >> An "IPv4 allocation period" is defined as a 6-month period following 1 >> March or 1 September in each year. I don't think I see how any of these two are invalided by going with option A; Infact all i can see is the first paragraph saying either A, or B is fine, and a conspicuously missing clause to link the pool activation to the allocation period. Me thinks we wouldn't be debating if the authors :-) had included this. Regards, -- Douglas Onyango | +256-772-712 139 | Twitter: @ondouglas Life is the educator's practical joke in which you spend the first half learning, and the second half learning that everything you learned in the first was a joke. From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com Mon Feb 24 15:39:42 2014 From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 16:39:42 +0100 Subject: [rpd] Implementation of Global Policy for Post Exhaustion IPV4 Allocation Mechanism In-Reply-To: References: <4a7768d8-0b08-4edf-b09c-0d45137d7323@mx-ix-nbo.tespok.co.ke> Message-ID: On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 4:21 PM, Douglas Onyango wrote: > Hi Seun, > On 24 February 2014 15:26, Seun Ojedeji wrote: > > community. I think by option A, it will mean line 2 and 3 on the policy > (in > > bold below) will be 'somewhat' invalid. So in the name of ''sticking to > the > > entire guideline'' i go for option 2 as per Fiona's mail > >> Allocations from the IANA may begin once the pool is declared active. > >> In each "IPv4 allocation period", each RIR will receive a single "IPv4 > >> allocation unit" from the IANA. > >> An "IPv4 allocation period" is defined as a 6-month period following 1 > >> March or 1 September in each year. > > I don't think I see how any of these two are invalided by going with > option A; Infact all i can see is the first paragraph saying either A, > or B is fine, and a conspicuously missing clause to link the pool > activation to the allocation period. I think i do, to make it simpler; option A says start allocation now, option B says wait until 'allocation period' pasting the 3 important lines below: - Allocations from the IANA may begin once the pool is declared active. - In each "IPv4 allocation period", each RIR will receive a single "IPv4allocation unit" from the IANA. - An "IPv4 allocation period" is defined as a 6-month period following 1 March or 1 September in each year. Line one says allocation may begin immediately....with a 'but' and the but is that it should follow the 'allocation period' which is covered in line 2 and 3. So tell me, if the allocation starts immediately how then does line 2 and 3 feature in the whole distribution? > Me thinks we wouldn't be > debating if the authors :-) had included this. > > Well me thinks we are having this discussion just to perhaps to get enough justification from the community to close eye on line 2 and 3 ;) Cheers! > Regards, > -- > Douglas Onyango | +256-772-712 139 | Twitter: @ondouglas > Life is the educator's practical joke in which you spend the first > half learning, and the second half learning that everything you > learned in the first was a joke. > -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng * -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sm+afrinic at elandsys.com Tue Feb 25 01:43:46 2014 From: sm+afrinic at elandsys.com (sm+afrinic at elandsys.com) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 17:43:46 -0800 Subject: [rpd] Implementation of Global Policy for Post Exhaustion IPV4 Allocation Mechanism In-Reply-To: References: <4a7768d8-0b08-4edf-b09c-0d45137d7323@mx-ix-nbo.tespok.co.ke> Message-ID: <6.2.5.6.2.20140224171653.0b90c0a8@resistor.net> Hi Fiona, At 04:02 23-02-2014, Fiona Asonga wrote: >IANA is seeking your guidance on the interpretation of the Global >Policy for Post Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation Mechanisms by the IANA, >which was ratified in May 2012. >http://www.icann.org/en/resources/policy/global-addressing/allocation-ipv4-post-exhaustion > >The global policy states that "Allocations from the IANA may begin >once the pool is declared active." It is not clear whether this >means that allocation from the Recovered IPv4 Pool should be made >straight away or whether they should happen at the start of the next >"IPv4 allocation period," the "6-month period following 1 March or 1 >September." > >IANA hopes we can advise them on the intended meaning of this >sentence, so that they can implement the policy appropriately. > >There are two options to decide on here: > >1. Resolved (date) In implementing The Global Policy for Post >Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation Mechanisms by the IANA, ICANN staff should begin >allocations from the Recovered IPv4 pool immediately after the pool >is declared active. > >-or- > >2. Resolved (date) In implementing The Global Policy for Post >Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation Mechanisms by the IANA, ICANN staff should begin >allocations from the Recovered IPv4 pool at the start of the first >allocation period after the pool is declared active. The following was posted (not in the AfriNIC region) during the discussions leading to the policy: "Once it was activated by an RIR declaring that it has less than a /9 in its inventory, IANA would have to make the first allocation. IANA would then have to make additional allocations on 1 March and 1 September each year, if there is enough address space left in the pool." The above fits within (1). In my opinion neither (1) nor (2) would have a negative impact on the (AfriNIC region) IPv4 address pool. Regards, S. Moonesamy From list-admin at afrinic.net Sat Mar 1 03:11:09 2014 From: list-admin at afrinic.net (list-admin at afrinic.net) Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2014 05:11:09 +0200 Subject: [rpd] Monthly statistics for mailing-list: rpd@afrinic.net Message-ID: <201403010311.s213B9sm004767@ns1.afrinic.net> Monthly statistics for mailing-list: rpd at afrinic.net (Generated at: Sat Mar 1 03:11:01 UTC 2014) Statistics for month: February 2014 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ***** Authors with the most number of messages posted: +----+-----Author-----------------------------------+--Msg-+-Percent-+ | 1 | Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com | 3 | 13.64 % | | 2 | adiel at afrinic.net | 3 | 13.64 % | | 3 | ondouglas at gmail.com | 3 | 13.64 % | | 4 | seun.ojedeji at gmail.com | 3 | 13.64 % | | 5 | saul at enetworks.co.za | 2 | 9.09 % | | 6 | tespok at tespok.co.ke | 2 | 9.09 % | | 7 | dogwallah at gmail.com | 2 | 9.09 % | | 8 | list-admin at afrinic.net | 1 | 4.55 % | | 9 | babusha at afrinic.net | 1 | 4.55 % | | 10 | Kivuva at transworldafrica.com | 1 | 4.55 % | | 11 | sm+afrinic at elandsys.com | 1 | 4.55 % | +----+----------------------------------------------+------+---------+ | | other | 0 | 0.00 % | +----+----------------------------------------------+------+---------+ ***** Authors with the largest total size of messages posted: +----+-----Author-------------------------------------------+-KBytes-+ | 1 | tespok at tespok.co.ke | 95.4 | | 2 | babusha at afrinic.net | 48.9 | | 3 | Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com | 27.2 | | 4 | seun.ojedeji at gmail.com | 12.2 | | 5 | dogwallah at gmail.com | 8.4 | | 6 | saul at enetworks.co.za | 8.3 | | 7 | list-admin at afrinic.net | 5.4 | | 8 | adiel at afrinic.net | 4.8 | | 9 | Kivuva at transworldafrica.com | 4.3 | | 10 | ondouglas at gmail.com | 2.5 | | 11 | sm+afrinic at elandsys.com | 0.6 | +----+------------------------------------------------------+--------+ ***** Authors with the largest average size of messages posted: +----+-----Author--------------------------------------------+-bytes-+ | 1 | babusha at afrinic.net | 50046 | | 2 | tespok at tespok.co.ke | 48826 | | 3 | Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com | 9270 | | 4 | list-admin at afrinic.net | 5544 | | 5 | Kivuva at transworldafrica.com | 4415 | | 6 | dogwallah at gmail.com | 4312 | | 7 | saul at enetworks.co.za | 4254 | | 8 | seun.ojedeji at gmail.com | 4156 | | 9 | adiel at afrinic.net | 1644 | | 10 | ondouglas at gmail.com | 851 | | 11 | sm+afrinic at elandsys.com | 607 | +----+-------------------------------------------------------+-------+ ***** Top subjects by popularity: +----+----Subject-----------------------------------+--Msg-+-Percent-+ | 1 | [rpd] Merges/Acquisitions/Closures document | 13 | 59.09 % | | 2 | [rpd] Implementation of Global Policy for Po | 5 | 22.73 % | | 3 | [rpd] Monthly statistics for mailing-list: r | 1 | 4.55 % | | 4 | [rpd] Call for Volunteers - 2014 Nominations | 1 | 4.55 % | | 5 | Fwd: [rpd] Implementation of Global Policy f | 1 | 4.55 % | | 6 | [rpd] Implementation of Global Policy for Po | 1 | 4.55 % | +----+----------------------------------------------+------+---------+ | | other | 0 | 0.00 % | +----+----------------------------------------------+------+---------+ ***** Graph showing number of messages written during hours of day: 100% -----------------#-------------#----------------- - 4 90% -----------------#-------------#----------------- msgs 80% -----------------#-------------#----------------- 70% -----------------#-----------#-#----------------- 60% -----------------#-----------#-#----------------- 50% -----------------#---#---#---#-#-#-#------------- 40% -----------------#---#---#---#-#-#-#------------- 30% -----------------#---#---#---#-#-#-#------------- 20% -----------------#---#-#-#---#-#-#-#-#---#------- 10% -----------------#---#-#-#---#-#-#-#-#---#------- * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * hour 0 5 11 17 23 ***** Graph showing number of messages written during days of month: 100% ---------------------------------------#----------------------- - 9 90% ---------------------------------------#----------------------- msgs 80% ---------------------------------------#----------------------- 70% ---------------------------------------#----------------------- 60% ---------------------------------------#----------------------- 50% ---------------------------------------#-------#--------------- 40% -------------------------------------#-#-------#--------------- 30% -------------------------------------#-#-------#--------------- 20% -------------------------------------#-#-------#--------------- 10% -----#-------------#-----------------#-#-#---#-#--------------- * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * day 1 6 12 18 24 31 ***** Graph showing number of messages written during days of week: 100% -------------#--------------- - 9 90% -------------#--------------- msgs 80% -------------#--------------- 70% -#-----------#--------------- 60% -#-----------#--------------- 50% -#-----------#--------------- 40% -#-------#---#--------------- 30% -#-------#---#--------------- 20% -#-------#---#--------------- 10% -#-------#---#---#-------#--- * * * * * * * Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun ***** Longest message: Author : tespok at tespok.co.ke Subject : [rpd] Merges/Acquisitions/Closures document Date : Thu, 20 Feb 2014 17:50:11 +0300 (EAT) Size : 55296 bytes ***** Most popular subject: Subject : [rpd] Merges/Acquisitions/Closures document No. of msgs: 13 Total size : 122609 bytes ***** Final summary: Total number of messages: 22 Total number of different authors: 11 Total number of different subjects: 6 Total size of messages (w/o headers): 253581 bytes Average size of a message: 11526 bytes -- Regards, AFRINIC _____________________ powered by grepmail and MailListStat From geier at geier.ne.tz Sat Mar 1 03:48:46 2014 From: geier at geier.ne.tz (Frank Habicht) Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2014 06:48:46 +0300 Subject: [rpd] Implementation of Global Policy for Post Exhaustion IPV4 Allocation Mechanism In-Reply-To: References: <4a7768d8-0b08-4edf-b09c-0d45137d7323@mx-ix-nbo.tespok.co.ke> Message-ID: <5311589E.4090302@geier.ne.tz> Hi all, On 2/21/2014 4:09 PM, McTim wrote: > I think it is a question about "re-arranging the deck chairs" and will have > little to no impact on our region, but as always, could be wrong! +42 ie I vote to toss a coin. Frank From tespok at tespok.co.ke Mon Mar 3 10:27:09 2014 From: tespok at tespok.co.ke (Fiona Asonga) Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2014 13:27:09 +0300 (EAT) Subject: [rpd] Implementation of Global Policy for Post Exhaustion IPV4 Allocation Mechanism In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <19575036.2191.1393842558090.JavaMail.User@CEO> Hallo All, Thanks for your feedback, being that the ASO representative will provide this report on Wednesday 5th march 2014; I am arriving at the following as the AFRINIC position: Once it was activated by an RIR declaring that it has less than a /9 in its inventory, IANA would have to make the first allocation. IANA would then have to make additional allocations on 1 March and 1 September each year, if there is enough address space left in the pool This means IANA start off at option 1 and adjusts for the next round of allocation as per the set allocation periods of 1 March and 1 September of each year. Please correct me if the conclusion is not accurate. kind regards Fiona Asonga Chief Executive Officer Telecommunications Service Providers Association of Kenya/ Kenya Internet Exchange Point Member Strategic Committee of the Africa Computer Emergency Response Team NRO Number Council http://www.nro.net/about/number-council.html ASO Address Council http://aso.icann.org/ac/ 14 th Floor, Bruce House Standard Street Tel: +254 20 2245 036 Cell: +254 721 713 504 Website: www.tespok.or.ke ?Industry voice in Telecommunications, Providing Policy and Direction within the Industry and Government? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Fiona Asonga" To: rpd at afrinic.net Sent: Sunday, February 23, 2014 3:02:06 PM Subject: [rpd] Implementation of Global Policy for Post Exhaustion IPV4 Allocation Mechanism Hallo All IANA is seeking your guidance on the interpretation of the Global Policy for Post Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation Mechanisms by the IANA, which was ratified in May 2012 . http://www.icann.org/en/resources/policy/global-addressing/allocation-ipv4-post-exhaustion The global policy states that "Allocations from the IANA may begin once the pool is declared active." It is not clear whether this means that allocation from the Recovered IPv4 Pool should be made straight away or whether they should happen at the start of the next "IPv4 allocation period," the "6-month period following 1 March or 1 September." IANA hopes we can advise them on the intended meaning of this sentence, so that they can implement the policy appropriately. There are two options to decide on here: 1. Resolved (date) In implementing The Global Policy for Post Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation Mechanisms by the IANA, ICANN staff should begin allocations from the Recovered IPv4 pool immediately after the pool is declared active. -or- 2. Resolved (date) In implementing The Global Policy for Post Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation Mechanisms by the IANA, ICANN staff should begin allocations from the Recovered IPv4 pool at the start of the first allocation period after the pool is declared active. Our conclusion will be weighed against the feedback from the other RIR regions and contribute towards enabling IANA correctly implement the policy. ASO members from all the regions have been requested to get feedback from their regions. kind regards Fiona Asonga Chief Executive Officer Telecommunications Service Providers Association of Kenya/ Kenya Internet Exchange Point Member Strategic Committee of the Africa Computer Emergency Response Team NRO Number Council http://www.nro.net/about/number-council.html ASO Address Council http://aso.icann.org/ac/ 14 th Floor, Bruce House Standard Street Tel: +254 20 2245 036 Cell: +254 721 713 504 Website: www.tespok.or.ke ?Industry voice in Telecommunications, Providing Policy and Direction within the Industry and Government? Zimbra Blog: Celebrate! It?s Community Manager Appreciation Day! http://bit.ly/1e3C1cq _______________________________________________ rpd mailing list rpd at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd From ondouglas at gmail.com Mon Mar 3 10:53:17 2014 From: ondouglas at gmail.com (Douglas Onyango) Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2014 11:53:17 +0100 Subject: [rpd] Implementation of Global Policy for Post Exhaustion IPV4 Allocation Mechanism In-Reply-To: <19575036.2191.1393842558090.JavaMail.User@CEO> References: <19575036.2191.1393842558090.JavaMail.User@CEO> Message-ID: Hi Fiona, Whilst I don't have a problem with the position you state here, I feel the gist of the discussion should also be captured to provide proper context to the discussion and subsequently the position/decision. My view on the contributions on the list so far is that the community offered a "no objection" --- rather than actual support for option A which you state in your email. Regards On 3 March 2014 11:27, Fiona Asonga wrote: > Hallo All, > > Thanks for your feedback, being that the ASO representative will provide this report on Wednesday 5th march 2014; I am arriving at the following as the AFRINIC position: > > Once it was activated by an RIR declaring that it has less than a /9 in its inventory, IANA would have to make the first allocation. IANA would then have to make additional allocations on 1 March and 1 September each year, if there is enough address space left in the pool > > This means IANA start off at option 1 and adjusts for the next round of allocation as per the set allocation periods of 1 March and 1 September of each year. > > Please correct me if the conclusion is not accurate. > > kind regards > > > Fiona Asonga > Chief Executive Officer > Telecommunications Service Providers Association of Kenya/ Kenya Internet Exchange Point > Member Strategic Committee of the Africa Computer Emergency Response Team > > NRO Number Council http://www.nro.net/about/number-council.html > > ASO Address Council http://aso.icann.org/ac/ > > > 14 th Floor, Bruce House > Standard Street > > Tel: +254 20 2245 036 > Cell: +254 721 713 504 > > Website: www.tespok.or.ke > > > > "Industry voice in Telecommunications, Providing Policy and Direction > within the Industry and Government" > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Fiona Asonga" > To: rpd at afrinic.net > Sent: Sunday, February 23, 2014 3:02:06 PM > Subject: [rpd] Implementation of Global Policy for Post Exhaustion IPV4 Allocation Mechanism > > > > Hallo All > > IANA is seeking your guidance on the interpretation of the Global Policy for Post Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation Mechanisms by the IANA, which was ratified in May 2012 . http://www.icann.org/en/resources/policy/global-addressing/allocation-ipv4-post-exhaustion > > The global policy states that "Allocations from the IANA may begin once the pool is declared active." It is not clear whether this means that allocation from the Recovered IPv4 Pool should be made straight away or whether they should happen at the start of the next "IPv4 allocation period," the "6-month period following 1 March or 1 September." > > IANA hopes we can advise them on the intended meaning of this sentence, so that they can implement the policy appropriately. > > There are two options to decide on here: > > 1. Resolved (date) In implementing The Global Policy for Post Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation Mechanisms by the IANA, ICANN staff should begin > allocations from the Recovered IPv4 pool immediately after the pool is declared active. > > -or- > > 2. Resolved (date) In implementing The Global Policy for Post Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation Mechanisms by the IANA, ICANN staff should begin > allocations from the Recovered IPv4 pool at the start of the first allocation period after the pool is declared active. > > Our conclusion will be weighed against the feedback from the other RIR regions and contribute towards enabling IANA correctly implement the policy. ASO members from all the regions have been requested to get feedback from their regions. > > kind regards > > > > > > Fiona Asonga > Chief Executive Officer > Telecommunications Service Providers Association of Kenya/ Kenya Internet Exchange Point > Member Strategic Committee of the Africa Computer Emergency Response Team > > NRO Number Council http://www.nro.net/about/number-council.html > > ASO Address Council http://aso.icann.org/ac/ > > > 14 th Floor, Bruce House > Standard Street > > Tel: +254 20 2245 036 > Cell: +254 721 713 504 > > Website: www.tespok.or.ke > > > > "Industry voice in Telecommunications, Providing Policy and Direction > within the Industry and Government" > > Zimbra Blog: Celebrate! It's Community Manager Appreciation Day! http://bit.ly/1e3C1cq > > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd -- Douglas Onyango | +256-772-712 139 | Twitter: @ondouglas Life is the educator's practical joke in which you spend the first half learning, and the second half learning that everything you learned in the first was a joke. From tespok at tespok.co.ke Mon Mar 3 13:23:40 2014 From: tespok at tespok.co.ke (Fiona Asonga) Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2014 16:23:40 +0300 (EAT) Subject: [rpd] Implementation of Global Policy for Post Exhaustion IPV4 Allocation Mechanism In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <25098956.2303.1393853150287.JavaMail.User@CEO> Thanks Douglas, While there were no objections to either approach there are more emails leaning towards option A as opposed to option B though all emails state neutrality. I was focusing on the options as opposed to the neutrality but will capture both: Whereas there are no objections to either options A or B; there is support for immediate activation as soon as an RIR declares it has less than a /9 in its inventory for the first allocation however, subsequent allocations must be in line with the next allocation round of either 1 March or 1 September of each year. kind regards Fiona Asonga Chief Executive Officer Telecommunications Service Providers Association of Kenya/ Kenya Internet Exchange Point Member Strategic Committee of the Africa Computer Emergency Response Team NRO Number Council http://www.nro.net/about/number-council.html ASO Address Council http://aso.icann.org/ac/ 14 th Floor, Bruce House Standard Street Tel: +254 20 2245 036 Cell: +254 721 713 504 Website: www.tespok.or.ke ?Industry voice in Telecommunications, Providing Policy and Direction within the Industry and Government? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Douglas Onyango" To: tespok at tespok.co.ke Cc: rpd at afrinic.net Sent: Monday, March 3, 2014 1:53:17 PM Subject: Re: [rpd] Implementation of Global Policy for Post Exhaustion IPV4 Allocation Mechanism Hi Fiona, Whilst I don't have a problem with the position you state here, I feel the gist of the discussion should also be captured to provide proper context to the discussion and subsequently the position/decision. My view on the contributions on the list so far is that the community offered a "no objection" --- rather than actual support for option A which you state in your email. Regards On 3 March 2014 11:27, Fiona Asonga wrote: > Hallo All, > > Thanks for your feedback, being that the ASO representative will provide this report on Wednesday 5th march 2014; I am arriving at the following as the AFRINIC position: > > Once it was activated by an RIR declaring that it has less than a /9 in its inventory, IANA would have to make the first allocation. IANA would then have to make additional allocations on 1 March and 1 September each year, if there is enough address space left in the pool > > This means IANA start off at option 1 and adjusts for the next round of allocation as per the set allocation periods of 1 March and 1 September of each year. > > Please correct me if the conclusion is not accurate. > > kind regards > > > Fiona Asonga > Chief Executive Officer > Telecommunications Service Providers Association of Kenya/ Kenya Internet Exchange Point > Member Strategic Committee of the Africa Computer Emergency Response Team > > NRO Number Council http://www.nro.net/about/number-council.html > > ASO Address Council http://aso.icann.org/ac/ > > > 14 th Floor, Bruce House > Standard Street > > Tel: +254 20 2245 036 > Cell: +254 721 713 504 > > Website: www.tespok.or.ke > > > > "Industry voice in Telecommunications, Providing Policy and Direction > within the Industry and Government" > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Fiona Asonga" > To: rpd at afrinic.net > Sent: Sunday, February 23, 2014 3:02:06 PM > Subject: [rpd] Implementation of Global Policy for Post Exhaustion IPV4 Allocation Mechanism > > > > Hallo All > > IANA is seeking your guidance on the interpretation of the Global Policy for Post Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation Mechanisms by the IANA, which was ratified in May 2012 . http://www.icann.org/en/resources/policy/global-addressing/allocation-ipv4-post-exhaustion > > The global policy states that "Allocations from the IANA may begin once the pool is declared active." It is not clear whether this means that allocation from the Recovered IPv4 Pool should be made straight away or whether they should happen at the start of the next "IPv4 allocation period," the "6-month period following 1 March or 1 September." > > IANA hopes we can advise them on the intended meaning of this sentence, so that they can implement the policy appropriately. > > There are two options to decide on here: > > 1. Resolved (date) In implementing The Global Policy for Post Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation Mechanisms by the IANA, ICANN staff should begin > allocations from the Recovered IPv4 pool immediately after the pool is declared active. > > -or- > > 2. Resolved (date) In implementing The Global Policy for Post Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation Mechanisms by the IANA, ICANN staff should begin > allocations from the Recovered IPv4 pool at the start of the first allocation period after the pool is declared active. > > Our conclusion will be weighed against the feedback from the other RIR regions and contribute towards enabling IANA correctly implement the policy. ASO members from all the regions have been requested to get feedback from their regions. > > kind regards > > > > > > Fiona Asonga > Chief Executive Officer > Telecommunications Service Providers Association of Kenya/ Kenya Internet Exchange Point > Member Strategic Committee of the Africa Computer Emergency Response Team > > NRO Number Council http://www.nro.net/about/number-council.html > > ASO Address Council http://aso.icann.org/ac/ > > > 14 th Floor, Bruce House > Standard Street > > Tel: +254 20 2245 036 > Cell: +254 721 713 504 > > Website: www.tespok.or.ke > > > > "Industry voice in Telecommunications, Providing Policy and Direction > within the Industry and Government" > > Zimbra Blog: Celebrate! It's Community Manager Appreciation Day! http://bit.ly/1e3C1cq > > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd -- Douglas Onyango | +256-772-712 139 | Twitter: @ondouglas Life is the educator's practical joke in which you spend the first half learning, and the second half learning that everything you learned in the first was a joke. From ondouglas at gmail.com Mon Mar 3 15:47:44 2014 From: ondouglas at gmail.com (Douglas Onyango) Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2014 16:47:44 +0100 Subject: [rpd] Implementation of Global Policy for Post Exhaustion IPV4 Allocation Mechanism In-Reply-To: <25098956.2303.1393853150287.JavaMail.User@CEO> References: <25098956.2303.1393853150287.JavaMail.User@CEO> Message-ID: Hi Fiona, If the text below is the updated text, it looks better than the first. > Whereas there are no objections to either options A or B, there is support for immediate activation as soon as an RIR declares it has less than a /9 in its inventory for the first allocation, however, subsequent allocations must be in line with the next allocation round of either 1 March or 1 September of each year. Regards, -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JOgunluyi at paycom-ng.com Tue Mar 11 15:43:52 2014 From: JOgunluyi at paycom-ng.com (Jide Ogunluyi) Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 15:43:52 +0000 Subject: [rpd] Membership Registration Message-ID: Hello AFRINIC, Please , how do I go about membership registration for an IPv4 end-user assignment? Will appreciate a prompt response Kind Regards, Jide Ogunluyi Systems Admin and Tech. Support PayCom Nigeria Limited Plot,242 Kofo Abayomi Street Victoria Island, Lagos. Mobile: (+234) 703 629 9741 Email: jogunluyi at paycom-ng.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com Tue Mar 11 17:50:42 2014 From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji) Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 18:50:42 +0100 Subject: [rpd] Membership Registration In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hello Jide, On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 4:43 PM, Jide Ogunluyi wrote: > Hello AFRINIC, > > Please , how do I go about membership registration for an IPv4 end-user > assignment? > > Here is a place to begin : http://www.afrinic.net/en/services/rs Also there is a guide i did sometime ago for education users(which is largely similar to non-education sector except the discount) : http://www.personaljournal.com.ng/index.php/tutorials There use to be a similar(and more detailed) guide at AFRINIC site but i can't seem to find it at this time. Perhaps someone on the list will point you to it. Nevertheless the 2 urls above should get you going. Cheers! > Will appreciate a prompt response > > Kind Regards, > > Jide Ogunluyi > Systems Admin and Tech. Support > PayCom Nigeria Limited > Plot,242 Kofo Abayomi Street > Victoria Island, Lagos. > Mobile: (+234) 703 629 9741 > Email: jogunluyi at paycom-ng.com > > > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng * -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From apb at cequrux.com Sat Mar 15 08:22:47 2014 From: apb at cequrux.com (Alan Barrett) Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2014 10:22:47 +0200 Subject: [rpd] US government to relinquish oversight of the DNS and IANA functions Message-ID: <20140315082247.GA11479@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> The US Department of Commerce has announced that they will relinquish their oversight of the DNS and IANA functions. There will be a public consultation process led by ICANN. Announcement from US Department of Commerce: . Announcement form ICANN, including how to get involved: . Reaction from IAB and several other organisations: --apb (Alan Barrett) From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com Fri Mar 21 07:49:35 2014 From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji) Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 08:49:35 +0100 Subject: [rpd] Status of ratified policy proposals Message-ID: Dear Community Members, This is to update you on status of proposals ratified by the AFRINIC Board *Proposal Implemented* The following proposal has been implemented accordingly. Proposal ID: AFPUB-2013-V6-001-DRAFT01 Title: Remove requirement to announce entire IPv6 block as a single aggregate Authors: Steven Wiesman, Steven Tapper, Charles Hendrikson URL: http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposals/908-afpub-2013-v6-001-draft01 Short url: http://goo.gl/RRWrvg *Proposal implementation extended* The following proposals are yet to be implemented. AFRINIC has requested a waiver to allow time for the completion of ongoing migration of old WHOIS into the new WHOIS platform. The new WHOIS is expected to be launched the first week of May (before AFRINIC-20). Proposal ID: AFPUB-2012-DNS-001-DRAFT-02 Title: No Reverse Unless Assigned Author: Tim McGinnis URL: http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposals/700-no-reverse-unless-assigned Short url: http://goo.gl/SzvJvP Proposal ID: AFPUB-2012-V4-001-DRAFT-01 Title: Anycast Assignments in the AFRINIC region Authors: Mark Elkins, Mauritz Lewies, Tim McGinnis URL: http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposals/701-anycast-assignments-in-the-afrinic-region--afpub-2012-v4-001-draft-01--last-call Short url: http://goo.gl/ZahGBI The new expected implementation date is 30th of May 2014 Seun Ojedeji, Emile Milandou PDWG Co-Chairs sent from Google nexus 4 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mje at posix.co.za Fri Mar 21 20:11:38 2014 From: mje at posix.co.za (Mark Elkins) Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 22:11:38 +0200 Subject: [rpd] AFRINIC Board Elections - 2014: Call for Nominations In-Reply-To: <1395426016.7373.31.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> References: <72B07AC2-F4C2-4A95-B9BA-E71E6DFB20BA@afrinic.net> <1395406604.7293.245.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> <1395426016.7373.31.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> Message-ID: <1395432698.7373.67.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> Dear Colleagues, According to Section 13 of the AFRINIC by-laws, the Board seats for the following two sub-regions are up for renewal in June 2014: 1. Primary: Lala Andrianamampianina (Indian Ocean - Seat 3) 2. Alternate: Krishna Seeburn (Indian Ocean) 3. Primary: Janvier Ngnoulaye (Central Africa - Seat 4) 4. Alternate: Christian Bope (Central Africa) In application of the new by-laws which does away with the two above alternate seats, we will also need to fill the second seat of the two non-regional Directors (Seat 8). As a result, three (3) seats on the AFRINIC Board will be open for election: A) Seat 3: From Indian Ocean sub-region (Mandate: 2014 to 2017) B) Seat 4: From Central Africa sub-region (Mandate: 2014 to 2017) C) Seat 8: Non-Regional Independent (Mandate: 2014 to 2017) We are pleased to invite nominations for candidates to fill these three seats. Any suitable natural person residing in one of the above regions can be nominated (for that sub-region) provided they comply with the requirements in Section 13 of the by-laws. Seat 8 can be filled from any AFRINIC region provided they comply with the requirements in Section 13 of the by-laws. Self-nominations and nominations by those who are not registered contacts of AFRINIC member organizations are also allowed but with the condition that the nomination must be formally backed by at least two authorized and registered contact persons of an AFRINIC member organization in good standing. Nominees must demonstrate at least three years of managerial experience in the Internet Protocol service/business or other Internet related activities and should preferably hold a senior level position. Once elected, they must be ready to actively participate and contribute to all activities conferred to the Board as defined in the by-laws. Nominations must be sent to nomcom2014 at afrinic.net with the following information: 1. Candidate (Nominee) Information (In case this is a self-nomination, please additionally complete section 3 below) - Nominee (Full name): - Organisation (or affiliation): - Position/Role: - Physical address: - e-mail address: - Phone number: - Country of Residence: - Board seat (sub-region) nominated for: 2. Nominator: (If the nominator is NOT a registered contact of an AFRINIC member organization in good standing, please additionally complete section 3 below) - Full name: - Organisation (or affiliation): - Position/Role: - Physical address: - e-mail address: - Phone number: 3. Seconder/Referee Information (in case this is a self-nomination or a nomination by a non-AFRINIC member) (Seconders must be registered contacts of AFRINIC member organizations in good standing.) Seconder/Referee 1: - Full name: - Organisation (or affiliation): - Position/Role: - Physical address: - e-mail address: - Phone number: Seconder/Referee 2: - Full name: - Organisation (or affiliation): - Position/Role: - Physical address: - e-mail address: - Phone number: 4. Brief statement explaining the nominee's background and motivation (in English, and in not more than 500 words). Please highlight what expertise and experience the nominee will bring to AFRINIC in general and to the board in particular. 5. Additional information: This will be published on the candidate?s profile during the public comment period: - A recent copy of the candidate?s CV (in English) - A recent photograph. - Other links that represent the candidate?s online profile (such as blogs, twitter, professional publications, etc). The deadline for nominations is 19 April 2014 at 20:00 UTC. Nominations should be submitted to nomcom2014 at afrinic.net Note: It is expected that candidates should be able to attend AFRINIC-20 in person on the Election Day (06 June 2014) where they will be afforded an opportunity to introduce themselves and to make a short presentation to the community during the Annual General Members Meeting. The meeting will take place in Djibouti from 04 - 06 June 2014. For more information on the election process, please browse to: http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/elections/bod-election/process -- Mark J Elkins - AFRINIC 2014 Nominations Committee mje at posix.co.za - nomcom2014 at afrinic.net Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 From adiel at afrinic.net Sat Mar 22 03:45:27 2014 From: adiel at afrinic.net (Adiel Akplogan) Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2014 07:45:27 +0400 Subject: [rpd] Fwd: [afgwg-discuss] Consultation on post NTIA IANA functions oversight mechanism References: <8FCF7E25-11AA-448C-99DB-97F492BDB7D6@afrinic.net> Message-ID: <10238248-044A-46A7-BB68-4199A81A4C67@afrinic.net> Sorry, but this has not reached the rpd list from my first attempt. Your input is requested. - a. Begin forwarded message: > From: Adiel Akplogan > Subject: [afgwg-discuss] Consultation on post NTIA IANA functions oversight mechanism > Date: March 20, 2014 at 22:22:20 PM GMT+4 > To: afgwg-discuss at afrinic.net > > ? [ *** Apologies for cross-posting *** ] ? > > Dear colleagues, > > On Friday 14 March, the United States Government announced that it intends to transition oversight of key Internet functions (including the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority or IANA) to the global multi-stakeholder community. It has asked ICANN to facilitate, in consultation with the global multi-stakeholder community, the development of a proposal for the transition. > > Leaders of the I* Internet technical coordination organisations (including AFRINIC), met several times and, in line with the Montevideo Statement on the Future of Internet Cooperation (October 2013), we agreed on some common principles for an evolution such as the one announced by the US Government. Regular participants in those meetings, including their affiliated organisations, are noted here: > http://www.nro.net/news/statement-from-the-i-leaders-coordination-meeting > > As an outcome of these discussions, a common position was developed on the following points: > > - The roles of all Internet registry policy bodies will stay unchanged. These bodies continue to hold policy authority for the protocol parameter, number, and name spaces, including responsibility to ensure the faithful registry implementation according to those policies. > > - The IETF, IAB, and RIRs are committed to the role of ICANN as the IANA protocol parameter and IP address registry operator. > > - ICANN reaffirms its commitment to implement all IANA registry functions in accordance with the respective policies. ICANN will also provide affirmations to all stakeholders (including governments) that all Internet registry policy bodies and ICANN itself will continue to use open and transparent processes. > > The full text, agreed upon by the I* leaders, is included at the end of this email. > > Separately, ICANN released a timeline that details its expectations of the multi-stakeholder consultation process. More information on these plans will undoubtedly come out of the upcoming ICANN Meeting in Singapore (23-27 March). The timeline document is available here: > http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/iana/functions-transfer-process-14mar14-en.pdf > > While this timeline focuses on ICANN meetings and events, it is clear that this process will not take place only in ICANN venues. The five RIR communities are key stakeholders in this process, and it is vital that we discuss these issues both within our regional communities and globally to ensure that our voices are heard and our concerns recognised. The stable, accurate and professional management of the IANA functions, including management of the global IP address pool, is fundamental to the operation of the Internet. It is important that we not lose sight of this fact as management of the IANA evolves to more faithfully reflect the multi-stakeholder nature of the Internet community. > > AFRINIC urges the African community at all levels to participate to the upcoming discussions on the future of the IANA functions. We all want to engage because we want the discussions to come up with suggestions and mechanisms that ensure an ongoing interoperable stable and yes, secure Internet. These discussions need to take into consideration views from all over the world as the services provided by IANA touch everyone. The Internet itself has become a tool that we cannot live without today and studies demonstrate how embracing ICTs and the Internet can boost economic and social development, thus taking us ever closer to a world where Sustainable Development Goals can be a reality. > > We encourage the African community to join the discussion we are launching on our Resource Policy Discussion and AFRICANN lists and also join us at the next Africa Internet Summit in Djibouti May 25-June 6, 2014 (africainternetsummit.org) to hear more on a panel that we are organising: "Resiliency and stability of IANA functions: what accountability mechanisms to put in place?" > > I look forward to further discussion at AIS?14. > > Best regards, > > Adiel A. Akplogan > CEO AFRINIC > > ???????????????????????????? > > Agreed text by the Leaders of I* organisations: > > In order to ensure global acceptance and affirmation of ICANN's role as administrator of the IANA functions, we are now pursuing the transition of USG's stewardship of the IANA functions from the USG to ICANN. The roles of all Internet registry policy bodies (such as the RIRs, IAB, IETF, ASO, ccNSO, ccTLD ROs, and gNSO) stay unchanged. These bodies continue to hold policy authority for the protocol parameter, number, and name spaces, including responsibility to ensure the faithful registry implementation according to those policies. > > This transition from the USG has been envisaged since the early days of ICANN. It is now feasible due to the growing maturity of ICANN and other organisations in the Internet ecosystem. ICANN's structures and accountability mechanisms continue to evolve and advance guided by the AoC community reviews, including ATRT. In addition, ICANN will continue to embrace its aggressive roadmap to truly globalize its structures. > > In order to operationalize the transition from USG, ICANN will engage with the Internet community in a bottom-up public consultation process to ensure appropriate accountability mechanisms. In addition, ICANN will work with the names, numbers, and protocol communities to formalize relationships, commitments, and mutual responsibilities. > > When community stakeholders have input about the policies emanating from the names, numbers, and protocol communities, they would be directed to pursue their interests through the relevant Internet communities (such as the gNSO, ccNSO, ccTLD ROs, ASO, IAB, IETF, or the RIRs) and their mechanisms for consideration and potential redress. > > The IETF, IAB, and RIRs are committed to open and transparent processes. They also are committed to the role of ICANN as the IANA protocol parameter and IP address registry operator. The accountability mechanisms for ICANN's administration of these core internet functions will provide escalation routes that assure the names, numbers, and protocol communities that if IANA's performance is lacking, those communities can pursue defined processes for improving performance, including pre-agreed independent 3rd party arbitration processes. > > ICANN reaffirms its commitment to implement all IANA registry functions in accordance with the respective policies. ICANN will also provide affirmations to all stakeholders (including governments) from all Internet registry policy bodies and itself that all of us will use open and transparent processes. > > -- end -- > _______________________________________________ > afgwg-discuss mailing list > afgwg-discuss at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/afgwg-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 313 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From ernest at afrinic.net Mon Mar 31 07:54:16 2014 From: ernest at afrinic.net (Ernest) Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2014 10:54:16 +0300 Subject: [rpd] Re: Call for Comments on the (draft) Resource Policy Manual In-Reply-To: <52E60F9A.3080808@afrinic.net> References: <52E60F9A.3080808@afrinic.net> Message-ID: <53391F28.7030702@afrinic.net> Dear Colleagues, The comment period on the "Resource Policy Manual" is now over. This document will now be forwarded to the AFRINIC Board for final review, towards an implementation date of 30th April 2014 as communicated previously. Regards, Ernest. Ernest wrote thus on 1/27/14, 10:49 AM: > Dear Colleagues, > > Further to our communication during the AFRINIC19 Public Policy > Meeting, the first draft of the AFRINIC Resource Policy Manual (RPM) > is now published for the community?s review, input and comments. > > Please browse to: > http://www.afrinic.net/en/library/cfc/964-resource-policy-manual-draft?showall=1 > > The RPM is a collection of all currently active policy proposals, > arranged into one document for ease of reference and update. > > Please review the draft and submit any comments on the document by > 30th March 2014. A final draft shall be published and presented to > the AFRINIC Board for approval ? upon which, the official RPM shall > be effective 30th April 2014. > > Regards, > Ernest. From list-admin at afrinic.net Tue Apr 1 03:11:09 2014 From: list-admin at afrinic.net (list-admin at afrinic.net) Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2014 05:11:09 +0200 Subject: [rpd] Monthly statistics for mailing-list: rpd@afrinic.net Message-ID: <201404010311.s313B9Ts019404@ns1.afrinic.net> Monthly statistics for mailing-list: rpd at afrinic.net (Generated at: Tue Apr 1 03:11:01 UTC 2014) Statistics for month: March 2014 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ***** Authors with the most number of messages posted: +----+-----Author-----------------------------------+--Msg-+-Percent-+ | 1 | tespok at tespok.co.ke | 2 | 15.38 % | | 2 | ondouglas at gmail.com | 2 | 15.38 % | | 3 | seun.ojedeji at gmail.com | 2 | 15.38 % | | 4 | list-admin at afrinic.net | 1 | 7.69 % | | 5 | geier at geier.ne.tz | 1 | 7.69 % | | 6 | JOgunluyi at paycom-ng.com | 1 | 7.69 % | | 7 | apb at cequrux.com | 1 | 7.69 % | | 8 | mje at posix.co.za | 1 | 7.69 % | | 9 | adiel at afrinic.net | 1 | 7.69 % | | 10 | ernest at afrinic.net | 1 | 7.69 % | +----+----------------------------------------------+------+---------+ | | other | 0 | 0.00 % | +----+----------------------------------------------+------+---------+ ***** Authors with the largest total size of messages posted: +----+-----Author-------------------------------------------+-KBytes-+ | 1 | adiel at afrinic.net | 16.0 | | 2 | tespok at tespok.co.ke | 7.3 | | 3 | seun.ojedeji at gmail.com | 7.2 | | 4 | list-admin at afrinic.net | 6.7 | | 5 | mje at posix.co.za | 4.2 | | 6 | ondouglas at gmail.com | 3.0 | | 7 | JOgunluyi at paycom-ng.com | 1.5 | | 8 | apb at cequrux.com | 0.7 | | 9 | ernest at afrinic.net | 0.3 | | 10 | geier at geier.ne.tz | 0.1 | +----+------------------------------------------------------+--------+ ***** Authors with the largest average size of messages posted: +----+-----Author--------------------------------------------+-bytes-+ | 1 | adiel at afrinic.net | 16426 | | 2 | list-admin at afrinic.net | 6877 | | 3 | mje at posix.co.za | 4343 | | 4 | tespok at tespok.co.ke | 3729 | | 5 | seun.ojedeji at gmail.com | 3683 | | 6 | JOgunluyi at paycom-ng.com | 1582 | | 7 | ondouglas at gmail.com | 1545 | | 8 | apb at cequrux.com | 681 | | 9 | ernest at afrinic.net | 295 | | 10 | geier at geier.ne.tz | 84 | +----+-------------------------------------------------------+-------+ ***** Top subjects by popularity: +----+----Subject-----------------------------------+--Msg-+-Percent-+ | 1 | [rpd] Implementation of Global Policy for Po | 5 | 38.46 % | | 2 | [rpd] Monthly statistics for mailing-list: r | 1 | 7.69 % | | 3 | [rpd] Membership Registration | 1 | 7.69 % | | 4 | [rpd] Membership Registration | 1 | 7.69 % | | 5 | [rpd] US government to relinquish oversight | 1 | 7.69 % | | 6 | [rpd] Status of ratified policy proposals | 1 | 7.69 % | | 7 | [rpd] AFRINIC Board Elections - 2014: Call f | 1 | 7.69 % | | 8 | [rpd] Fwd: [afgwg-discuss] Consultation on p | 1 | 7.69 % | | 9 | [rpd] Re: Call for Comments on the (draft) R | 1 | 7.69 % | +----+----------------------------------------------+------+---------+ | | other | 0 | 0.00 % | +----+----------------------------------------------+------+---------+ ***** Graph showing number of messages written during hours of day: 100% ---------------------#-----------#--------------- - 2 90% ---------------------#-----------#--------------- msgs 80% ---------------------#-----------#--------------- 70% ---------------------#-----------#--------------- 60% ---------------------#-----------#--------------- 50% -----------#-#-#-#---#-#---#---#-#---#-------#--- 40% -----------#-#-#-#---#-#---#---#-#---#-------#--- 30% -----------#-#-#-#---#-#---#---#-#---#-------#--- 20% -----------#-#-#-#---#-#---#---#-#---#-------#--- 10% -----------#-#-#-#---#-#---#---#-#---#-------#--- * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * hour 0 5 11 17 23 ***** Graph showing number of messages written during days of month: 100% -----#--------------------------------------------------------- - 4 90% -----#--------------------------------------------------------- msgs 80% -----#--------------------------------------------------------- 70% -----#--------------------------------------------------------- 60% -----#--------------------------------------------------------- 50% -#---#---------------#-------------------#--------------------- 40% -#---#---------------#-------------------#--------------------- 30% -#---#---------------#-------------------#--------------------- 20% -#---#---------------#-------#-----------#-#-----------------#- 10% -#---#---------------#-------#-----------#-#-----------------#- * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * day 1 6 12 18 24 31 ***** Graph showing number of messages written during days of week: 100% -#--------------------------- - 5 90% -#--------------------------- msgs 80% -#-------------------#------- 70% -#-------------------#------- 60% -#-------------------#------- 50% -#-------------------#------- 40% -#---#-----------#---#------- 30% -#---#-----------#---#------- 20% -#---#-----------#---#------- 10% -#---#-----------#---#------- * * * * * * * Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun ***** Longest message: Author : adiel at afrinic.net Subject : [rpd] Fwd: [afgwg-discuss] Consultation on post NTIA IANA functions Date : Sat, 22 Mar 2014 07:45:27 +0400 Size : 19104 bytes ***** Most popular subject: Subject : [rpd] Implementation of Global Policy for Post Exhaustion IPV4 No. of msgs: 5 Total size : 16356 bytes ***** Final summary: Total number of messages: 13 Total number of different authors: 10 Total number of different subjects: 9 Total size of messages (w/o headers): 59420 bytes Average size of a message: 4570 bytes -- Regards, AFRINIC _____________________ powered by grepmail and MailListStat From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com Tue Apr 1 09:46:12 2014 From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji) Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2014 10:46:12 +0100 Subject: [rpd] Monthly statistics for mailing-list: rpd@afrinic.net In-Reply-To: <201404010311.s313B9Ts019404@ns1.afrinic.net> References: <201404010311.s313B9Ts019404@ns1.afrinic.net> Message-ID: Hello all, I am looking at the summary below and wonder; does it mean there ain't any policy concern/issue within our region? Well that is good news perhaps. However i don't think this is the case. I like to encourage us all to come up with issues of concern that we can discuss even as the next f2f meeting is fast approaching. The url below can remind us of some areas of concern that could stimulate discussion http://meeting.afrinic.net/afrinic-18/sites/default/files/Madhvipolicy-implementation-report.pdf Cheers! On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 4:11 AM, wrote: > > Monthly statistics for mailing-list: rpd at afrinic.net > (Generated at: Tue Apr 1 03:11:01 UTC 2014) > > Statistics for month: March 2014 > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > ***** Authors with the most number of messages posted: > +----+-----Author-----------------------------------+--Msg-+-Percent-+ > | 1 | tespok at tespok.co.ke | 2 | 15.38 % | > | 2 | ondouglas at gmail.com | 2 | 15.38 % | > | 3 | seun.ojedeji at gmail.com | 2 | 15.38 % | > | 4 | list-admin at afrinic.net | 1 | 7.69 % | > | 5 | geier at geier.ne.tz | 1 | 7.69 % | > | 6 | JOgunluyi at paycom-ng.com | 1 | 7.69 % | > | 7 | apb at cequrux.com | 1 | 7.69 % | > | 8 | mje at posix.co.za | 1 | 7.69 % | > | 9 | adiel at afrinic.net | 1 | 7.69 % | > | 10 | ernest at afrinic.net | 1 | 7.69 % | > +----+----------------------------------------------+------+---------+ > | | other | 0 | 0.00 % | > +----+----------------------------------------------+------+---------+ > > ***** Authors with the largest total size of messages posted: > +----+-----Author-------------------------------------------+-KBytes-+ > | 1 | adiel at afrinic.net | 16.0 | > | 2 | tespok at tespok.co.ke | 7.3 | > | 3 | seun.ojedeji at gmail.com | 7.2 | > | 4 | list-admin at afrinic.net | 6.7 | > | 5 | mje at posix.co.za | 4.2 | > | 6 | ondouglas at gmail.com | 3.0 | > | 7 | JOgunluyi at paycom-ng.com | 1.5 | > | 8 | apb at cequrux.com | 0.7 | > | 9 | ernest at afrinic.net | 0.3 | > | 10 | geier at geier.ne.tz | 0.1 | > +----+------------------------------------------------------+--------+ > > ***** Authors with the largest average size of messages posted: > +----+-----Author--------------------------------------------+-bytes-+ > | 1 | adiel at afrinic.net | 16426 | > | 2 | list-admin at afrinic.net | 6877 | > | 3 | mje at posix.co.za | 4343 | > | 4 | tespok at tespok.co.ke | 3729 | > | 5 | seun.ojedeji at gmail.com | 3683 | > | 6 | JOgunluyi at paycom-ng.com | 1582 | > | 7 | ondouglas at gmail.com | 1545 | > | 8 | apb at cequrux.com | 681 | > | 9 | ernest at afrinic.net | 295 | > | 10 | geier at geier.ne.tz | 84 | > +----+-------------------------------------------------------+-------+ > > ***** Top subjects by popularity: > +----+----Subject-----------------------------------+--Msg-+-Percent-+ > | 1 | [rpd] Implementation of Global Policy for Po | 5 | 38.46 % | > | 2 | [rpd] Monthly statistics for mailing-list: r | 1 | 7.69 % | > | 3 | [rpd] Membership Registration | 1 | 7.69 % | > | 4 | [rpd] Membership Registration | 1 | 7.69 % | > | 5 | [rpd] US government to relinquish oversight | 1 | 7.69 % | > | 6 | [rpd] Status of ratified policy proposals | 1 | 7.69 % | > | 7 | [rpd] AFRINIC Board Elections - 2014: Call f | 1 | 7.69 % | > | 8 | [rpd] Fwd: [afgwg-discuss] Consultation on p | 1 | 7.69 % | > | 9 | [rpd] Re: Call for Comments on the (draft) R | 1 | 7.69 % | > +----+----------------------------------------------+------+---------+ > | | other | 0 | 0.00 % | > +----+----------------------------------------------+------+---------+ > > > ***** Graph showing number of messages written during hours of day: > > 100% ---------------------#-----------#--------------- - 2 > 90% ---------------------#-----------#--------------- msgs > 80% ---------------------#-----------#--------------- > 70% ---------------------#-----------#--------------- > 60% ---------------------#-----------#--------------- > 50% -----------#-#-#-#---#-#---#---#-#---#-------#--- > 40% -----------#-#-#-#---#-#---#---#-#---#-------#--- > 30% -----------#-#-#-#---#-#---#---#-#---#-------#--- > 20% -----------#-#-#-#---#-#---#---#-#---#-------#--- > 10% -----------#-#-#-#---#-#---#---#-#---#-------#--- > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * > hour 0 5 11 17 23 > > > ***** Graph showing number of messages written during days of month: > > 100% -----#--------------------------------------------------------- - 4 > 90% -----#--------------------------------------------------------- msgs > 80% -----#--------------------------------------------------------- > 70% -----#--------------------------------------------------------- > 60% -----#--------------------------------------------------------- > 50% -#---#---------------#-------------------#--------------------- > 40% -#---#---------------#-------------------#--------------------- > 30% -#---#---------------#-------------------#--------------------- > 20% -#---#---------------#-------#-----------#-#-----------------#- > 10% -#---#---------------#-------#-----------#-#-----------------#- > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * > day 1 6 12 18 24 31 > > > ***** Graph showing number of messages written during days of week: > > 100% -#--------------------------- - 5 > 90% -#--------------------------- msgs > 80% -#-------------------#------- > 70% -#-------------------#------- > 60% -#-------------------#------- > 50% -#-------------------#------- > 40% -#---#-----------#---#------- > 30% -#---#-----------#---#------- > 20% -#---#-----------#---#------- > 10% -#---#-----------#---#------- > * * * * * * * > Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun > > > ***** Longest message: > Author : adiel at afrinic.net > Subject : [rpd] Fwd: [afgwg-discuss] Consultation on post NTIA > IANA functions > Date : Sat, 22 Mar 2014 07:45:27 +0400 > Size : 19104 bytes > > ***** Most popular subject: > Subject : [rpd] Implementation of Global Policy for Post > Exhaustion IPV4 > No. of msgs: 5 > Total size : 16356 bytes > > ***** Final summary: > Total number of messages: 13 > Total number of different authors: 10 > Total number of different subjects: 9 > Total size of messages (w/o headers): 59420 bytes > Average size of a message: 4570 bytes > > -- > Regards, AFRINIC > > _____________________ > powered by grepmail > and MailListStat > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng * -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From h.lu at anytimechinese.com Thu Apr 3 03:41:45 2014 From: h.lu at anytimechinese.com (Lu Heng) Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2014 11:41:45 +0800 Subject: [rpd] correct country registration=having customer in that country? Message-ID: dear colleagues: Here is one thing very much confuse us, would appreciate if community can help clarify. If you running massive customer gateway service, each individual customer are being assigned one ip address, so you register the IP range providing the service as your own infrastructure. Here comes the country attribute, because you not sure where exactly customer coming from, should you use one of the following as legitimate country registration? 1. Where your infrastructure located. 2. where the customer themselves choice to be represented. 3. where your legal member company to Afrinic located. which one is "legitimate"? or all of them are "legitimate"? As we believe country registration are very much from business point of view rather than operational point of view(it's just one line in the database in which don't really tell anything about the network point of view unlike bgp). should Afrinic during the process of evaluation taking member's business into account as well or rather than evaluating the pure technical need. hoping member community to help clarify. -- -- Kind regards. Lu This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this message and including the text of the transmission received. From h.lu at anytimechinese.com Sat Apr 5 02:47:24 2014 From: h.lu at anytimechinese.com (Lu Heng) Date: Sat, 5 Apr 2014 10:47:24 +0800 Subject: [rpd] correct country registration=having customer in that country? Message-ID: dear colleagues: Here is one thing very much confuse us, would appreciate if community can help clarify. If you running massive customer gateway service, each individual customer are being assigned one ip address, so you register the IP range providing the service as your own infrastructure. Here comes the country attribute, because you not sure where exactly customer coming from, should you use one of the following as legitimate country registration? 1. Where your infrastructure located. 2. where the customer themselves choice to be represented. 3. where your legal member company to Afrinic located. which one is "legitimate"? or all of them are "legitimate"? As we believe country registration are very much from business point of view rather than operational point of view(it's just one line in the database in which don't really tell anything about the network point of view unlike bgp). should Afrinic during the process of evaluation taking member's business into account as well or rather than evaluating the pure technical need. hoping member community to help clarify. -- -- Kind regards. Lu This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this message and including the text of the transmission received. From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com Wed Apr 9 02:53:50 2014 From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji) Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2014 03:53:50 +0100 Subject: [rpd] Fwd: [IANAtransition] PUBLISHED: CALL FOR PUBLIC INPUT In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: This is of interest, our participation is required. Regards sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Ergys Ramaj" Date: 9 Apr 2014 02:23 Subject: [IANAtransition] PUBLISHED: CALL FOR PUBLIC INPUT To: "ianatransition at icann.org" Cc: > Call for Public Input: Draft Proposal, Based on Initial Community Feedback, of the Principles and Mechanisms and the Process to Develop a Proposal to Transition NTIA's Stewardship of the IANA Functions > > > > http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/iana/transition/draft-proposal-08apr14-en.htm > > > _______________________________________________ > ianatransition mailing list > ianatransition at icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ianatransition > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5541 bytes Desc: not available URL: From ernest at afrinic.net Wed Apr 9 07:13:06 2014 From: ernest at afrinic.net (Ernest Byaruhanga) Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2014 10:13:06 +0300 Subject: [rpd] Re: [AFRINIC-announce] AFRINIC Board Elections - 2014: Call for Nominations In-Reply-To: <46E3EC6A-D010-4FD3-A9A1-A5FC38EC91FC@afrinic.net> References: <1395432698.7373.67.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> <46E3EC6A-D010-4FD3-A9A1-A5FC38EC91FC@afrinic.net> Message-ID: Colleagues, Please note that the deadline for accepting nominations for open board seats will be in one and a half weeks (19/Apr/2014) To nominate yourself or a candidate of your choice, please browse to: http://meeting.afrinic.net/registration/node/147/ For more information, please check out the links below: Call for Nominations http://www.afrinic.net/en/library/news/1023-call-for-nominations-afrinic-board-seats-3-4-and-8 Board Election Process http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/elections/bod-election/process To contact the nominations committee, please send an email to nomcom2014 at afrinic.net Regards, Ernest. On Mar 22, 2014, at 8:18 AM, Ernest Byaruhanga wrote: > Dear Colleagues, > > According to Section 13 of the AFRINIC by-laws, the Board seats for the > following two sub-regions are up for renewal in June 2014: > > 1. Primary: Lala Andrianamampianina (Indian Ocean - Seat 3) > 2. Alternate: Krishna Seeburn (Indian Ocean) > 3. Primary: Janvier Ngnoulaye (Central Africa - Seat 4) > 4. Alternate: Christian Bope (Central Africa) > > In application of the new by-laws which does away with the two above > alternate seats, we will also need to fill the second seat of the two > non-regional Directors (Seat 8). > > As a result, three (3) seats on the AFRINIC Board will be open for > election: > > A) Seat 3: From Indian Ocean sub-region (Mandate: 2014 to 2017) > > B) Seat 4: From Central Africa sub-region (Mandate: 2014 to 2017) > > C) Seat 8: Non-Regional Independent (Mandate: 2014 to 2017) > > We are pleased to invite nominations for candidates to fill these three > seats. > > Any suitable natural person residing in one of the above regions can be > nominated (for that sub-region) provided they comply with the > requirements in Section 13 of the by-laws. Seat 8 can be filled from > any AFRINIC region provided they comply with the requirements in > Section 13 of the by-laws. > > Self-nominations and nominations by those who are not registered > contacts of AFRINIC member organizations are also allowed but with the > condition that the nomination must be formally backed by at least two > authorized and registered contact persons of an AFRINIC member > organization in good standing. > > Nominees must demonstrate at least three years of managerial experience > in the Internet Protocol service/business or other Internet related > activities and should preferably hold a senior level position. Once > elected, they must be ready to actively participate and contribute to > all activities conferred to the Board as defined in the by-laws. > > Nominations must be sent to nomcom2014 at afrinic.net with the following > information: > > 1. Candidate (Nominee) Information > (In case this is a self-nomination, please additionally > complete section 3 below) > > - Nominee (Full name): > - Organisation (or affiliation): > - Position/Role: > - Physical address: > - e-mail address: > - Phone number: > - Country of Residence: > - Board seat (sub-region) nominated for: > > 2. Nominator: > (If the nominator is NOT a registered contact of an AFRINIC > member organization in good standing, please additionally > complete section 3 below) > > - Full name: > - Organisation (or affiliation): > - Position/Role: > - Physical address: > - e-mail address: > - Phone number: > > 3. Seconder/Referee Information (in case this is a self-nomination or > a nomination by a non-AFRINIC member) > (Seconders must be registered contacts of AFRINIC member organizations > in good standing.) > > Seconder/Referee 1: > - Full name: > - Organisation (or affiliation): > - Position/Role: > - Physical address: > - e-mail address: > - Phone number: > > Seconder/Referee 2: > - Full name: > - Organisation (or affiliation): > - Position/Role: > - Physical address: > - e-mail address: > - Phone number: > > > 4. Brief statement explaining the nominee's background and motivation > (in English, and in not more than 500 words). Please highlight what > expertise and experience the nominee will bring to AFRINIC in general > and to the board in particular. > > > 5. Additional information: This will be published on the candidate?s > profile during the public comment period: > > - A recent copy of the candidate?s CV (in English) > - A recent photograph. > - Other links that represent the candidate?s online profile (such as > blogs, twitter, professional publications, etc). > > > The deadline for nominations is 19 April 2014 at 20:00 UTC. Nominations > should be submitted to nomcom2014 at afrinic.net > > Note: It is expected that candidates should be able to attend > AFRINIC-20 in person on the Election Day (06 June 2014) where > they will be afforded an opportunity to introduce themselves > and to make a short presentation to the community during the > Annual General Members Meeting. The meeting will take place in > Djibouti from 04 - 06 June 2014. > > For more information on the election process, please browse to: > > http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/elections/bod-election/process > > > -- > Mark J Elkins - AFRINIC 2014 Nominations Committee > mje at posix.co.za - nomcom2014 at afrinic.net > Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 > > > > _______________________________________________ > announce mailing list > announce at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/announce > From kofi.ansa at gmail.com Fri Apr 18 04:39:08 2014 From: kofi.ansa at gmail.com (Kofi ansa akufo) Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2014 04:39:08 +0000 Subject: [rpd] Making initial setup fees the same for all member categories Message-ID: Dear List Members My attention has been drawn to the different initial setup fees currently levied by afrinic for the different categories of resource members. A recent discussion concerning an application resulted in queries as to what services are rendered for that fees. I quote the member services manager as follows " As per the policies and bylaws adopted by AFRINIC members, Board Members and the African Internet community, AFRINIC setup fees are paid by the applicant for bulk registration services during the membership process: among others, evaluation of the request, approval of the request, creation of the applicant details in the billing accounts, invoice payment follow-up, RSA signature follow-up, etc." It turns out there is no considerable difference in the setting up of different resource member categories. I believe its time the community tasked afrinic to set the same initial setup fees irrespective of the resource member category. Regards Kofi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kofi.ansa at gmail.com Fri Apr 18 05:42:46 2014 From: kofi.ansa at gmail.com (Kofi ansa akufo) Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2014 05:42:46 +0000 Subject: [rpd] Breach of Registration Service Agreement (RSA) by AFRINIC In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear List Members, It has come to my notice some flaws or delibrate misinterpretation by in the AFRINIC resource membership application process. Generally an applicant submits an online application after which a hostmaster evaluates the application. Billing and registration service agreement follows accordingly. It must be noted that applicant is levied two separate invoices namely a one time initial setup fees based on membership category as well as a recurring annual membership fees. Payment is then made by applicant in full before resources are issued. This information is given by afrinic during the application process. Now as per the registration service agreement (RSA) which must be signed before invoicing this application process should be completed 60 days after afrinic deems application filing complete. If no response is received from applicant by afrinic the application is considered abandoned as per section 4 of the RSA. Afrinic should notify applicant 30 days prior to termination of agreement as per section 11 of RSA. It has come to my notice recently that an applicant has been informed to submit a new application because 90 days have past since afrinic issued membership fees invoice. The applicant was notified a day before the so called 90days which no where stated in the RSA signed - a clear contradiction to the RSA. To make the case worse applicant had already made initial setup fees payment which afrinic communicated its non refundable and will need to be paid again. Applicant had requested on several occasions for an update in invoice which afrinic failed. This is not acceptable. I believe the member community should condemn such acts of inefficiency and disregard for signed agreements. Cheers Kofi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From arthur at afrinic.net Wed Apr 23 06:31:20 2014 From: arthur at afrinic.net (ARTHUR CARINDAL) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 10:31:20 +0400 Subject: [rpd] Breach of Registration Service Agreement (RSA) by AFRINIC In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8BBAFC10-719C-413C-A7E0-EE94DA8AC3EE@afrinic.net> Dear Colleagues, Thank your for your comments. Please be advised that AFRINIC is unable to discuss individual cases on this mailing list. We are happy to discuss this issue with you further in private. Please contact new-member at afrinic.net. Kind regards, _______________________________________________________________ Arthur Carindal N. Head of Member Services, AFRINIC Ltd. t: +230 403 5100 | f: +230 466 6758 | tt: @afrinic | w: www.afrinic.net facebook.com/afrinic | flickr.com/afrinic | youtube.com/afrinicmedia _______________________________________________________________ Join us at AIS14/AFRINIC20, Djibouti, Djibouti, 25May-6June 2014. On Apr 18, 2014, at 9:42 AM, Kofi ansa akufo wrote: > Dear List Members, > > It has come to my notice some flaws or delibrate misinterpretation by in the AFRINIC resource membership application process. > > Generally an applicant submits an online application after which a hostmaster evaluates the application. Billing and registration service agreement follows accordingly. > > It must be noted that applicant is levied two separate invoices namely a one time initial setup fees based on membership category as well as a recurring annual membership fees. Payment is then made by applicant in full before resources are issued. This information is given by afrinic during the application process. > > Now as per the registration service agreement (RSA) which must be signed before invoicing this application process should be completed 60 days after afrinic deems application filing complete. If no response is received from applicant by afrinic the application is considered abandoned as per section 4 of the RSA. Afrinic should notify applicant 30 days prior to termination of agreement as per section 11 of RSA. > > It has come to my notice recently that an applicant has been informed to submit a new application because 90 days have past since afrinic issued membership fees invoice. The applicant was notified a day before the so called 90days which no where stated in the RSA signed - a clear contradiction to the RSA. > > To make the case worse applicant had already made initial setup fees payment which afrinic communicated its non refundable and will need to be paid again. Applicant had requested on several occasions for an update in invoice which afrinic failed. > > This is not acceptable. I believe the member community should condemn such acts of inefficiency and disregard for signed agreements. > > Cheers > > Kofi > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From list-admin at afrinic.net Thu May 1 03:11:08 2014 From: list-admin at afrinic.net (list-admin at afrinic.net) Date: Thu, 1 May 2014 05:11:08 +0200 Subject: [rpd] Monthly statistics for mailing-list: rpd@afrinic.net Message-ID: <201405010311.s413B8jw024112@ns1.afrinic.net> Monthly statistics for mailing-list: rpd at afrinic.net (Generated at: Thu May 1 03:11:00 UTC 2014) Statistics for month: April 2014 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ***** Authors with the most number of messages posted: +----+-----Author-----------------------------------+--Msg-+-Percent-+ | 1 | h.lu at anytimechinese.com | 2 | 22.22 % | | 2 | seun.ojedeji at gmail.com | 2 | 22.22 % | | 3 | kofi.ansa at gmail.com | 2 | 22.22 % | | 4 | list-admin at afrinic.net | 1 | 11.11 % | | 5 | ernest at afrinic.net | 1 | 11.11 % | | 6 | arthur at afrinic.net | 1 | 11.11 % | +----+----------------------------------------------+------+---------+ | | other | 0 | 0.00 % | +----+----------------------------------------------+------+---------+ ***** Authors with the largest total size of messages posted: +----+-----Author-------------------------------------------+-KBytes-+ | 1 | seun.ojedeji at gmail.com | 21.8 | | 2 | arthur at afrinic.net | 19.0 | | 3 | list-admin at afrinic.net | 6.7 | | 4 | kofi.ansa at gmail.com | 6.2 | | 5 | h.lu at anytimechinese.com | 3.2 | | 6 | ernest at afrinic.net | 0.8 | +----+------------------------------------------------------+--------+ ***** Authors with the largest average size of messages posted: +----+-----Author--------------------------------------------+-bytes-+ | 1 | arthur at afrinic.net | 19468 | | 2 | seun.ojedeji at gmail.com | 11165 | | 3 | list-admin at afrinic.net | 6902 | | 4 | kofi.ansa at gmail.com | 3163 | | 5 | h.lu at anytimechinese.com | 1655 | | 6 | ernest at afrinic.net | 783 | +----+-------------------------------------------------------+-------+ ***** Top subjects by popularity: +----+----Subject-----------------------------------+--Msg-+-Percent-+ | 1 | [rpd] Monthly statistics for mailing-list: r | 2 | 22.22 % | | 2 | [rpd] correct country registration=having cu | 2 | 22.22 % | | 3 | [rpd] Breach of Registration Service Agreeme | 2 | 22.22 % | | 4 | [rpd] Fwd: [IANAtransition] PUBLISHED: CALL | 1 | 11.11 % | | 5 | [rpd] Re: [AFRINIC-announce] AFRINIC Board E | 1 | 11.11 % | | 6 | [rpd] Making initial setup fees the same for | 1 | 11.11 % | +----+----------------------------------------------+------+---------+ | | other | 0 | 0.00 % | +----+----------------------------------------------+------+---------+ ***** Graph showing number of messages written during hours of day: 100% ---------------------#--------------------------- - 4 90% ---------------------#--------------------------- msgs 80% ---------------------#--------------------------- 70% ---------------------#--------------------------- 60% ---------------------#--------------------------- 50% -----------#---------#--------------------------- 40% -----------#---------#--------------------------- 30% -----------#---------#--------------------------- 20% -------#-#-#---------#-#------------------------- 10% -------#-#-#---------#-#------------------------- * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * hour 0 5 11 17 23 ***** Graph showing number of messages written during days of month: 100% -#---------------#-----------------#--------------------------- - 2 90% -#---------------#-----------------#--------------------------- msgs 80% -#---------------#-----------------#--------------------------- 70% -#---------------#-----------------#--------------------------- 60% -#---------------#-----------------#--------------------------- 50% -#---#---#-------#-----------------#---------#----------------- 40% -#---#---#-------#-----------------#---------#----------------- 30% -#---#---#-------#-----------------#---------#----------------- 20% -#---#---#-------#-----------------#---------#----------------- 10% -#---#---#-------#-----------------#---------#----------------- * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * day 1 6 12 18 24 31 ***** Graph showing number of messages written during days of week: 100% ---------#------------------- - 3 90% ---------#------------------- msgs 80% ---------#------------------- 70% ---------#------------------- 60% -----#---#-------#----------- 50% -----#---#-------#----------- 40% -----#---#-------#----------- 30% -----#---#---#---#---#------- 20% -----#---#---#---#---#------- 10% -----#---#---#---#---#------- * * * * * * * Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun ***** Longest message: Author : seun.ojedeji at gmail.com Subject : [rpd] Monthly statistics for mailing-list: rpd at afrinic.net Date : Tue, 1 Apr 2014 10:46:12 +0100 Size : 21449 bytes ***** Most popular subject: Subject : [rpd] Monthly statistics for mailing-list: rpd at afrinic.net No. of msgs: 2 Total size : 28351 bytes ***** Final summary: Total number of messages: 9 Total number of different authors: 6 Total number of different subjects: 6 Total size of messages (w/o headers): 75253 bytes Average size of a message: 8361 bytes -- Regards, AFRINIC _____________________ powered by grepmail and MailListStat From mje at posix.co.za Wed May 7 14:34:58 2014 From: mje at posix.co.za (Mark Elkins) Date: Wed, 07 May 2014 16:34:58 +0200 Subject: [rpd] AFRINIC Board Elections - 2014: Call for Nominations In-Reply-To: <1395426016.7373.31.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> References: <72B07AC2-F4C2-4A95-B9BA-E71E6DFB20BA@afrinic.net> <1395406604.7293.245.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> <1395426016.7373.31.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> Message-ID: <1399473298.12025.113.camel@dhcp15.posix.co.za> Dear Colleagues, Consequent to the call for nominations and subsequent evaluation of nominees by the Nominations Committee (NomCom), we are pleased to announce the following final slate of candidates for the following seats on the AFRINIC Board: Indian Ocean: Andrinirina Jo?l RANDRIANASOLO Kris Seeburn Subramanian Moonesamy Central Africa: Antoine Joseph Junior Tonye Bope Domilongo Christian NGNOULAYE Janvier NON-REGIONAL/GEOGRAPHICAL: Andrew Kenningale Alston Boubakar Barry Hajanirina Ramboasalama Ilunga Kabwika Serge Full candidate information has been published at: https://internetsummitafrica.org/en/ais14/bod-election The community (and especially members) are hereby invited to view candidate details and express any objection or support about the suitability of the candidates for the board position using the comment section at the URL above. The public comment period will close on 26 May 2014 at 2000UTC. Members that will not be able to attend and/or vote physically at the AGMM in Djibouti on 06 June 2014 are informed that there is now an option for electronic voting, which will start on 27th May 2014 until 05 June 2014 and will be conducted through the MyAFRINIC portal - https://my.afrinic.net More information is available at: http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/elections/bod-election?showall=1 For any queries or clarification, please contact the nominations committee by email at: nomcom2014 at afrinic.net -- Mark J Elkins - AFRINIC 2014 Nominations Committee Chair mje at posix.co.za - nomcom2014 (at) afrinic.net Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 5810 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mainanoa at gmail.com Wed May 7 17:05:46 2014 From: mainanoa at gmail.com (Noah Maina) Date: Wed, 7 May 2014 20:05:46 +0300 Subject: [rpd] AFRINIC Board Elections - 2014: Call for Nominations In-Reply-To: <1399473298.12025.113.camel@dhcp15.posix.co.za> References: <72B07AC2-F4C2-4A95-B9BA-E71E6DFB20BA@afrinic.net> <1395406604.7293.245.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> <1395426016.7373.31.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> <1399473298.12025.113.camel@dhcp15.posix.co.za> Message-ID: Mmmmmmm Me Just curious! Aren't some of the nominated folks already or were members of the board in the recent past....the names look familiar .... Should some of us assume that there is no new blood in some of these regions who can be nominated or there is less awareness in the community thus we keep seeing the same names over and over most of the time? Noah Dear Colleagues, Consequent to the call for nominations and subsequent evaluation of nominees by the Nominations Committee (NomCom), we are pleased to announce the following final slate of candidates for the following seats on the AFRINIC Board: Indian Ocean: Andrinirina Jo?l RANDRIANASOLO Kris Seeburn Subramanian Moonesamy Central Africa: Antoine Joseph Junior Tonye Bope Domilongo Christian NGNOULAYE Janvier NON-REGIONAL/GEOGRAPHICAL: Andrew Kenningale Alston Boubakar Barry Hajanirina Ramboasalama Ilunga Kabwika Serge Full candidate information has been published at: https://internetsummitafrica.org/en/ais14/bod-election The community (and especially members) are hereby invited to view candidate details and express any objection or support about the suitability of the candidates for the board position using the comment section at the URL above. The public comment period will close on 26 May 2014 at 2000UTC. Members that will not be able to attend and/or vote physically at the AGMM in Djibouti on 06 June 2014 are informed that there is now an option for electronic voting, which will start on 27th May 2014 until 05 June 2014 and will be conducted through the MyAFRINIC portal - https://my.afrinic.net More information is available at: http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/elections/bod-election?showall=1 For any queries or clarification, please contact the nominations committee by email at: nomcom2014 at afrinic.net -- Mark J Elkins - AFRINIC 2014 Nominations Committee Chair mje at posix.co.za - nomcom2014 (at) afrinic.net Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 _______________________________________________ rpd mailing list rpd at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mje at posix.co.za Wed May 7 18:05:29 2014 From: mje at posix.co.za (Mark Elkins) Date: Wed, 07 May 2014 20:05:29 +0200 Subject: [rpd] AFRINIC Board Elections - 2014: Call for Nominations In-Reply-To: References: <72B07AC2-F4C2-4A95-B9BA-E71E6DFB20BA@afrinic.net> <1395406604.7293.245.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> <1395426016.7373.31.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> <1399473298.12025.113.camel@dhcp15.posix.co.za> Message-ID: <1399485929.12025.165.camel@dhcp15.posix.co.za> On Wed, 2014-05-07 at 20:05 +0300, Noah Maina wrote: > Me Just curious! > > Aren't some of the nominated folks already or were members of the > board in the recent past....the names look familiar .... Yes, Both Indian and Central Africa have Board members who are re-standing for a second term. This makes them immediately useful, no learning how things work. In my observations, "new blood" can take a year or so to become useful. Other RIR regions (for example, RIPE) allow multiple repetitive terms. This gives that community Board Stability, helps stops old mistakes from being repeated. > Should some of us assume that there is no new blood in some of these > regions who can be nominated or there is less awareness in the > community thus we keep seeing the same names over and over most of the > time? There is more new blood than old (7 out of 10 people) standing. Being an AFRINIC Board Member can be quite time consuming. There is also no "sitting" fee. Finding willing people who can bring appropriate Business Management and Leadership skills as well as their time is not as easy as one might think. Lastly - the community decides who is (re-)elected, old or new. > > Noah > > Dear Colleagues, > > Consequent to the call for nominations and subsequent evaluation of > nominees by the Nominations Committee (NomCom), we are pleased to > announce the following final slate of candidates for the following > seats on the AFRINIC Board: > > Indian Ocean: > > Andrinirina Jo?l RANDRIANASOLO > Kris Seeburn > Subramanian Moonesamy > > > Central Africa: > > Antoine Joseph Junior Tonye > Bope Domilongo Christian > NGNOULAYE Janvier > > > NON-REGIONAL/GEOGRAPHICAL: > > Andrew Kenningale Alston > Boubakar Barry > Hajanirina Ramboasalama > Ilunga Kabwika Serge > > > Full candidate information has been published at: > > https://internetsummitafrica.org/en/ais14/bod-election > > The community (and especially members) are hereby invited to view > candidate details and express any objection or support about the > suitability of the candidates for the board position using the > comment section at the URL above. > > The public comment period will close on 26 May 2014 at 2000UTC. > > Members that will not be able to attend and/or vote physically at > the AGMM in Djibouti on 06 June 2014 are informed that there is now > an option for electronic voting, which will start on 27th May 2014 > until 05 June 2014 and will be conducted through the MyAFRINIC > portal - https://my.afrinic.net > > More information is available at: > http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/elections/bod-election?showall=1 > > For any queries or clarification, please contact the nominations > committee by email at: > > nomcom2014 at afrinic.net > -- Mark J Elkins - AFRINIC 2014 Nominations Committee Chair mje at posix.co.za - nomcom2014 (at) afrinic.net Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 5810 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mainanoa at gmail.com Wed May 7 20:09:44 2014 From: mainanoa at gmail.com (Noah Maina) Date: Wed, 7 May 2014 23:09:44 +0300 Subject: [rpd] AFRINIC Board Elections - 2014: Call for Nominations In-Reply-To: <1399485929.12025.165.camel@dhcp15.posix.co.za> References: <72B07AC2-F4C2-4A95-B9BA-E71E6DFB20BA@afrinic.net> <1395406604.7293.245.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> <1395426016.7373.31.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> <1399473298.12025.113.camel@dhcp15.posix.co.za> <1399485929.12025.165.camel@dhcp15.posix.co.za> Message-ID: Hi Mark Mmmmm am not convienced but I will give your response the benefit of the doubt imho ... otherwise one would argue that there is no point of new blood since old blood brings about stability given the observation that new blood takes a year or so to catch up... This continent certainly have loads of competent folks I just think not so many are aware perhaps otherwise we would have lots of willing folks... In anycade the community can certainly elect whoever ... old old or new.! My 1 cent ... Noah On 7 May 2014 21:05, "Mark Elkins" wrote: > On Wed, 2014-05-07 at 20:05 +0300, Noah Maina wrote: > > Me Just curious! > > > > Aren't some of the nominated folks already or were members of the > > board in the recent past....the names look familiar .... > > Yes, Both Indian and Central Africa have Board members who are > re-standing for a second term. This makes them immediately useful, no > learning how things work. In my observations, "new blood" can take a > year or so to become useful. > > > Other RIR regions (for example, RIPE) allow multiple repetitive terms. > This gives that community Board Stability, helps stops old mistakes from > being repeated. > > > Should some of us assume that there is no new blood in some of these > > regions who can be nominated or there is less awareness in the > > community thus we keep seeing the same names over and over most of the > > time? > > There is more new blood than old (7 out of 10 people) standing. > Being an AFRINIC Board Member can be quite time consuming. There is also > no "sitting" fee. Finding willing people who can bring appropriate > Business Management and Leadership skills as well as their time is not > as easy as one might think. > Lastly - the community decides who is (re-)elected, old or new. > > > > > Noah > > > > Dear Colleagues, > > > > Consequent to the call for nominations and subsequent evaluation of > > nominees by the Nominations Committee (NomCom), we are pleased to > > announce the following final slate of candidates for the following > > seats on the AFRINIC Board: > > > > Indian Ocean: > > > > Andrinirina Jo?l RANDRIANASOLO > > Kris Seeburn > > Subramanian Moonesamy > > > > > > Central Africa: > > > > Antoine Joseph Junior Tonye > > Bope Domilongo Christian > > NGNOULAYE Janvier > > > > > > NON-REGIONAL/GEOGRAPHICAL: > > > > Andrew Kenningale Alston > > Boubakar Barry > > Hajanirina Ramboasalama > > Ilunga Kabwika Serge > > > > > > Full candidate information has been published at: > > > > https://internetsummitafrica.org/en/ais14/bod-election > > > > The community (and especially members) are hereby invited to view > > candidate details and express any objection or support about the > > suitability of the candidates for the board position using the > > comment section at the URL above. > > > > The public comment period will close on 26 May 2014 at 2000UTC. > > > > Members that will not be able to attend and/or vote physically at > > the AGMM in Djibouti on 06 June 2014 are informed that there is now > > an option for electronic voting, which will start on 27th May 2014 > > until 05 June 2014 and will be conducted through the MyAFRINIC > > portal - https://my.afrinic.net > > > > More information is available at: > > http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/elections/bod-election?showall=1 > > > > For any queries or clarification, please contact the nominations > > committee by email at: > > > > nomcom2014 at afrinic.net > > > > > -- > Mark J Elkins - AFRINIC 2014 Nominations Committee Chair > mje at posix.co.za - nomcom2014 (at) afrinic.net > Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mje at posix.co.za Wed May 7 20:54:28 2014 From: mje at posix.co.za (Mark Elkins) Date: Wed, 07 May 2014 22:54:28 +0200 Subject: [rpd] AFRINIC Board Elections - 2014: Call for Nominations In-Reply-To: References: <72B07AC2-F4C2-4A95-B9BA-E71E6DFB20BA@afrinic.net> <1395406604.7293.245.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> <1395426016.7373.31.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> <1399473298.12025.113.camel@dhcp15.posix.co.za> <1399485929.12025.165.camel@dhcp15.posix.co.za> Message-ID: <1399496068.12025.185.camel@dhcp15.posix.co.za> On Wed, 2014-05-07 at 23:09 +0300, Noah Maina wrote: > Hi Mark > > Mmmmm am not convienced but I will give your response the benefit of > the doubt imho ... otherwise one would argue that there is no point of > new blood since old blood brings about stability given the observation > that new blood takes a year or so to catch up... Careful - I'm not saying that we don't need new blood... and this time around we'll definitely get some. No previous Board Members are standing for the non-Geo seat (seat 8). I honestly think we need a mix of both. A generalisation could be that new blood should provide new ideas and old blood should provide stability. > > This continent certainly have loads of competent folks I just think > not so many are aware perhaps otherwise we would have lots of willing > folks... So you could be standing for Board Election next year? Though, from a community viewpoint, don't forget our other needs, PDP Chair - etc. (and I honestly thank you for speaking up) (Old topic: mail from your gmail account to me arrived over native IPv6, as does all e-mail between myself and AfriNIC). > > In anycade the community can certainly elect whoever ... old old or > new.! > > My 1 cent ... > > Noah > > On 7 May 2014 21:05, "Mark Elkins" wrote: > On Wed, 2014-05-07 at 20:05 +0300, Noah Maina wrote: > > Me Just curious! > > > > Aren't some of the nominated folks already or were members > of the > > board in the recent past....the names look familiar .... > > Yes, Both Indian and Central Africa have Board members who are > re-standing for a second term. This makes them immediately > useful, no > learning how things work. In my observations, "new blood" can > take a > year or so to become useful. > > > Other RIR regions (for example, RIPE) allow multiple > repetitive terms. > This gives that community Board Stability, helps stops old > mistakes from > being repeated. > > > Should some of us assume that there is no new blood in some > of these > > regions who can be nominated or there is less awareness in > the > > community thus we keep seeing the same names over and over > most of the > > time? > > There is more new blood than old (7 out of 10 people) > standing. > Being an AFRINIC Board Member can be quite time consuming. > There is also > no "sitting" fee. Finding willing people who can bring > appropriate > Business Management and Leadership skills as well as their > time is not > as easy as one might think. > Lastly - the community decides who is (re-)elected, old or > new. > > > > > Noah > > > > Dear Colleagues, > > > > Consequent to the call for nominations and subsequent > evaluation of > > nominees by the Nominations Committee (NomCom), we are > pleased to > > announce the following final slate of candidates for the > following > > seats on the AFRINIC Board: > > > > Indian Ocean: > > > > Andrinirina Jo?l RANDRIANASOLO > > Kris Seeburn > > Subramanian Moonesamy > > > > > > Central Africa: > > > > Antoine Joseph Junior Tonye > > Bope Domilongo Christian > > NGNOULAYE Janvier > > > > > > NON-REGIONAL/GEOGRAPHICAL: > > > > Andrew Kenningale Alston > > Boubakar Barry > > Hajanirina Ramboasalama > > Ilunga Kabwika Serge > > > > > > Full candidate information has been published at: > > > > https://internetsummitafrica.org/en/ais14/bod-election > > > > The community (and especially members) are hereby invited to > view > > candidate details and express any objection or support about > the > > suitability of the candidates for the board position using > the > > comment section at the URL above. > > > > The public comment period will close on 26 May 2014 at > 2000UTC. > > > > Members that will not be able to attend and/or vote > physically at > > the AGMM in Djibouti on 06 June 2014 are informed that there > is now > > an option for electronic voting, which will start on 27th > May 2014 > > until 05 June 2014 and will be conducted through the > MyAFRINIC > > portal - https://my.afrinic.net > > > > More information is available at: > > > http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/elections/bod-election?showall=1 > > > > For any queries or clarification, please contact the > nominations > > committee by email at: > > > > nomcom2014 at afrinic.net > > > > > -- > Mark J Elkins - AFRINIC 2014 Nominations Committee Chair > mje at posix.co.za - nomcom2014 (at) afrinic.net > Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 > -- Mark J Elkins - AFRINIC 2014 Nominations Committee Chair mje at posix.co.za - nomcom2014 (at) afrinic.net Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 5810 bytes Desc: not available URL: From owen at delong.com Wed May 7 21:58:34 2014 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Wed, 7 May 2014 14:58:34 -0700 Subject: [rpd] AFRINIC Board Elections - 2014: Call for Nominations In-Reply-To: References: <72B07AC2-F4C2-4A95-B9BA-E71E6DFB20BA@afrinic.net> <1395406604.7293.245.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> <1395426016.7373.31.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> <1399473298.12025.113.camel@dhcp15.posix.co.za> <1399485929.12025.165.camel@dhcp15.posix.co.za> Message-ID: <9FCE193A-AF95-4CCD-AA62-05F05C71B7C4@delong.com> My own $0.02 on term limits. In general, term limits take choice away from voters rather than giving voters more choice. There can only be N incumbents of N*x candidates in any given race if the nominating committee is doing its job. The job of the nominating committee is to seek out qualified applicants to run for office and confirm the qualifications of those who wish to run so that the community is presented with a rich slate of qualified candidates. In most situations (I don't know what, if any rules apply in the specific case of AfriNIC), the nominating committee has to produce a slate where x is at least 2, and, ideally 3-5 (so if you have a vote-for-3 office, for example, you ideally have 9-15 candidates). Therefore, the voters should always have non-incumbent alternatives if they wish. Incumbents are not inherently bad. As Mark has pointed out, an Incumbent has experience and knowledge which can make them better at the job than someone newly elected. If this was not true, telecommunications companies would fire all of their employees every year and get new ones. Term limits assume that voters don't know who to vote for and make stupid choices based on supporting incumbents because they recognize the name and for no other reasons. In my experience, the AfriNIC community does not deserve such an insult. I believe the community to be comprised of intelligent people who generally make reasonable decisions and consider available information in a reasonable manner prior to making a decisions. I do not believe that an incumbent who is doing a bad job is at all likely to get re-elected by the AfriNIC community. Owen On May 7, 2014, at 13:09 , Noah Maina wrote: > Hi Mark > > Mmmmm am not convienced but I will give your response the benefit of the doubt imho ... otherwise one would argue that there is no point of new blood since old blood brings about stability given the observation that new blood takes a year or so to catch up... > > This continent certainly have loads of competent folks I just think not so many are aware perhaps otherwise we would have lots of willing folks... > > In anycade the community can certainly elect whoever ... old old or new.! > > My 1 cent ... > > Noah > > On 7 May 2014 21:05, "Mark Elkins" wrote: > On Wed, 2014-05-07 at 20:05 +0300, Noah Maina wrote: > > Me Just curious! > > > > Aren't some of the nominated folks already or were members of the > > board in the recent past....the names look familiar .... > > Yes, Both Indian and Central Africa have Board members who are > re-standing for a second term. This makes them immediately useful, no > learning how things work. In my observations, "new blood" can take a > year or so to become useful. > > > Other RIR regions (for example, RIPE) allow multiple repetitive terms. > This gives that community Board Stability, helps stops old mistakes from > being repeated. > > > Should some of us assume that there is no new blood in some of these > > regions who can be nominated or there is less awareness in the > > community thus we keep seeing the same names over and over most of the > > time? > > There is more new blood than old (7 out of 10 people) standing. > Being an AFRINIC Board Member can be quite time consuming. There is also > no "sitting" fee. Finding willing people who can bring appropriate > Business Management and Leadership skills as well as their time is not > as easy as one might think. > Lastly - the community decides who is (re-)elected, old or new. > > > > > Noah > > > > Dear Colleagues, > > > > Consequent to the call for nominations and subsequent evaluation of > > nominees by the Nominations Committee (NomCom), we are pleased to > > announce the following final slate of candidates for the following > > seats on the AFRINIC Board: > > > > Indian Ocean: > > > > Andrinirina Jo?l RANDRIANASOLO > > Kris Seeburn > > Subramanian Moonesamy > > > > > > Central Africa: > > > > Antoine Joseph Junior Tonye > > Bope Domilongo Christian > > NGNOULAYE Janvier > > > > > > NON-REGIONAL/GEOGRAPHICAL: > > > > Andrew Kenningale Alston > > Boubakar Barry > > Hajanirina Ramboasalama > > Ilunga Kabwika Serge > > > > > > Full candidate information has been published at: > > > > https://internetsummitafrica.org/en/ais14/bod-election > > > > The community (and especially members) are hereby invited to view > > candidate details and express any objection or support about the > > suitability of the candidates for the board position using the > > comment section at the URL above. > > > > The public comment period will close on 26 May 2014 at 2000UTC. > > > > Members that will not be able to attend and/or vote physically at > > the AGMM in Djibouti on 06 June 2014 are informed that there is now > > an option for electronic voting, which will start on 27th May 2014 > > until 05 June 2014 and will be conducted through the MyAFRINIC > > portal - https://my.afrinic.net > > > > More information is available at: > > http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/elections/bod-election?showall=1 > > > > For any queries or clarification, please contact the nominations > > committee by email at: > > > > nomcom2014 at afrinic.net > > > > > -- > Mark J Elkins - AFRINIC 2014 Nominations Committee Chair > mje at posix.co.za - nomcom2014 (at) afrinic.net > Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Kivuva at transworldafrica.com Thu May 8 05:13:26 2014 From: Kivuva at transworldafrica.com (Mwendwa Kivuva) Date: Thu, 8 May 2014 08:13:26 +0300 Subject: [rpd] AFRINIC Board Elections - 2014: Call for Nominations In-Reply-To: <9FCE193A-AF95-4CCD-AA62-05F05C71B7C4@delong.com> References: <72B07AC2-F4C2-4A95-B9BA-E71E6DFB20BA@afrinic.net> <1395406604.7293.245.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> <1395426016.7373.31.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> <1399473298.12025.113.camel@dhcp15.posix.co.za> <1399485929.12025.165.camel@dhcp15.posix.co.za> <9FCE193A-AF95-4CCD-AA62-05F05C71B7C4@delong.com> Message-ID: NonCom works with volunteers who have shown interest in serving as board members. You can only raise an objection if you think you are qualified, volunteered and were not selected. The call is usually distributed widely from the rpd to several in-country lists. The competition is healthy with at least three choices per seat. Mark, your committee did a good job. Regards On 08/05/2014, Owen DeLong wrote: > My own $0.02 on term limits. > > In general, term limits take choice away from voters rather than giving > voters more choice. There can only be N incumbents of N*x candidates in any > given race if the nominating committee is doing its job. The job of the > nominating committee is to seek out qualified applicants to run for office > and confirm the qualifications of those who wish to run so that the > community is presented with a rich slate of qualified candidates. In most > situations (I don't know what, if any rules apply in the specific case of > AfriNIC), the nominating committee has to produce a slate where x is at > least 2, and, ideally 3-5 (so if you have a vote-for-3 office, for example, > you ideally have 9-15 candidates). > > Therefore, the voters should always have non-incumbent alternatives if they > wish. Incumbents are not inherently bad. As Mark has pointed out, an > Incumbent has experience and knowledge which can make them better at the job > than someone newly elected. If this was not true, telecommunications > companies would fire all of their employees every year and get new ones. > > Term limits assume that voters don't know who to vote for and make stupid > choices based on supporting incumbents because they recognize the name and > for no other reasons. In my experience, the AfriNIC community does not > deserve such an insult. I believe the community to be comprised of > intelligent people who generally make reasonable decisions and consider > available information in a reasonable manner prior to making a decisions. I > do not believe that an incumbent who is doing a bad job is at all likely to > get re-elected by the AfriNIC community. > > Owen > > On May 7, 2014, at 13:09 , Noah Maina wrote: > >> Hi Mark >> >> Mmmmm am not convienced but I will give your response the benefit of the >> doubt imho ... otherwise one would argue that there is no point of new >> blood since old blood brings about stability given the observation that >> new blood takes a year or so to catch up... >> >> This continent certainly have loads of competent folks I just think not so >> many are aware perhaps otherwise we would have lots of willing folks... >> >> In anycade the community can certainly elect whoever ... old old or new.! >> >> My 1 cent ... >> >> Noah >> >> On 7 May 2014 21:05, "Mark Elkins" wrote: >> On Wed, 2014-05-07 at 20:05 +0300, Noah Maina wrote: >> > Me Just curious! >> > >> > Aren't some of the nominated folks already or were members of the >> > board in the recent past....the names look familiar .... >> >> Yes, Both Indian and Central Africa have Board members who are >> re-standing for a second term. This makes them immediately useful, no >> learning how things work. In my observations, "new blood" can take a >> year or so to become useful. >> >> >> Other RIR regions (for example, RIPE) allow multiple repetitive terms. >> This gives that community Board Stability, helps stops old mistakes from >> being repeated. >> >> > Should some of us assume that there is no new blood in some of these >> > regions who can be nominated or there is less awareness in the >> > community thus we keep seeing the same names over and over most of the >> > time? >> >> There is more new blood than old (7 out of 10 people) standing. >> Being an AFRINIC Board Member can be quite time consuming. There is also >> no "sitting" fee. Finding willing people who can bring appropriate >> Business Management and Leadership skills as well as their time is not >> as easy as one might think. >> Lastly - the community decides who is (re-)elected, old or new. >> >> > >> > Noah >> > >> > Dear Colleagues, >> > >> > Consequent to the call for nominations and subsequent evaluation of >> > nominees by the Nominations Committee (NomCom), we are pleased to >> > announce the following final slate of candidates for the following >> > seats on the AFRINIC Board: >> > >> > Indian Ocean: >> > >> > Andrinirina Jo?l RANDRIANASOLO >> > Kris Seeburn >> > Subramanian Moonesamy >> > >> > >> > Central Africa: >> > >> > Antoine Joseph Junior Tonye >> > Bope Domilongo Christian >> > NGNOULAYE Janvier >> > >> > >> > NON-REGIONAL/GEOGRAPHICAL: >> > >> > Andrew Kenningale Alston >> > Boubakar Barry >> > Hajanirina Ramboasalama >> > Ilunga Kabwika Serge >> > >> > >> > Full candidate information has been published at: >> > >> > https://internetsummitafrica.org/en/ais14/bod-election >> > >> > The community (and especially members) are hereby invited to view >> > candidate details and express any objection or support about the >> > suitability of the candidates for the board position using the >> > comment section at the URL above. >> > >> > The public comment period will close on 26 May 2014 at 2000UTC. >> > >> > Members that will not be able to attend and/or vote physically at >> > the AGMM in Djibouti on 06 June 2014 are informed that there is now >> > an option for electronic voting, which will start on 27th May 2014 >> > until 05 June 2014 and will be conducted through the MyAFRINIC >> > portal - https://my.afrinic.net >> > >> > More information is available at: >> > http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/elections/bod-election?showall=1 >> > >> > For any queries or clarification, please contact the nominations >> > committee by email at: >> > >> > nomcom2014 at afrinic.net >> > >> >> >> -- >> Mark J Elkins - AFRINIC 2014 Nominations Committee Chair >> mje at posix.co.za - nomcom2014 (at) afrinic.net >> Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> rpd mailing list >> rpd at afrinic.net >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > -- ______________________ Mwendwa Kivuva, Nairobi, Kenya twitter.com/lordmwesh From owen at delong.com Thu May 8 05:28:35 2014 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Wed, 7 May 2014 22:28:35 -0700 Subject: [rpd] AFRINIC Board Elections - 2014: Call for Nominations In-Reply-To: References: <72B07AC2-F4C2-4A95-B9BA-E71E6DFB20BA@afrinic.net> <1395406604.7293.245.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> <1395426016.7373.31.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> <1399473298.12025.113.camel@dhcp15.posix.co.za> <1399485929.12025.165.camel@dhcp15.posix.co.za> <9FCE193A-AF95-4CCD-AA62-05F05C71B7C4@delong.com> Message-ID: It was not my intent to raise an objection. My intent was to express an opposition to term limits. I have no problem with the slate of candidates provided by the Nom Comm. Owen On May 7, 2014, at 22:13 , Mwendwa Kivuva wrote: > NonCom works with volunteers who have shown interest in serving as > board members. You can only raise an objection if you think you are > qualified, volunteered and were not selected. The call is usually > distributed widely from the rpd to several in-country lists. The > competition is healthy with at least three choices per seat. > > Mark, your committee did a good job. > > Regards > > On 08/05/2014, Owen DeLong wrote: >> My own $0.02 on term limits. >> >> In general, term limits take choice away from voters rather than giving >> voters more choice. There can only be N incumbents of N*x candidates in any >> given race if the nominating committee is doing its job. The job of the >> nominating committee is to seek out qualified applicants to run for office >> and confirm the qualifications of those who wish to run so that the >> community is presented with a rich slate of qualified candidates. In most >> situations (I don't know what, if any rules apply in the specific case of >> AfriNIC), the nominating committee has to produce a slate where x is at >> least 2, and, ideally 3-5 (so if you have a vote-for-3 office, for example, >> you ideally have 9-15 candidates). >> >> Therefore, the voters should always have non-incumbent alternatives if they >> wish. Incumbents are not inherently bad. As Mark has pointed out, an >> Incumbent has experience and knowledge which can make them better at the job >> than someone newly elected. If this was not true, telecommunications >> companies would fire all of their employees every year and get new ones. >> >> Term limits assume that voters don't know who to vote for and make stupid >> choices based on supporting incumbents because they recognize the name and >> for no other reasons. In my experience, the AfriNIC community does not >> deserve such an insult. I believe the community to be comprised of >> intelligent people who generally make reasonable decisions and consider >> available information in a reasonable manner prior to making a decisions. I >> do not believe that an incumbent who is doing a bad job is at all likely to >> get re-elected by the AfriNIC community. >> >> Owen >> >> On May 7, 2014, at 13:09 , Noah Maina wrote: >> >>> Hi Mark >>> >>> Mmmmm am not convienced but I will give your response the benefit of the >>> doubt imho ... otherwise one would argue that there is no point of new >>> blood since old blood brings about stability given the observation that >>> new blood takes a year or so to catch up... >>> >>> This continent certainly have loads of competent folks I just think not so >>> many are aware perhaps otherwise we would have lots of willing folks... >>> >>> In anycade the community can certainly elect whoever ... old old or new.! >>> >>> My 1 cent ... >>> >>> Noah >>> >>> On 7 May 2014 21:05, "Mark Elkins" wrote: >>> On Wed, 2014-05-07 at 20:05 +0300, Noah Maina wrote: >>>> Me Just curious! >>>> >>>> Aren't some of the nominated folks already or were members of the >>>> board in the recent past....the names look familiar .... >>> >>> Yes, Both Indian and Central Africa have Board members who are >>> re-standing for a second term. This makes them immediately useful, no >>> learning how things work. In my observations, "new blood" can take a >>> year or so to become useful. >>> >>> >>> Other RIR regions (for example, RIPE) allow multiple repetitive terms. >>> This gives that community Board Stability, helps stops old mistakes from >>> being repeated. >>> >>>> Should some of us assume that there is no new blood in some of these >>>> regions who can be nominated or there is less awareness in the >>>> community thus we keep seeing the same names over and over most of the >>>> time? >>> >>> There is more new blood than old (7 out of 10 people) standing. >>> Being an AFRINIC Board Member can be quite time consuming. There is also >>> no "sitting" fee. Finding willing people who can bring appropriate >>> Business Management and Leadership skills as well as their time is not >>> as easy as one might think. >>> Lastly - the community decides who is (re-)elected, old or new. >>> >>>> >>>> Noah >>>> >>>> Dear Colleagues, >>>> >>>> Consequent to the call for nominations and subsequent evaluation of >>>> nominees by the Nominations Committee (NomCom), we are pleased to >>>> announce the following final slate of candidates for the following >>>> seats on the AFRINIC Board: >>>> >>>> Indian Ocean: >>>> >>>> Andrinirina Jo?l RANDRIANASOLO >>>> Kris Seeburn >>>> Subramanian Moonesamy >>>> >>>> >>>> Central Africa: >>>> >>>> Antoine Joseph Junior Tonye >>>> Bope Domilongo Christian >>>> NGNOULAYE Janvier >>>> >>>> >>>> NON-REGIONAL/GEOGRAPHICAL: >>>> >>>> Andrew Kenningale Alston >>>> Boubakar Barry >>>> Hajanirina Ramboasalama >>>> Ilunga Kabwika Serge >>>> >>>> >>>> Full candidate information has been published at: >>>> >>>> https://internetsummitafrica.org/en/ais14/bod-election >>>> >>>> The community (and especially members) are hereby invited to view >>>> candidate details and express any objection or support about the >>>> suitability of the candidates for the board position using the >>>> comment section at the URL above. >>>> >>>> The public comment period will close on 26 May 2014 at 2000UTC. >>>> >>>> Members that will not be able to attend and/or vote physically at >>>> the AGMM in Djibouti on 06 June 2014 are informed that there is now >>>> an option for electronic voting, which will start on 27th May 2014 >>>> until 05 June 2014 and will be conducted through the MyAFRINIC >>>> portal - https://my.afrinic.net >>>> >>>> More information is available at: >>>> http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/elections/bod-election?showall=1 >>>> >>>> For any queries or clarification, please contact the nominations >>>> committee by email at: >>>> >>>> nomcom2014 at afrinic.net >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Mark J Elkins - AFRINIC 2014 Nominations Committee Chair >>> mje at posix.co.za - nomcom2014 (at) afrinic.net >>> Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> rpd mailing list >>> rpd at afrinic.net >>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >> >> > > > -- > ______________________ > Mwendwa Kivuva, Nairobi, Kenya > twitter.com/lordmwesh From jwalu at yahoo.com Thu May 8 05:59:49 2014 From: jwalu at yahoo.com (Walubengo J) Date: Wed, 7 May 2014 22:59:49 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [rpd] AFRINIC Board Elections - 2014: Call for Nominations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <1399528789.6609.YahooMailBasic@web141504.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Noah, You are the guys we are looking for. The Nomination Committee CANNOT manufacture names unless YOU volunteer. As Mark says, getting volunteers to do offer their time, effort and knowledge practically for free has proved to be very difficult in Africa. And so I wish you and others would have come out and responded to the call for board members that I believe is widely circulated. I tend to agree that AfriNIC board needs "new" blood, but "old" blood is often forced to stay on due to non or poor response to the call for volunteers. And in any case, the community is free to vote out the old blood when the vote is called :-) walu. -------------------------------------------- On Wed, 5/7/14, Noah Maina wrote: Subject: Re: [rpd] AFRINIC Board Elections - 2014: Call for Nominations To: mje at posix.co.za Cc: announce at afrinic.net, afnog at afnog.org, africann at afrinic.net, rpd at afrinic.net, "nomcom2014" Date: Wednesday, May 7, 2014, 8:05 PM Mmmmmmm Me Just curious! Aren't some of the nominated folks already or were? members of the board in the recent past....the names look familiar .... ? Should some of us assume that there is no new blood in some of these regions who can be nominated or there is less awareness in the community thus we keep seeing the same names over and over most of the time? Noah Dear Colleagues, Consequent to the call for nominations and subsequent evaluation of nominees by the Nominations Committee (NomCom), we are pleased to announce the following final slate of candidates for the following seats on the AFRINIC Board: Indian Ocean: ? ? Andrinirina Jo?l RANDRIANASOLO ? ? Kris Seeburn ? ? Subramanian Moonesamy Central Africa: ? ? Antoine Joseph Junior Tonye ? ? Bope Domilongo Christian ? ? NGNOULAYE Janvier NON-REGIONAL/GEOGRAPHICAL: ? ? Andrew Kenningale Alston ? ? Boubakar Barry ? ? Hajanirina Ramboasalama ? ? Ilunga Kabwika Serge Full candidate information has been published at: https://internetsummitafrica.org/en/ais14/bod-election The community (and especially members) are hereby invited to view candidate details and express any objection or support about the suitability of the candidates for the board position using the comment section at the URL above. The public comment period will close on 26 May 2014 at 2000UTC. Members that will not be able to attend and/or vote physically at the AGMM in Djibouti on 06 June 2014 are informed that there is now an option for electronic voting, which will start on 27th May 2014 until 05 June 2014 and will be conducted through the MyAFRINIC portal - https://my.afrinic.net More information is available at: http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/elections/bod-election?showall=1 For any queries or clarification, please contact the nominations committee by email at: nomcom2014 at afrinic.net -- Mark J Elkins - AFRINIC 2014 Nominations Committee Chair mje at posix.co.za - nomcom2014 (at) afrinic.net Tel: +27.128070590 ?Cell: +27.826010496 _______________________________________________ rpd mailing list rpd at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd -----Inline Attachment Follows----- _______________________________________________ rpd mailing list rpd at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com Thu May 8 08:05:40 2014 From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji) Date: Thu, 8 May 2014 09:05:40 +0100 Subject: Election process (was re: [rpd] AFRINIC Board Elections - 2014: Call for Nominations) Message-ID: Hello Mr Chair, Thanks for this information, good to see that all the positions has a minimum contestant of 3 which is quite healthy for the entire process. I can see familiar names (with some surprises), i guess that is the fun part of an election :) and wish everyone all the best as they contest. I have observed with great concern that it seem some of the comments made during the last AGM in relation to the election process may not have been taken into consideration by nomcom. At least i remember the few ones i made (which i think some other people echoed): - The electronic voting is starting before getting the opportunity to hear from the contestants. In view of this, does it mean either of the following will happen: 1. There will be no time when the contestant will speak to the community (i.e the only information posted on the website is what will be used for both at online and f2f voting) 2. The speech of the contestants will be uploaded before the electronic voting starts and further speaking opportunity awarded to contestants present at f2f - The closing date for the online voting has been set to end before f2f; as mentioned in the last AGM why does the online voting have to close earlier than the f2f voting? since its the same election one means of voting should not be shut down before the other. Is it that there are no enough resources to make the online voting platform run concurrently? One of the other point mentioned was that closing the online voting should *be an event *and the total number of votes from the online voting system should be made known to the community concurrently. That is why its important to close the online voting same time with the f2f. I like to thank you and your team for all the efforts towards ensuring a credible election. Kind Regards PS: Speaking in my personal capacity. On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 3:34 PM, Mark Elkins wrote: > Dear Colleagues, > > Consequent to the call for nominations and subsequent evaluation of > nominees by the Nominations Committee (NomCom), we are pleased to > announce the following final slate of candidates for the following > seats on the AFRINIC Board: > > Indian Ocean: > > Andrinirina Jo?l RANDRIANASOLO > Kris Seeburn > Subramanian Moonesamy > > > Central Africa: > > Antoine Joseph Junior Tonye > Bope Domilongo Christian > NGNOULAYE Janvier > > > NON-REGIONAL/GEOGRAPHICAL: > > Andrew Kenningale Alston > Boubakar Barry > Hajanirina Ramboasalama > Ilunga Kabwika Serge > > > Full candidate information has been published at: > > https://internetsummitafrica.org/en/ais14/bod-election > > The community (and especially members) are hereby invited to view > candidate details and express any objection or support about the > suitability of the candidates for the board position using the > comment section at the URL above. > > The public comment period will close on 26 May 2014 at 2000UTC. > > Members that will not be able to attend and/or vote physically at > the AGMM in Djibouti on 06 June 2014 are informed that there is now > an option for electronic voting, which will start on 27th May 2014 > until 05 June 2014 and will be conducted through the MyAFRINIC > portal - https://my.afrinic.net > > More information is available at: > http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/elections/bod-election?showall=1 > > For any queries or clarification, please contact the nominations > committee by email at: > > nomcom2014 at afrinic.net > > > -- > Mark J Elkins - AFRINIC 2014 Nominations Committee Chair > mje at posix.co.za - nomcom2014 (at) afrinic.net > Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng * The key to understanding is humility - my view ! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dogwallah at gmail.com Thu May 8 12:56:15 2014 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 8 May 2014 07:56:15 -0500 Subject: Election process (was re: [rpd] AFRINIC Board Elections - 2014: Call for Nominations) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Seun, As a former Member of the AFRINIC Election Review Committee and former chair of the NomCom/Election Committee, let me offer my perspective inline below: On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 3:05 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: > Hello Mr Chair, > > Thanks for this information, good to see that all the positions has a > minimum contestant of 3 which is quite healthy for the entire process. I can > see familiar names (with some surprises), i guess that is the fun part of an > election :) and wish everyone all the best as they contest. > > I have observed with great concern that it seem some of the comments made > during the last AGM in relation to the election process may not have been > taken into consideration by nomcom. At least i remember the few ones i made > (which i think some other people echoed): > > - The electronic voting is starting before getting the opportunity to hear > from the contestants. In view of this, does it mean either of the following > will happen: > 1. There will be no time when the contestant will speak to the community > (i.e the only information posted on the website is what will be used for > both at online and f2f voting) > 2. The speech of the contestants will be uploaded before the electronic > voting starts and further speaking opportunity awarded to contestants > present at f2f I imagine that election video will be made available as they are sent by the candidates. > > - The closing date for the online voting has been set to end before f2f; as > mentioned in the last AGM why does the online voting have to close earlier > than the f2f voting? There are several reasons for this. 1. to give the staff time to tabulate e-votes before election itself. 2. to exclude those who have e-voted from the f2f voting, otherwise there is an opportunity to vote more than once. since its the same election one means of voting should > not be shut down before the other. Is it that there are no enough resources > to make the online voting platform run concurrently? see above, there is no alternative if we want to ensure that folks can only vote once. > One of the other point mentioned was that closing the online voting should > be an event and the total number of votes from the online voting system > should be made known to the community concurrently. That is why its > important to close the online voting same time with the f2f. To do so would invalidate the election process IMHO. If the results of online voting were known, it could/would have an effect on the f2f voting. It is one election with 2 different voting methods. Releasing preliminary results will almost certainly skew the end result. > > I like to thank you and your team for all the efforts towards ensuring a > credible election. +1 and good luck to all candidates. I agree with Owen, we don't need term limits. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com Thu May 8 13:26:02 2014 From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji) Date: Thu, 8 May 2014 14:26:02 +0100 Subject: Election process (was re: [rpd] AFRINIC Board Elections - 2014: Call for Nominations) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hello Tim, On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 1:56 PM, McTim wrote: > Hi Seun, > > As a former Member of the AFRINIC Election Review Committee and former > chair of the > NomCom/Election Committee, let me offer my perspective inline below: > > Thanks for your response, kindly find mine inset: > > > > - The electronic voting is starting before getting the opportunity to > hear > > from the contestants. In view of this, does it mean either of the > following > > will happen: > > 1. There will be no time when the contestant will speak to the community > > (i.e the only information posted on the website is what will be used for > > both at online and f2f voting) > > 2. The speech of the contestants will be uploaded before the electronic > > voting starts and further speaking opportunity awarded to contestants > > present at f2f > > I imagine that election video will be made available as they are sent > by the candidates. > > Based on this i imagine both options 1 and 2 will happen. Will appreciate if current nomcom could kindly confirm this? > > > > - The closing date for the online voting has been set to end before f2f; > as > > mentioned in the last AGM why does the online voting have to close > earlier > > than the f2f voting? > > > There are several reasons for this. > > 1. to give the staff time to tabulate e-votes before election itself. > > 2. to exclude those who have e-voted from the f2f voting, otherwise > there is an opportunity to vote more than once. > > Thanks for those vital points, while i will like to know the other "several reasons" i will make my comments on the 2 important ones you've mentioned above: - For those 2 points above to be a reason means that there is definitely some further development that needs to be done on the online voting platform. The platform should be able to filter out already voted members from those who haven?t - Even if the current voting platform does not have such feature, it should not take more than few min to manually filter out members who have not voted using the online platform(especially if list of members in good standing is readily available) Once the filtering is clear, then its easy for the rest of the members present at the f2f to either chose to vote online(during f2f) or vote by paper ballot. Anyone who choose paper ballot will automatically not be enabled to vote online. That way there won't be double voting possibilities and those who are still remote up till AGM can still cast their vote remotely during and after the realtime speeches of the candidates. > since its the same election one means of voting should > > not be shut down before the other. Is it that there are no enough > resources > > to make the online voting platform run concurrently? > > see above, there is no alternative if we want to ensure that folks can > only vote once. > kindly see my comments above on how i think it can be done and let me know what part of the process i may have missed. > > > > One of the other point mentioned was that closing the online voting > should > > be an event and the total number of votes from the online voting system > > should be made known to the community concurrently. That is why its > > important to close the online voting same time with the f2f. > > > To do so would invalidate the election process IMHO. If the results > of online voting > were known, it could/would have an effect on the f2f voting. It is > one election with 2 different voting methods. > > Releasing preliminary results will almost certainly skew the end result. > > Nope i am not saying release preliminary results, i am saying release the results of the online voting and f2f concurrently! This will remove possible "mindset" that some may be privileged to know the online voting results prior to that of f2f Thanks Kind Regards -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng * The key to understanding is humility - my view ! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dogwallah at gmail.com Thu May 8 13:48:44 2014 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 8 May 2014 08:48:44 -0500 Subject: Election process (was re: [rpd] AFRINIC Board Elections - 2014: Call for Nominations) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 8:26 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: > Hello Tim, > On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 1:56 PM, McTim wrote: >> >> Hi Seun, >> >> As a former Member of the AFRINIC Election Review Committee and former >> chair of the >> NomCom/Election Committee, let me offer my perspective inline below: >> > > Thanks for your response, kindly find mine inset: > >> >> >> >> >> > - The electronic voting is starting before getting the opportunity to >> > hear >> > from the contestants. In view of this, does it mean either of the >> > following >> > will happen: >> > 1. There will be no time when the contestant will speak to the community >> > (i.e the only information posted on the website is what will be used for >> > both at online and f2f voting) >> > 2. The speech of the contestants will be uploaded before the electronic >> > voting starts and further speaking opportunity awarded to contestants >> > present at f2f >> >> I imagine that election video will be made available as they are sent >> by the candidates. >> > Based on this i imagine both options 1 and 2 will happen. Will appreciate if > current nomcom could kindly confirm this? > >> >> > >> > - The closing date for the online voting has been set to end before f2f; >> > as >> > mentioned in the last AGM why does the online voting have to close >> > earlier >> > than the f2f voting? >> >> >> There are several reasons for this. >> >> 1. to give the staff time to tabulate e-votes before election itself. >> >> 2. to exclude those who have e-voted from the f2f voting, otherwise >> there is an opportunity to vote more than once. >> > Thanks for those vital points, while i will like to know the other "several > reasons" i will make my comments on the 2 important ones you've mentioned > above: > > - For those 2 points above to be a reason means that there is definitely > some further development that needs to be done on the online voting > platform. The platform should be able to filter out already voted members > from those who haven?t I believe this work has already been done, and therefore only members in good standing who have NOT voted electronically may vote f2f. If you have both running concurrently, then you eliminate this ability to exclude those who have already voted. > > - Even if the current voting platform does not have such feature, it should > not take more than few min to manually filter out members who have not voted > using the online platform(especially if list of members in good standing is > readily available) > > Once the filtering is clear, then its easy for the rest of the members > present at the f2f to either chose to vote online(during f2f) or vote by > paper ballot. Anyone who choose paper ballot will automatically not be > enabled to vote online. That way there won't be double voting possibilities > and those who are still remote up till AGM can still cast their vote > remotely during and after the realtime speeches of the candidates. I see the advantage in this of course, but it does leave open the possibility that 2 people, working in concert can at least attempt to double vote. One person could even do it with the right timing. > >> >> since its the same election one means of voting should >> > not be shut down before the other. Is it that there are no enough >> > resources >> > to make the online voting platform run concurrently? I don't think it is a question of resources, but rather of election integrity. >> >> see above, there is no alternative if we want to ensure that folks can >> only vote once. > > > kindly see my comments above on how i think it can be done and let me know > what part of the process i may have missed. >> >> >> >> > One of the other point mentioned was that closing the online voting >> > should >> > be an event and the total number of votes from the online voting system >> > should be made known to the community concurrently. That is why its >> > important to close the online voting same time with the f2f. >> >> >> To do so would invalidate the election process IMHO. If the results >> of online voting >> were known, it could/would have an effect on the f2f voting. It is >> one election with 2 different voting methods. >> >> Releasing preliminary results will almost certainly skew the end result. >> > Nope i am not saying release preliminary results, i am saying release the > results of the online voting and f2f concurrently! This will remove possible > "mindset" that some may be privileged to know the online voting results > prior to that of f2f If I recall correctly, there is only one person (the CEO) who is able to obtain the results of the e-vote and he does this just before the f2f vote. The NomCom is always looking for volunteers. I encourage all to raise their hands next time for this necessary but often thankless task. @Adam, I believe the By-Laws call for a paper ballot, but those could be changed by the BoD as needed. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel From gift at itibots.com Thu May 8 14:30:50 2014 From: gift at itibots.com (gift) Date: Thu, 08 May 2014 16:30:50 +0200 Subject: Election process (was re: [rpd] AFRINIC Board Elections - 2014: Call for Nominations) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <536B951A.4060605@itibots.com> Thanks to all for interesting dialogue. It is important to separate the online vote and the f2f vote for purposes of audit trail in case there are disputes. The processes should not overlap, one process must close before the other opens as essentially these are supposed to be mutually exclusive. Whilst technology may help alleviate some of the reservations, for purposes of integrity it is prudent to keep these separate. Even in the political world where they have invested in such systems over many years, they still separate different types of vote. Gift On 08/05/2014 03:48 PM, McTim wrote: > On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 8:26 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: >> Hello Tim, >> On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 1:56 PM, McTim wrote: >>> Hi Seun, >>> >>> As a former Member of the AFRINIC Election Review Committee and former >>> chair of the >>> NomCom/Election Committee, let me offer my perspective inline below: >>> >> Thanks for your response, kindly find mine inset: >> >>> >>> >>> >>>> - The electronic voting is starting before getting the opportunity to >>>> hear >>>> from the contestants. In view of this, does it mean either of the >>>> following >>>> will happen: >>>> 1. There will be no time when the contestant will speak to the community >>>> (i.e the only information posted on the website is what will be used for >>>> both at online and f2f voting) >>>> 2. The speech of the contestants will be uploaded before the electronic >>>> voting starts and further speaking opportunity awarded to contestants >>>> present at f2f >>> I imagine that election video will be made available as they are sent >>> by the candidates. >>> >> Based on this i imagine both options 1 and 2 will happen. Will appreciate if >> current nomcom could kindly confirm this? >> >>>> - The closing date for the online voting has been set to end before f2f; >>>> as >>>> mentioned in the last AGM why does the online voting have to close >>>> earlier >>>> than the f2f voting? >>> >>> There are several reasons for this. >>> >>> 1. to give the staff time to tabulate e-votes before election itself. >>> >>> 2. to exclude those who have e-voted from the f2f voting, otherwise >>> there is an opportunity to vote more than once. >>> >> Thanks for those vital points, while i will like to know the other "several >> reasons" i will make my comments on the 2 important ones you've mentioned >> above: >> >> - For those 2 points above to be a reason means that there is definitely >> some further development that needs to be done on the online voting >> platform. The platform should be able to filter out already voted members >> from those who haven?t > > I believe this work has already been done, and therefore only members in good > standing who have NOT voted electronically may vote f2f. > > If you have both running concurrently, then you eliminate this ability > to exclude those > who have already voted. > > >> - Even if the current voting platform does not have such feature, it should >> not take more than few min to manually filter out members who have not voted >> using the online platform(especially if list of members in good standing is >> readily available) >> >> Once the filtering is clear, then its easy for the rest of the members >> present at the f2f to either chose to vote online(during f2f) or vote by >> paper ballot. Anyone who choose paper ballot will automatically not be >> enabled to vote online. That way there won't be double voting possibilities >> and those who are still remote up till AGM can still cast their vote >> remotely during and after the realtime speeches of the candidates. > > I see the advantage in this of course, but it does leave open the > possibility that 2 people, > working in concert can at least attempt to double vote. One person > could even do it with the right timing. > > >>> since its the same election one means of voting should >>>> not be shut down before the other. Is it that there are no enough >>>> resources >>>> to make the online voting platform run concurrently? > > I don't think it is a question of resources, but rather of election integrity. > >>> see above, there is no alternative if we want to ensure that folks can >>> only vote once. >> >> kindly see my comments above on how i think it can be done and let me know >> what part of the process i may have missed. >>> >>> >>>> One of the other point mentioned was that closing the online voting >>>> should >>>> be an event and the total number of votes from the online voting system >>>> should be made known to the community concurrently. That is why its >>>> important to close the online voting same time with the f2f. >>> >>> To do so would invalidate the election process IMHO. If the results >>> of online voting >>> were known, it could/would have an effect on the f2f voting. It is >>> one election with 2 different voting methods. >>> >>> Releasing preliminary results will almost certainly skew the end result. >>> >> Nope i am not saying release preliminary results, i am saying release the >> results of the online voting and f2f concurrently! This will remove possible >> "mindset" that some may be privileged to know the online voting results >> prior to that of f2f > > > If I recall correctly, there is only one person (the CEO) who is able > to obtain the results > of the e-vote and he does this just before the f2f vote. > > The NomCom is always looking for volunteers. I encourage all to raise > their hands next time for > this necessary but often thankless task. > > @Adam, I believe the By-Laws call for a paper ballot, but those could > be changed by the BoD as needed. > > -- Gift Shava Financial Controller Information Technology Integrators www. itibots.com Office: +26739334779, Mobile: +26772115870 Fax: +2673170457 From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com Thu May 8 14:41:58 2014 From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji) Date: Thu, 8 May 2014 15:41:58 +0100 Subject: Election process (was re: [rpd] AFRINIC Board Elections - 2014: Call for Nominations) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 2:48 PM, McTim wrote: > On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 8:26 AM, Seun Ojedeji > wrote: > > > - For those 2 points above to be a reason means that there is definitely > > some further development that needs to be done on the online voting > > platform. The platform should be able to filter out already voted members > > from those who haven?t > > I believe this work has already been done, and therefore only members in > good > standing who have NOT voted electronically may vote f2f. > > If you have both running concurrently, then you eliminate this ability > to exclude those > who have already voted. > I get your point here, however the way this could happen is to have a "temporary out of service period" before the AGM commences. Members who have not voted online can be filtered out and with that data anyone who collects the paper ballot gets disabled from online voting. In that sense, the online voting status becomes the reference point before ballot paper can be given to any member. Any member who receives ballot then gets DISABLED from online voting. > > I see the advantage in this of course, but it does leave open the > possibility that 2 people, working in concert can at least attempt to > double vote. One person could even do it with the right timing. > > With my proposed option above, I think double voting can only be possible if the voting platform administrator allows it. (by enabling a member to vote online and also giving him/her ballot paper) > > I don't think it is a question of resources, but rather of election > integrity. > > This is what i presume we all desire. If I recall correctly, there is only one person (the CEO) who is able to > obtain the results of the e-vote and he does this just before the f2f vote. > Well you know that, but the community doesn't so why not remove any possible prior knwoledge of voting results by any individual. The NomCom is always looking for volunteers. I encourage all to raise their > hands next time for this necessary but often thankless task. > +1 we all can't site within nomcom, but we all can contribute to its improvement. Nomcom should inturn make good use of comments/contribution provided by the community. > @Adam, I believe the By-Laws call for a paper ballot, but those could be > changed by the BoD as needed. > > Mmm...does it mean the online voting is not legitimately correct? which may not be the case as E-voting is defined in the bylaw. Me thinks the voting process may not have totally transitioned to online because the online voting is still in a "pilot stage". The ultimate desire will be to see it fully transition to electronic. Thanks Kind Regards -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng * The key to understanding is humility - my view ! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From scottleibrand at gmail.com Thu May 8 15:25:03 2014 From: scottleibrand at gmail.com (Scott Leibrand) Date: Thu, 8 May 2014 10:25:03 -0500 Subject: Election process (was re: [rpd] AFRINIC Board Elections - 2014: Call for Nominations) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4DDE1334-35C4-406A-8002-36B2F3CD6120@gmail.com> Another possibility is to do all voting electronically, and have anyone wishing to vote from the f2f meeting do so online as well. You would want to provide enough terminals to allow anyone without their own device to be able to vote at the f2f meeting. Scott > On May 8, 2014, at 9:41 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: > >> On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 2:48 PM, McTim wrote: >> On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 8:26 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: >> >> > - For those 2 points above to be a reason means that there is definitely >> > some further development that needs to be done on the online voting >> > platform. The platform should be able to filter out already voted members >> > from those who haven?t >> >> I believe this work has already been done, and therefore only members in good >> standing who have NOT voted electronically may vote f2f. >> >> If you have both running concurrently, then you eliminate this ability >> to exclude those >> who have already voted. > > I get your point here, however the way this could happen is to have a "temporary out of service period" before the AGM commences. Members who have not voted online can be filtered out and with that data anyone who collects the paper ballot gets disabled from online voting. > > In that sense, the online voting status becomes the reference point before ballot paper can be given to any member. Any member who receives ballot then gets DISABLED from online voting. >> >> I see the advantage in this of course, but it does leave open the possibility that 2 people, working in concert can at least attempt to double vote. One person could even do it with the right timing. > With my proposed option above, I think double voting can only be possible if the voting platform administrator allows it. (by enabling a member to vote online and also giving him/her ballot paper) > >> >> I don't think it is a question of resources, but rather of election integrity. > This is what i presume we all desire. > >> If I recall correctly, there is only one person (the CEO) who is able to obtain the results of the e-vote and he does this just before the f2f vote. > > > Well you know that, but the community doesn't so why not remove any possible prior knwoledge of voting results by any individual. > >> The NomCom is always looking for volunteers. I encourage all to raise their hands next time for this necessary but often thankless task. > > +1 we all can't site within nomcom, but we all can contribute to its improvement. Nomcom should inturn make good use of comments/contribution provided by the community. > >> >> @Adam, I believe the By-Laws call for a paper ballot, but those could be changed by the BoD as needed. > Mmm...does it mean the online voting is not legitimately correct? which may not be the case as E-voting is defined in the bylaw. Me thinks the voting process may not have totally transitioned to online because the online voting is still in a "pilot stage". The ultimate desire will be to see it fully transition to electronic. > > Thanks > > Kind Regards > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Seun Ojedeji, > Federal University Oye-Ekiti > web: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng > Mobile: +2348035233535 > alt email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng > > The key to understanding is humility - my view ! > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com Thu May 8 15:36:46 2014 From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji) Date: Thu, 8 May 2014 16:36:46 +0100 Subject: Election process (was re: [rpd] AFRINIC Board Elections - 2014: Call for Nominations) In-Reply-To: <4DDE1334-35C4-406A-8002-36B2F3CD6120@gmail.com> References: <4DDE1334-35C4-406A-8002-36B2F3CD6120@gmail.com> Message-ID: +1 usually over 80% would have an access device. Cheers! sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 8 May 2014 16:25, "Scott Leibrand" wrote: > Another possibility is to do all voting electronically, and have anyone > wishing to vote from the f2f meeting do so online as well. You would want > to provide enough terminals to allow anyone without their own device to be > able to vote at the f2f meeting. > > Scott > > On May 8, 2014, at 9:41 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: > > On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 2:48 PM, McTim wrote: > >> On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 8:26 AM, Seun Ojedeji >> wrote: >> >> > - For those 2 points above to be a reason means that there is definitely >> > some further development that needs to be done on the online voting >> > platform. The platform should be able to filter out already voted >> members >> > from those who haven?t >> >> I believe this work has already been done, and therefore only members in >> good >> standing who have NOT voted electronically may vote f2f. >> >> If you have both running concurrently, then you eliminate this ability >> to exclude those >> who have already voted. >> > > I get your point here, however the way this could happen is to have a > "temporary out of service period" before the AGM commences. Members who > have not voted online can be filtered out and with that data anyone who > collects the paper ballot gets disabled from online voting. > > In that sense, the online voting status becomes the reference point before > ballot paper can be given to any member. Any member who receives ballot > then gets DISABLED from online voting. > >> >> I see the advantage in this of course, but it does leave open the >> possibility that 2 people, working in concert can at least attempt to >> double vote. One person could even do it with the right timing. >> >> With my proposed option above, I think double voting can only be possible > if the voting platform administrator allows it. (by enabling a member to > vote online and also giving him/her ballot paper) > > >> >> I don't think it is a question of resources, but rather of election >> integrity. >> >> This is what i presume we all desire. > > If I recall correctly, there is only one person (the CEO) who is able to >> obtain the results of the e-vote and he does this just before the f2f vote. >> > > Well you know that, but the community doesn't so why not remove any > possible prior knwoledge of voting results by any individual. > > The NomCom is always looking for volunteers. I encourage all to raise >> their hands next time for this necessary but often thankless task. >> > > +1 we all can't site within nomcom, but we all can contribute to its > improvement. Nomcom should inturn make good use of comments/contribution > provided by the community. > > >> @Adam, I believe the By-Laws call for a paper ballot, but those could be >> changed by the BoD as needed. >> >> Mmm...does it mean the online voting is not legitimately correct? which > may not be the case as E-voting is defined in the bylaw. Me thinks the > voting process may not have totally transitioned to online because the > online voting is still in a "pilot stage". The ultimate desire will be to > see it fully transition to electronic. > > Thanks > > Kind Regards > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > > *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: > http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535**alt > email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng > * > > The key to understanding is humility - my view ! > > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From saul at enetworks.co.za Thu May 8 15:54:31 2014 From: saul at enetworks.co.za (Saul) Date: Thu, 8 May 2014 17:54:31 +0200 (SAST) Subject: Election process (was re: [rpd] AFRINIC Board Elections - 2014: Call for Nominations) In-Reply-To: <4DDE1334-35C4-406A-8002-36B2F3CD6120@gmail.com> References: <4DDE1334-35C4-406A-8002-36B2F3CD6120@gmail.com> Message-ID: <3dbd5fff.00000e08.0000006c@SAUL-PC.eNetworks.local> Certainly make the counting instantaneous. Computers are far more accurate! Also, what is the purpose of having to submit ID/passport documents to be able to get the BPKI certificate? If you have a login, you should be able to certified. I am sure that there are many issues with holding copies of these documents and people around the continent not wanting to freely submit these documents. From: rpd-bounces at afrinic.net [mailto:rpd-bounces at afrinic.net] On Behalf Of Scott Leibrand Sent: 08 May 2014 05:25 PM To: Seun Ojedeji Cc: nomcom2014; rpd Subject: Re: Election process (was re: [rpd] AFRINIC Board Elections - 2014: Call for Nominations) Another possibility is to do all voting electronically, and have anyone wishing to vote from the f2f meeting do so online as well. You would want to provide enough terminals to allow anyone without their own device to be able to vote at the f2f meeting. Scott On May 8, 2014, at 9:41 AM, Seun Ojedeji > wrote: On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 2:48 PM, McTim > wrote: On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 8:26 AM, Seun Ojedeji > wrote: > - For those 2 points above to be a reason means that there is definitely > some further development that needs to be done on the online voting > platform. The platform should be able to filter out already voted members > from those who haven?t I believe this work has already been done, and therefore only members in good standing who have NOT voted electronically may vote f2f. If you have both running concurrently, then you eliminate this ability to exclude those who have already voted. I get your point here, however the way this could happen is to have a "temporary out of service period" before the AGM commences. Members who have not voted online can be filtered out and with that data anyone who collects the paper ballot gets disabled from online voting. In that sense, the online voting status becomes the reference point before ballot paper can be given to any member. Any member who receives ballot then gets DISABLED from online voting. I see the advantage in this of course, but it does leave open the possibility that 2 people, working in concert can at least attempt to double vote. One person could even do it with the right timing. With my proposed option above, I think double voting can only be possible if the voting platform administrator allows it. (by enabling a member to vote online and also giving him/her ballot paper) I don't think it is a question of resources, but rather of election integrity. This is what i presume we all desire. If I recall correctly, there is only one person (the CEO) who is able to obtain the results of the e-vote and he does this just before the f2f vote. Well you know that, but the community doesn't so why not remove any possible prior knwoledge of voting results by any individual. The NomCom is always looking for volunteers. I encourage all to raise their hands next time for this necessary but often thankless task. +1 we all can't site within nomcom, but we all can contribute to its improvement. Nomcom should inturn make good use of comments/contribution provided by the community. @Adam, I believe the By-Laws call for a paper ballot, but those could be changed by the BoD as needed. Mmm...does it mean the online voting is not legitimately correct? which may not be the case as E-voting is defined in the bylaw. Me thinks the voting process may not have totally transitioned to online because the online voting is still in a "pilot stage". The ultimate desire will be to see it fully transition to electronic. Thanks Kind Regards -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Seun Ojedeji, Federal University Oye-Ekiti web: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535 alt email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng The key to understanding is humility - my view ! _______________________________________________ rpd mailing list rpd at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mje at posix.co.za Thu May 8 17:51:25 2014 From: mje at posix.co.za (Mark Elkins) Date: Thu, 08 May 2014 19:51:25 +0200 Subject: [rpd] AFRINIC Board Elections - 2014: Call for Nominations In-Reply-To: <1395426016.7373.31.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> References: <72B07AC2-F4C2-4A95-B9BA-E71E6DFB20BA@afrinic.net> <1395406604.7293.245.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> <1395426016.7373.31.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> Message-ID: <1399571485.8679.21.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> Dear Colleagues, We are seeking nominations for 1 Co-Chair of the Policy Development Working Group (PDWG) for a 2-year term (June 2014 ? June 2016). Co-Chairs of the PDWG are volunteers selected by the community per the current Policy Development Process (PDP) to carry out all administrative functions of the Policy Development Working Group (PDWG). Their responsibilities may include (but are not limited to) the following: 1. Chairing face-to-face policy meeting sessions and determining consensus. 2. Preparing post-meeting policy reports to share with the community as appropriate. 3. Preparing pre-meeting reports (usually mailing list discussion summaries) in preparation for face-to-face meetings. 4. Advising the board about ratification of proposals that reached consensus. 5. Evaluating emergencies that may necessitate varying the normal policy development process. Nominated candidates must be from the AFRINIC community and cannot be AFRINIC staff. Candidates can be nominated by anyone, but excluding AFRINIC or other RIR staff, and must permanently reside in a country within the AFRINIC service region. To nominate yourself or a candidate of your choice, please send an email to the Nominations Committee (nomcom2014 at afrinic.net) with the following information: a. Information of the Nominee: ? Full Name: ? Organization name (or Affiliation): ? Position: ? E-mail address: ? Postal/Physical address: ? Phone number: ? Country of residence: ? Brief Bio with a highlight of how the Nominee intends to contribute to the PDWG in particular and the Region's Policy Development Process (PDP) in General (not more than 500 words): b. Information about the Nominator: ? Full Name: ? Organization: ? E-mail address: ? Motivation for nomination: If self-nominated, please indicate "self" in section (b) above. Please refer to the following for more information: ? The PDWG Co-Chair election process: http://www.afrinic.net/elections/process/ep_pdwg.htm for more information. ? The Policy Development Process: http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/251-policy-development-process-in-the-afrinic-service-region-afpub-2010-gen-005 The Deadline for nominations is Wednesday 14th May 2014 20:00 UTC. -- Mark J Elkins - AFRINIC 2014 Nominations Committee Chair mje at posix.co.za - nomcom2014 (at) afrinic.net Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 5810 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mje at posix.co.za Thu May 8 20:07:44 2014 From: mje at posix.co.za (Mark Elkins) Date: Thu, 08 May 2014 22:07:44 +0200 Subject: Election process (was re: [rpd] AFRINIC Board Elections - 2014: Call for Nominations) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1399579664.8679.73.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> Strange - I'm only getting this e-mail now (from your gmail account) Others have addressed this - but as its addressed to - I can't resist ;-) On Thu, 2014-05-08 at 09:05 +0100, Seun Ojedeji wrote: > Hello Mr Chair, > > > Thanks for this information, good to see that all the positions has a > minimum contestant of 3 which is quite healthy for the entire process. > I can see familiar names (with some surprises), i guess that is the > fun part of an election :) and wish everyone all the best as they > contest. > Yes - we have a reasonable quota of people, both old and new. > > I have observed with great concern that it seem some of the comments > made during the last AGM in relation to the election process may not > have been taken into consideration by nomcom. At least i remember the > few ones i made (which i think some other people echoed): > > > - The electronic voting is starting before getting the opportunity to > hear from the contestants. In view of this, does it mean either of the > following will happen: Electronic voting will always happen before the candidates take the floor and present themselves to the community. Currently, Electronic votes are used by those people who can not attend the meeting themselves. This is far better than paper proxies. However, the Candidates are already known and have their profiles up for viewing - so those who choose to e-vote can see who is there. ie You can see the Candidates NOW, E-Voting still has to start. > > 1. There will be no time when the contestant will speak to the > community (i.e the only information posted on the website is what will > be used for both at online and f2f voting) E-Votes close the evening before the day of on-site voting (so we know who has voted and as such can not vote again). Those present will see the candidates take a final opportunity to present themselves. Those present then have an opportunity to also vote. It is true, those who e-vote will only know new candidates from their details on the election web-page. They should though know candidates who have been around for a while. Seun, seriously, if you were planning to stand for election, would you wait for your profile to first be put up a few weeks before an election, or would you rather have made your presence and intentions known perhaps a year or more before??? > 2. The speech of the contestants will be uploaded before the > electronic voting starts and further speaking opportunity awarded to > contestants present at f2f > If you mean the 'final' speech, then, Why? What would the final speech opportunities achieve - if we've all heard everything before hand? (If a candidate can not be at the meeting, they may provide a video of their presentation instead of this last opportunity.) On the other hand, if by 'speech' - you mean their profiles, then Yes. This is on the Elections Website page. Everyone can (and should) view that information now. > > - The closing date for the online voting has been set to end before > f2f; as mentioned in the last AGM why does the online voting have to > close earlier than the f2f voting? Its the same election - but we don't want to have the same people voting twice. > since its the same election one means of voting should not be shut > down before the other. Is it that there are no enough resources to > make the online voting platform run concurrently? The methods of voting are different and potentially not exclusive of each other. We're human and might possibly take advantage of the situation. Bad idea. > > One of the other point mentioned was that closing the online voting > should be an event and the total number of votes from the online > voting system should be made known to the community concurrently. That may be a bad idea if done before the face-2-face voting was completed. I'd find it interesting to though know the total number of electronic votes and the total number of f2f votes though AFTER THE VOTE IS COMPLETE - to better understand the success rates of the styles of voting. > That is why its important to close the online voting same time with > the f2f. The only way I see this changing is if we were to have only Electronic Voting. Currently, people seem to like the old ways. I believe it will eventually change though. > > I like to thank you and your team for all the efforts towards ensuring > a credible election. Thank you. We have not finished yet though. > > > Kind Regards > > PS: Speaking in my personal capacity. > > > On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 3:34 PM, Mark Elkins wrote: > Dear Colleagues, > > Consequent to the call for nominations and subsequent > evaluation of > nominees by the Nominations Committee (NomCom), we are pleased > to > announce the following final slate of candidates for the > following > seats on the AFRINIC Board: > > Indian Ocean: > > Andrinirina Jo?l RANDRIANASOLO > Kris Seeburn > Subramanian Moonesamy > > > Central Africa: > > Antoine Joseph Junior Tonye > Bope Domilongo Christian > NGNOULAYE Janvier > > > NON-REGIONAL/GEOGRAPHICAL: > > Andrew Kenningale Alston > Boubakar Barry > Hajanirina Ramboasalama > Ilunga Kabwika Serge > > > Full candidate information has been published at: > > https://internetsummitafrica.org/en/ais14/bod-election > > The community (and especially members) are hereby invited to > view > candidate details and express any objection or support about > the > suitability of the candidates for the board position using the > comment section at the URL above. > > The public comment period will close on 26 May 2014 at > 2000UTC. > > Members that will not be able to attend and/or vote physically > at > the AGMM in Djibouti on 06 June 2014 are informed that there > is now > an option for electronic voting, which will start on 27th May > 2014 > until 05 June 2014 and will be conducted through the MyAFRINIC > portal - https://my.afrinic.net > > More information is available at: > http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/elections/bod-election?showall=1 > > For any queries or clarification, please contact the > nominations > committee by email at: > > nomcom2014 at afrinic.net > > > -- > Mark J Elkins - AFRINIC 2014 Nominations Committee Chair > mje at posix.co.za - nomcom2014 (at) afrinic.net > Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Seun Ojedeji, > Federal University Oye-Ekiti > web: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng > Mobile: +2348035233535 > alt email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng > > The key to understanding is humility - my view ! > > -- Mark James ELKINS - Posix Systems - (South) Africa mje at posix.co.za Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: https://ftth.posix.co.za -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 5810 bytes Desc: not available URL: From ondouglas at gmail.com Fri May 9 14:16:01 2014 From: ondouglas at gmail.com (Douglas Onyango) Date: Fri, 9 May 2014 15:16:01 +0100 Subject: Election process (was re: [rpd] AFRINIC Board Elections - 2014: Call for Nominations) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Seun, et al, Sorry I am joining the party late, but given my experience on the Nomcom, my few cents are inline: On 8 May 2014 09:05, Seun Ojedeji wrote: > - The electronic voting is starting before getting the opportunity to hear > from the contestants. In view of this, does it mean > 1. There will be no time when the contestant will speak to the community > (i.e the only information posted on the website is what will be used for > both at online and f2f voting) My recollection is that the comment period, and the feedback form specifically is designed to allow pre-f2f online engagement . It is Nomcom's expectation that by the time of the f2f, the electorate should have interacted via this platform to form an opinion on the candidate. It is also for this reason that the speech at the f2f is trimmed to a minuscule 2 or so minutes. > 2. The speech of the contestants will be uploaded before the electronic > voting starts and further speaking opportunity awarded to contestants > present at f2f In the past, recorded speeches have only been for candidates who are not at the f2f in person and as such this is not available to the public until the other candidates are speaking -- typically minutes from the voting. > - The closing date for the online voting has been set to end before f2f; as > mentioned in the last AGM why does the online voting have to close earlier > than the f2f voting? The online vote has to be tallied and our current procedure specifies that the tallying happens before the elections which makes sense if you asked me because three trustees have to unlock the votes with their private keys around the same time. Leaving this until the paper ballot is tempting fate: Internet connectivity or one of the trustees may just not be present. This can jeopardize the entire exercise as there might not be enough time to fix the issue. On 8 May 2014 14:48, McTim wrote: > If I recall correctly, there is only one person (the CEO) who is able > to obtain the results > of the e-vote and he does this just before the f2f vote. Not entirely accurate. The online voting system is designed such that the result is unlocked and tallied by three trustees. These individuals have to validate the result and as such have knowledge of it. Regards, From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com Fri May 9 15:44:32 2014 From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji) Date: Fri, 9 May 2014 16:44:32 +0100 Subject: Election process (was re: [rpd] AFRINIC Board Elections - 2014: Call for Nominations) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: You got into the party when we all have had a fair share of the drinks ;) The drunken part of me is therefore agreeing that the only fix is to go electronic 100%. However the conscious part of me still thinks it's not good ethics to have a voting means shutdown before the other for the same election. In view of this, I will suggest that while closing of online voting is done a day before AGM, it's actual unlocking/counting of votes should be done same time with counting of paper based. This means that as staff clear a member for online voting such member is struck out from the members list. Hope this is an acceptable compromise otherwise I am open to why this isn't. Regards sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 9 May 2014 15:16, "Douglas Onyango" wrote: > Hi Seun, et al, > Sorry I am joining the party late, but given my experience on the > Nomcom, my few cents are inline: > > On 8 May 2014 09:05, Seun Ojedeji wrote: > > - The electronic voting is starting before getting the opportunity to > hear > > from the contestants. In view of this, does it mean > > 1. There will be no time when the contestant will speak to the community > > (i.e the only information posted on the website is what will be used for > > both at online and f2f voting) > > My recollection is that the comment period, and the feedback form > specifically is designed to allow pre-f2f online engagement . It is > Nomcom's expectation that by the time of the f2f, the electorate > should have interacted via this platform to form an opinion on the > candidate. It is also for this reason that the speech at the f2f is > trimmed to a minuscule 2 or so minutes. > > > 2. The speech of the contestants will be uploaded before the electronic > > voting starts and further speaking opportunity awarded to contestants > > present at f2f > > In the past, recorded speeches have only been for candidates who are > not at the f2f in person and as such this is not available to the > public until the other candidates are speaking -- typically minutes > from the voting. > > > - The closing date for the online voting has been set to end before f2f; > as > > mentioned in the last AGM why does the online voting have to close > earlier > > than the f2f voting? > > The online vote has to be tallied and our current procedure specifies > that the tallying happens before the elections which makes sense if > you asked me because three trustees have to unlock the votes with > their private keys around the same time. Leaving this until the paper > ballot is tempting fate: Internet connectivity or one of the trustees > may just not be present. This can jeopardize the entire exercise as > there might not be enough time to fix the issue. > > On 8 May 2014 14:48, McTim wrote: > > If I recall correctly, there is only one person (the CEO) who is able > > to obtain the results > > of the e-vote and he does this just before the f2f vote. > > Not entirely accurate. The online voting system is designed such that > the result is unlocked and tallied by three trustees. These > individuals have to validate the result and as such have knowledge of > it. > > Regards, > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From owen at delong.com Sat May 10 00:29:42 2014 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Fri, 9 May 2014 17:29:42 -0700 Subject: Election process (was re: [rpd] AFRINIC Board Elections - 2014: Call for Nominations) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3DFB1733-AF42-4C30-A7BD-1BDDDD8A4B80@delong.com> Agreed? No votes should be counted until all votes can be counted. All votes should be counted at the same time. Owen On May 9, 2014, at 8:44 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: > You got into the party when we all have had a fair share of the drinks ;) > > The drunken part of me is therefore agreeing that the only fix is to go electronic 100%. However the conscious part of me still thinks it's not good ethics to have a voting means shutdown before the other for the same election. > > In view of this, I will suggest that while closing of online voting is done a day before AGM, it's actual unlocking/counting of votes should be done same time with counting of paper based. This means that as staff clear a member for online voting such member is struck out from the members list. > > Hope this is an acceptable compromise otherwise I am open to why this isn't. > > Regards > > sent from Google nexus 4 > kindly excuse brevity and typos. > > On 9 May 2014 15:16, "Douglas Onyango" wrote: > Hi Seun, et al, > Sorry I am joining the party late, but given my experience on the > Nomcom, my few cents are inline: > > On 8 May 2014 09:05, Seun Ojedeji wrote: > > - The electronic voting is starting before getting the opportunity to hear > > from the contestants. In view of this, does it mean > > 1. There will be no time when the contestant will speak to the community > > (i.e the only information posted on the website is what will be used for > > both at online and f2f voting) > > My recollection is that the comment period, and the feedback form > specifically is designed to allow pre-f2f online engagement . It is > Nomcom's expectation that by the time of the f2f, the electorate > should have interacted via this platform to form an opinion on the > candidate. It is also for this reason that the speech at the f2f is > trimmed to a minuscule 2 or so minutes. > > > 2. The speech of the contestants will be uploaded before the electronic > > voting starts and further speaking opportunity awarded to contestants > > present at f2f > > In the past, recorded speeches have only been for candidates who are > not at the f2f in person and as such this is not available to the > public until the other candidates are speaking -- typically minutes > from the voting. > > > - The closing date for the online voting has been set to end before f2f; as > > mentioned in the last AGM why does the online voting have to close earlier > > than the f2f voting? > > The online vote has to be tallied and our current procedure specifies > that the tallying happens before the elections which makes sense if > you asked me because three trustees have to unlock the votes with > their private keys around the same time. Leaving this until the paper > ballot is tempting fate: Internet connectivity or one of the trustees > may just not be present. This can jeopardize the entire exercise as > there might not be enough time to fix the issue. > > On 8 May 2014 14:48, McTim wrote: > > If I recall correctly, there is only one person (the CEO) who is able > > to obtain the results > > of the e-vote and he does this just before the f2f vote. > > Not entirely accurate. The online voting system is designed such that > the result is unlocked and tallied by three trustees. These > individuals have to validate the result and as such have knowledge of > it. > > Regards, > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mainanoa at gmail.com Sat May 10 06:04:06 2014 From: mainanoa at gmail.com (Noah Maina) Date: Sat, 10 May 2014 09:04:06 +0300 Subject: Election process (was re: [rpd] AFRINIC Board Elections - 2014: Call for Nominations) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: ++1 suen I would lean on this suggestion as it makes more sense and both online counting and physical counting should be done simultaneously. Noah You got into the party when we all have had a fair share of the drinks ;) The drunken part of me is therefore agreeing that the only fix is to go electronic 100%. However the conscious part of me still thinks it's not good ethics to have a voting means shutdown before the other for the same election. In view of this, I will suggest that while closing of online voting is done a day before AGM, it's actual unlocking/counting of votes should be done same time with counting of paper based. This means that as staff clear a member for online voting such member is struck out from the members list. Hope this is an acceptable compromise otherwise I am open to why this isn't. Regards sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 9 May 2014 15:16, "Douglas Onyango" wrote: > Hi Seun, et al, > Sorry I am joining the party late, but given my experience on the > Nomcom, my few cents are inline: > > On 8 May 2014 09:05, Seun Ojedeji wrote: > > - The electronic voting is starting before getting the opportunity to > hear > > from the contestants. In view of this, does it mean > > 1. There will be no time when the contestant will speak to the community > > (i.e the only information posted on the website is what will be used for > > both at online and f2f voting) > > My recollection is that the comment period, and the feedback form > specifically is designed to allow pre-f2f online engagement . It is > Nomcom's expectation that by the time of the f2f, the electorate > should have interacted via this platform to form an opinion on the > candidate. It is also for this reason that the speech at the f2f is > trimmed to a minuscule 2 or so minutes. > > > 2. The speech of the contestants will be uploaded before the electronic > > voting starts and further speaking opportunity awarded to contestants > > present at f2f > > In the past, recorded speeches have only been for candidates who are > not at the f2f in person and as such this is not available to the > public until the other candidates are speaking -- typically minutes > from the voting. > > > - The closing date for the online voting has been set to end before f2f; > as > > mentioned in the last AGM why does the online voting have to close > earlier > > than the f2f voting? > > The online vote has to be tallied and our current procedure specifies > that the tallying happens before the elections which makes sense if > you asked me because three trustees have to unlock the votes with > their private keys around the same time. Leaving this until the paper > ballot is tempting fate: Internet connectivity or one of the trustees > may just not be present. This can jeopardize the entire exercise as > there might not be enough time to fix the issue. > > On 8 May 2014 14:48, McTim wrote: > > If I recall correctly, there is only one person (the CEO) who is able > > to obtain the results > > of the e-vote and he does this just before the f2f vote. > > Not entirely accurate. The online voting system is designed such that > the result is unlocked and tallied by three trustees. These > individuals have to validate the result and as such have knowledge of > it. > > Regards, > _______________________________________________ rpd mailing list rpd at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com Sat May 10 08:21:11 2014 From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji) Date: Sat, 10 May 2014 09:21:11 +0100 Subject: Election process (was re: [rpd] AFRINIC Board Elections - 2014: Call for Nominations) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hello Mr Chair/nomcom, May we know if this suggestion from the community is going to be implemented for this coming election? Thanks for the opportunity to participate in nomcom. Regards sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 10 May 2014 07:04, "Noah Maina" wrote: > ++1 suen > > I would lean on this suggestion as it makes more sense and both online > counting and physical counting should be done simultaneously. > > Noah > > You got into the party when we all have had a fair share of the drinks ;) > > The drunken part of me is therefore agreeing that the only fix is to go > electronic 100%. However the conscious part of me still thinks it's not > good ethics to have a voting means shutdown before the other for the same > election. > > In view of this, I will suggest that while closing of online voting is > done a day before AGM, it's actual unlocking/counting of votes should be > done same time with counting of paper based. This means that as staff clear > a member for online voting such member is struck out from the members list. > > Hope this is an acceptable compromise otherwise I am open to why this > isn't. > > Regards > > sent from Google nexus 4 > kindly excuse brevity and typos. > On 9 May 2014 15:16, "Douglas Onyango" wrote: > >> Hi Seun, et al, >> Sorry I am joining the party late, but given my experience on the >> Nomcom, my few cents are inline: >> >> On 8 May 2014 09:05, Seun Ojedeji wrote: >> > - The electronic voting is starting before getting the opportunity to >> hear >> > from the contestants. In view of this, does it mean >> > 1. There will be no time when the contestant will speak to the community >> > (i.e the only information posted on the website is what will be used for >> > both at online and f2f voting) >> >> My recollection is that the comment period, and the feedback form >> specifically is designed to allow pre-f2f online engagement . It is >> Nomcom's expectation that by the time of the f2f, the electorate >> should have interacted via this platform to form an opinion on the >> candidate. It is also for this reason that the speech at the f2f is >> trimmed to a minuscule 2 or so minutes. >> >> > 2. The speech of the contestants will be uploaded before the electronic >> > voting starts and further speaking opportunity awarded to contestants >> > present at f2f >> >> In the past, recorded speeches have only been for candidates who are >> not at the f2f in person and as such this is not available to the >> public until the other candidates are speaking -- typically minutes >> from the voting. >> >> > - The closing date for the online voting has been set to end before >> f2f; as >> > mentioned in the last AGM why does the online voting have to close >> earlier >> > than the f2f voting? >> >> The online vote has to be tallied and our current procedure specifies >> that the tallying happens before the elections which makes sense if >> you asked me because three trustees have to unlock the votes with >> their private keys around the same time. Leaving this until the paper >> ballot is tempting fate: Internet connectivity or one of the trustees >> may just not be present. This can jeopardize the entire exercise as >> there might not be enough time to fix the issue. >> >> On 8 May 2014 14:48, McTim wrote: >> > If I recall correctly, there is only one person (the CEO) who is able >> > to obtain the results >> > of the e-vote and he does this just before the f2f vote. >> >> Not entirely accurate. The online voting system is designed such that >> the result is unlocked and tallied by three trustees. These >> individuals have to validate the result and as such have knowledge of >> it. >> >> Regards, >> > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mje at posix.co.za Sat May 10 10:10:31 2014 From: mje at posix.co.za (Mark Elkins) Date: Sat, 10 May 2014 12:10:31 +0200 Subject: Election process (was re: [rpd] AFRINIC Board Elections - 2014: Call for Nominations) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1399716631.3037.72.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> On Sat, 2014-05-10 at 09:21 +0100, Seun Ojedeji wrote: > Hello Mr Chair/nomcom, > > May we know if this suggestion from the community is going to be > implemented for this coming election? Firstly, NomCom does not run the elections. The job of NomCom (Nominations Committee) is to provide suitable candidates for various elections or appointments, Board Members, PDP Joint-Chairs, and NRO/ASO representatives. > > Thanks for the opportunity to participate in nomcom. There are some logistics which people may be missing. I see that there is a goal to move to 100% electronic voting, however until then..... Practically, the e-vote needs to be terminated some time before people collect their ballot papers. This is so that the ballot papers can be provided only to those entities allowed to vote because they have not yet exercised that right via the e-vote. In order to do this, logically, one needs to see which entities have used the e-vote so their representatives are not also given a ballot paper to vote with. From a convenience point of view, the e-vote cut-off time is the evening before voting day. Names can then be checked. From the morning of voting day, paper ballots are issued to all still legible voters. This takes time. Paper Ballots are carried by their owners until they are "exercised" later on in the afternoon. I guess that in the process of checking the names of entities who have e-voted, one may also know how they have voted (though I might be wrong). I personally have no issues with this as long as the e-vote results are kept strictly confidential (as has been done). Once all the paper ballots have been submitted and counted, the results of the two systems can be safely merged into one election result and announced. Due to the fact that I represent more than one entity, I have more than one vote to cast. Last year, I cast some by e-vote and some by ballot paper. I was happy to see that the system worked. Before asking for change, please carefully consider how one might do this better whilst we have both e-votes and paper ballot votes. ... and I believe I have the general details and reasoning correct... :-) > Regards > sent from Google nexus 4 > kindly excuse brevity and typos. > > On 10 May 2014 07:04, "Noah Maina" wrote: > ++1 suen > > I would lean on this suggestion as it makes more sense and > both online counting and physical counting should be done > simultaneously. > > Noah > > You got into the party when we all have had a fair share of > the drinks ;) > > The drunken part of me is therefore agreeing that the only fix > is to go electronic 100%. However the conscious part of me > still thinks it's not good ethics to have a voting means > shutdown before the other for the same election. > > In view of this, I will suggest that while closing of online > voting is done a day before AGM, it's actual > unlocking/counting of votes should be done same time with > counting of paper based. This means that as staff clear a > member for online voting such member is struck out from the > members list. > > Hope this is an acceptable compromise otherwise I am open to > why this isn't. > > Regards > > sent from Google nexus 4 > kindly excuse brevity and typos. > > On 9 May 2014 15:16, "Douglas Onyango" > wrote: > Hi Seun, et al, > Sorry I am joining the party late, but given my > experience on the > Nomcom, my few cents are inline: > > On 8 May 2014 09:05, Seun Ojedeji > wrote: > > - The electronic voting is starting before getting > the opportunity to hear > > from the contestants. In view of this, does it mean > > 1. There will be no time when the contestant will > speak to the community > > (i.e the only information posted on the website is > what will be used for > > both at online and f2f voting) > > My recollection is that the comment period, and the > feedback form > specifically is designed to allow pre-f2f online > engagement . It is > Nomcom's expectation that by the time of the f2f, the > electorate > should have interacted via this platform to form an > opinion on the > candidate. It is also for this reason that the speech > at the f2f is > trimmed to a minuscule 2 or so minutes. > > > 2. The speech of the contestants will be uploaded > before the electronic > > voting starts and further speaking opportunity > awarded to contestants > > present at f2f > > In the past, recorded speeches have only been for > candidates who are > not at the f2f in person and as such this is not > available to the > public until the other candidates are speaking -- > typically minutes > from the voting. > > > - The closing date for the online voting has been > set to end before f2f; as > > mentioned in the last AGM why does the online voting > have to close earlier > > than the f2f voting? > > The online vote has to be tallied and our current > procedure specifies > that the tallying happens before the elections which > makes sense if > you asked me because three trustees have to unlock the > votes with > their private keys around the same time. Leaving this > until the paper > ballot is tempting fate: Internet connectivity or one > of the trustees > may just not be present. This can jeopardize the > entire exercise as > there might not be enough time to fix the issue. > > On 8 May 2014 14:48, McTim > wrote: > > If I recall correctly, there is only one person (the > CEO) who is able > > to obtain the results > > of the e-vote and he does this just before the f2f > vote. > > Not entirely accurate. The online voting system is > designed such that > the result is unlocked and tallied by three trustees. > These > individuals have to validate the result and as such > have knowledge of > it. > > Regards, > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > -- Mark James ELKINS - Posix Systems - (South) Africa mje at posix.co.za Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: https://ftth.posix.co.za -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 5810 bytes Desc: not available URL: From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com Sat May 10 11:42:46 2014 From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji) Date: Sat, 10 May 2014 12:42:46 +0100 Subject: Election process (was re: [rpd] AFRINIC Board Elections - 2014: Call for Nominations) In-Reply-To: <1399716631.3037.72.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> References: <1399716631.3037.72.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> Message-ID: Hello Mark, First considering that i wrote to chair (you) and nomcom, i assume this response is on behalf of nomcom (do let me know if its otherwise in your individual capacity). Kindly find my comments below: On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Mark Elkins wrote: > > Firstly, NomCom does not run the elections. The job of NomCom > (Nominations Committee) is to provide suitable candidates for various > elections or appointments, Board Members, PDP Joint-Chairs, and NRO/ASO > representatives. > > > Although nomcom may seem to mean what you indicated above. However nomcom according to the AFRINIC website means this: *The NomCom (Nominations and Elections Committee)* [1]Functions of the Nomination Committee: - The Nom Com shall - use its best effort towards ensuring that a satisfactory number of individuals from the African internet community stand as candidate for the election of the directors of AFRINIC. - have general responsibility for, and shall supervise the conduct of the polls by the election Committee on election day. Although the second role seem to imply that there is another team called "election committee" and at this point, i seem to be lost on how that committee come to play. Nevertheless its still clear that your team coordinates the process and your role exceeds what you have stated above. > Thanks for the opportunity to participate in nomcom. > > There are some logistics which people may be missing. > I see that there is a goal to move to 100% electronic voting, however > until then..... > Yes thats the final desire,(which will perhaps require the blessings of BoD) but that is not the request for this upcoming election. > > Practically, the e-vote needs to be terminated some time before people > collect their ballot papers. This is so that the ballot papers can be > provided only to those entities allowed to vote because they have not > yet exercised that right via the e-vote. In order to do this, logically, > one needs to see which entities have used the e-vote so their > representatives are not also given a ballot paper to vote with. > I still find it not convincing that the termination of e-voting is the only way to avoid multiple voting. Especially since it is clear that you go through a process before you can do e-voting, and it is expected that anyone that opt for e-voting obviously doesn't want to paper ballot. So its clear those to give paper ballot can be known easily. What needs to be avoided is having privileged prior knowledge of the e-voting status, your comment above doesn't prevent that. > > From a convenience point of view, the e-vote cut-off time is the evening > before voting day. Names can then be checked. From the morning of voting > day, paper ballots are issued to all still legible voters. This takes time. > Paper Ballots are carried by their owners until they are "exercised" later > on in the afternoon. > Please see my comment above about why i think we don't have to count the e-votes just to get the numbers of those who used the e-voting platform. Even if you don't think that option is totally perfect (because some would already gotten their BPKI) then the voting platform should be able clearly separate actual voting result from from users(members) who has actually voted. Considering the level of technicality already exhibited on the e-voting platform, i believe a feature like that is the least challenge of the technical team (if it doesn't already exist). > > I guess that in the process of checking the names of entities who have > e-voted, one may also know how they have voted (though I might be wrong). I > personally have no issues with this as long as the e-vote > results are kept strictly confidential (as has been done).Once all the > paper ballots have been submitted and counted, the results of the two > systems can be safely merged into one election result and announced. > > Kindly refer to my comment above; keeping the e-vote confidential is the main goal. > Due to the fact that I represent more than one entity, I have more than > one vote to cast. Last year, I cast some by e-vote and some by ballot > paper. I was happy to see that the system worked. > > I did mine via e-voting and i believe no body who has used the e-voting platform would deny that it was quite functional. I was however surprised at the AGM when it was said that the voting system closed and the result counted. The way i know that election is done is that you count votes in the presence of the voters (or at least before the candidates party representatives). On that basis as an individual and member i wouldn't know whether something has happened to my votes (although the platform worked). Before asking for change, please carefully consider how one might do this > better whilst we have both e-votes and paper ballot votes. > > Nobody, and certainly not me is asking us to move to 100% e-votes for now (but we agree its something to consider for future). What we are saying is that you while may stop e-voting at a point (which i find un-necessary though) the opening of the e-voting voting status by the 3-trustees should be done the same time the paper ballot is counted. ... and I believe I have the general details and reasoning correct... :-) > Not quite Mark as i think you perceive we are calling for 100% electronic voting which is not the case. Thanks Kind Regards -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng * The key to understanding is humility - my view ! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From owen at delong.com Sat May 10 13:13:55 2014 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Sat, 10 May 2014 06:13:55 -0700 Subject: Election process (was re: [rpd] AFRINIC Board Elections - 2014: Call for Nominations) In-Reply-To: <1399716631.3037.72.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> References: <1399716631.3037.72.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> Message-ID: > There are some logistics which people may be missing. > I see that there is a goal to move to 100% electronic voting, however > until then..... > > Practically, the e-vote needs to be terminated some time before people > collect their ballot papers. This is so that the ballot papers can be > provided only to those entities allowed to vote because they have not > yet exercised that right via the e-vote. In order to do this, logically, > one needs to see which entities have used the e-vote so their > representatives are not also given a ballot paper to vote with. Actually, an alternative to this might be to in real time, be able to lock each voter receiving a paper ballot out of eligibility for e-vote while leaving e-vote open. In such a case, at the time the person requests a paper ballot, you could: 1. Lock them out of e-vote. 2. Verify they have not yet e-voted. 3. Issue the paper ballot. In this way, you can leave e-voting open until the close of the election, but still provide for paper voting as well. By voter, I mean an entity eligible to cast a particular vote. Some persons are multiple voters (such as Mark describes below) representing multiple voting entities. In such a case, the above choice between paper and e-vote would be on a vote-by-vote basis for each of the votes a given person is eligible to cast. An optimization could make it convenient to make the election across all eligible votes for a person in cases where the person wanted to, but that would be optional. > From a convenience point of view, the e-vote cut-off time is the evening > before voting day. Names can then be checked. From the morning of voting > day, paper ballots are issued to all still legible voters. This takes > time. Paper Ballots are carried by their owners until they are > "exercised" later on in the afternoon. > > I guess that in the process of checking the names of entities who have > e-voted, one may also know how they have voted (though I might be > wrong). I personally have no issues with this as long as the e-vote > results are kept strictly confidential (as has been done). If the system is properly designed, then the voter registration/admission process does not have any access to the tally process. > Once all the paper ballots have been submitted and counted, the results > of the two systems can be safely merged into one election result and > announced. Yes. The e-vote tally should not be accessible to anyone until the paper ballots have begun to be counted. In an ideal world, paper ballots would be in a machine-readable form and could be scanned to produce a single e-vote tally which includes both on-line and scanned votes. > Due to the fact that I represent more than one entity, I have more than > one vote to cast. Last year, I cast some by e-vote and some by ballot > paper. I was happy to see that the system worked. > > Before asking for change, please carefully consider how one might do > this better whilst we have both e-votes and paper ballot votes. > > ... and I believe I have the general details and reasoning > correct... :-) > > >> Regards >> sent from Google nexus 4 >> kindly excuse brevity and typos. >> >> On 10 May 2014 07:04, "Noah Maina" wrote: >> ++1 suen >> >> I would lean on this suggestion as it makes more sense and >> both online counting and physical counting should be done >> simultaneously. >> >> Noah >> >> You got into the party when we all have had a fair share of >> the drinks ;) >> >> The drunken part of me is therefore agreeing that the only fix >> is to go electronic 100%. However the conscious part of me >> still thinks it's not good ethics to have a voting means >> shutdown before the other for the same election. >> >> In view of this, I will suggest that while closing of online >> voting is done a day before AGM, it's actual >> unlocking/counting of votes should be done same time with >> counting of paper based. This means that as staff clear a >> member for online voting such member is struck out from the >> members list. >> >> Hope this is an acceptable compromise otherwise I am open to >> why this isn't. >> >> Regards >> >> sent from Google nexus 4 >> kindly excuse brevity and typos. >> >> On 9 May 2014 15:16, "Douglas Onyango" >> wrote: >> Hi Seun, et al, >> Sorry I am joining the party late, but given my >> experience on the >> Nomcom, my few cents are inline: >> >> On 8 May 2014 09:05, Seun Ojedeji >> wrote: >>> - The electronic voting is starting before getting >> the opportunity to hear >>> from the contestants. In view of this, does it mean >>> 1. There will be no time when the contestant will >> speak to the community >>> (i.e the only information posted on the website is >> what will be used for >>> both at online and f2f voting) >> >> My recollection is that the comment period, and the >> feedback form >> specifically is designed to allow pre-f2f online >> engagement . It is >> Nomcom's expectation that by the time of the f2f, the >> electorate >> should have interacted via this platform to form an >> opinion on the >> candidate. It is also for this reason that the speech >> at the f2f is >> trimmed to a minuscule 2 or so minutes. >> >>> 2. The speech of the contestants will be uploaded >> before the electronic >>> voting starts and further speaking opportunity >> awarded to contestants >>> present at f2f >> >> In the past, recorded speeches have only been for >> candidates who are >> not at the f2f in person and as such this is not >> available to the >> public until the other candidates are speaking -- >> typically minutes >> from the voting. >> >>> - The closing date for the online voting has been >> set to end before f2f; as >>> mentioned in the last AGM why does the online voting >> have to close earlier >>> than the f2f voting? >> >> The online vote has to be tallied and our current >> procedure specifies >> that the tallying happens before the elections which >> makes sense if >> you asked me because three trustees have to unlock the >> votes with >> their private keys around the same time. Leaving this >> until the paper >> ballot is tempting fate: Internet connectivity or one >> of the trustees >> may just not be present. This can jeopardize the >> entire exercise as >> there might not be enough time to fix the issue. >> >> On 8 May 2014 14:48, McTim >> wrote: >>> If I recall correctly, there is only one person (the >> CEO) who is able >>> to obtain the results >>> of the e-vote and he does this just before the f2f >> vote. >> >> Not entirely accurate. The online voting system is >> designed such that >> the result is unlocked and tallied by three trustees. >> These >> individuals have to validate the result and as such >> have knowledge of >> it. >> >> Regards, >> >> _______________________________________________ >> rpd mailing list >> rpd at afrinic.net >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >> >> > > -- > Mark James ELKINS - Posix Systems - (South) Africa > mje at posix.co.za Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 > For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: https://ftth.posix.co.za > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com Sat May 10 13:29:42 2014 From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji) Date: Sat, 10 May 2014 14:29:42 +0100 Subject: Election process (was re: [rpd] AFRINIC Board Elections - 2014: Call for Nominations) In-Reply-To: References: <1399716631.3037.72.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> Message-ID: Hello Owen, On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 2:13 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > > Actually, an alternative to this might be to in real time, be able to lock > each voter receiving a paper ballot out of eligibility for e-vote while > leaving e-vote open. In such a case, at the time the person requests a > paper ballot, you could: > > 1. Lock them out of e-vote. > 2. Verify they have not yet e-voted. > 3. Issue the paper ballot. > In this way, you can leave e-voting open until the close of the election, > but still > provide for paper voting as well. > You have just stated what i have been trying to communicate. I hope your attempt gets clearer to us all. That is why i said if that online voting platform does not have that feature; to allow those 3 items above then it needs to be further developed. +1 to every other comments you mentioned below <> Cheers! -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng * The key to understanding is humility - my view ! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mje at posix.co.za Sat May 10 14:21:35 2014 From: mje at posix.co.za (Mark Elkins) Date: Sat, 10 May 2014 16:21:35 +0200 Subject: Election process (was re: [rpd] AFRINIC Board Elections - 2014: Call for Nominations) In-Reply-To: References: <1399716631.3037.72.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> Message-ID: <1399731695.3037.95.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> On Sat, 2014-05-10 at 12:42 +0100, Seun Ojedeji wrote: > Hello Mark, > > > First considering that i wrote to chair (you) and nomcom, i assume > this response is on behalf of nomcom (do let me know if its otherwise > in your individual capacity). Kindly find my comments below: > > On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Mark Elkins wrote: > > > Firstly, NomCom does not run the elections. The job of NomCom > (Nominations Committee) is to provide suitable candidates for > various > elections or appointments, Board Members, PDP Joint-Chairs, > and NRO/ASO > representatives. > > > > Although nomcom may seem to mean what you indicated above. However > nomcom according to the AFRINIC website means this: > The NomCom (Nominations and Elections Committee) [1]Functions of the > Nomination Committee: > * The Nom Com shall > * use its best effort towards ensuring that a > satisfactory number of individuals from the African > internet community stand as candidate for the election > of the directors of AFRINIC. > * have general responsibility for, and shall supervise > the conduct of the polls by the election Committee on > election day. > Although the second role seem to imply that there is another team > called "election committee" and at this point, i seem to be lost on > how that committee come to play. Nevertheless its still clear that > your team coordinates the process and your role exceeds what you have > stated above. OK - let me use less of my own words and quote from the Bylaws... 9 THE NOMINATION COMMITTEE There shall be a Nomination Committee (NomCom), which shall consist of a chairman and three other members as appointed by the Board and composed of qualified and experienced persons. The Board shall make a public call for voluntary nomination from the African Internet Community. 10 ELECTION COMMITTEE There shall be an election committee comprising of such staff members of AFRINIC as may be designated by the Chief Executive Officer. > > > Thanks for the opportunity to participate in nomcom. > > > There are some logistics which people may be missing. > I see that there is a goal to move to 100% electronic voting, > however > until then..... > > > Yes thats the final desire,(which will perhaps require the blessings > of BoD) but that is not the request for this upcoming election. > > > Practically, the e-vote needs to be terminated some time > before people collect their ballot papers. This is so that the > ballot papers can be provided only to those entities allowed > to vote because they have not > yet exercised that right via the e-vote. In order to do this, > logically, one needs to see which entities have used the > e-vote so their representatives are not also given a ballot > paper to vote with. > > > I still find it not convincing that the termination of e-voting is the > only way to avoid multiple voting. Especially since it is clear that > you go through a process before you can do e-voting, and it is > expected that anyone that opt for e-voting obviously doesn't want to > paper ballot. So its clear those to give paper ballot can be known > easily. > > What needs to be avoided is having privileged prior knowledge of the > e-voting status, your comment above doesn't prevent that. > > > From a convenience point of view, the e-vote cut-off time is > the evening before voting day. Names can then be checked. From > the morning of voting day, paper ballots are issued to all > still legible voters. This takes time. Paper Ballots are > carried by their owners until they are "exercised" later on in > the afternoon. > > > Please see my comment above about why i think we don't have to count > the e-votes just to get the numbers of those who used the e-voting > platform. Even if you don't think that option is totally perfect > (because some would already gotten their BPKI) then the voting > platform should be able clearly separate actual voting result from > from users(members) who has actually voted. Considering the level of > technicality already exhibited on the e-voting platform, i believe a > feature like that is the least challenge of the technical team (if it > doesn't already exist). > > > I guess that in the process of checking the names of entities > who have e-voted, one may also know how they have voted > (though I might be wrong). I personally have no issues with > this as long as the e-vote > results are kept strictly confidential (as has been done).Once > all the paper ballots have been submitted and counted, the > results of the two systems can be safely merged into one > election result and announced. > > Kindly refer to my comment above; keeping the e-vote confidential is > the main goal. > > > Due to the fact that I represent more than one entity, I have > more than one vote to cast. Last year, I cast some by e-vote > and some by ballot paper. I was happy to see that the system > worked. > > I did mine via e-voting and i believe no body who has used the > e-voting platform would deny that it was quite functional. I was > however surprised at the AGM when it was said that the voting system > closed and the result counted. The way i know that election is done is > that you count votes in the presence of the voters (or at least before > the candidates party representatives). On that basis as an individual > and member i wouldn't know whether something has happened to my votes > (although the platform worked). > > > Before asking for change, please carefully consider how one > might do this better whilst we have both e-votes and paper > ballot votes. > > Nobody, and certainly not me is asking us to move to 100% e-votes for > now (but we agree its something to consider for future). What we are > saying is that you while may stop e-voting at a point (which i find > un-necessary though) the opening of the e-voting voting status by the > 3-trustees should be done the same time the paper ballot is counted. > ... and I believe I have the general details and reasoning > correct... :-) > Not quite Mark as i think you perceive we are calling for 100% > electronic voting which is not the case. My own personal thoughts..... (Lots of 'I') I believe Owen makes a good case for running e-voting to the end of the election time. However, it does appear to me to make things more complicated. I can not quantify to myself though how useful it would practically be. I have no idea what technical changes would be necessary and if AFRINIC is going to change something - I'd rather see it spend the energy going to a full e-voting solution. E-vote starts 10 days before the elections. I see it as a very suitable replacement for Proxies or for those that can not attend. Extending it to the last second will possibly encourage people to wait for the last second. I personally prefer the way it currently is which gives a few hours in case of technical difficulties. I like the KISS principal. The AFRINIC website does state that e-votes and the people who have cast them are not conjoined. As I don't know how the software actually functions, I can not comment further. http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/elections/voting/online-voting (last line) > Thanks > > > Kind Regards > -- Mark J Elkins - AFRINIC 2014 Nominations Committee Chair mje at posix.co.za - nomcom2014 (at) afrinic.net Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 5810 bytes Desc: not available URL: From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com Sat May 10 14:40:31 2014 From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji) Date: Sat, 10 May 2014 15:40:31 +0100 Subject: Election process (was re: [rpd] AFRINIC Board Elections - 2014: Call for Nominations) In-Reply-To: <1399731695.3037.95.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> References: <1399716631.3037.72.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> <1399731695.3037.95.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> Message-ID: Hello Mark, Thanks for referencing the bylaw directly and i guess that clears the nomcom/election committee (although i think the wording on the nomcom page may need to be updated [1]) Just one question, do you think its right to have access to voting results before conclusion of elections? If your response is a NO, could nomcom (on the capacity of coordinating the process) then make sure that the e-voting result is for the first time accessed during the counting of the paper ballot. Will that be possible without any complication? Thanks Regards 1. www.afrinic.net/en/community/elections/afrinic-nomcom On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 3:21 PM, Mark Elkins wrote: > On Sat, 2014-05-10 at 12:42 +0100, Seun Ojedeji wrote: > > Hello Mark, > > > > > > First considering that i wrote to chair (you) and nomcom, i assume > > this response is on behalf of nomcom (do let me know if its otherwise > > in your individual capacity). Kindly find my comments below: > > > > On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Mark Elkins wrote: > > > > > > Firstly, NomCom does not run the elections. The job of NomCom > > (Nominations Committee) is to provide suitable candidates for > > various > > elections or appointments, Board Members, PDP Joint-Chairs, > > and NRO/ASO > > representatives. > > > > > > > Although nomcom may seem to mean what you indicated above. However > > nomcom according to the AFRINIC website means this: > > The NomCom (Nominations and Elections Committee) [1]Functions of the > > Nomination Committee: > > * The Nom Com shall > > * use its best effort towards ensuring that a > > satisfactory number of individuals from the African > > internet community stand as candidate for the election > > of the directors of AFRINIC. > > * have general responsibility for, and shall supervise > > the conduct of the polls by the election Committee on > > election day. > > Although the second role seem to imply that there is another team > > called "election committee" and at this point, i seem to be lost on > > how that committee come to play. Nevertheless its still clear that > > your team coordinates the process and your role exceeds what you have > > stated above. > > OK - let me use less of my own words and quote from the Bylaws... > > 9 THE NOMINATION COMMITTEE > There shall be a Nomination Committee (NomCom), which shall consist of a > chairman and three other members as appointed by the Board and > composed of qualified and experienced persons. The Board shall make a > public call for voluntary nomination from the African Internet > Community. > > 10 ELECTION COMMITTEE > There shall be an election committee comprising of such staff members of > AFRINIC as may be designated by the Chief Executive Officer. > > > > > > > Thanks for the opportunity to participate in nomcom. > > > > > > There are some logistics which people may be missing. > > I see that there is a goal to move to 100% electronic voting, > > however > > until then..... > > > > > > Yes thats the final desire,(which will perhaps require the blessings > > of BoD) but that is not the request for this upcoming election. > > > > > > Practically, the e-vote needs to be terminated some time > > before people collect their ballot papers. This is so that the > > ballot papers can be provided only to those entities allowed > > to vote because they have not > > yet exercised that right via the e-vote. In order to do this, > > logically, one needs to see which entities have used the > > e-vote so their representatives are not also given a ballot > > paper to vote with. > > > > > > I still find it not convincing that the termination of e-voting is the > > only way to avoid multiple voting. Especially since it is clear that > > you go through a process before you can do e-voting, and it is > > expected that anyone that opt for e-voting obviously doesn't want to > > paper ballot. So its clear those to give paper ballot can be known > > easily. > > > > What needs to be avoided is having privileged prior knowledge of the > > e-voting status, your comment above doesn't prevent that. > > > > > > From a convenience point of view, the e-vote cut-off time is > > the evening before voting day. Names can then be checked. From > > the morning of voting day, paper ballots are issued to all > > still legible voters. This takes time. Paper Ballots are > > carried by their owners until they are "exercised" later on in > > the afternoon. > > > > > > Please see my comment above about why i think we don't have to count > > the e-votes just to get the numbers of those who used the e-voting > > platform. Even if you don't think that option is totally perfect > > (because some would already gotten their BPKI) then the voting > > platform should be able clearly separate actual voting result from > > from users(members) who has actually voted. Considering the level of > > technicality already exhibited on the e-voting platform, i believe a > > feature like that is the least challenge of the technical team (if it > > doesn't already exist). > > > > > > I guess that in the process of checking the names of entities > > who have e-voted, one may also know how they have voted > > (though I might be wrong). I personally have no issues with > > this as long as the e-vote > > results are kept strictly confidential (as has been done).Once > > all the paper ballots have been submitted and counted, the > > results of the two systems can be safely merged into one > > election result and announced. > > > > Kindly refer to my comment above; keeping the e-vote confidential is > > the main goal. > > > > > > Due to the fact that I represent more than one entity, I have > > more than one vote to cast. Last year, I cast some by e-vote > > and some by ballot paper. I was happy to see that the system > > worked. > > > > I did mine via e-voting and i believe no body who has used the > > e-voting platform would deny that it was quite functional. I was > > however surprised at the AGM when it was said that the voting system > > closed and the result counted. The way i know that election is done is > > that you count votes in the presence of the voters (or at least before > > the candidates party representatives). On that basis as an individual > > and member i wouldn't know whether something has happened to my votes > > (although the platform worked). > > > > > > Before asking for change, please carefully consider how one > > might do this better whilst we have both e-votes and paper > > ballot votes. > > > > Nobody, and certainly not me is asking us to move to 100% e-votes for > > now (but we agree its something to consider for future). What we are > > saying is that you while may stop e-voting at a point (which i find > > un-necessary though) the opening of the e-voting voting status by the > > 3-trustees should be done the same time the paper ballot is counted. > > > ... and I believe I have the general details and reasoning > > correct... :-) > > > Not quite Mark as i think you perceive we are calling for 100% > > electronic voting which is not the case. > > My own personal thoughts..... (Lots of 'I') > > I believe Owen makes a good case for running e-voting to the end of the > election time. > > However, it does appear to me to make things more complicated. > I can not quantify to myself though how useful it would practically be. > I have no idea what technical changes would be necessary and if AFRINIC > is going to change something - I'd rather see it spend the energy going > to a full e-voting solution. > > E-vote starts 10 days before the elections. I see it as a very suitable > replacement for Proxies or for those that can not attend. > Extending it to the last second will possibly encourage people to wait > for the last second. I personally prefer the way it currently is which > gives a few hours in case of technical difficulties. > I like the KISS principal. > > The AFRINIC website does state that e-votes and the people who have cast > them are not conjoined. As I don't know how the software actually > functions, I can not comment further. > http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/elections/voting/online-voting > (last line) > > > Thanks > > > > > > Kind Regards > > > > > -- > Mark J Elkins - AFRINIC 2014 Nominations Committee Chair > mje at posix.co.za - nomcom2014 (at) afrinic.net > Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 > > -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng * The key to understanding is humility - my view ! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mje at posix.co.za Sat May 10 14:58:24 2014 From: mje at posix.co.za (Mark Elkins) Date: Sat, 10 May 2014 16:58:24 +0200 Subject: Election process (was re: [rpd] AFRINIC Board Elections - 2014: Call for Nominations) In-Reply-To: References: <1399716631.3037.72.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> <1399731695.3037.95.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> Message-ID: <1399733904.3037.108.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> On Sat, 2014-05-10 at 15:40 +0100, Seun Ojedeji wrote: > Hello Mark, > > ...could nomcom (on the capacity of coordinating the process) then > make sure that the e-voting result is for the first time accessed > during the counting of the paper ballot. > Will that be possible without any complication? I believe that this is possible. So from this year, the three trustees will "unlock" the e-voting results at approximately the same time as the paper ballots are counted. > Thanks > > > Regards > 1. www.afrinic.net/en/community/elections/afrinic-nomcom > > > > On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 3:21 PM, Mark Elkins wrote: > On Sat, 2014-05-10 at 12:42 +0100, Seun Ojedeji wrote: > > Hello Mark, > > > > > > First considering that i wrote to chair (you) and nomcom, i > assume > > this response is on behalf of nomcom (do let me know if its > otherwise > > in your individual capacity). Kindly find my comments below: > > > > On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Mark Elkins > wrote: > > > > > > Firstly, NomCom does not run the elections. The job > of NomCom > > (Nominations Committee) is to provide suitable > candidates for > > various > > elections or appointments, Board Members, PDP > Joint-Chairs, > > and NRO/ASO > > representatives. > > > > > > > Although nomcom may seem to mean what you indicated above. > However > > nomcom according to the AFRINIC website means this: > > The NomCom (Nominations and Elections Committee) > [1]Functions of the > > Nomination Committee: > > > * The Nom Com shall > > * use its best effort towards ensuring that a > > satisfactory number of individuals from the > African > > internet community stand as candidate for > the election > > of the directors of AFRINIC. > > > * have general responsibility for, and shall > supervise > > the conduct of the polls by the election > Committee on > > election day. > > Although the second role seem to imply that there is another > team > > called "election committee" and at this point, i seem to be > lost on > > how that committee come to play. Nevertheless its still > clear that > > your team coordinates the process and your role exceeds what > you have > > stated above. > > > OK - let me use less of my own words and quote from the > Bylaws... > > 9 THE NOMINATION COMMITTEE > There shall be a Nomination Committee (NomCom), which shall > consist of a > chairman and three other members as appointed by the Board and > composed of qualified and experienced persons. The Board shall > make a > public call for voluntary nomination from the African Internet > Community. > > 10 ELECTION COMMITTEE > There shall be an election committee comprising of such staff > members of > AFRINIC as may be designated by the Chief Executive Officer. > > > > > > > Thanks for the opportunity to participate in > nomcom. > > > > > > There are some logistics which people may be > missing. > > I see that there is a goal to move to 100% > electronic voting, > > however > > until then..... > > > > > > Yes thats the final desire,(which will perhaps require the > blessings > > of BoD) but that is not the request for this upcoming > election. > > > > > > Practically, the e-vote needs to be terminated some > time > > before people collect their ballot papers. This is > so that the > > ballot papers can be provided only to those entities > allowed > > to vote because they have not > > yet exercised that right via the e-vote. In order to > do this, > > logically, one needs to see which entities have used > the > > e-vote so their representatives are not also given a > ballot > > paper to vote with. > > > > > > I still find it not convincing that the termination of > e-voting is the > > only way to avoid multiple voting. Especially since it is > clear that > > you go through a process before you can do e-voting, and it > is > > expected that anyone that opt for e-voting obviously doesn't > want to > > paper ballot. So its clear those to give paper ballot can be > known > > easily. > > > > What needs to be avoided is having privileged prior > knowledge of the > > e-voting status, your comment above doesn't prevent that. > > > > > > From a convenience point of view, the e-vote cut-off > time is > > the evening before voting day. Names can then be > checked. From > > the morning of voting day, paper ballots are issued > to all > > still legible voters. This takes time. Paper Ballots > are > > carried by their owners until they are "exercised" > later on in > > the afternoon. > > > > > > Please see my comment above about why i think we don't have > to count > > the e-votes just to get the numbers of those who used the > e-voting > > platform. Even if you don't think that option is totally > perfect > > (because some would already gotten their BPKI) then the > voting > > platform should be able clearly separate actual voting > result from > > from users(members) who has actually voted. Considering the > level of > > technicality already exhibited on the e-voting platform, i > believe a > > feature like that is the least challenge of the technical > team (if it > > doesn't already exist). > > > > > > I guess that in the process of checking the names of > entities > > who have e-voted, one may also know how they have > voted > > (though I might be wrong). I personally have no > issues with > > this as long as the e-vote > > results are kept strictly confidential (as has been > done).Once > > all the paper ballots have been submitted and > counted, the > > results of the two systems can be safely merged into > one > > election result and announced. > > > > Kindly refer to my comment above; keeping the e-vote > confidential is > > the main goal. > > > > > > Due to the fact that I represent more than one > entity, I have > > more than one vote to cast. Last year, I cast some > by e-vote > > and some by ballot paper. I was happy to see that > the system > > worked. > > > > I did mine via e-voting and i believe no body who has used > the > > e-voting platform would deny that it was quite functional. I > was > > however surprised at the AGM when it was said that the > voting system > > closed and the result counted. The way i know that election > is done is > > that you count votes in the presence of the voters (or at > least before > > the candidates party representatives). On that basis as an > individual > > and member i wouldn't know whether something has happened to > my votes > > (although the platform worked). > > > > > > Before asking for change, please carefully consider > how one > > might do this better whilst we have both e-votes and > paper > > ballot votes. > > > > Nobody, and certainly not me is asking us to move to 100% > e-votes for > > now (but we agree its something to consider for future). > What we are > > saying is that you while may stop e-voting at a point (which > i find > > un-necessary though) the opening of the e-voting voting > status by the > > 3-trustees should be done the same time the paper ballot is > counted. > > > ... and I believe I have the general details and > reasoning > > correct... :-) > > > Not quite Mark as i think you perceive we are calling for > 100% > > electronic voting which is not the case. > > > My own personal thoughts..... (Lots of 'I') > > I believe Owen makes a good case for running e-voting to the > end of the > election time. > > However, it does appear to me to make things more complicated. > I can not quantify to myself though how useful it would > practically be. > I have no idea what technical changes would be necessary and > if AFRINIC > is going to change something - I'd rather see it spend the > energy going > to a full e-voting solution. > > E-vote starts 10 days before the elections. I see it as a very > suitable > replacement for Proxies or for those that can not attend. > Extending it to the last second will possibly encourage people > to wait > for the last second. I personally prefer the way it currently > is which > gives a few hours in case of technical difficulties. > I like the KISS principal. > > The AFRINIC website does state that e-votes and the people who > have cast > them are not conjoined. As I don't know how the software > actually > functions, I can not comment further. > http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/elections/voting/online-voting > (last line) > > > Thanks > > > > > > Kind Regards > > > > > -- > Mark J Elkins - AFRINIC 2014 Nominations Committee Chair > mje at posix.co.za - nomcom2014 (at) afrinic.net > Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 > > > > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Seun Ojedeji, > Federal University Oye-Ekiti > web: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng > Mobile: +2348035233535 > alt email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng > > The key to understanding is humility - my view ! > > -- Mark James ELKINS - Posix Systems - (South) Africa mje at posix.co.za Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: https://ftth.posix.co.za -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 5810 bytes Desc: not available URL: From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com Sat May 10 16:49:19 2014 From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji) Date: Sat, 10 May 2014 17:49:19 +0100 Subject: Election process (was re: [rpd] AFRINIC Board Elections - 2014: Call for Nominations) In-Reply-To: <1399733904.3037.108.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> References: <1399716631.3037.72.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> <1399731695.3037.95.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> <1399733904.3037.108.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> Message-ID: sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 10 May 2014 16:00, "Mark Elkins" wrote: > > Will that be possible without any complication? > > I believe that this is possible. > > So from this year, the three trustees will "unlock" the e-voting results > at approximately the same time as the paper ballots are counted. > Thank you Mr chair! This is good progress, other recommendations for future elections (after this year) may then be put forward during the AGM. Best regards > > Thanks > > > > > > Regards > > 1. www.afrinic.net/en/community/elections/afrinic-nomcom > > > > > > > > On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 3:21 PM, Mark Elkins wrote: > > On Sat, 2014-05-10 at 12:42 +0100, Seun Ojedeji wrote: > > > Hello Mark, > > > > > > > > > First considering that i wrote to chair (you) and nomcom, i > > assume > > > this response is on behalf of nomcom (do let me know if its > > otherwise > > > in your individual capacity). Kindly find my comments below: > > > > > > On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Mark Elkins > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Firstly, NomCom does not run the elections. The job > > of NomCom > > > (Nominations Committee) is to provide suitable > > candidates for > > > various > > > elections or appointments, Board Members, PDP > > Joint-Chairs, > > > and NRO/ASO > > > representatives. > > > > > > > > > > Although nomcom may seem to mean what you indicated above. > > However > > > nomcom according to the AFRINIC website means this: > > > The NomCom (Nominations and Elections Committee) > > [1]Functions of the > > > Nomination Committee: > > > > > * The Nom Com shall > > > * use its best effort towards ensuring that a > > > satisfactory number of individuals from the > > African > > > internet community stand as candidate for > > the election > > > of the directors of AFRINIC. > > > > > * have general responsibility for, and shall > > supervise > > > the conduct of the polls by the election > > Committee on > > > election day. > > > Although the second role seem to imply that there is another > > team > > > called "election committee" and at this point, i seem to be > > lost on > > > how that committee come to play. Nevertheless its still > > clear that > > > your team coordinates the process and your role exceeds what > > you have > > > stated above. > > > > > > OK - let me use less of my own words and quote from the > > Bylaws... > > > > 9 THE NOMINATION COMMITTEE > > There shall be a Nomination Committee (NomCom), which shall > > consist of a > > chairman and three other members as appointed by the Board and > > composed of qualified and experienced persons. The Board shall > > make a > > public call for voluntary nomination from the African Internet > > Community. > > > > 10 ELECTION COMMITTEE > > There shall be an election committee comprising of such staff > > members of > > AFRINIC as may be designated by the Chief Executive Officer. > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the opportunity to participate in > > nomcom. > > > > > > > > > There are some logistics which people may be > > missing. > > > I see that there is a goal to move to 100% > > electronic voting, > > > however > > > until then..... > > > > > > > > > Yes thats the final desire,(which will perhaps require the > > blessings > > > of BoD) but that is not the request for this upcoming > > election. > > > > > > > > > Practically, the e-vote needs to be terminated some > > time > > > before people collect their ballot papers. This is > > so that the > > > ballot papers can be provided only to those entities > > allowed > > > to vote because they have not > > > yet exercised that right via the e-vote. In order to > > do this, > > > logically, one needs to see which entities have used > > the > > > e-vote so their representatives are not also given a > > ballot > > > paper to vote with. > > > > > > > > > I still find it not convincing that the termination of > > e-voting is the > > > only way to avoid multiple voting. Especially since it is > > clear that > > > you go through a process before you can do e-voting, and it > > is > > > expected that anyone that opt for e-voting obviously doesn't > > want to > > > paper ballot. So its clear those to give paper ballot can be > > known > > > easily. > > > > > > What needs to be avoided is having privileged prior > > knowledge of the > > > e-voting status, your comment above doesn't prevent that. > > > > > > > > > From a convenience point of view, the e-vote cut-off > > time is > > > the evening before voting day. Names can then be > > checked. From > > > the morning of voting day, paper ballots are issued > > to all > > > still legible voters. This takes time. Paper Ballots > > are > > > carried by their owners until they are "exercised" > > later on in > > > the afternoon. > > > > > > > > > Please see my comment above about why i think we don't have > > to count > > > the e-votes just to get the numbers of those who used the > > e-voting > > > platform. Even if you don't think that option is totally > > perfect > > > (because some would already gotten their BPKI) then the > > voting > > > platform should be able clearly separate actual voting > > result from > > > from users(members) who has actually voted. Considering the > > level of > > > technicality already exhibited on the e-voting platform, i > > believe a > > > feature like that is the least challenge of the technical > > team (if it > > > doesn't already exist). > > > > > > > > > I guess that in the process of checking the names of > > entities > > > who have e-voted, one may also know how they have > > voted > > > (though I might be wrong). I personally have no > > issues with > > > this as long as the e-vote > > > results are kept strictly confidential (as has been > > done).Once > > > all the paper ballots have been submitted and > > counted, the > > > results of the two systems can be safely merged into > > one > > > election result and announced. > > > > > > Kindly refer to my comment above; keeping the e-vote > > confidential is > > > the main goal. > > > > > > > > > Due to the fact that I represent more than one > > entity, I have > > > more than one vote to cast. Last year, I cast some > > by e-vote > > > and some by ballot paper. I was happy to see that > > the system > > > worked. > > > > > > I did mine via e-voting and i believe no body who has used > > the > > > e-voting platform would deny that it was quite functional. I > > was > > > however surprised at the AGM when it was said that the > > voting system > > > closed and the result counted. The way i know that election > > is done is > > > that you count votes in the presence of the voters (or at > > least before > > > the candidates party representatives). On that basis as an > > individual > > > and member i wouldn't know whether something has happened to > > my votes > > > (although the platform worked). > > > > > > > > > Before asking for change, please carefully consider > > how one > > > might do this better whilst we have both e-votes and > > paper > > > ballot votes. > > > > > > Nobody, and certainly not me is asking us to move to 100% > > e-votes for > > > now (but we agree its something to consider for future). > > What we are > > > saying is that you while may stop e-voting at a point (which > > i find > > > un-necessary though) the opening of the e-voting voting > > status by the > > > 3-trustees should be done the same time the paper ballot is > > counted. > > > > > ... and I believe I have the general details and > > reasoning > > > correct... :-) > > > > > Not quite Mark as i think you perceive we are calling for > > 100% > > > electronic voting which is not the case. > > > > > > My own personal thoughts..... (Lots of 'I') > > > > I believe Owen makes a good case for running e-voting to the > > end of the > > election time. > > > > However, it does appear to me to make things more complicated. > > I can not quantify to myself though how useful it would > > practically be. > > I have no idea what technical changes would be necessary and > > if AFRINIC > > is going to change something - I'd rather see it spend the > > energy going > > to a full e-voting solution. > > > > E-vote starts 10 days before the elections. I see it as a very > > suitable > > replacement for Proxies or for those that can not attend. > > Extending it to the last second will possibly encourage people > > to wait > > for the last second. I personally prefer the way it currently > > is which > > gives a few hours in case of technical difficulties. > > I like the KISS principal. > > > > The AFRINIC website does state that e-votes and the people who > > have cast > > them are not conjoined. As I don't know how the software > > actually > > functions, I can not comment further. > > http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/elections/voting/online-voting > > (last line) > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > > Kind Regards > > > > > > > > > -- > > Mark J Elkins - AFRINIC 2014 Nominations Committee Chair > > mje at posix.co.za - nomcom2014 (at) afrinic.net > > Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Seun Ojedeji, > > Federal University Oye-Ekiti > > web: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng > > Mobile: +2348035233535 > > alt email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng > > > > The key to understanding is humility - my view ! > > > > > > -- > Mark James ELKINS - Posix Systems - (South) Africa > mje at posix.co.za Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 > For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: https://ftth.posix.co.za > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From quaynor at ghana.com Sat May 10 17:14:20 2014 From: quaynor at ghana.com (Nii Narku Quaynor) Date: Sat, 10 May 2014 17:14:20 +0000 Subject: Election process (was re: [rpd] AFRINIC Board Elections - 2014: Call for Nominations) In-Reply-To: References: <1399716631.3037.72.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> <1399731695.3037.95.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> <1399733904.3037.108.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> Message-ID: <58EA0F3B-5762-4100-8D21-E81942DFA0B1@ghana.com> Very good discussion and outcome though I am a little confused about decision procedure What's the correct governance procedure on such? Is it the chair of nomcom that decides? Nomcom ? Election committee? or board decision And, it would need to be well described and communicated Best Nii > On May 10, 2014, at 16:49, Seun Ojedeji wrote: > > sent from Google nexus 4 > kindly excuse brevity and typos. > On 10 May 2014 16:00, "Mark Elkins" wrote: > > > Will that be possible without any complication? > > > > I believe that this is possible. > > > > So from this year, the three trustees will "unlock" the e-voting results > > at approximately the same time as the paper ballots are counted. > > > Thank you Mr chair! > > This is good progress, other recommendations for future elections (after this year) may then be put forward during the AGM. > > Best regards > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > > Regards > > > 1. www.afrinic.net/en/community/elections/afrinic-nomcom > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 3:21 PM, Mark Elkins wrote: > > > On Sat, 2014-05-10 at 12:42 +0100, Seun Ojedeji wrote: > > > > Hello Mark, > > > > > > > > > > > > First considering that i wrote to chair (you) and nomcom, i > > > assume > > > > this response is on behalf of nomcom (do let me know if its > > > otherwise > > > > in your individual capacity). Kindly find my comments below: > > > > > > > > On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Mark Elkins > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Firstly, NomCom does not run the elections. The job > > > of NomCom > > > > (Nominations Committee) is to provide suitable > > > candidates for > > > > various > > > > elections or appointments, Board Members, PDP > > > Joint-Chairs, > > > > and NRO/ASO > > > > representatives. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Although nomcom may seem to mean what you indicated above. > > > However > > > > nomcom according to the AFRINIC website means this: > > > > The NomCom (Nominations and Elections Committee) > > > [1]Functions of the > > > > Nomination Committee: > > > > > > > * The Nom Com shall > > > > * use its best effort towards ensuring that a > > > > satisfactory number of individuals from the > > > African > > > > internet community stand as candidate for > > > the election > > > > of the directors of AFRINIC. > > > > > > > * have general responsibility for, and shall > > > supervise > > > > the conduct of the polls by the election > > > Committee on > > > > election day. > > > > Although the second role seem to imply that there is another > > > team > > > > called "election committee" and at this point, i seem to be > > > lost on > > > > how that committee come to play. Nevertheless its still > > > clear that > > > > your team coordinates the process and your role exceeds what > > > you have > > > > stated above. > > > > > > > > > OK - let me use less of my own words and quote from the > > > Bylaws... > > > > > > 9 THE NOMINATION COMMITTEE > > > There shall be a Nomination Committee (NomCom), which shall > > > consist of a > > > chairman and three other members as appointed by the Board and > > > composed of qualified and experienced persons. The Board shall > > > make a > > > public call for voluntary nomination from the African Internet > > > Community. > > > > > > 10 ELECTION COMMITTEE > > > There shall be an election committee comprising of such staff > > > members of > > > AFRINIC as may be designated by the Chief Executive Officer. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the opportunity to participate in > > > nomcom. > > > > > > > > > > > > There are some logistics which people may be > > > missing. > > > > I see that there is a goal to move to 100% > > > electronic voting, > > > > however > > > > until then..... > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes thats the final desire,(which will perhaps require the > > > blessings > > > > of BoD) but that is not the request for this upcoming > > > election. > > > > > > > > > > > > Practically, the e-vote needs to be terminated some > > > time > > > > before people collect their ballot papers. This is > > > so that the > > > > ballot papers can be provided only to those entities > > > allowed > > > > to vote because they have not > > > > yet exercised that right via the e-vote. In order to > > > do this, > > > > logically, one needs to see which entities have used > > > the > > > > e-vote so their representatives are not also given a > > > ballot > > > > paper to vote with. > > > > > > > > > > > > I still find it not convincing that the termination of > > > e-voting is the > > > > only way to avoid multiple voting. Especially since it is > > > clear that > > > > you go through a process before you can do e-voting, and it > > > is > > > > expected that anyone that opt for e-voting obviously doesn't > > > want to > > > > paper ballot. So its clear those to give paper ballot can be > > > known > > > > easily. > > > > > > > > What needs to be avoided is having privileged prior > > > knowledge of the > > > > e-voting status, your comment above doesn't prevent that. > > > > > > > > > > > > From a convenience point of view, the e-vote cut-off > > > time is > > > > the evening before voting day. Names can then be > > > checked. From > > > > the morning of voting day, paper ballots are issued > > > to all > > > > still legible voters. This takes time. Paper Ballots > > > are > > > > carried by their owners until they are "exercised" > > > later on in > > > > the afternoon. > > > > > > > > > > > > Please see my comment above about why i think we don't have > > > to count > > > > the e-votes just to get the numbers of those who used the > > > e-voting > > > > platform. Even if you don't think that option is totally > > > perfect > > > > (because some would already gotten their BPKI) then the > > > voting > > > > platform should be able clearly separate actual voting > > > result from > > > > from users(members) who has actually voted. Considering the > > > level of > > > > technicality already exhibited on the e-voting platform, i > > > believe a > > > > feature like that is the least challenge of the technical > > > team (if it > > > > doesn't already exist). > > > > > > > > > > > > I guess that in the process of checking the names of > > > entities > > > > who have e-voted, one may also know how they have > > > voted > > > > (though I might be wrong). I personally have no > > > issues with > > > > this as long as the e-vote > > > > results are kept strictly confidential (as has been > > > done).Once > > > > all the paper ballots have been submitted and > > > counted, the > > > > results of the two systems can be safely merged into > > > one > > > > election result and announced. > > > > > > > > Kindly refer to my comment above; keeping the e-vote > > > confidential is > > > > the main goal. > > > > > > > > > > > > Due to the fact that I represent more than one > > > entity, I have > > > > more than one vote to cast. Last year, I cast some > > > by e-vote > > > > and some by ballot paper. I was happy to see that > > > the system > > > > worked. > > > > > > > > I did mine via e-voting and i believe no body who has used > > > the > > > > e-voting platform would deny that it was quite functional. I > > > was > > > > however surprised at the AGM when it was said that the > > > voting system > > > > closed and the result counted. The way i know that election > > > is done is > > > > that you count votes in the presence of the voters (or at > > > least before > > > > the candidates party representatives). On that basis as an > > > individual > > > > and member i wouldn't know whether something has happened to > > > my votes > > > > (although the platform worked). > > > > > > > > > > > > Before asking for change, please carefully consider > > > how one > > > > might do this better whilst we have both e-votes and > > > paper > > > > ballot votes. > > > > > > > > Nobody, and certainly not me is asking us to move to 100% > > > e-votes for > > > > now (but we agree its something to consider for future). > > > What we are > > > > saying is that you while may stop e-voting at a point (which > > > i find > > > > un-necessary though) the opening of the e-voting voting > > > status by the > > > > 3-trustees should be done the same time the paper ballot is > > > counted. > > > > > > > ... and I believe I have the general details and > > > reasoning > > > > correct... :-) > > > > > > > Not quite Mark as i think you perceive we are calling for > > > 100% > > > > electronic voting which is not the case. > > > > > > > > > My own personal thoughts..... (Lots of 'I') > > > > > > I believe Owen makes a good case for running e-voting to the > > > end of the > > > election time. > > > > > > However, it does appear to me to make things more complicated. > > > I can not quantify to myself though how useful it would > > > practically be. > > > I have no idea what technical changes would be necessary and > > > if AFRINIC > > > is going to change something - I'd rather see it spend the > > > energy going > > > to a full e-voting solution. > > > > > > E-vote starts 10 days before the elections. I see it as a very > > > suitable > > > replacement for Proxies or for those that can not attend. > > > Extending it to the last second will possibly encourage people > > > to wait > > > for the last second. I personally prefer the way it currently > > > is which > > > gives a few hours in case of technical difficulties. > > > I like the KISS principal. > > > > > > The AFRINIC website does state that e-votes and the people who > > > have cast > > > them are not conjoined. As I don't know how the software > > > actually > > > functions, I can not comment further. > > > http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/elections/voting/online-voting > > > (last line) > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > > > > > Kind Regards > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Mark J Elkins - AFRINIC 2014 Nominations Committee Chair > > > mje at posix.co.za - nomcom2014 (at) afrinic.net > > > Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > Seun Ojedeji, > > > Federal University Oye-Ekiti > > > web: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng > > > Mobile: +2348035233535 > > > alt email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng > > > > > > The key to understanding is humility - my view ! > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Mark James ELKINS - Posix Systems - (South) Africa > > mje at posix.co.za Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 > > For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: https://ftth.posix.co.za > > > > _______________________________________________ > > rpd mailing list > > rpd at afrinic.net > > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From owen at delong.com Sat May 10 23:40:21 2014 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Sat, 10 May 2014 16:40:21 -0700 Subject: Election process (was re: [rpd] AFRINIC Board Elections - 2014: Call for Nominations) In-Reply-To: References: <1399716631.3037.72.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> Message-ID: <0195A5BD-904E-49B5-9D04-A719276B007D@delong.com> On May 10, 2014, at 6:29 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: > Hello Owen, > On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 2:13 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > > Actually, an alternative to this might be to in real time, be able to lock each voter receiving a paper ballot out of eligibility for e-vote while leaving e-vote open. In such a case, at the time the person requests a paper ballot, you could: > > 1. Lock them out of e-vote. > 2. Verify they have not yet e-voted. > 3. Issue the paper ballot. > > In this way, you can leave e-voting open until the close of the election, but still > provide for paper voting as well. > > You have just stated what i have been trying to communicate. I hope your attempt gets clearer to us all. That is why i said if that online voting platform does not have that feature; to allow those 3 items above then it needs to be further developed. I confess complete ignorance on the implementation details of the AfriNIC e-vote system. However, assuming it is in-house or open-source software (and it really should be at least one of those things, otherwise, how can it be trusted?), then adding the code necessary to support that workflow shouldn?t be incredibly difficult in any sane system. IMHO, it?s too late to change the system before Djibouti, but it would be great if those in the know came to Djibouti prepared to discuss the matter in earnest, including cost/work estimates for adding the required features, staff training, etc. that would be necessary. Owen > > +1 to every other comments you mentioned below > > <> > > Cheers! > -- > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Seun Ojedeji, > Federal University Oye-Ekiti > web: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng > Mobile: +2348035233535 > alt email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng > > The key to understanding is humility - my view ! > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From owen at delong.com Sat May 10 23:49:36 2014 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Sat, 10 May 2014 16:49:36 -0700 Subject: Election process (was re: [rpd] AFRINIC Board Elections - 2014: Call for Nominations) In-Reply-To: <1399731695.3037.95.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> References: <1399716631.3037.72.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> <1399731695.3037.95.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> Message-ID: <69F7B5B6-49C6-48B2-AD74-6B0211243770@delong.com> Mark, In any of the voting systems I?ve worked on (I used to work for an election services company many years ago in the US. No, not one of the ones behind the fraud-riddled touch screens, the one that built the machines with the hanging chad problem (which is only a problem if they aren?t properly maintained).), the votes are not tied to the voter, however, there is a record (separate from the vote tallies) that records who has voted. So really, if paper ballots must, for some reason, be supported, it should be pretty straight forward. Below is an oversimplification, but it covers the basics. Table eligilble_voters Contains information about each eligible voter, KEY: VOTERID (a unique identifier for each voter). Table has_voted_ This table would be created for each election. In the case of a voter who has cast an e-ballot, their VOTERID would be added to this table. It would not provide a link to the actual votes they cast. If paper ballots are to be used, then, upon issuance of a paper ballot to an eligible voter, the VOTERID would be marked as ?has_voted? in this table. If you wanted, an additional flag could be used to indicate ?by paper? so that upon return of an unused paper ballot, they could be marked as ?has not voted? and be eligible to e-vote instead. (this last one is optional). Table ballots_ This table would contain one record per ballot cast and each record would contain the vote data for a single ballot. It?s really pretty close to that simple to implement what I suggested. The only complicated part is that for AfriNIC, each ?eligible voter? is a voting right, not a person. A person may be several eligible voters. Owen On May 10, 2014, at 7:21 AM, Mark Elkins wrote: > On Sat, 2014-05-10 at 12:42 +0100, Seun Ojedeji wrote: >> Hello Mark, >> >> >> First considering that i wrote to chair (you) and nomcom, i assume >> this response is on behalf of nomcom (do let me know if its otherwise >> in your individual capacity). Kindly find my comments below: >> >> On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Mark Elkins wrote: >> >> >> Firstly, NomCom does not run the elections. The job of NomCom >> (Nominations Committee) is to provide suitable candidates for >> various >> elections or appointments, Board Members, PDP Joint-Chairs, >> and NRO/ASO >> representatives. >>> >> >> Although nomcom may seem to mean what you indicated above. However >> nomcom according to the AFRINIC website means this: >> The NomCom (Nominations and Elections Committee) [1]Functions of the >> Nomination Committee: >> * The Nom Com shall >> * use its best effort towards ensuring that a >> satisfactory number of individuals from the African >> internet community stand as candidate for the election >> of the directors of AFRINIC. >> * have general responsibility for, and shall supervise >> the conduct of the polls by the election Committee on >> election day. >> Although the second role seem to imply that there is another team >> called "election committee" and at this point, i seem to be lost on >> how that committee come to play. Nevertheless its still clear that >> your team coordinates the process and your role exceeds what you have >> stated above. > > OK - let me use less of my own words and quote from the Bylaws... > > 9 THE NOMINATION COMMITTEE > There shall be a Nomination Committee (NomCom), which shall consist of a > chairman and three other members as appointed by the Board and > composed of qualified and experienced persons. The Board shall make a > public call for voluntary nomination from the African Internet > Community. > > 10 ELECTION COMMITTEE > There shall be an election committee comprising of such staff members of > AFRINIC as may be designated by the Chief Executive Officer. > > >> >>> Thanks for the opportunity to participate in nomcom. >> >> >> There are some logistics which people may be missing. >> I see that there is a goal to move to 100% electronic voting, >> however >> until then..... >> >> >> Yes thats the final desire,(which will perhaps require the blessings >> of BoD) but that is not the request for this upcoming election. >> >> >> Practically, the e-vote needs to be terminated some time >> before people collect their ballot papers. This is so that the >> ballot papers can be provided only to those entities allowed >> to vote because they have not >> yet exercised that right via the e-vote. In order to do this, >> logically, one needs to see which entities have used the >> e-vote so their representatives are not also given a ballot >> paper to vote with. >> >> >> I still find it not convincing that the termination of e-voting is the >> only way to avoid multiple voting. Especially since it is clear that >> you go through a process before you can do e-voting, and it is >> expected that anyone that opt for e-voting obviously doesn't want to >> paper ballot. So its clear those to give paper ballot can be known >> easily. >> >> What needs to be avoided is having privileged prior knowledge of the >> e-voting status, your comment above doesn't prevent that. >> >> >> From a convenience point of view, the e-vote cut-off time is >> the evening before voting day. Names can then be checked. From >> the morning of voting day, paper ballots are issued to all >> still legible voters. This takes time. Paper Ballots are >> carried by their owners until they are "exercised" later on in >> the afternoon. >> >> >> Please see my comment above about why i think we don't have to count >> the e-votes just to get the numbers of those who used the e-voting >> platform. Even if you don't think that option is totally perfect >> (because some would already gotten their BPKI) then the voting >> platform should be able clearly separate actual voting result from >> from users(members) who has actually voted. Considering the level of >> technicality already exhibited on the e-voting platform, i believe a >> feature like that is the least challenge of the technical team (if it >> doesn't already exist). >> >> >> I guess that in the process of checking the names of entities >> who have e-voted, one may also know how they have voted >> (though I might be wrong). I personally have no issues with >> this as long as the e-vote >> results are kept strictly confidential (as has been done).Once >> all the paper ballots have been submitted and counted, the >> results of the two systems can be safely merged into one >> election result and announced. >> >> Kindly refer to my comment above; keeping the e-vote confidential is >> the main goal. >> >> >> Due to the fact that I represent more than one entity, I have >> more than one vote to cast. Last year, I cast some by e-vote >> and some by ballot paper. I was happy to see that the system >> worked. >> >> I did mine via e-voting and i believe no body who has used the >> e-voting platform would deny that it was quite functional. I was >> however surprised at the AGM when it was said that the voting system >> closed and the result counted. The way i know that election is done is >> that you count votes in the presence of the voters (or at least before >> the candidates party representatives). On that basis as an individual >> and member i wouldn't know whether something has happened to my votes >> (although the platform worked). >> >> >> Before asking for change, please carefully consider how one >> might do this better whilst we have both e-votes and paper >> ballot votes. >> >> Nobody, and certainly not me is asking us to move to 100% e-votes for >> now (but we agree its something to consider for future). What we are >> saying is that you while may stop e-voting at a point (which i find >> un-necessary though) the opening of the e-voting voting status by the >> 3-trustees should be done the same time the paper ballot is counted. > >> ... and I believe I have the general details and reasoning >> correct... :-) > >> Not quite Mark as i think you perceive we are calling for 100% >> electronic voting which is not the case. > > My own personal thoughts..... (Lots of 'I') > > I believe Owen makes a good case for running e-voting to the end of the > election time. > > However, it does appear to me to make things more complicated. > I can not quantify to myself though how useful it would practically be. > I have no idea what technical changes would be necessary and if AFRINIC > is going to change something - I'd rather see it spend the energy going > to a full e-voting solution. > > E-vote starts 10 days before the elections. I see it as a very suitable > replacement for Proxies or for those that can not attend. > Extending it to the last second will possibly encourage people to wait > for the last second. I personally prefer the way it currently is which > gives a few hours in case of technical difficulties. > I like the KISS principal. > > The AFRINIC website does state that e-votes and the people who have cast > them are not conjoined. As I don't know how the software actually > functions, I can not comment further. > http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/elections/voting/online-voting > (last line) > >> Thanks >> >> >> Kind Regards > >> > > -- > Mark J Elkins - AFRINIC 2014 Nominations Committee Chair > mje at posix.co.za - nomcom2014 (at) afrinic.net > Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd From owen at delong.com Sat May 10 23:52:24 2014 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Sat, 10 May 2014 16:52:24 -0700 Subject: Election process (was re: [rpd] AFRINIC Board Elections - 2014: Call for Nominations) In-Reply-To: References: <1399716631.3037.72.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> <1399731695.3037.95.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> Message-ID: As a general rule, in most organizations, participating in the nomination committee is considered a COI with participating in the running of the election. I believe the election process itself is run by AfriNIC staff with non-voting observers usually from other regions. I do think it is a good suggestion to staff or whoever is running the election process to not count/reveal/examine the e-vote results prior to the conclusion of all voting. Owen On May 10, 2014, at 7:40 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: > Hello Mark, > > Thanks for referencing the bylaw directly and i guess that clears the nomcom/election committee (although i think the wording on the nomcom page may need to be updated [1]) > > Just one question, do you think its right to have access to voting results before conclusion of elections? > > If your response is a NO, could nomcom (on the capacity of coordinating the process) then make sure that the e-voting result is for the first time accessed during the counting of the paper ballot. > > Will that be possible without any complication? > > Thanks > > Regards > 1. www.afrinic.net/en/community/elections/afrinic-nomcom > > > On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 3:21 PM, Mark Elkins wrote: > On Sat, 2014-05-10 at 12:42 +0100, Seun Ojedeji wrote: > > Hello Mark, > > > > > > First considering that i wrote to chair (you) and nomcom, i assume > > this response is on behalf of nomcom (do let me know if its otherwise > > in your individual capacity). Kindly find my comments below: > > > > On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Mark Elkins wrote: > > > > > > Firstly, NomCom does not run the elections. The job of NomCom > > (Nominations Committee) is to provide suitable candidates for > > various > > elections or appointments, Board Members, PDP Joint-Chairs, > > and NRO/ASO > > representatives. > > > > > > > Although nomcom may seem to mean what you indicated above. However > > nomcom according to the AFRINIC website means this: > > The NomCom (Nominations and Elections Committee) [1]Functions of the > > Nomination Committee: > > * The Nom Com shall > > * use its best effort towards ensuring that a > > satisfactory number of individuals from the African > > internet community stand as candidate for the election > > of the directors of AFRINIC. > > * have general responsibility for, and shall supervise > > the conduct of the polls by the election Committee on > > election day. > > Although the second role seem to imply that there is another team > > called "election committee" and at this point, i seem to be lost on > > how that committee come to play. Nevertheless its still clear that > > your team coordinates the process and your role exceeds what you have > > stated above. > > OK - let me use less of my own words and quote from the Bylaws... > > 9 THE NOMINATION COMMITTEE > There shall be a Nomination Committee (NomCom), which shall consist of a > chairman and three other members as appointed by the Board and > composed of qualified and experienced persons. The Board shall make a > public call for voluntary nomination from the African Internet > Community. > > 10 ELECTION COMMITTEE > There shall be an election committee comprising of such staff members of > AFRINIC as may be designated by the Chief Executive Officer. > > > > > > > Thanks for the opportunity to participate in nomcom. > > > > > > There are some logistics which people may be missing. > > I see that there is a goal to move to 100% electronic voting, > > however > > until then..... > > > > > > Yes thats the final desire,(which will perhaps require the blessings > > of BoD) but that is not the request for this upcoming election. > > > > > > Practically, the e-vote needs to be terminated some time > > before people collect their ballot papers. This is so that the > > ballot papers can be provided only to those entities allowed > > to vote because they have not > > yet exercised that right via the e-vote. In order to do this, > > logically, one needs to see which entities have used the > > e-vote so their representatives are not also given a ballot > > paper to vote with. > > > > > > I still find it not convincing that the termination of e-voting is the > > only way to avoid multiple voting. Especially since it is clear that > > you go through a process before you can do e-voting, and it is > > expected that anyone that opt for e-voting obviously doesn't want to > > paper ballot. So its clear those to give paper ballot can be known > > easily. > > > > What needs to be avoided is having privileged prior knowledge of the > > e-voting status, your comment above doesn't prevent that. > > > > > > From a convenience point of view, the e-vote cut-off time is > > the evening before voting day. Names can then be checked. From > > the morning of voting day, paper ballots are issued to all > > still legible voters. This takes time. Paper Ballots are > > carried by their owners until they are "exercised" later on in > > the afternoon. > > > > > > Please see my comment above about why i think we don't have to count > > the e-votes just to get the numbers of those who used the e-voting > > platform. Even if you don't think that option is totally perfect > > (because some would already gotten their BPKI) then the voting > > platform should be able clearly separate actual voting result from > > from users(members) who has actually voted. Considering the level of > > technicality already exhibited on the e-voting platform, i believe a > > feature like that is the least challenge of the technical team (if it > > doesn't already exist). > > > > > > I guess that in the process of checking the names of entities > > who have e-voted, one may also know how they have voted > > (though I might be wrong). I personally have no issues with > > this as long as the e-vote > > results are kept strictly confidential (as has been done).Once > > all the paper ballots have been submitted and counted, the > > results of the two systems can be safely merged into one > > election result and announced. > > > > Kindly refer to my comment above; keeping the e-vote confidential is > > the main goal. > > > > > > Due to the fact that I represent more than one entity, I have > > more than one vote to cast. Last year, I cast some by e-vote > > and some by ballot paper. I was happy to see that the system > > worked. > > > > I did mine via e-voting and i believe no body who has used the > > e-voting platform would deny that it was quite functional. I was > > however surprised at the AGM when it was said that the voting system > > closed and the result counted. The way i know that election is done is > > that you count votes in the presence of the voters (or at least before > > the candidates party representatives). On that basis as an individual > > and member i wouldn't know whether something has happened to my votes > > (although the platform worked). > > > > > > Before asking for change, please carefully consider how one > > might do this better whilst we have both e-votes and paper > > ballot votes. > > > > Nobody, and certainly not me is asking us to move to 100% e-votes for > > now (but we agree its something to consider for future). What we are > > saying is that you while may stop e-voting at a point (which i find > > un-necessary though) the opening of the e-voting voting status by the > > 3-trustees should be done the same time the paper ballot is counted. > > > ... and I believe I have the general details and reasoning > > correct... :-) > > > Not quite Mark as i think you perceive we are calling for 100% > > electronic voting which is not the case. > > My own personal thoughts..... (Lots of 'I') > > I believe Owen makes a good case for running e-voting to the end of the > election time. > > However, it does appear to me to make things more complicated. > I can not quantify to myself though how useful it would practically be. > I have no idea what technical changes would be necessary and if AFRINIC > is going to change something - I'd rather see it spend the energy going > to a full e-voting solution. > > E-vote starts 10 days before the elections. I see it as a very suitable > replacement for Proxies or for those that can not attend. > Extending it to the last second will possibly encourage people to wait > for the last second. I personally prefer the way it currently is which > gives a few hours in case of technical difficulties. > I like the KISS principal. > > The AFRINIC website does state that e-votes and the people who have cast > them are not conjoined. As I don't know how the software actually > functions, I can not comment further. > http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/elections/voting/online-voting > (last line) > > > Thanks > > > > > > Kind Regards > > > > > -- > Mark J Elkins - AFRINIC 2014 Nominations Committee Chair > mje at posix.co.za - nomcom2014 (at) afrinic.net > Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 > > > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Seun Ojedeji, > Federal University Oye-Ekiti > web: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng > Mobile: +2348035233535 > alt email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng > > The key to understanding is humility - my view ! > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ondouglas at gmail.com Sun May 11 01:26:37 2014 From: ondouglas at gmail.com (Douglas Onyango) Date: Sun, 11 May 2014 02:26:37 +0100 Subject: Election process (was re: [rpd] AFRINIC Board Elections - 2014: Call for Nominations) In-Reply-To: <58EA0F3B-5762-4100-8D21-E81942DFA0B1@ghana.com> References: <1399716631.3037.72.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> <1399731695.3037.95.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> <1399733904.3037.108.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> <58EA0F3B-5762-4100-8D21-E81942DFA0B1@ghana.com> Message-ID: Hi Ni, et al On 10 May 2014 18:14, Nii Narku Quaynor wrote: > Very good discussion and outcome though I am a little confused about > decision procedure +1 on this one. AFAIK, Nomcom's mandate comes from the BoD and along with it: the guidelines. I am concerned that right now the decision to shift the vote tallying and results to election day is in contravention of the guidelines and I don't know if the board has sanctioned this or if a unilateral decision has been made by Nomcom. Additionally I don't see the rush to get this done in Djibouti. I think this change requires technological and logistical adjustments that I am just not sure AFRINIC as assessed properly. On this basis, I would suggest we start preparations to implement the new system immediately and possibly present the assessment Djibouti, but actually implement it in 2015 after we have a better understanding of the implications. Regards, -- Douglas Onyango, PRINCE 2, ITILv3 UG: +256 772 712 139 | NG: +234 813 604 7638 From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com Sun May 11 01:50:30 2014 From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji) Date: Sun, 11 May 2014 02:50:30 +0100 Subject: Election process (was re: [rpd] AFRINIC Board Elections - 2014: Call for Nominations) In-Reply-To: <0195A5BD-904E-49B5-9D04-A719276B007D@delong.com> References: <1399716631.3037.72.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> <0195A5BD-904E-49B5-9D04-A719276B007D@delong.com> Message-ID: Hello Owen, There ain't any technical system change, we have all agreed that making the E-voting run parallel is not a call for now and that is clear. The only thing Mark agreed to is that electronic votes would be counted same time with ballot votes. Is that what you are saying cannot work for Djibouti? Thanks sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 11 May 2014 00:42, "Owen DeLong" wrote: > > On May 10, 2014, at 6:29 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: > > Hello Owen, > On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 2:13 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > >> >> Actually, an alternative to this might be to in real time, be able to >> lock each voter receiving a paper ballot out of eligibility for e-vote >> while leaving e-vote open. In such a case, at the time the person requests >> a paper ballot, you could: >> >> 1. Lock them out of e-vote. >> 2. Verify they have not yet e-voted. >> 3. Issue the paper ballot. >> > > In this way, you can leave e-voting open until the close of the election, >> but still >> provide for paper voting as well. >> > > You have just stated what i have been trying to communicate. I hope your > attempt gets clearer to us all. That is why i said if that online voting > platform does not have that feature; to allow those 3 items above then it > needs to be further developed. > > > I confess complete ignorance on the implementation details of the AfriNIC > e-vote system. However, assuming it is in-house or open-source software > (and it really should be at least one of those things, otherwise, how can > it be trusted?), then adding the code necessary to support that workflow > shouldn?t be incredibly difficult in any sane system. > > IMHO, it?s too late to change the system before Djibouti, but it would be > great if those in the know came to Djibouti prepared to discuss the matter > in earnest, including cost/work estimates for adding the required features, > staff training, etc. that would be necessary. > > Owen > > > +1 to every other comments you mentioned below > > <> > > Cheers! > -- > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > > *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: > http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535**alt > email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng > * > > The key to understanding is humility - my view ! > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com Sun May 11 02:06:25 2014 From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji) Date: Sun, 11 May 2014 03:06:25 +0100 Subject: Election process (was re: [rpd] AFRINIC Board Elections - 2014: Call for Nominations) In-Reply-To: References: <1399716631.3037.72.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> <1399731695.3037.95.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> <1399733904.3037.108.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> <58EA0F3B-5762-4100-8D21-E81942DFA0B1@ghana.com> Message-ID: sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 11 May 2014 02:26, "Douglas Onyango" wrote: > > Hi Ni, et al > On 10 May 2014 18:14, Nii Narku Quaynor wrote: > > Very good discussion and outcome though I am a little confused about > > decision procedure > > +1 on this one. AFAIK, Nomcom's mandate comes from the BoD and along > with it: the guidelines. I am concerned that right now the decision > to shift the vote tallying and results to election day is in > contravention of the guidelines and I don't know if the board has > sanctioned this or if a unilateral decision has been made by Nomcom. > Can you show me in the bylaw/guideline where it says electronic votes must be counted a day before? The guidelines says close a day before which is fine, however noncom has a choice to determine when to count otherwise then their coordinating role isn't as coordinating enough. However if nomcom says here that it's a board decision to determine when to count votes then no problem. > Additionally I don't see the rush to get this done in Djibouti. I > think this change requires technological and logistical adjustments > that I am just not sure AFRINIC as assessed properly. > I don't see any technology changes here, and don't foresee any abnormal logistical changes either. Everything that will be done is what should have been done. Unless you say it takes hours to unlock the votes after the three trustees sign > On this basis, I would suggest we start preparations to implement the > new system immediately and possibly present the assessment Djibouti, > but actually implement it in 2015 after we have a better understanding > of the implications. > -1 if the system you refer is what we are just talking about. However +1 if it's about moving 100% to online. Regards > > Regards, > -- > Douglas Onyango, PRINCE 2, ITILv3 > UG: +256 772 712 139 | NG: +234 813 604 7638 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com Sun May 11 02:13:38 2014 From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji) Date: Sun, 11 May 2014 03:13:38 +0100 Subject: Election process (was re: [rpd] AFRINIC Board Elections - 2014: Call for Nominations) In-Reply-To: References: <1399716631.3037.72.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> <1399731695.3037.95.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> Message-ID: sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 11 May 2014 00:53, "Owen DeLong" wrote: > I do think it is a good suggestion to staff or whoever is running the election process to not count/reveal/examine the e-vote results prior to the conclusion of all voting. > Why should it be counted prior, why does this process seem okay to folks but me? Are we missing the fact that the e-voting and paper ballot are just 2 means to the same election? In my country it is when voters finish voting that the electoral team starts counting votes in the presence of the voters (OR the party representative). This is basics of voting and I don't think this should be different in all countries. Regards > Owen > > On May 10, 2014, at 7:40 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: > >> Hello Mark, >> >> Thanks for referencing the bylaw directly and i guess that clears the nomcom/election committee (although i think the wording on the nomcom page may need to be updated [1]) >> >> Just one question, do you think its right to have access to voting results before conclusion of elections? >> >> If your response is a NO, could nomcom (on the capacity of coordinating the process) then make sure that the e-voting result is for the first time accessed during the counting of the paper ballot. >> >> Will that be possible without any complication? >> >> Thanks >> >> Regards >> 1. www.afrinic.net/en/community/elections/afrinic-nomcom >> >> >> On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 3:21 PM, Mark Elkins wrote: >>> >>> On Sat, 2014-05-10 at 12:42 +0100, Seun Ojedeji wrote: >>> > Hello Mark, >>> > >>> > >>> > First considering that i wrote to chair (you) and nomcom, i assume >>> > this response is on behalf of nomcom (do let me know if its otherwise >>> > in your individual capacity). Kindly find my comments below: >>> > >>> > On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Mark Elkins wrote: >>> > >>> > >>> > Firstly, NomCom does not run the elections. The job of NomCom >>> > (Nominations Committee) is to provide suitable candidates for >>> > various >>> > elections or appointments, Board Members, PDP Joint-Chairs, >>> > and NRO/ASO >>> > representatives. >>> > > >>> > >>> > Although nomcom may seem to mean what you indicated above. However >>> > nomcom according to the AFRINIC website means this: >>> > The NomCom (Nominations and Elections Committee) [1]Functions of the >>> > Nomination Committee: >>> > * The Nom Com shall >>> > * use its best effort towards ensuring that a >>> > satisfactory number of individuals from the African >>> > internet community stand as candidate for the election >>> > of the directors of AFRINIC. >>> > * have general responsibility for, and shall supervise >>> > the conduct of the polls by the election Committee on >>> > election day. >>> > Although the second role seem to imply that there is another team >>> > called "election committee" and at this point, i seem to be lost on >>> > how that committee come to play. Nevertheless its still clear that >>> > your team coordinates the process and your role exceeds what you have >>> > stated above. >>> >>> OK - let me use less of my own words and quote from the Bylaws... >>> >>> 9 THE NOMINATION COMMITTEE >>> There shall be a Nomination Committee (NomCom), which shall consist of a >>> chairman and three other members as appointed by the Board and >>> composed of qualified and experienced persons. The Board shall make a >>> public call for voluntary nomination from the African Internet >>> Community. >>> >>> 10 ELECTION COMMITTEE >>> There shall be an election committee comprising of such staff members of >>> AFRINIC as may be designated by the Chief Executive Officer. >>> >>> >>> > >>> > > Thanks for the opportunity to participate in nomcom. >>> > >>> > >>> > There are some logistics which people may be missing. >>> > I see that there is a goal to move to 100% electronic voting, >>> > however >>> > until then..... >>> > >>> > >>> > Yes thats the final desire,(which will perhaps require the blessings >>> > of BoD) but that is not the request for this upcoming election. >>> > >>> > >>> > Practically, the e-vote needs to be terminated some time >>> > before people collect their ballot papers. This is so that the >>> > ballot papers can be provided only to those entities allowed >>> > to vote because they have not >>> > yet exercised that right via the e-vote. In order to do this, >>> > logically, one needs to see which entities have used the >>> > e-vote so their representatives are not also given a ballot >>> > paper to vote with. >>> > >>> > >>> > I still find it not convincing that the termination of e-voting is the >>> > only way to avoid multiple voting. Especially since it is clear that >>> > you go through a process before you can do e-voting, and it is >>> > expected that anyone that opt for e-voting obviously doesn't want to >>> > paper ballot. So its clear those to give paper ballot can be known >>> > easily. >>> > >>> > What needs to be avoided is having privileged prior knowledge of the >>> > e-voting status, your comment above doesn't prevent that. >>> > >>> > >>> > From a convenience point of view, the e-vote cut-off time is >>> > the evening before voting day. Names can then be checked. From >>> > the morning of voting day, paper ballots are issued to all >>> > still legible voters. This takes time. Paper Ballots are >>> > carried by their owners until they are "exercised" later on in >>> > the afternoon. >>> > >>> > >>> > Please see my comment above about why i think we don't have to count >>> > the e-votes just to get the numbers of those who used the e-voting >>> > platform. Even if you don't think that option is totally perfect >>> > (because some would already gotten their BPKI) then the voting >>> > platform should be able clearly separate actual voting result from >>> > from users(members) who has actually voted. Considering the level of >>> > technicality already exhibited on the e-voting platform, i believe a >>> > feature like that is the least challenge of the technical team (if it >>> > doesn't already exist). >>> > >>> > >>> > I guess that in the process of checking the names of entities >>> > who have e-voted, one may also know how they have voted >>> > (though I might be wrong). I personally have no issues with >>> > this as long as the e-vote >>> > results are kept strictly confidential (as has been done).Once >>> > all the paper ballots have been submitted and counted, the >>> > results of the two systems can be safely merged into one >>> > election result and announced. >>> > >>> > Kindly refer to my comment above; keeping the e-vote confidential is >>> > the main goal. >>> > >>> > >>> > Due to the fact that I represent more than one entity, I have >>> > more than one vote to cast. Last year, I cast some by e-vote >>> > and some by ballot paper. I was happy to see that the system >>> > worked. >>> > >>> > I did mine via e-voting and i believe no body who has used the >>> > e-voting platform would deny that it was quite functional. I was >>> > however surprised at the AGM when it was said that the voting system >>> > closed and the result counted. The way i know that election is done is >>> > that you count votes in the presence of the voters (or at least before >>> > the candidates party representatives). On that basis as an individual >>> > and member i wouldn't know whether something has happened to my votes >>> > (although the platform worked). >>> > >>> > >>> > Before asking for change, please carefully consider how one >>> > might do this better whilst we have both e-votes and paper >>> > ballot votes. >>> > >>> > Nobody, and certainly not me is asking us to move to 100% e-votes for >>> > now (but we agree its something to consider for future). What we are >>> > saying is that you while may stop e-voting at a point (which i find >>> > un-necessary though) the opening of the e-voting voting status by the >>> > 3-trustees should be done the same time the paper ballot is counted. >>> >>> > ... and I believe I have the general details and reasoning >>> > correct... :-) >>> >>> > Not quite Mark as i think you perceive we are calling for 100% >>> > electronic voting which is not the case. >>> >>> My own personal thoughts..... (Lots of 'I') >>> >>> I believe Owen makes a good case for running e-voting to the end of the >>> election time. >>> >>> However, it does appear to me to make things more complicated. >>> I can not quantify to myself though how useful it would practically be. >>> I have no idea what technical changes would be necessary and if AFRINIC >>> is going to change something - I'd rather see it spend the energy going >>> to a full e-voting solution. >>> >>> E-vote starts 10 days before the elections. I see it as a very suitable >>> replacement for Proxies or for those that can not attend. >>> Extending it to the last second will possibly encourage people to wait >>> for the last second. I personally prefer the way it currently is which >>> gives a few hours in case of technical difficulties. >>> I like the KISS principal. >>> >>> The AFRINIC website does state that e-votes and the people who have cast >>> them are not conjoined. As I don't know how the software actually >>> functions, I can not comment further. >>> http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/elections/voting/online-voting >>> (last line) >>> >>> > Thanks >>> > >>> > >>> > Kind Regards >>> >>> > >>> >>> -- >>> Mark J Elkins - AFRINIC 2014 Nominations Committee Chair >>> mje at posix.co.za - nomcom2014 (at) afrinic.net >>> Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> >>> Seun Ojedeji, >>> Federal University Oye-Ekiti >>> web: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng >>> Mobile: +2348035233535 >>> alt email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng >>> >>>> The key to understanding is humility - my view ! >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> rpd mailing list >> rpd at afrinic.net >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com Sun May 11 02:17:19 2014 From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji) Date: Sun, 11 May 2014 03:17:19 +0100 Subject: Election process (was re: [rpd] AFRINIC Board Elections - 2014: Call for Nominations) In-Reply-To: <69F7B5B6-49C6-48B2-AD74-6B0211243770@delong.com> References: <1399716631.3037.72.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> <1399731695.3037.95.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> <69F7B5B6-49C6-48B2-AD74-6B0211243770@delong.com> Message-ID: sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 11 May 2014 00:53, "Owen DeLong" wrote: > > Mark, > > > It?s really pretty close to that simple to implement what I suggested. The only complicated part is that > for AfriNIC, each ?eligible voter? is a voting right, not a person. A person may be several eligible > voters. > I don't see any complication because on my afrinic portal someone accessing multiple accounts (because they represent more then one organisation) will have to use multiple nic handle. That is still technologically one to one if you ask me. Regards > Owen > > On May 10, 2014, at 7:21 AM, Mark Elkins wrote: > > > On Sat, 2014-05-10 at 12:42 +0100, Seun Ojedeji wrote: > >> Hello Mark, > >> > >> > >> First considering that i wrote to chair (you) and nomcom, i assume > >> this response is on behalf of nomcom (do let me know if its otherwise > >> in your individual capacity). Kindly find my comments below: > >> > >> On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Mark Elkins wrote: > >> > >> > >> Firstly, NomCom does not run the elections. The job of NomCom > >> (Nominations Committee) is to provide suitable candidates for > >> various > >> elections or appointments, Board Members, PDP Joint-Chairs, > >> and NRO/ASO > >> representatives. > >>> > >> > >> Although nomcom may seem to mean what you indicated above. However > >> nomcom according to the AFRINIC website means this: > >> The NomCom (Nominations and Elections Committee) [1]Functions of the > >> Nomination Committee: > >> * The Nom Com shall > >> * use its best effort towards ensuring that a > >> satisfactory number of individuals from the African > >> internet community stand as candidate for the election > >> of the directors of AFRINIC. > >> * have general responsibility for, and shall supervise > >> the conduct of the polls by the election Committee on > >> election day. > >> Although the second role seem to imply that there is another team > >> called "election committee" and at this point, i seem to be lost on > >> how that committee come to play. Nevertheless its still clear that > >> your team coordinates the process and your role exceeds what you have > >> stated above. > > > > OK - let me use less of my own words and quote from the Bylaws... > > > > 9 THE NOMINATION COMMITTEE > > There shall be a Nomination Committee (NomCom), which shall consist of a > > chairman and three other members as appointed by the Board and > > composed of qualified and experienced persons. The Board shall make a > > public call for voluntary nomination from the African Internet > > Community. > > > > 10 ELECTION COMMITTEE > > There shall be an election committee comprising of such staff members of > > AFRINIC as may be designated by the Chief Executive Officer. > > > > > >> > >>> Thanks for the opportunity to participate in nomcom. > >> > >> > >> There are some logistics which people may be missing. > >> I see that there is a goal to move to 100% electronic voting, > >> however > >> until then..... > >> > >> > >> Yes thats the final desire,(which will perhaps require the blessings > >> of BoD) but that is not the request for this upcoming election. > >> > >> > >> Practically, the e-vote needs to be terminated some time > >> before people collect their ballot papers. This is so that the > >> ballot papers can be provided only to those entities allowed > >> to vote because they have not > >> yet exercised that right via the e-vote. In order to do this, > >> logically, one needs to see which entities have used the > >> e-vote so their representatives are not also given a ballot > >> paper to vote with. > >> > >> > >> I still find it not convincing that the termination of e-voting is the > >> only way to avoid multiple voting. Especially since it is clear that > >> you go through a process before you can do e-voting, and it is > >> expected that anyone that opt for e-voting obviously doesn't want to > >> paper ballot. So its clear those to give paper ballot can be known > >> easily. > >> > >> What needs to be avoided is having privileged prior knowledge of the > >> e-voting status, your comment above doesn't prevent that. > >> > >> > >> From a convenience point of view, the e-vote cut-off time is > >> the evening before voting day. Names can then be checked. From > >> the morning of voting day, paper ballots are issued to all > >> still legible voters. This takes time. Paper Ballots are > >> carried by their owners until they are "exercised" later on in > >> the afternoon. > >> > >> > >> Please see my comment above about why i think we don't have to count > >> the e-votes just to get the numbers of those who used the e-voting > >> platform. Even if you don't think that option is totally perfect > >> (because some would already gotten their BPKI) then the voting > >> platform should be able clearly separate actual voting result from > >> from users(members) who has actually voted. Considering the level of > >> technicality already exhibited on the e-voting platform, i believe a > >> feature like that is the least challenge of the technical team (if it > >> doesn't already exist). > >> > >> > >> I guess that in the process of checking the names of entities > >> who have e-voted, one may also know how they have voted > >> (though I might be wrong). I personally have no issues with > >> this as long as the e-vote > >> results are kept strictly confidential (as has been done).Once > >> all the paper ballots have been submitted and counted, the > >> results of the two systems can be safely merged into one > >> election result and announced. > >> > >> Kindly refer to my comment above; keeping the e-vote confidential is > >> the main goal. > >> > >> > >> Due to the fact that I represent more than one entity, I have > >> more than one vote to cast. Last year, I cast some by e-vote > >> and some by ballot paper. I was happy to see that the system > >> worked. > >> > >> I did mine via e-voting and i believe no body who has used the > >> e-voting platform would deny that it was quite functional. I was > >> however surprised at the AGM when it was said that the voting system > >> closed and the result counted. The way i know that election is done is > >> that you count votes in the presence of the voters (or at least before > >> the candidates party representatives). On that basis as an individual > >> and member i wouldn't know whether something has happened to my votes > >> (although the platform worked). > >> > >> > >> Before asking for change, please carefully consider how one > >> might do this better whilst we have both e-votes and paper > >> ballot votes. > >> > >> Nobody, and certainly not me is asking us to move to 100% e-votes for > >> now (but we agree its something to consider for future). What we are > >> saying is that you while may stop e-voting at a point (which i find > >> un-necessary though) the opening of the e-voting voting status by the > >> 3-trustees should be done the same time the paper ballot is counted. > > > >> ... and I believe I have the general details and reasoning > >> correct... :-) > > > >> Not quite Mark as i think you perceive we are calling for 100% > >> electronic voting which is not the case. > > > > My own personal thoughts..... (Lots of 'I') > > > > I believe Owen makes a good case for running e-voting to the end of the > > election time. > > > > However, it does appear to me to make things more complicated. > > I can not quantify to myself though how useful it would practically be. > > I have no idea what technical changes would be necessary and if AFRINIC > > is going to change something - I'd rather see it spend the energy going > > to a full e-voting solution. > > > > E-vote starts 10 days before the elections. I see it as a very suitable > > replacement for Proxies or for those that can not attend. > > Extending it to the last second will possibly encourage people to wait > > for the last second. I personally prefer the way it currently is which > > gives a few hours in case of technical difficulties. > > I like the KISS principal. > > > > The AFRINIC website does state that e-votes and the people who have cast > > them are not conjoined. As I don't know how the software actually > > functions, I can not comment further. > > http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/elections/voting/online-voting > > (last line) > > > >> Thanks > >> > >> > >> Kind Regards > > > >> > > > > -- > > Mark J Elkins - AFRINIC 2014 Nominations Committee Chair > > mje at posix.co.za - nomcom2014 (at) afrinic.net > > Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 > > > > _______________________________________________ > > rpd mailing list > > rpd at afrinic.net > > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mje at posix.co.za Sun May 11 09:26:19 2014 From: mje at posix.co.za (Mark Elkins) Date: Sun, 11 May 2014 11:26:19 +0200 Subject: Election process (was re: [rpd] AFRINIC Board Elections - 2014: Call for Nominations) In-Reply-To: <58EA0F3B-5762-4100-8D21-E81942DFA0B1@ghana.com> References: <1399716631.3037.72.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> <1399731695.3037.95.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> <1399733904.3037.108.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> <58EA0F3B-5762-4100-8D21-E81942DFA0B1@ghana.com> Message-ID: <1399800379.3037.152.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> Having had a successful technical experience last year and with respect to the discussions on RPD, the CEO has suggested to me that moving the e-vote count event to the time of the counting of paper ballots is a reasonable refinement. There are otherwise no significant changes in the process. For more info on the e-voting system, please look at: http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/elections/voting/online-voting From the web, the voting system used is Helios. On Sat, 2014-05-10 at 17:14 +0000, Nii Narku Quaynor wrote: > Very good discussion and outcome though I am a little confused about > decision procedure > > > What's the correct governance procedure on such? Is it the chair of > nomcom that decides? Nomcom ? Election committee? or board decision > > > And, it would need to be well described and communicated > > > Best > Nii > > On May 10, 2014, at 16:49, Seun Ojedeji > wrote: > > > > sent from Google nexus 4 > > kindly excuse brevity and typos. > > On 10 May 2014 16:00, "Mark Elkins" wrote: > > > > Will that be possible without any complication? > > > > > > I believe that this is possible. > > > > > > So from this year, the three trustees will "unlock" the e-voting > > results > > > at approximately the same time as the paper ballots are counted. > > > > > Thank you Mr chair! > > > > This is good progress, other recommendations for future elections > > (after this year) may then be put forward during the AGM. > > > > Best regards > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > 1. www.afrinic.net/en/community/elections/afrinic-nomcom > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 3:21 PM, Mark Elkins > > wrote: > > > > On Sat, 2014-05-10 at 12:42 +0100, Seun Ojedeji wrote: > > > > > Hello Mark, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > First considering that i wrote to chair (you) and > > nomcom, i > > > > assume > > > > > this response is on behalf of nomcom (do let me know > > if its > > > > otherwise > > > > > in your individual capacity). Kindly find my comments > > below: > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Mark Elkins > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Firstly, NomCom does not run the elections. > > The job > > > > of NomCom > > > > > (Nominations Committee) is to provide suitable > > > > candidates for > > > > > various > > > > > elections or appointments, Board Members, PDP > > > > Joint-Chairs, > > > > > and NRO/ASO > > > > > representatives. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Although nomcom may seem to mean what you indicated > > above. > > > > However > > > > > nomcom according to the AFRINIC website means this: > > > > > The NomCom (Nominations and Elections Committee) > > > > [1]Functions of the > > > > > Nomination Committee: > > > > > > > > > * The Nom Com shall > > > > > * use its best effort towards ensuring > > that a > > > > > satisfactory number of individuals > > from the > > > > African > > > > > internet community stand as candidate > > for > > > > the election > > > > > of the directors of AFRINIC. > > > > > > > > > * have general responsibility for, and > > shall > > > > supervise > > > > > the conduct of the polls by the > > election > > > > Committee on > > > > > election day. > > > > > Although the second role seem to imply that there is > > another > > > > team > > > > > called "election committee" and at this point, i seem > > to be > > > > lost on > > > > > how that committee come to play. Nevertheless its > > still > > > > clear that > > > > > your team coordinates the process and your role > > exceeds what > > > > you have > > > > > stated above. > > > > > > > > > > > > OK - let me use less of my own words and quote from the > > > > Bylaws... > > > > > > > > 9 THE NOMINATION COMMITTEE > > > > There shall be a Nomination Committee (NomCom), which > > shall > > > > consist of a > > > > chairman and three other members as appointed by the > > Board and > > > > composed of qualified and experienced persons. The Board > > shall > > > > make a > > > > public call for voluntary nomination from the African > > Internet > > > > Community. > > > > > > > > 10 ELECTION COMMITTEE > > > > There shall be an election committee comprising of such > > staff > > > > members of > > > > AFRINIC as may be designated by the Chief Executive > > Officer. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the opportunity to participate in > > > > nomcom. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There are some logistics which people may be > > > > missing. > > > > > I see that there is a goal to move to 100% > > > > electronic voting, > > > > > however > > > > > until then..... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes thats the final desire,(which will perhaps require > > the > > > > blessings > > > > > of BoD) but that is not the request for this upcoming > > > > election. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Practically, the e-vote needs to be terminated > > some > > > > time > > > > > before people collect their ballot papers. > > This is > > > > so that the > > > > > ballot papers can be provided only to those > > entities > > > > allowed > > > > > to vote because they have not > > > > > yet exercised that right via the e-vote. In > > order to > > > > do this, > > > > > logically, one needs to see which entities > > have used > > > > the > > > > > e-vote so their representatives are not also > > given a > > > > ballot > > > > > paper to vote with. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I still find it not convincing that the termination of > > > > e-voting is the > > > > > only way to avoid multiple voting. Especially since it > > is > > > > clear that > > > > > you go through a process before you can do e-voting, > > and it > > > > is > > > > > expected that anyone that opt for e-voting obviously > > doesn't > > > > want to > > > > > paper ballot. So its clear those to give paper ballot > > can be > > > > known > > > > > easily. > > > > > > > > > > What needs to be avoided is having privileged prior > > > > knowledge of the > > > > > e-voting status, your comment above doesn't prevent > > that. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From a convenience point of view, the e-vote > > cut-off > > > > time is > > > > > the evening before voting day. Names can then > > be > > > > checked. From > > > > > the morning of voting day, paper ballots are > > issued > > > > to all > > > > > still legible voters. This takes time. Paper > > Ballots > > > > are > > > > > carried by their owners until they are > > "exercised" > > > > later on in > > > > > the afternoon. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please see my comment above about why i think we don't > > have > > > > to count > > > > > the e-votes just to get the numbers of those who used > > the > > > > e-voting > > > > > platform. Even if you don't think that option is > > totally > > > > perfect > > > > > (because some would already gotten their BPKI) then > > the > > > > voting > > > > > platform should be able clearly separate actual voting > > > > result from > > > > > from users(members) who has actually voted. > > Considering the > > > > level of > > > > > technicality already exhibited on the e-voting > > platform, i > > > > believe a > > > > > feature like that is the least challenge of the > > technical > > > > team (if it > > > > > doesn't already exist). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I guess that in the process of checking the > > names of > > > > entities > > > > > who have e-voted, one may also know how they > > have > > > > voted > > > > > (though I might be wrong). I personally have > > no > > > > issues with > > > > > this as long as the e-vote > > > > > results are kept strictly confidential (as has > > been > > > > done).Once > > > > > all the paper ballots have been submitted and > > > > counted, the > > > > > results of the two systems can be safely > > merged into > > > > one > > > > > election result and announced. > > > > > > > > > > Kindly refer to my comment above; keeping the e-vote > > > > confidential is > > > > > the main goal. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Due to the fact that I represent more than one > > > > entity, I have > > > > > more than one vote to cast. Last year, I cast > > some > > > > by e-vote > > > > > and some by ballot paper. I was happy to see > > that > > > > the system > > > > > worked. > > > > > > > > > > I did mine via e-voting and i believe no body who has > > used > > > > the > > > > > e-voting platform would deny that it was quite > > functional. I > > > > was > > > > > however surprised at the AGM when it was said that the > > > > voting system > > > > > closed and the result counted. The way i know that > > election > > > > is done is > > > > > that you count votes in the presence of the voters (or > > at > > > > least before > > > > > the candidates party representatives). On that basis > > as an > > > > individual > > > > > and member i wouldn't know whether something has > > happened to > > > > my votes > > > > > (although the platform worked). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Before asking for change, please carefully > > consider > > > > how one > > > > > might do this better whilst we have both > > e-votes and > > > > paper > > > > > ballot votes. > > > > > > > > > > Nobody, and certainly not me is asking us to move to > > 100% > > > > e-votes for > > > > > now (but we agree its something to consider for > > future). > > > > What we are > > > > > saying is that you while may stop e-voting at a point > > (which > > > > i find > > > > > un-necessary though) the opening of the e-voting > > voting > > > > status by the > > > > > 3-trustees should be done the same time the paper > > ballot is > > > > counted. > > > > > > > > > ... and I believe I have the general details > > and > > > > reasoning > > > > > correct... :-) > > > > > > > > > Not quite Mark as i think you perceive we are calling > > for > > > > 100% > > > > > electronic voting which is not the case. > > > > > > > > > > > > My own personal thoughts..... (Lots of 'I') > > > > > > > > I believe Owen makes a good case for running e-voting to > > the > > > > end of the > > > > election time. > > > > > > > > However, it does appear to me to make things more > > complicated. > > > > I can not quantify to myself though how useful it would > > > > practically be. > > > > I have no idea what technical changes would be necessary > > and > > > > if AFRINIC > > > > is going to change something - I'd rather see it spend > > the > > > > energy going > > > > to a full e-voting solution. > > > > > > > > E-vote starts 10 days before the elections. I see it as > > a very > > > > suitable > > > > replacement for Proxies or for those that can not > > attend. > > > > Extending it to the last second will possibly encourage > > people > > > > to wait > > > > for the last second. I personally prefer the way it > > currently > > > > is which > > > > gives a few hours in case of technical difficulties. > > > > I like the KISS principal. > > > > > > > > The AFRINIC website does state that e-votes and the > > people who > > > > have cast > > > > them are not conjoined. As I don't know how the software > > > > actually > > > > functions, I can not comment further. > > > > > > http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/elections/voting/online-voting > > > > (last line) > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kind Regards > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Mark J Elkins - AFRINIC 2014 Nominations Committee Chair > > > > mje at posix.co.za - nomcom2014 (at) afrinic.net > > > > Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > Seun Ojedeji, > > > > Federal University Oye-Ekiti > > > > web: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng > > > > Mobile: +2348035233535 > > > > alt email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng > > > > > > > > The key to understanding is humility - my view ! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Mark James ELKINS - Posix Systems - (South) Africa > > > mje at posix.co.za Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 > > > For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: > > https://ftth.posix.co.za > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > rpd mailing list > > > rpd at afrinic.net > > > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > rpd mailing list > > rpd at afrinic.net > > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > -- Mark James ELKINS - Posix Systems - (South) Africa mje at posix.co.za Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: https://ftth.posix.co.za -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 5810 bytes Desc: not available URL: From quaynor at ghana.com Sun May 11 10:47:58 2014 From: quaynor at ghana.com (Nii Narku Quaynor) Date: Sun, 11 May 2014 10:47:58 +0000 Subject: Election process (was re: [rpd] AFRINIC Board Elections - 2014: Call for Nominations) In-Reply-To: <1399800379.3037.152.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> References: <1399716631.3037.72.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> <1399731695.3037.95.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> <1399733904.3037.108.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> <58EA0F3B-5762-4100-8D21-E81942DFA0B1@ghana.com> <1399800379.3037.152.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> Message-ID: Mark, Ehh, please, you did not answer my question ;-) I asked about who decides on subject to avoid issues later on I deduce however that, CEO suggests the request from rpd is administrative/operational and he would decide So one would await a statement on this from CEO Regards Nii > On May 11, 2014, at 9:26, Mark Elkins wrote: > > Having had a successful technical experience last year and with respect > to the discussions on RPD, the CEO has suggested to me that moving the > e-vote count event to the time of the counting of paper ballots is a > reasonable refinement. There are otherwise no significant changes in the > process. > > For more info on the e-voting system, please look at: > http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/elections/voting/online-voting > > From the web, the voting system used is Helios. > >> On Sat, 2014-05-10 at 17:14 +0000, Nii Narku Quaynor wrote: >> Very good discussion and outcome though I am a little confused about >> decision procedure >> >> >> What's the correct governance procedure on such? Is it the chair of >> nomcom that decides? Nomcom ? Election committee? or board decision >> >> >> And, it would need to be well described and communicated >> >> >> Best >> Nii >> >> On May 10, 2014, at 16:49, Seun Ojedeji >> wrote: >> >> >>> sent from Google nexus 4 >>> kindly excuse brevity and typos. >>> On 10 May 2014 16:00, "Mark Elkins" wrote: >>>>> Will that be possible without any complication? >>>> >>>> I believe that this is possible. >>>> >>>> So from this year, the three trustees will "unlock" the e-voting >>> results >>>> at approximately the same time as the paper ballots are counted. >>> Thank you Mr chair! >>> >>> This is good progress, other recommendations for future elections >>> (after this year) may then be put forward during the AGM. >>> >>> Best regards >>>>> Thanks >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Regards >>>>> 1. www.afrinic.net/en/community/elections/afrinic-nomcom >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 3:21 PM, Mark Elkins >>> wrote: >>>>> On Sat, 2014-05-10 at 12:42 +0100, Seun Ojedeji wrote: >>>>>> Hello Mark, >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> First considering that i wrote to chair (you) and >>> nomcom, i >>>>> assume >>>>>> this response is on behalf of nomcom (do let me know >>> if its >>>>> otherwise >>>>>> in your individual capacity). Kindly find my comments >>> below: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Mark Elkins >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Firstly, NomCom does not run the elections. >>> The job >>>>> of NomCom >>>>>> (Nominations Committee) is to provide suitable >>>>> candidates for >>>>>> various >>>>>> elections or appointments, Board Members, PDP >>>>> Joint-Chairs, >>>>>> and NRO/ASO >>>>>> representatives. >>>>>> >>>>>> Although nomcom may seem to mean what you indicated >>> above. >>>>> However >>>>>> nomcom according to the AFRINIC website means this: >>>>>> The NomCom (Nominations and Elections Committee) >>>>> [1]Functions of the >>>>>> Nomination Committee: >>>>> >>>>>> * The Nom Com shall >>>>>> * use its best effort towards ensuring >>> that a >>>>>> satisfactory number of individuals >>> from the >>>>> African >>>>>> internet community stand as candidate >>> for >>>>> the election >>>>>> of the directors of AFRINIC. >>>>> >>>>>> * have general responsibility for, and >>> shall >>>>> supervise >>>>>> the conduct of the polls by the >>> election >>>>> Committee on >>>>>> election day. >>>>>> Although the second role seem to imply that there is >>> another >>>>> team >>>>>> called "election committee" and at this point, i seem >>> to be >>>>> lost on >>>>>> how that committee come to play. Nevertheless its >>> still >>>>> clear that >>>>>> your team coordinates the process and your role >>> exceeds what >>>>> you have >>>>>> stated above. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> OK - let me use less of my own words and quote from the >>>>> Bylaws... >>>>> >>>>> 9 THE NOMINATION COMMITTEE >>>>> There shall be a Nomination Committee (NomCom), which >>> shall >>>>> consist of a >>>>> chairman and three other members as appointed by the >>> Board and >>>>> composed of qualified and experienced persons. The Board >>> shall >>>>> make a >>>>> public call for voluntary nomination from the African >>> Internet >>>>> Community. >>>>> >>>>> 10 ELECTION COMMITTEE >>>>> There shall be an election committee comprising of such >>> staff >>>>> members of >>>>> AFRINIC as may be designated by the Chief Executive >>> Officer. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks for the opportunity to participate in >>>>> nomcom. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> There are some logistics which people may be >>>>> missing. >>>>>> I see that there is a goal to move to 100% >>>>> electronic voting, >>>>>> however >>>>>> until then..... >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes thats the final desire,(which will perhaps require >>> the >>>>> blessings >>>>>> of BoD) but that is not the request for this upcoming >>>>> election. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Practically, the e-vote needs to be terminated >>> some >>>>> time >>>>>> before people collect their ballot papers. >>> This is >>>>> so that the >>>>>> ballot papers can be provided only to those >>> entities >>>>> allowed >>>>>> to vote because they have not >>>>>> yet exercised that right via the e-vote. In >>> order to >>>>> do this, >>>>>> logically, one needs to see which entities >>> have used >>>>> the >>>>>> e-vote so their representatives are not also >>> given a >>>>> ballot >>>>>> paper to vote with. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I still find it not convincing that the termination of >>>>> e-voting is the >>>>>> only way to avoid multiple voting. Especially since it >>> is >>>>> clear that >>>>>> you go through a process before you can do e-voting, >>> and it >>>>> is >>>>>> expected that anyone that opt for e-voting obviously >>> doesn't >>>>> want to >>>>>> paper ballot. So its clear those to give paper ballot >>> can be >>>>> known >>>>>> easily. >>>>>> >>>>>> What needs to be avoided is having privileged prior >>>>> knowledge of the >>>>>> e-voting status, your comment above doesn't prevent >>> that. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> From a convenience point of view, the e-vote >>> cut-off >>>>> time is >>>>>> the evening before voting day. Names can then >>> be >>>>> checked. From >>>>>> the morning of voting day, paper ballots are >>> issued >>>>> to all >>>>>> still legible voters. This takes time. Paper >>> Ballots >>>>> are >>>>>> carried by their owners until they are >>> "exercised" >>>>> later on in >>>>>> the afternoon. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Please see my comment above about why i think we don't >>> have >>>>> to count >>>>>> the e-votes just to get the numbers of those who used >>> the >>>>> e-voting >>>>>> platform. Even if you don't think that option is >>> totally >>>>> perfect >>>>>> (because some would already gotten their BPKI) then >>> the >>>>> voting >>>>>> platform should be able clearly separate actual voting >>>>> result from >>>>>> from users(members) who has actually voted. >>> Considering the >>>>> level of >>>>>> technicality already exhibited on the e-voting >>> platform, i >>>>> believe a >>>>>> feature like that is the least challenge of the >>> technical >>>>> team (if it >>>>>> doesn't already exist). >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I guess that in the process of checking the >>> names of >>>>> entities >>>>>> who have e-voted, one may also know how they >>> have >>>>> voted >>>>>> (though I might be wrong). I personally have >>> no >>>>> issues with >>>>>> this as long as the e-vote >>>>>> results are kept strictly confidential (as has >>> been >>>>> done).Once >>>>>> all the paper ballots have been submitted and >>>>> counted, the >>>>>> results of the two systems can be safely >>> merged into >>>>> one >>>>>> election result and announced. >>>>>> >>>>>> Kindly refer to my comment above; keeping the e-vote >>>>> confidential is >>>>>> the main goal. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Due to the fact that I represent more than one >>>>> entity, I have >>>>>> more than one vote to cast. Last year, I cast >>> some >>>>> by e-vote >>>>>> and some by ballot paper. I was happy to see >>> that >>>>> the system >>>>>> worked. >>>>>> >>>>>> I did mine via e-voting and i believe no body who has >>> used >>>>> the >>>>>> e-voting platform would deny that it was quite >>> functional. I >>>>> was >>>>>> however surprised at the AGM when it was said that the >>>>> voting system >>>>>> closed and the result counted. The way i know that >>> election >>>>> is done is >>>>>> that you count votes in the presence of the voters (or >>> at >>>>> least before >>>>>> the candidates party representatives). On that basis >>> as an >>>>> individual >>>>>> and member i wouldn't know whether something has >>> happened to >>>>> my votes >>>>>> (although the platform worked). >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Before asking for change, please carefully >>> consider >>>>> how one >>>>>> might do this better whilst we have both >>> e-votes and >>>>> paper >>>>>> ballot votes. >>>>>> >>>>>> Nobody, and certainly not me is asking us to move to >>> 100% >>>>> e-votes for >>>>>> now (but we agree its something to consider for >>> future). >>>>> What we are >>>>>> saying is that you while may stop e-voting at a point >>> (which >>>>> i find >>>>>> un-necessary though) the opening of the e-voting >>> voting >>>>> status by the >>>>>> 3-trustees should be done the same time the paper >>> ballot is >>>>> counted. >>>>> >>>>>> ... and I believe I have the general details >>> and >>>>> reasoning >>>>>> correct... :-) >>>>> >>>>>> Not quite Mark as i think you perceive we are calling >>> for >>>>> 100% >>>>>> electronic voting which is not the case. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> My own personal thoughts..... (Lots of 'I') >>>>> >>>>> I believe Owen makes a good case for running e-voting to >>> the >>>>> end of the >>>>> election time. >>>>> >>>>> However, it does appear to me to make things more >>> complicated. >>>>> I can not quantify to myself though how useful it would >>>>> practically be. >>>>> I have no idea what technical changes would be necessary >>> and >>>>> if AFRINIC >>>>> is going to change something - I'd rather see it spend >>> the >>>>> energy going >>>>> to a full e-voting solution. >>>>> >>>>> E-vote starts 10 days before the elections. I see it as >>> a very >>>>> suitable >>>>> replacement for Proxies or for those that can not >>> attend. >>>>> Extending it to the last second will possibly encourage >>> people >>>>> to wait >>>>> for the last second. I personally prefer the way it >>> currently >>>>> is which >>>>> gives a few hours in case of technical difficulties. >>>>> I like the KISS principal. >>>>> >>>>> The AFRINIC website does state that e-votes and the >>> people who >>>>> have cast >>>>> them are not conjoined. As I don't know how the software >>>>> actually >>>>> functions, I can not comment further. >>> http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/elections/voting/online-voting >>>>> (last line) >>>>> >>>>>> Thanks >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Kind Regards >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Mark J Elkins - AFRINIC 2014 Nominations Committee Chair >>>>> mje at posix.co.za - nomcom2014 (at) afrinic.net >>>>> Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>> Seun Ojedeji, >>>>> Federal University Oye-Ekiti >>>>> web: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng >>>>> Mobile: +2348035233535 >>>>> alt email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng >>>>> >>>>> The key to understanding is humility - my view ! >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Mark James ELKINS - Posix Systems - (South) Africa >>>> mje at posix.co.za Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 >>>> For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: >>> https://ftth.posix.co.za >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> rpd mailing list >>>> rpd at afrinic.net >>>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> rpd mailing list >>> rpd at afrinic.net >>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > -- > Mark James ELKINS - Posix Systems - (South) Africa > mje at posix.co.za Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 > For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: https://ftth.posix.co.za > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd From owen at delong.com Sun May 11 17:18:48 2014 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Sun, 11 May 2014 10:18:48 -0700 Subject: Election process (was re: [rpd] AFRINIC Board Elections - 2014: Call for Nominations) In-Reply-To: References: <1399716631.3037.72.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> <1399731695.3037.95.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> <1399733904.3037.108.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> <58EA0F3B-5762-4100-8D21-E81942DFA0B1@ghana.com> Message-ID: On May 10, 2014, at 6:26 PM, Douglas Onyango wrote: > Hi Ni, et al > On 10 May 2014 18:14, Nii Narku Quaynor wrote: >> Very good discussion and outcome though I am a little confused about >> decision procedure > > +1 on this one. AFAIK, Nomcom's mandate comes from the BoD and along > with it: the guidelines. I am concerned that right now the decision > to shift the vote tallying and results to election day is in > contravention of the guidelines and I don't know if the board has > sanctioned this or if a unilateral decision has been made by Nomcom. > > Additionally I don't see the rush to get this done in Djibouti. I > think this change requires technological and logistical adjustments > that I am just not sure AFRINIC as assessed properly. There are no technological adjustments required to delay the publication of part of the election results until the full election result is available. There are only minor logistical adjustments required. While I agree that changing the election procedure on the fly is generally not a good thing, this is a case where there is clear benefit to correcting a previous oversight. Ideally, the BoD should confirm that they agree this is the right thing to do and implement it for the elections coming up in (and leading up to) Djibouti. I agree that nom-comm likely isn?t (and shouldn?t be) empowered to act unilaterally in this case, but I cannot imagine how the change in question would be controversial. Announcing a partial result while voting is still in progress can only serve to bias the election. It is utterly antithetical to a fair and impartial election. > On this basis, I would suggest we start preparations to implement the > new system immediately and possibly present the assessment Djibouti, > but actually implement it in 2015 after we have a better understanding > of the implications. What?s being talked about implementation for Djibouti is merely the change to not announce the e-vote results prior to paper voting. Any more significant modifications were never intended for implementation this year to the best of my knowledge. Owen From owen at delong.com Sun May 11 17:24:47 2014 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Sun, 11 May 2014 10:24:47 -0700 Subject: Election process (was re: [rpd] AFRINIC Board Elections - 2014: Call for Nominations) In-Reply-To: References: <1399716631.3037.72.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> <1399731695.3037.95.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> <69F7B5B6-49C6-48B2-AD74-6B0211243770@delong.com> Message-ID: <68F2AE19-7342-49F1-8682-814F6063EF49@delong.com> On May 10, 2014, at 7:17 PM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: > sent from Google nexus 4 > kindly excuse brevity and typos. > On 11 May 2014 00:53, "Owen DeLong" wrote: > > > > Mark, > > > > > > It?s really pretty close to that simple to implement what I suggested. The only complicated part is that > > for AfriNIC, each ?eligible voter? is a voting right, not a person. A person may be several eligible > > voters. > > > I don't see any complication because on my afrinic portal someone accessing multiple accounts (because they represent more then one organisation) will have to use multiple nic handle. That is still technologically one to one if you ask me. > I confess ignorance to AfriNIC specifics here. Where I am more familiar with the process, I am able to use a single NIC handle (OD19-ARIN) and a single arin-online login in order to cast votes for multiple organizations where I am the DMR. There are provisions in their e-vote system for me to vote some or all of the organizations at the same time as well as to vote each organization individually. If AfriNIC requires a person to have a separate NIC handle for each ORG affiliation, then I guess that?s 1:1, but it seems like it would be a huge pain for people who work with multiple organizations. Owen -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mje at posix.co.za Sun May 11 19:34:05 2014 From: mje at posix.co.za (Mark Elkins) Date: Sun, 11 May 2014 21:34:05 +0200 Subject: Election process (was re: [rpd] AFRINIC Board Elections - 2014: Call for Nominations) In-Reply-To: <68F2AE19-7342-49F1-8682-814F6063EF49@delong.com> References: <1399716631.3037.72.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> <1399731695.3037.95.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> <69F7B5B6-49C6-48B2-AD74-6B0211243770@delong.com> <68F2AE19-7342-49F1-8682-814F6063EF49@delong.com> Message-ID: <1399836845.3037.157.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> I represent different AFRINIC members. One NIC/Username and password combination gets me access to my.afrinic.net. Once in - I select which member I'm working on along with the associated vote. On Sun, 2014-05-11 at 10:24 -0700, Owen DeLong wrote: > > On May 10, 2014, at 7:17 PM, Seun Ojedeji > wrote: > > > sent from Google nexus 4 > > kindly excuse brevity and typos. > > On 11 May 2014 00:53, "Owen DeLong" wrote: > > > > > > Mark, > > > > > > > > > It?s really pretty close to that simple to implement what I > > suggested. The only complicated part is that > > > for AfriNIC, each ?eligible voter? is a voting right, not a > > person. A person may be several eligible > > > voters. > > > > > I don't see any complication because on my afrinic portal someone > > accessing multiple accounts (because they represent more then one > > organisation) will have to use multiple nic handle. That is still > > technologically one to one if you ask me. > > > I confess ignorance to AfriNIC specifics here. Where I am more > familiar with the process, I am able to use a single NIC handle > (OD19-ARIN) and a single arin-online login in order to cast votes for > multiple organizations where I am the DMR. There are provisions in > their e-vote system for me to vote some or all of the organizations at > the same time as well as to vote each organization individually. > > > If AfriNIC requires a person to have a separate NIC handle for each > ORG affiliation, then I guess that?s 1:1, but it seems like it would > be a huge pain for people who work with multiple organizations. > > > Owen > > -- Mark James ELKINS - Posix Systems - (South) Africa mje at posix.co.za Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: https://ftth.posix.co.za -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 5810 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mje at posix.co.za Sun May 11 19:36:01 2014 From: mje at posix.co.za (Mark Elkins) Date: Sun, 11 May 2014 21:36:01 +0200 Subject: Election process (was re: [rpd] AFRINIC Board Elections - 2014: Call for Nominations) In-Reply-To: References: <1399716631.3037.72.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> <1399731695.3037.95.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> <1399733904.3037.108.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> <58EA0F3B-5762-4100-8D21-E81942DFA0B1@ghana.com> Message-ID: <1399836961.3037.159.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> On Sun, 2014-05-11 at 10:18 -0700, Owen DeLong wrote: > On May 10, 2014, at 6:26 PM, Douglas Onyango wrote: > > > Hi Ni, et al > > On 10 May 2014 18:14, Nii Narku Quaynor wrote: > >> Very good discussion and outcome though I am a little confused about > >> decision procedure > > > > +1 on this one. AFAIK, Nomcom's mandate comes from the BoD and along > > with it: the guidelines. I am concerned that right now the decision > > to shift the vote tallying and results to election day is in > > contravention of the guidelines and I don't know if the board has > > sanctioned this or if a unilateral decision has been made by Nomcom. > > > > Additionally I don't see the rush to get this done in Djibouti. I > > think this change requires technological and logistical adjustments > > that I am just not sure AFRINIC as assessed properly. > > There are no technological adjustments required to delay the publication of > part of the election results until the full election result is available. There are > only minor logistical adjustments required. Quite correct. No need to over-think this. > While I agree that changing the election procedure on the fly is generally not > a good thing, this is a case where there is clear benefit to correcting a previous > oversight. Ideally, the BoD should confirm that they agree this is the right thing > to do and implement it for the elections coming up in (and leading up to) Djibouti. > I agree that nom-comm likely isn?t (and shouldn?t be) empowered to act unilaterally > in this case, but I cannot imagine how the change in question would be controversial. > > Announcing a partial result while voting is still in progress can only serve to bias > the election. It is utterly antithetical to a fair and impartial election. > > > On this basis, I would suggest we start preparations to implement the > > new system immediately and possibly present the assessment Djibouti, > > but actually implement it in 2015 after we have a better understanding > > of the implications. > > What?s being talked about implementation for Djibouti is merely the change to > not announce the e-vote results prior to paper voting. Any more significant > modifications were never intended for implementation this year to the best > of my knowledge. > > Owen > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd -- Mark J Elkins - AFRINIC 2014 Nominations Committee Chair mje at posix.co.za - nomcom2014 (at) afrinic.net Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 5810 bytes Desc: not available URL: From adiel at afrinic.net Mon May 12 11:50:20 2014 From: adiel at afrinic.net (Adiel Akplogan) Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 15:50:20 +0400 Subject: [rpd] Fwd: Discussion about e-voting References: Message-ID: FYI Begin forwarded message: > From: Adiel Akplogan > Subject: Discussion about e-voting > Date: May 12, 2014 at 15:46:01 PM GMT+4 > To: "members-discuss at afrinic.net List" > > Dear all, > > First of all thank you all for contribution to this discussion. While I have been providing my input to this off list to people involved. Let me clarify few things in this mail: > > 1. The NOmCom does not run the election, but as per Article 10 of our Bylaws it is the "Election Committee" that does: http://www.afrinic.net/en/about-us/bylaws?start=9 > The NomCom however, at the end of their mandate provide the board with a report that contain their observation and recommendations. The board review them and task the Staff to implement them where relevant. > > The election committee work through the mailing list "ecom at afrinic.net" and is composed for 2014 elections of: > > Mark Elkins (Chair, Chair of The NomCom 2014) > Ernest Byaruhanga (Staff, Election coordinator), > Guylaine Mootoo (Secretariat) > Nirmal Manik (Member) > Arthur N?guessan (Member) > > 2. As explained before, the way the system is currently designed we need to close online voting some time before the start of the start of paper vote to ascertain that only people who have not voted only get paper ballot. Bearing in Mind that closure of the online vote and tallying it is two different things and are not interdependent, last year when we ran e-voting for the first time we give ourself some margin by tallying the online vote few hours (12h) before the paper vote starts (the whole ceremony was recorded and available for consultation by any one who wanted it and That was announced during the AGMM). One of the reasons we did that was to avoid any surprise (in term of logistic) the day of paper election - Internet connection down, absence of trustee, etc (probably a bit anxiety for doing it for the first time)? The result known only by the trustees was then printed and sealed in an envelop signed by all the three trustees (Legal Counsel, Chair of NOmCom and CEO). The envelop was kept by the legal counsel and was only open at the end of the paper vote and added to the paper vote count. I understand that that is what is being requested: to revisit the process so that the tally happen at the same time as paper votes are being counted. This is possible and will done in Djibouti. It is just a matter of pure logistic that we will handle. > > 3. There was a suggestion to improvement MyAFRINIC to have a dynamic validation of voting method. This will be assess, and a report will be presented to the community in Djibouti. Unfortunately it can not be developed and implement for this upcoming election. It is important to also understand that our voting system is not standalone one but is linked to our member portal (MyAFRINIC) and involves few other checks on member status, management of Proxy etc ? which imply careful attention to any changes. > > 4. A lot of comments have also suggested moving to 100% e-voting. That will be the ideal approach indeed, but my experience of our region suggest me to request for a bit of caution here. This has been debated lengthly within the board during the revision of the current bylaws. It appear that our objective should be to give as much chance as possible to members to express their votes. It is not inimaginable in our region to have someone unable to vote online (for many reasons I will not try to list here), if that ever happen, they must have the ability to roll back to other means of vote. What come up as evidence however is that we should gradually evolve toward getting ride of vote by proxy. > > 5. We have tried to implement as much feedback collected from the last year AGMMM in this year guideline (which was published for comment) and we are continuously open to constructive feedbacks and input to our processes so to improve them. We also have to keep in mind that AFRINIC operate with very limited resources and more we ask more we will have to mobilise resources for their proper implementation (everything has a cost). > > In conclusion, for 2014 Board election, e-voting will stop few hours before Paper ballot starts, but the tally will take place at the same time paper votes count will take place. > > I hope this will help the discussion and reinsure people who have expressed some worries. > > Thanks. > > - a. > > > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 313 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From kofi.ansa at gmail.com Mon May 12 14:42:42 2014 From: kofi.ansa at gmail.com (Kofi ansa akufo) Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 18:42:42 +0400 Subject: [rpd] Fwd: Discussion about e-voting In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear All 1. I am currently curious how individuals representing more than one registered and / or resource member currently proceeds to casting votes online. Does the person login with the same nic-handle or different nic-handles to cast multiple votes respectively? If by nic-handle wouldn't it be easy for voters to be identified by the entities the represent (e.g. organisation ids) at least as a secondary check prior to login to vote. I ask this because this will facilitate implementation of dispensing machine for paper ballot sheets for those not able to exercise e-voting based on logic and eliminate ending one voting option before the other as well as human errors. Obviously NOT in the coming 2014 elections but later. 2. Going forward IMHO I think we should discouraged multiple voting by an individual for different members since the probability of voting differently is low and this only goes to increase votes across one side only. A "polished form" of election rigging. I know some will argue one can still like gin with different credentials and vote one sided but then :) Could someone from the community enlighten me on this please. Kofi On May 12, 2014 4:03 PM, "Adiel Akplogan" wrote: > FYI > > Begin forwarded message: > > > From: Adiel Akplogan > > Subject: Discussion about e-voting > > Date: May 12, 2014 at 15:46:01 PM GMT+4 > > To: "members-discuss at afrinic.net List" > > > > Dear all, > > > > First of all thank you all for contribution to this discussion. While I > have been providing my input to this off list to people involved. Let me > clarify few things in this mail: > > > > 1. The NOmCom does not run the election, but as per Article 10 of our > Bylaws it is the "Election Committee" that does: > http://www.afrinic.net/en/about-us/bylaws?start=9 > > The NomCom however, at the end of their mandate provide the board with a > report that contain their observation and recommendations. The board review > them and task the Staff to implement them where relevant. > > > > The election committee work through the mailing list "ecom at afrinic.net" > and is composed for 2014 elections of: > > > > Mark Elkins (Chair, Chair of The NomCom 2014) > > Ernest Byaruhanga (Staff, Election coordinator), > > Guylaine Mootoo (Secretariat) > > Nirmal Manik (Member) > > Arthur N?guessan (Member) > > > > 2. As explained before, the way the system is currently designed we need > to close online voting some time before the start of the start of paper > vote to ascertain that only people who have not voted only get paper > ballot. Bearing in Mind that closure of the online vote and tallying it is > two different things and are not interdependent, last year when we ran > e-voting for the first time we give ourself some margin by tallying the > online vote few hours (12h) before the paper vote starts (the whole > ceremony was recorded and available for consultation by any one who wanted > it and That was announced during the AGMM). One of the reasons we did that > was to avoid any surprise (in term of logistic) the day of paper election - > Internet connection down, absence of trustee, etc (probably a bit anxiety > for doing it for the first time)? The result known only by the trustees was > then printed and sealed in an envelop signed by all the three trustees > (Legal Counsel, Chair of NOmCom and CEO). The envelop was kept by the legal > counsel and was only open at the end of the paper vote and added to the > paper vote count. I understand that that is what is being requested: to > revisit the process so that the tally happen at the same time as paper > votes are being counted. This is possible and will done in Djibouti. It is > just a matter of pure logistic that we will handle. > > > > 3. There was a suggestion to improvement MyAFRINIC to have a dynamic > validation of voting method. This will be assess, and a report will be > presented to the community in Djibouti. Unfortunately it can not be > developed and implement for this upcoming election. It is important to also > understand that our voting system is not standalone one but is linked to > our member portal (MyAFRINIC) and involves few other checks on member > status, management of Proxy etc ? which imply careful attention to any > changes. > > > > 4. A lot of comments have also suggested moving to 100% e-voting. That > will be the ideal approach indeed, but my experience of our region suggest > me to request for a bit of caution here. This has been debated lengthly > within the board during the revision of the current bylaws. It appear that > our objective should be to give as much chance as possible to members to > express their votes. It is not inimaginable in our region to have someone > unable to vote online (for many reasons I will not try to list here), if > that ever happen, they must have the ability to roll back to other means of > vote. What come up as evidence however is that we should gradually evolve > toward getting ride of vote by proxy. > > > > 5. We have tried to implement as much feedback collected from the last > year AGMMM in this year guideline (which was published for comment) and we > are continuously open to constructive feedbacks and input to our processes > so to improve them. We also have to keep in mind that AFRINIC operate with > very limited resources and more we ask more we will have to mobilise > resources for their proper implementation (everything has a cost). > > > > In conclusion, for 2014 Board election, e-voting will stop few hours > before Paper ballot starts, but the tally will take place at the same time > paper votes count will take place. > > > > I hope this will help the discussion and reinsure people who have > expressed some worries. > > > > Thanks. > > > > - a. > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mje at posix.co.za Mon May 12 15:53:29 2014 From: mje at posix.co.za (Mark Elkins) Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 17:53:29 +0200 Subject: [rpd] Fwd: Discussion about e-voting In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1399910009.13446.145.camel@mje.posix.co.za> On Mon, 2014-05-12 at 18:42 +0400, Kofi ansa akufo wrote: > Dear All > > 1. I am currently curious how individuals representing more than one > registered and / or resource member currently proceeds to casting > votes online. I have posted on this subject a few postings ago.... I am perhaps a perfect example of this scenario. > Does the person login with the same nic-handle or different > nic-handles to cast multiple votes respectively? The same NIC handle and Password to the same account. Once in, there is a drop-down box to allow the representative (me, in this case) to 'switch' to which ever entity I need to represent or manage. This is a very convenient way of managing different entities. > If by nic-handle wouldn't it be easy for voters to be identified by > the entities the represent (e.g. organisation ids) at least as a > secondary check prior to login to vote. Generally, it is the entity that is the Member, not the person with the NIC-Handle.. more correctly, it is the entity's voting representative who can vote. There may be more than one person per entity who is enabled to use that privilege, but there is only one vote per entity, for example "Resource Member". > I ask this because this will facilitate implementation of dispensing > machine for paper ballot sheets for those not able to exercise > e-voting based on logic and eliminate ending one voting option before > the other as well as human errors. Obviously NOT in the coming 2014 > elections but later. > 2. Going forward IMHO I think we should discouraged multiple voting by > an individual for different members since the probability of voting > differently is low and this only goes to increase votes across one > side only. A "polished form" of election rigging. I know some will > argue one can still like gin with different credentials and vote one > sided but then :) > > Could someone from the community enlighten me on this please. I'm a Director of multiple, independent companies each with their own resources and each members of AFRINIC in their own right. My fellow Directors may prefer me to do all the voting because I understand a fair amount of the 'Politics' of AFRINIC. Are you suggesting I should not be allowed? That will not make them happy. Board Members have a Vote. If they also represent a resource Member, are you going to disenfranchise them that direct resource vote??? As you almost suggested, all I need to do then is sit down with various collogues and have them login to my-afrinic and cast their vote according to my suggestions. Your suggestion will achieve inconvenience. Simply creating extra NIC-Handles should not work as AFRINIC requires the official Identity of everyone who wishes to use the e-voting system. Posted on my own behalf - representing multiple AFRINIC resource members. > Kofi -- Mark James ELKINS - Posix Systems - (South) Africa mje at posix.co.za Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: https://ftth.posix.co.za -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 3832 bytes Desc: not available URL: From kofi.ansa at gmail.com Mon May 12 16:54:38 2014 From: kofi.ansa at gmail.com (Kofi ansa akufo) Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 20:54:38 +0400 Subject: [rpd] Fwd: Discussion about e-voting In-Reply-To: <1399910009.13446.145.camel@mje.posix.co.za> References: <1399910009.13446.145.camel@mje.posix.co.za> Message-ID: Mark Thanks for pointing out the voting procedure for individuals with multiple votes. What I am driving at is the integrity of the votes cast and how it fairly represents the diverse community. Member entities should be encouraged as much as possible to participate in the election process as well as being ptesent in meetings instead of encouraging proxies be it they understand "AFRINIC politics" or NOT to vote for multiple representatives. I believe the community can do better by exploring how to map entities eligible to vote to the electoral system to involve the diverse community. cheers Kofi. On May 12, 2014 7:55 PM, "Mark Elkins" wrote: > On Mon, 2014-05-12 at 18:42 +0400, Kofi ansa akufo wrote: > > Dear All > > > > 1. I am currently curious how individuals representing more than one > > registered and / or resource member currently proceeds to casting > > votes online. > > I have posted on this subject a few postings ago.... > I am perhaps a perfect example of this scenario. > > > Does the person login with the same nic-handle or different > > nic-handles to cast multiple votes respectively? > > The same NIC handle and Password to the same account. > > Once in, there is a drop-down box to allow the representative (me, in > this case) to 'switch' to which ever entity I need to represent or > manage. > This is a very convenient way of managing different entities. > > > If by nic-handle wouldn't it be easy for voters to be identified by > > the entities the represent (e.g. organisation ids) at least as a > > secondary check prior to login to vote. > > Generally, it is the entity that is the Member, not the person with the > NIC-Handle.. more correctly, it is the entity's voting representative > who can vote. There may be more than one person per entity who is > enabled to use that privilege, but there is only one vote per entity, > for example "Resource Member". > > > > I ask this because this will facilitate implementation of dispensing > > machine for paper ballot sheets for those not able to exercise > > e-voting based on logic and eliminate ending one voting option before > > the other as well as human errors. Obviously NOT in the coming 2014 > > elections but later. > > > > 2. Going forward IMHO I think we should discouraged multiple voting by > > an individual for different members since the probability of voting > > differently is low and this only goes to increase votes across one > > side only. A "polished form" of election rigging. I know some will > > argue one can still like gin with different credentials and vote one > > sided but then :) > > > > Could someone from the community enlighten me on this please. > > I'm a Director of multiple, independent companies each with their own > resources and each members of AFRINIC in their own right. My fellow > Directors may prefer me to do all the voting because I understand a fair > amount of the 'Politics' of AFRINIC. Are you suggesting I should not be > allowed? That will not make them happy. > > Board Members have a Vote. If they also represent a resource Member, are > you going to disenfranchise them that direct resource vote??? > > As you almost suggested, all I need to do then is sit down with various > collogues and have them login to my-afrinic and cast their vote > according to my suggestions. > > Your suggestion will achieve inconvenience. > > Simply creating extra NIC-Handles should not work as AFRINIC requires > the official Identity of everyone who wishes to use the e-voting > system. > > > Posted on my own behalf - representing multiple AFRINIC resource > members. > > > Kofi > > -- > Mark James ELKINS - Posix Systems - (South) Africa > mje at posix.co.za Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 > For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: https://ftth.posix.co.za > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From christianbope at gmail.com Mon May 12 17:18:36 2014 From: christianbope at gmail.com (Bope Domilongo Christian) Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 01:18:36 +0800 Subject: [rpd] Fwd: Discussion about e-voting In-Reply-To: References: <1399910009.13446.145.camel@mje.posix.co.za> Message-ID: Speaking on my own capacity:) Following the discussion on rdp, I feel there is also a balance issue, whereby the one person wearing three hat (Nomcom chair, chair election committee, Board member) and am a bit confuse. For the sake of check and balance, as in happen in the normal election process, it will normal that the chair of election committee ought to be not a board member just as electoral commissioners are independent of parties. With best regards, christian On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 12:54 AM, Kofi ansa akufo wrote: > Mark > > Thanks for pointing out the voting procedure for individuals with multiple > votes. > > What I am driving at is the integrity of the votes cast and how it fairly > represents the diverse community. > > Member entities should be encouraged as much as possible to participate in > the election process as well as being ptesent in meetings instead of > encouraging proxies be it they understand "AFRINIC politics" or NOT to vote > for multiple representatives. > > I believe the community can do better by exploring how to map entities > eligible to vote to the electoral system to involve the diverse community. > > cheers > > Kofi. > On May 12, 2014 7:55 PM, "Mark Elkins" wrote: > >> On Mon, 2014-05-12 at 18:42 +0400, Kofi ansa akufo wrote: >> > Dear All >> > >> > 1. I am currently curious how individuals representing more than one >> > registered and / or resource member currently proceeds to casting >> > votes online. >> >> I have posted on this subject a few postings ago.... >> I am perhaps a perfect example of this scenario. >> >> > Does the person login with the same nic-handle or different >> > nic-handles to cast multiple votes respectively? >> >> The same NIC handle and Password to the same account. >> >> Once in, there is a drop-down box to allow the representative (me, in >> this case) to 'switch' to which ever entity I need to represent or >> manage. >> This is a very convenient way of managing different entities. >> >> > If by nic-handle wouldn't it be easy for voters to be identified by >> > the entities the represent (e.g. organisation ids) at least as a >> > secondary check prior to login to vote. >> >> Generally, it is the entity that is the Member, not the person with the >> NIC-Handle.. more correctly, it is the entity's voting representative >> who can vote. There may be more than one person per entity who is >> enabled to use that privilege, but there is only one vote per entity, >> for example "Resource Member". >> >> >> > I ask this because this will facilitate implementation of dispensing >> > machine for paper ballot sheets for those not able to exercise >> > e-voting based on logic and eliminate ending one voting option before >> > the other as well as human errors. Obviously NOT in the coming 2014 >> > elections but later. >> >> >> > 2. Going forward IMHO I think we should discouraged multiple voting by >> > an individual for different members since the probability of voting >> > differently is low and this only goes to increase votes across one >> > side only. A "polished form" of election rigging. I know some will >> > argue one can still like gin with different credentials and vote one >> > sided but then :) >> > >> > Could someone from the community enlighten me on this please. >> >> I'm a Director of multiple, independent companies each with their own >> resources and each members of AFRINIC in their own right. My fellow >> Directors may prefer me to do all the voting because I understand a fair >> amount of the 'Politics' of AFRINIC. Are you suggesting I should not be >> allowed? That will not make them happy. >> >> Board Members have a Vote. If they also represent a resource Member, are >> you going to disenfranchise them that direct resource vote??? >> >> As you almost suggested, all I need to do then is sit down with various >> collogues and have them login to my-afrinic and cast their vote >> according to my suggestions. >> >> Your suggestion will achieve inconvenience. >> >> Simply creating extra NIC-Handles should not work as AFRINIC requires >> the official Identity of everyone who wishes to use the e-voting >> system. >> >> >> Posted on my own behalf - representing multiple AFRINIC resource >> members. >> >> > Kofi >> >> -- >> Mark James ELKINS - Posix Systems - (South) Africa >> mje at posix.co.za Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 >> For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: https://ftth.posix.co.za >> >> _______________________________________________ >> rpd mailing list >> rpd at afrinic.net >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >> >> > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mje at posix.co.za Mon May 12 18:36:21 2014 From: mje at posix.co.za (Mark Elkins) Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 20:36:21 +0200 Subject: [rpd] Fwd: Discussion about e-voting In-Reply-To: References: <1399910009.13446.145.camel@mje.posix.co.za> Message-ID: <1399919781.5674.24.camel@dhcp7.posix.co.za> On Mon, 2014-05-12 at 20:54 +0400, Kofi ansa akufo wrote: > Mark > > Thanks for pointing out the voting procedure for individuals with > multiple votes. My pleasure. I hope I do not come over as being too heavy handed. I've been around a while. > > What I am driving at is the integrity of the votes cast and how it > fairly represents the diverse community. I believe that the Elections and build-up processes that AFRINIC has are good. AFRINIC really does a pretty darn good job. I believe that as AFRINIC grows more towards a fully e-vote system, the integrity will improve though I should add I'm not aware of there ever having been a voting irregularity from the aspect of AFRINIC staff or systems. I would though personally miss the Paper Ballots and having the Staff from Visiting RAR's doing the counting... > > Member entities should be encouraged as much as possible to > participate in the election process as well as being ptesent in > meetings instead of encouraging proxies be it they understand "AFRINIC > politics" or NOT to vote for multiple representatives. AFRINIC does stream most of the events - so its possible to be "included" without being physically there. A proxy (or preferably e-vote) is at least a sign of interest. I'd personally love to see all members vote. > I believe the community can do better by exploring how to map entities > eligible to vote to the electoral system to involve the diverse > community. Go look at: http://afrinic.net/en/about-us/our-members At time of writing, we have 738 resource members who can vote (those in Good Standing). This e-mail written from my personal viewpoint. > cheers > > Kofi. > > On May 12, 2014 7:55 PM, "Mark Elkins" wrote: > On Mon, 2014-05-12 at 18:42 +0400, Kofi ansa akufo wrote: > > Dear All > > > > 1. I am currently curious how individuals representing more > than one > > registered and / or resource member currently proceeds to > casting > > votes online. > > I have posted on this subject a few postings ago.... > I am perhaps a perfect example of this scenario. > > > Does the person login with the same nic-handle or different > > nic-handles to cast multiple votes respectively? > > The same NIC handle and Password to the same account. > > Once in, there is a drop-down box to allow the representative > (me, in > this case) to 'switch' to which ever entity I need to > represent or > manage. > This is a very convenient way of managing different entities. > > > If by nic-handle wouldn't it be easy for voters to be > identified by > > the entities the represent (e.g. organisation ids) at least > as a > > secondary check prior to login to vote. > > Generally, it is the entity that is the Member, not the person > with the > NIC-Handle.. more correctly, it is the entity's voting > representative > who can vote. There may be more than one person per entity who > is > enabled to use that privilege, but there is only one vote per > entity, > for example "Resource Member". > > > > I ask this because this will facilitate implementation of > dispensing > > machine for paper ballot sheets for those not able to > exercise > > e-voting based on logic and eliminate ending one voting > option before > > the other as well as human errors. Obviously NOT in the > coming 2014 > > elections but later. > > > > 2. Going forward IMHO I think we should discouraged multiple > voting by > > an individual for different members since the probability of > voting > > differently is low and this only goes to increase votes > across one > > side only. A "polished form" of election rigging. I know > some will > > argue one can still like gin with different credentials and > vote one > > sided but then :) > > > > Could someone from the community enlighten me on this > please. > > I'm a Director of multiple, independent companies each with > their own > resources and each members of AFRINIC in their own right. My > fellow > Directors may prefer me to do all the voting because I > understand a fair > amount of the 'Politics' of AFRINIC. Are you suggesting I > should not be > allowed? That will not make them happy. > > Board Members have a Vote. If they also represent a resource > Member, are > you going to disenfranchise them that direct resource vote??? > > As you almost suggested, all I need to do then is sit down > with various > collogues and have them login to my-afrinic and cast their > vote > according to my suggestions. > > Your suggestion will achieve inconvenience. > > Simply creating extra NIC-Handles should not work as AFRINIC > requires > the official Identity of everyone who wishes to use the > e-voting > system. > > > Posted on my own behalf - representing multiple AFRINIC > resource > members. > > > Kofi -- Mark James ELKINS - Posix Systems - (South) Africa mje at posix.co.za Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: https://ftth.posix.co.za -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 5810 bytes Desc: not available URL: From quaynor at ghana.com Mon May 12 19:28:43 2014 From: quaynor at ghana.com (Nii Narku Quaynor) Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 21:28:43 +0200 Subject: [rpd] Fwd: Discussion about e-voting In-Reply-To: <1399919781.5674.24.camel@dhcp7.posix.co.za> References: <1399910009.13446.145.camel@mje.posix.co.za> <1399919781.5674.24.camel@dhcp7.posix.co.za> Message-ID: I wonder what one would say if one person was voting for all the 738 Afrinic members in good standing ? Perhaps Afrinic needs to think through this some more > On May 12, 2014, at 20:36, Mark Elkins wrote: > >> On Mon, 2014-05-12 at 20:54 +0400, Kofi ansa akufo wrote: >> Mark >> >> Thanks for pointing out the voting procedure for individuals with >> multiple votes. > > My pleasure. I hope I do not come over as being too heavy handed. I've > been around a while. >> >> What I am driving at is the integrity of the votes cast and how it >> fairly represents the diverse community. > > I believe that the Elections and build-up processes that AFRINIC has are > good. AFRINIC really does a pretty darn good job. I believe that as > AFRINIC grows more towards a fully e-vote system, the integrity will > improve though I should add I'm not aware of there ever having been a > voting irregularity from the aspect of AFRINIC staff or systems. I would > though personally miss the Paper Ballots and having the Staff from > Visiting RAR's doing the counting... >> >> Member entities should be encouraged as much as possible to >> participate in the election process as well as being ptesent in >> meetings instead of encouraging proxies be it they understand "AFRINIC >> politics" or NOT to vote for multiple representatives. > > AFRINIC does stream most of the events - so its possible to be > "included" without being physically there. A proxy (or preferably > e-vote) is at least a sign of interest. I'd personally love to see all > members vote. > >> I believe the community can do better by exploring how to map entities >> eligible to vote to the electoral system to involve the diverse >> community. > > Go look at: http://afrinic.net/en/about-us/our-members > At time of writing, we have 738 resource members who can vote (those in > Good Standing). > > This e-mail written from my personal viewpoint. > >> cheers >> >> Kofi. >> >> On May 12, 2014 7:55 PM, "Mark Elkins" wrote: >>> On Mon, 2014-05-12 at 18:42 +0400, Kofi ansa akufo wrote: >>> Dear All >>> >>> 1. I am currently curious how individuals representing more >> than one >>> registered and / or resource member currently proceeds to >> casting >>> votes online. >> >> I have posted on this subject a few postings ago.... >> I am perhaps a perfect example of this scenario. >> >>> Does the person login with the same nic-handle or different >>> nic-handles to cast multiple votes respectively? >> >> The same NIC handle and Password to the same account. >> >> Once in, there is a drop-down box to allow the representative >> (me, in >> this case) to 'switch' to which ever entity I need to >> represent or >> manage. >> This is a very convenient way of managing different entities. >> >>> If by nic-handle wouldn't it be easy for voters to be >> identified by >>> the entities the represent (e.g. organisation ids) at least >> as a >>> secondary check prior to login to vote. >> >> Generally, it is the entity that is the Member, not the person >> with the >> NIC-Handle.. more correctly, it is the entity's voting >> representative >> who can vote. There may be more than one person per entity who >> is >> enabled to use that privilege, but there is only one vote per >> entity, >> for example "Resource Member". >> >> >>> I ask this because this will facilitate implementation of >> dispensing >>> machine for paper ballot sheets for those not able to >> exercise >>> e-voting based on logic and eliminate ending one voting >> option before >>> the other as well as human errors. Obviously NOT in the >> coming 2014 >>> elections but later. >> >> >>> 2. Going forward IMHO I think we should discouraged multiple >> voting by >>> an individual for different members since the probability of >> voting >>> differently is low and this only goes to increase votes >> across one >>> side only. A "polished form" of election rigging. I know >> some will >>> argue one can still like gin with different credentials and >> vote one >>> sided but then :) >>> >>> Could someone from the community enlighten me on this >> please. >> >> I'm a Director of multiple, independent companies each with >> their own >> resources and each members of AFRINIC in their own right. My >> fellow >> Directors may prefer me to do all the voting because I >> understand a fair >> amount of the 'Politics' of AFRINIC. Are you suggesting I >> should not be >> allowed? That will not make them happy. >> >> Board Members have a Vote. If they also represent a resource >> Member, are >> you going to disenfranchise them that direct resource vote??? >> >> As you almost suggested, all I need to do then is sit down >> with various >> collogues and have them login to my-afrinic and cast their >> vote >> according to my suggestions. >> >> Your suggestion will achieve inconvenience. >> >> Simply creating extra NIC-Handles should not work as AFRINIC >> requires >> the official Identity of everyone who wishes to use the >> e-voting >> system. >> >> >> Posted on my own behalf - representing multiple AFRINIC >> resource >> members. >> >>> Kofi > > > -- > Mark James ELKINS - Posix Systems - (South) Africa > mje at posix.co.za Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 > For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: https://ftth.posix.co.za > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd From quaynor at ghana.com Mon May 12 19:34:27 2014 From: quaynor at ghana.com (Nii Narku Quaynor) Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 21:34:27 +0200 Subject: [rpd] Fwd: Discussion about e-voting Message-ID: <2607AFE6-2BCE-47C3-8D94-6B469C7339A9@ghana.com> Gee, I now understand why I never got an answer to a very simple question on who decides.... Sounds like a corporate governance challenge > On May 12, 2014, at 19:18, Bope Domilongo Christian wrote: > > Speaking on my own capacity:) > > Following the discussion on rdp, I feel there is also a balance issue, whereby the one person wearing three hat (Nomcom chair, chair election committee, Board member) and am a bit confuse. For the sake of check and balance, as in happen in the normal election process, it will normal that the chair of election committee ought to be not a board member just as electoral commissioners are independent of parties. > > With best regards, > christian > > > >> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 12:54 AM, Kofi ansa akufo wrote: >> Mark >> >> Thanks for pointing out the voting procedure for individuals with multiple votes. >> >> What I am driving at is the integrity of the votes cast and how it fairly represents the diverse community. >> >> Member entities should be encouraged as much as possible to participate in the election process as well as being ptesent in meetings instead of encouraging proxies be it they understand "AFRINIC politics" or NOT to vote for multiple representatives. >> >> I believe the community can do better by exploring how to map entities eligible to vote to the electoral system to involve the diverse community. >> >> cheers >> >> Kofi. >> >>> On May 12, 2014 7:55 PM, "Mark Elkins" wrote: >>> On Mon, 2014-05-12 at 18:42 +0400, Kofi ansa akufo wrote: >>> > Dear All >>> > >>> > 1. I am currently curious how individuals representing more than one >>> > registered and / or resource member currently proceeds to casting >>> > votes online. >>> >>> I have posted on this subject a few postings ago.... >>> I am perhaps a perfect example of this scenario. >>> >>> > Does the person login with the same nic-handle or different >>> > nic-handles to cast multiple votes respectively? >>> >>> The same NIC handle and Password to the same account. >>> >>> Once in, there is a drop-down box to allow the representative (me, in >>> this case) to 'switch' to which ever entity I need to represent or >>> manage. >>> This is a very convenient way of managing different entities. >>> >>> > If by nic-handle wouldn't it be easy for voters to be identified by >>> > the entities the represent (e.g. organisation ids) at least as a >>> > secondary check prior to login to vote. >>> >>> Generally, it is the entity that is the Member, not the person with the >>> NIC-Handle.. more correctly, it is the entity's voting representative >>> who can vote. There may be more than one person per entity who is >>> enabled to use that privilege, but there is only one vote per entity, >>> for example "Resource Member". >>> >>> >>> > I ask this because this will facilitate implementation of dispensing >>> > machine for paper ballot sheets for those not able to exercise >>> > e-voting based on logic and eliminate ending one voting option before >>> > the other as well as human errors. Obviously NOT in the coming 2014 >>> > elections but later. >>> >>> >>> > 2. Going forward IMHO I think we should discouraged multiple voting by >>> > an individual for different members since the probability of voting >>> > differently is low and this only goes to increase votes across one >>> > side only. A "polished form" of election rigging. I know some will >>> > argue one can still like gin with different credentials and vote one >>> > sided but then :) >>> > >>> > Could someone from the community enlighten me on this please. >>> >>> I'm a Director of multiple, independent companies each with their own >>> resources and each members of AFRINIC in their own right. My fellow >>> Directors may prefer me to do all the voting because I understand a fair >>> amount of the 'Politics' of AFRINIC. Are you suggesting I should not be >>> allowed? That will not make them happy. >>> >>> Board Members have a Vote. If they also represent a resource Member, are >>> you going to disenfranchise them that direct resource vote??? >>> >>> As you almost suggested, all I need to do then is sit down with various >>> collogues and have them login to my-afrinic and cast their vote >>> according to my suggestions. >>> >>> Your suggestion will achieve inconvenience. >>> >>> Simply creating extra NIC-Handles should not work as AFRINIC requires >>> the official Identity of everyone who wishes to use the e-voting >>> system. >>> >>> >>> Posted on my own behalf - representing multiple AFRINIC resource >>> members. >>> >>> > Kofi >>> >>> -- >>> Mark James ELKINS - Posix Systems - (South) Africa >>> mje at posix.co.za Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 >>> For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: https://ftth.posix.co.za >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> rpd mailing list >>> rpd at afrinic.net >>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >> >> _______________________________________________ >> rpd mailing list >> rpd at afrinic.net >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kofi.ansa at gmail.com Mon May 12 20:20:40 2014 From: kofi.ansa at gmail.com (Kofi ansa akufo) Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 00:20:40 +0400 Subject: [rpd] Fwd: Discussion about e-voting In-Reply-To: <1399919781.5674.24.camel@dhcp7.posix.co.za> References: <1399910009.13446.145.camel@mje.posix.co.za> <1399919781.5674.24.camel@dhcp7.posix.co.za> Message-ID: On May 12, 2014 10:38 PM, "Mark Elkins" wrote: > > On Mon, 2014-05-12 at 20:54 +0400, Kofi ansa akufo wrote: > > Mark > > > > Thanks for pointing out the voting procedure for individuals with > > multiple votes. > > My pleasure. I hope I do not come over as being too heavy handed. I've > been around a while. Not at all it is the very essence if discussion list :) > > > > What I am driving at is the integrity of the votes cast and how it > > fairly represents the diverse community. > > I believe that the Elections and build-up processes that AFRINIC has are > good. AFRINIC really does a pretty darn good job. Obviously the RIR is doing a good job by resorting to sensitizing members primarily through mailing list of upcoming elections :) I believe that as > AFRINIC grows more towards a fully e-vote system, the integrity will > improve though I should add I'm not aware of there ever having been a > voting irregularity from the aspect of AFRINIC staff or systems. Voting irregularity does not occur only through manipulating of results. Should I understand that you not hearing of any irregularity mean the system is clean and not necessary to improve it? Could it be you are not paying attention or refusing to hear :) I would > though personally miss the Paper Ballots and having the Staff from > Visiting RAR's doing the counting... > > > > Member entities should be encouraged as much as possible to > > participate in the election process as well as being ptesent in > > meetings instead of encouraging proxies be it they understand "AFRINIC > > politics" or NOT to vote for multiple representatives. > > AFRINIC does stream most of the events - so its possible to be > "included" without being physically there. A proxy (or preferably > e-vote) is at least a sign of interest. I'd personally love to see all > members vote. > > > I believe the community can do better by exploring how to map entities > > eligible to vote to the electoral system to involve the diverse > > community. > > Go look at: http://afrinic.net/en/about-us/our-members > At time of writing, we have 738 resource members who can vote (those in > Good Standing). > > This e-mail written from my personal viewpoint. I am also neither writing on behalf of AFRINIC nor any group but I believe the process should be clean and conducted by people independent and unbiased. The RIR could do better to reach out to sensitize members on nominations other than primarily through mailing list, and again allow enough time for open vetting of candidature as part of the election process. This part of the process is relevant to ensure diverse participation. 738 members is nothing to pose a challenge to elections to resort to multiple votes by a single individual on the pretext of proxy voting. Cheers Kofi > > > cheers > > > > Kofi. > > > > On May 12, 2014 7:55 PM, "Mark Elkins" wrote: > > On Mon, 2014-05-12 at 18:42 +0400, Kofi ansa akufo wrote: > > > Dear All > > > > > > 1. I am currently curious how individuals representing more > > than one > > > registered and / or resource member currently proceeds to > > casting > > > votes online. > > > > I have posted on this subject a few postings ago.... > > I am perhaps a perfect example of this scenario. > > > > > Does the person login with the same nic-handle or different > > > nic-handles to cast multiple votes respectively? > > > > The same NIC handle and Password to the same account. > > > > Once in, there is a drop-down box to allow the representative > > (me, in > > this case) to 'switch' to which ever entity I need to > > represent or > > manage. > > This is a very convenient way of managing different entities. > > > > > If by nic-handle wouldn't it be easy for voters to be > > identified by > > > the entities the represent (e.g. organisation ids) at least > > as a > > > secondary check prior to login to vote. > > > > Generally, it is the entity that is the Member, not the person > > with the > > NIC-Handle.. more correctly, it is the entity's voting > > representative > > who can vote. There may be more than one person per entity who > > is > > enabled to use that privilege, but there is only one vote per > > entity, > > for example "Resource Member". > > > > > > > I ask this because this will facilitate implementation of > > dispensing > > > machine for paper ballot sheets for those not able to > > exercise > > > e-voting based on logic and eliminate ending one voting > > option before > > > the other as well as human errors. Obviously NOT in the > > coming 2014 > > > elections but later. > > > > > > > 2. Going forward IMHO I think we should discouraged multiple > > voting by > > > an individual for different members since the probability of > > voting > > > differently is low and this only goes to increase votes > > across one > > > side only. A "polished form" of election rigging. I know > > some will > > > argue one can still like gin with different credentials and > > vote one > > > sided but then :) > > > > > > Could someone from the community enlighten me on this > > please. > > > > I'm a Director of multiple, independent companies each with > > their own > > resources and each members of AFRINIC in their own right. My > > fellow > > Directors may prefer me to do all the voting because I > > understand a fair > > amount of the 'Politics' of AFRINIC. Are you suggesting I > > should not be > > allowed? That will not make them happy. > > > > Board Members have a Vote. If they also represent a resource > > Member, are > > you going to disenfranchise them that direct resource vote??? > > > > As you almost suggested, all I need to do then is sit down > > with various > > collogues and have them login to my-afrinic and cast their > > vote > > according to my suggestions. > > > > Your suggestion will achieve inconvenience. > > > > Simply creating extra NIC-Handles should not work as AFRINIC > > requires > > the official Identity of everyone who wishes to use the > > e-voting > > system. > > > > > > Posted on my own behalf - representing multiple AFRINIC > > resource > > members. > > > > > Kofi > > > -- > Mark James ELKINS - Posix Systems - (South) Africa > mje at posix.co.za Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 > For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: https://ftth.posix.co.za > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From owen at delong.com Mon May 12 21:48:42 2014 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 14:48:42 -0700 Subject: Fwd: [rpd] Discussion about e-voting In-Reply-To: <1399910009.13446.145.camel@mje.posix.co.za> References: <1399910009.13446.145.camel@mje.posix.co.za> Message-ID: <650DBB00-330D-45D9-9B49-D16F9856E826@delong.com> >> 2. Going forward IMHO I think we should discouraged multiple voting by >> an individual for different members since the probability of voting >> differently is low and this only goes to increase votes across one >> side only. A "polished form" of election rigging. I know some will >> argue one can still like gin with different credentials and vote one >> sided but then :) >> >> Could someone from the community enlighten me on this please. To echo what Mark said in slightly less confrontational language? One member, one vote. Each member should be able to choose who casts the vote on behalf of that member. I see nothing wrong with members who wish to have the same person represent their interests doing so. It is not election rigging if 25 different member organizations all select the same person to cast votes on their behalf. Presumably each member organization is capable of choosing a voting representative who will vote in a manner consistent with their desires and interests. Likely if they were each forced to choose a different person in order to avoid being disenfranchised as you propose, you would simply see a larger group of voters who are potentially less informed and less motivated. I do not think that would be beneficial to AfriNIC, to the community, nor to the members. It seems to me that this is not in any way equivalent to stuffing the ballot box or rigging the election. If those organizations all pick the same person to represent them, either they trust that person to share their ideals/needs/wants or they trust that person to vote as they instruct on their behalf. In either case, that person is legitimately exercising the vote designated by the member organization on behalf of each member organization. Owen From ademola at ng.lopworks.com Mon May 12 22:03:05 2014 From: ademola at ng.lopworks.com (ademola at ng.lopworks.com) Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 23:03:05 +0100 Subject: [rpd] Discussion about e-voting In-Reply-To: <650DBB00-330D-45D9-9B49-D16F9856E826@delong.com> References: <1399910009.13446.145.camel@mje.posix.co.za> <650DBB00-330D-45D9-9B49-D16F9856E826@delong.com> Message-ID: <20140512220305.5308547.91184.12297@ng.lopworks.com> One individual one vote, irrespective of how many member organizations you are affiliated to. Once an individual's identity is associated with a member, then the person will cast vote for only that member and no other member. Regards, Ademola Osindero CEO/Consulting Director, Lopworks Limited www.lopworks.com ? Original Message ? From: Owen DeLong Sent: Monday, May 12, 2014 10:58 PM To: mje at posix.co.za Cc: rpd at afrinic.net Subject: Re: Fwd: [rpd] Discussion about e-voting >> 2. Going forward IMHO I think we should discouraged multiple voting by >> an individual for different members since the probability of voting >> differently is low and this only goes to increase votes across one >> side only. A "polished form" of election rigging. I know some will >> argue one can still like gin with different credentials and vote one >> sided but then :) >> >> Could someone from the community enlighten me on this please. To echo what Mark said in slightly less confrontational language? One member, one vote. Each member should be able to choose who casts the vote on behalf of that member. I see nothing wrong with members who wish to have the same person represent their interests doing so. It is not election rigging if 25 different member organizations all select the same person to cast votes on their behalf. Presumably each member organization is capable of choosing a voting representative who will vote in a manner consistent with their desires and interests. Likely if they were each forced to choose a different person in order to avoid being disenfranchised as you propose, you would simply see a larger group of voters who are potentially less informed and less motivated. I do not think that would be beneficial to AfriNIC, to the community, nor to the members. It seems to me that this is not in any way equivalent to stuffing the ballot box or rigging the election. If those organizations all pick the same person to represent them, either they trust that person to share their ideals/needs/wants or they trust that person to vote as they instruct on their behalf. In either case, that person is legitimately exercising the vote designated by the member organization on behalf of each member organization. Owen _______________________________________________ rpd mailing list rpd at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd From owen at delong.com Mon May 12 22:09:22 2014 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 15:09:22 -0700 Subject: [rpd] Discussion about e-voting In-Reply-To: <20140512220305.5308547.91184.12297@ng.lopworks.com> References: <1399910009.13446.145.camel@mje.posix.co.za> <650DBB00-330D-45D9-9B49-D16F9856E826@delong.com> <20140512220305.5308547.91184.12297@ng.lopworks.com> Message-ID: <152A2B6E-C7B2-4188-9E8C-34458B1DB642@delong.com> I?m sorry, but I think that is absurd. All it accomplishes is to force organizations to scramble trying to find additional individuals to cast their votes. It serves absolutely no useful purpose whatsoever, IMHO. Owen On May 12, 2014, at 3:03 PM, ademola at ng.lopworks.com wrote: > One individual one vote, irrespective of how many member organizations you are affiliated to. Once an individual's identity is associated with a member, then the person will cast vote for only that member and no other member. > > Regards, > Ademola Osindero > CEO/Consulting Director, > Lopworks Limited > > www.lopworks.com > Original Message > From: Owen DeLong > Sent: Monday, May 12, 2014 10:58 PM > To: mje at posix.co.za > Cc: rpd at afrinic.net > Subject: Re: Fwd: [rpd] Discussion about e-voting > >>> 2. Going forward IMHO I think we should discouraged multiple voting by >>> an individual for different members since the probability of voting >>> differently is low and this only goes to increase votes across one >>> side only. A "polished form" of election rigging. I know some will >>> argue one can still like gin with different credentials and vote one >>> sided but then :) >>> >>> Could someone from the community enlighten me on this please. > > To echo what Mark said in slightly less confrontational language? > > One member, one vote. Each member should be able to choose who casts the vote on behalf of that member. I see nothing wrong with members who wish to have the same person represent their interests doing so. It is not election rigging if 25 different member organizations all select the same person to cast votes on their behalf. Presumably each member organization is capable of choosing a voting representative who will vote in a manner consistent with their desires and interests. Likely if they were each forced to choose a different person in order to avoid being disenfranchised as you propose, you would simply see a larger group of voters who are potentially less informed and less motivated. I do not think that would be beneficial to AfriNIC, to the community, nor to the members. > > It seems to me that this is not in any way equivalent to stuffing the ballot box or rigging the election. If those organizations all pick the same person to represent them, either they trust that person to share their ideals/needs/wants or they trust that person to vote as they instruct on their behalf. In either case, that person is legitimately exercising the vote designated by the member organization on behalf of each member organization. > > Owen > > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd From ademola at ng.lopworks.com Mon May 12 22:20:44 2014 From: ademola at ng.lopworks.com (ademola at ng.lopworks.com) Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 23:20:44 +0100 Subject: [rpd] Discussion about e-voting In-Reply-To: <152A2B6E-C7B2-4188-9E8C-34458B1DB642@delong.com> References: <1399910009.13446.145.camel@mje.posix.co.za> <650DBB00-330D-45D9-9B49-D16F9856E826@delong.com> <20140512220305.5308547.91184.12297@ng.lopworks.com> <152A2B6E-C7B2-4188-9E8C-34458B1DB642@delong.com> Message-ID: <20140512222044.5308547.99058.12302@ng.lopworks.com> What I find rather absurd is one person having multiple votes. What kind of election is that? ? It should be one voice one vote and that should mean one individual one vote. Regards, Ademola Osindero CEO/Consulting Director, Lopworks Limited ? www.lopworks.com ? Original Message ? From: Owen DeLong Sent: Monday, May 12, 2014 11:14 PM To: ademola at ng.lopworks.com Cc: mje at posix.co.za; rpd at afrinic.net Subject: Re: [rpd] Discussion about e-voting I?m sorry, but I think that is absurd. All it accomplishes is to force organizations to scramble trying to find additional individuals to cast their votes. It serves absolutely no useful purpose whatsoever, IMHO. Owen On May 12, 2014, at 3:03 PM, ademola at ng.lopworks.com wrote: > One individual one vote, irrespective of how many member organizations you are affiliated to. Once an individual's identity is associated with a member, then the person will cast vote for only that member and no other member. > > Regards, > Ademola Osindero > CEO/Consulting Director, > Lopworks Limited > > www.lopworks.com > Original Message > From: Owen DeLong > Sent: Monday, May 12, 2014 10:58 PM > To: mje at posix.co.za > Cc: rpd at afrinic.net > Subject: Re: Fwd: [rpd] Discussion about e-voting > >>> 2. Going forward IMHO I think we should discouraged multiple voting by >>> an individual for different members since the probability of voting >>> differently is low and this only goes to increase votes across one >>> side only. A "polished form" of election rigging. I know some will >>> argue one can still like gin with different credentials and vote one >>> sided but then :) >>> >>> Could someone from the community enlighten me on this please. > > To echo what Mark said in slightly less confrontational language? > > One member, one vote. Each member should be able to choose who casts the vote on behalf of that member. I see nothing wrong with members who wish to have the same person represent their interests doing so. It is not election rigging if 25 different member organizations all select the same person to cast votes on their behalf. Presumably each member organization is capable of choosing a voting representative who will vote in a manner consistent with their desires and interests. Likely if they were each forced to choose a different person in order to avoid being disenfranchised as you propose, you would simply see a larger group of voters who are potentially less informed and less motivated. I do not think that would be beneficial to AfriNIC, to the community, nor to the members. > > It seems to me that this is not in any way equivalent to stuffing the ballot box or rigging the election. If those organizations all pick the same person to represent them, either they trust that person to share their ideals/needs/wants or they trust that person to vote as they instruct on their behalf. In either case, that person is legitimately exercising the vote designated by the member organization on behalf of each member organization. > > Owen > > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd From owen at delong.com Tue May 13 00:52:52 2014 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 17:52:52 -0700 Subject: [rpd] Discussion about e-voting In-Reply-To: <20140512222044.5308547.99058.12302@ng.lopworks.com> References: <1399910009.13446.145.camel@mje.posix.co.za> <650DBB00-330D-45D9-9B49-D16F9856E826@delong.com> <20140512220305.5308547.91184.12297@ng.lopworks.com> <152A2B6E-C7B2-4188-9E8C-34458B1DB642@delong.com> <20140512222044.5308547.99058.12302@ng.lopworks.com> Message-ID: It _IS_ one voice one vote. The difference is that in this case, the voices are those of resource members who are, by their nature, organizational entities rather than individuals. At that point, since we?re talking about votes representing organizational entities, what does it matter whether an individual represents organization A or organizations B, C, D, and E? It?s still 5 votes and likely it?s still the same 5 votes. With the multiple organizations using a single person to cast their votes, it?s more convenient and less expensive for the organizations, but that?s about the only thing it changes. As an example, in the ARIN region, each member organization designates one DMR who casts the votes for that organization. At one point, I believe I was the DMR for something like 5 such organizations. Currently, I am the DMR for 3. This means that in each ARIN election, I currently cast 3 votes. As a general rule, all three organizations would turn to me for advice on how to vote whether I was casting their vote or not. However, in case any of the tells me to vote otherwise than my advice, I will do as instructed with their vote. Making them hire someone else to cast their vote (or more likely having me hire someone) doesn?t really accomplish anything to change the election, it just makes the process more convoluted. What gain do you perceive from that? If members were individual people and not organizations, I could see your point. An individual shouldn?t have their voting rights procured, purloined, or otherwise enjoined by another entity. However, since we?re not talking about individuals, but rather organizations who must be represented by individuals anyway, I think it?s an entirely different problem. Owen On May 12, 2014, at 3:20 PM, ademola at ng.lopworks.com wrote: > What I find rather absurd is one person having multiple votes. What kind of election is that? ? It should be one voice one vote and that should mean one individual one vote. > > Regards, > Ademola Osindero > CEO/Consulting Director, > Lopworks Limited ? > > www.lopworks.com > Original Message > From: Owen DeLong > Sent: Monday, May 12, 2014 11:14 PM > To: ademola at ng.lopworks.com > Cc: mje at posix.co.za; rpd at afrinic.net > Subject: Re: [rpd] Discussion about e-voting > > I?m sorry, but I think that is absurd. All it accomplishes is to force organizations to scramble trying to find additional individuals to cast their votes. It serves absolutely no useful purpose whatsoever, IMHO. > > Owen > > On May 12, 2014, at 3:03 PM, ademola at ng.lopworks.com wrote: > >> One individual one vote, irrespective of how many member organizations you are affiliated to. Once an individual's identity is associated with a member, then the person will cast vote for only that member and no other member. >> >> Regards, >> Ademola Osindero >> CEO/Consulting Director, >> Lopworks Limited >> >> www.lopworks.com >> Original Message >> From: Owen DeLong >> Sent: Monday, May 12, 2014 10:58 PM >> To: mje at posix.co.za >> Cc: rpd at afrinic.net >> Subject: Re: Fwd: [rpd] Discussion about e-voting >> >>>> 2. Going forward IMHO I think we should discouraged multiple voting by >>>> an individual for different members since the probability of voting >>>> differently is low and this only goes to increase votes across one >>>> side only. A "polished form" of election rigging. I know some will >>>> argue one can still like gin with different credentials and vote one >>>> sided but then :) >>>> >>>> Could someone from the community enlighten me on this please. >> >> To echo what Mark said in slightly less confrontational language? >> >> One member, one vote. Each member should be able to choose who casts the vote on behalf of that member. I see nothing wrong with members who wish to have the same person represent their interests doing so. It is not election rigging if 25 different member organizations all select the same person to cast votes on their behalf. Presumably each member organization is capable of choosing a voting representative who will vote in a manner consistent with their desires and interests. Likely if they were each forced to choose a different person in order to avoid being disenfranchised as you propose, you would simply see a larger group of voters who are potentially less informed and less motivated. I do not think that would be beneficial to AfriNIC, to the community, nor to the members. >> >> It seems to me that this is not in any way equivalent to stuffing the ballot box or rigging the election. If those organizations all pick the same person to represent them, either they trust that person to share their ideals/needs/wants or they trust that person to vote as they instruct on their behalf. In either case, that person is legitimately exercising the vote designated by the member organization on behalf of each member organization. >> >> Owen >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> rpd mailing list >> rpd at afrinic.net >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd From christianbope at gmail.com Tue May 13 03:41:54 2014 From: christianbope at gmail.com (Bope Domilongo Christian) Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 11:41:54 +0800 Subject: [rpd] Re: [AfrICANN-discuss] AFRINIC Board Elections - 2014: Call for Nominations In-Reply-To: <1399571485.8679.21.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> References: <72B07AC2-F4C2-4A95-B9BA-E71E6DFB20BA@afrinic.net> <1395406604.7293.245.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> <1395426016.7373.31.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> <1399571485.8679.21.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> Message-ID: Hi Mark, Nearly one week after revealing the final slate of candidates for BOD election, there is AIS 2014 website logistic problem because some of CVs and candidates pictures are not yet online and the E-voting will start shortly, which could have an impact or may even biased the fairness of the process. With best regards, Christian Bope On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 1:51 AM, Mark Elkins wrote: > Dear Colleagues, > > We are seeking nominations for 1 Co-Chair of the Policy Development > Working Group (PDWG) for a 2-year term (June 2014 - June 2016). > > Co-Chairs of the PDWG are volunteers selected by the community per > the current Policy Development Process (PDP) to carry out all > administrative functions of the Policy Development Working Group > (PDWG). Their responsibilities may include (but are not limited to) > the following: > > 1. Chairing face-to-face policy meeting sessions and determining > consensus. > > 2. Preparing post-meeting policy reports to share with the community > as appropriate. > > 3. Preparing pre-meeting reports (usually mailing list discussion > summaries) in preparation for face-to-face meetings. > > 4. Advising the board about ratification of proposals that reached > consensus. > > 5. Evaluating emergencies that may necessitate varying the normal > policy development process. > > Nominated candidates must be from the AFRINIC community and cannot > be AFRINIC staff. Candidates can be nominated by anyone, but > excluding AFRINIC or other RIR staff, and must permanently reside in > a country within the AFRINIC service region. > > To nominate yourself or a candidate of your choice, please send an > email to the Nominations Committee (nomcom2014 at afrinic.net) with the > following information: > > a. Information of the Nominee: > * Full Name: > * Organization name (or Affiliation): > * Position: > * E-mail address: > * Postal/Physical address: > * Phone number: > * Country of residence: > * Brief Bio with a highlight of how the Nominee intends to > contribute to the PDWG in particular and the Region's Policy > Development Process (PDP) in General (not more than 500 words): > > b. Information about the Nominator: > > * Full Name: > * Organization: > * E-mail address: > * Motivation for nomination: > > If self-nominated, please indicate "self" in section (b) above. > > Please refer to the following for more information: > > * The PDWG Co-Chair election process: > http://www.afrinic.net/elections/process/ep_pdwg.htm for more > information. > > > * The Policy Development Process: > > http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/251-policy-development-process-in-the-afrinic-service-region-afpub-2010-gen-005 > > > > The Deadline for nominations is Wednesday 14th May 2014 20:00 UTC. > > > > -- > Mark J Elkins - AFRINIC 2014 Nominations Committee Chair > mje at posix.co.za - nomcom2014 (at) afrinic.net > Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 > > > _______________________________________________ > AfrICANN mailing list > AfrICANN at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/africann > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From quaynor at ghana.com Tue May 13 05:45:38 2014 From: quaynor at ghana.com (Nii Narku Quaynor) Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 07:45:38 +0200 Subject: [rpd] Discussion about e-voting In-Reply-To: <20140512222044.5308547.99058.12302@ng.lopworks.com> References: <1399910009.13446.145.camel@mje.posix.co.za> <650DBB00-330D-45D9-9B49-D16F9856E826@delong.com> <20140512220305.5308547.91184.12297@ng.lopworks.com> <152A2B6E-C7B2-4188-9E8C-34458B1DB642@delong.com> <20140512222044.5308547.99058.12302@ng.lopworks.com> Message-ID: <0A220B0B-00E2-42A9-87EA-DC10ECF76DEF@ghana.com> Just curious. How different is this multi hat different from holding proxy? I recall Afrinic has a limit on proxy? > On May 13, 2014, at 0:20, ademola at ng.lopworks.com wrote: > > What I find rather absurd is one person having multiple votes. What kind of election is that? ? It should be one voice one vote and that should mean one individual one vote. > > Regards, > Ademola Osindero > CEO/Consulting Director, > Lopworks Limited ? > > www.lopworks.com > Original Message > From: Owen DeLong > Sent: Monday, May 12, 2014 11:14 PM > To: ademola at ng.lopworks.com > Cc: mje at posix.co.za; rpd at afrinic.net > Subject: Re: [rpd] Discussion about e-voting > > I?m sorry, but I think that is absurd. All it accomplishes is to force organizations to scramble trying to find additional individuals to cast their votes. It serves absolutely no useful purpose whatsoever, IMHO. > > Owen > >> On May 12, 2014, at 3:03 PM, ademola at ng.lopworks.com wrote: >> >> One individual one vote, irrespective of how many member organizations you are affiliated to. Once an individual's identity is associated with a member, then the person will cast vote for only that member and no other member. >> >> Regards, >> Ademola Osindero >> CEO/Consulting Director, >> Lopworks Limited >> >> www.lopworks.com >> Original Message >> From: Owen DeLong >> Sent: Monday, May 12, 2014 10:58 PM >> To: mje at posix.co.za >> Cc: rpd at afrinic.net >> Subject: Re: Fwd: [rpd] Discussion about e-voting >> >>>> 2. Going forward IMHO I think we should discouraged multiple voting by >>>> an individual for different members since the probability of voting >>>> differently is low and this only goes to increase votes across one >>>> side only. A "polished form" of election rigging. I know some will >>>> argue one can still like gin with different credentials and vote one >>>> sided but then :) >>>> >>>> Could someone from the community enlighten me on this please. >> >> To echo what Mark said in slightly less confrontational language? >> >> One member, one vote. Each member should be able to choose who casts the vote on behalf of that member. I see nothing wrong with members who wish to have the same person represent their interests doing so. It is not election rigging if 25 different member organizations all select the same person to cast votes on their behalf. Presumably each member organization is capable of choosing a voting representative who will vote in a manner consistent with their desires and interests. Likely if they were each forced to choose a different person in order to avoid being disenfranchised as you propose, you would simply see a larger group of voters who are potentially less informed and less motivated. I do not think that would be beneficial to AfriNIC, to the community, nor to the members. >> >> It seems to me that this is not in any way equivalent to stuffing the ballot box or rigging the election. If those organizations all pick the same person to represent them, either they trust that person to share their ideals/needs/wants or they trust that person to vote as they instruct on their behalf. In either case, that person is legitimately exercising the vote designated by the member organization on behalf of each member organization. >> >> Owen >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> rpd mailing list >> rpd at afrinic.net >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd From Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com Tue May 13 06:22:27 2014 From: Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com (Andrew Alston) Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 07:22:27 +0100 Subject: [rpd] Discussion about e-voting In-Reply-To: <0A220B0B-00E2-42A9-87EA-DC10ECF76DEF@ghana.com> References: <1399910009.13446.145.camel@mje.posix.co.za> <650DBB00-330D-45D9-9B49-D16F9856E826@delong.com> <20140512220305.5308547.91184.12297@ng.lopworks.com> <152A2B6E-C7B2-4188-9E8C-34458B1DB642@delong.com> <20140512222044.5308547.99058.12302@ng.lopworks.com> <0A220B0B-00E2-42A9-87EA-DC10ECF76DEF@ghana.com> Message-ID: Form my perspective, its a completely different issue. People wearing different hats is part of life, and part of standard business. Let me give you an example: An individual holds directorships on multiple boards (this is very common in business, and I can point to several examples). That individual has the right to vote within the board structures of each entity that he represents. Same thing. Or, to put this another way, when an individual votes at the AfriNIC elections, he does not vote as himself, he votes as a member. If the member chooses to designate him the right to vote, that is their right as member. To restrict an individual from representing multiple organisations would be equivalent to saying, if you?re a director of one organisation, you cannot hold a directorship in another. If this were to happen, it might be noted that this would potentially exclude a lot of people from current and past boards who do hold directorships in other organisations. As stated by Ademola, one voice, one vote. The only thing is, it is still one voice one vote, where one voice = ONE MEMBER, the people actually costing the votes are the members, NOT the individual who is merely the instrument through which the members voice is heard. That?s my opinion anyway Andrew On 5/13/14, 8:45 AM, "Nii Narku Quaynor" wrote: >Just curious. How different is this multi hat different from holding >proxy? I recall Afrinic has a limit on proxy? > >> On May 13, 2014, at 0:20, ademola at ng.lopworks.com wrote: >> >> What I find rather absurd is one person having multiple votes. What >>kind of election is that? It should be one voice one vote and that >>should mean one individual one vote. >> >> Regards, >> Ademola Osindero >> CEO/Consulting Director, >> Lopworks Limited >> >> www.lopworks.com >> Original Message >> From: Owen DeLong >> Sent: Monday, May 12, 2014 11:14 PM >> To: ademola at ng.lopworks.com >> Cc: mje at posix.co.za; rpd at afrinic.net >> Subject: Re: [rpd] Discussion about e-voting >> >> I?m sorry, but I think that is absurd. All it accomplishes is to force >>organizations to scramble trying to find additional individuals to cast >>their votes. It serves absolutely no useful purpose whatsoever, IMHO. >> >> Owen >> >>> On May 12, 2014, at 3:03 PM, ademola at ng.lopworks.com wrote: >>> >>> One individual one vote, irrespective of how many member organizations >>>you are affiliated to. Once an individual's identity is associated with >>>a member, then the person will cast vote for only that member and no >>>other member. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Ademola Osindero >>> CEO/Consulting Director, >>> Lopworks Limited >>> >>> www.lopworks.com >>> Original Message >>> From: Owen DeLong >>> Sent: Monday, May 12, 2014 10:58 PM >>> To: mje at posix.co.za >>> Cc: rpd at afrinic.net >>> Subject: Re: Fwd: [rpd] Discussion about e-voting >>> >>>>> 2. Going forward IMHO I think we should discouraged multiple voting >>>>>by >>>>> an individual for different members since the probability of voting >>>>> differently is low and this only goes to increase votes across one >>>>> side only. A "polished form" of election rigging. I know some will >>>>> argue one can still like gin with different credentials and vote one >>>>> sided but then :) >>>>> >>>>> Could someone from the community enlighten me on this please. >>> >>> To echo what Mark said in slightly less confrontational language? >>> >>> One member, one vote. Each member should be able to choose who casts >>>the vote on behalf of that member. I see nothing wrong with members who >>>wish to have the same person represent their interests doing so. It is >>>not election rigging if 25 different member organizations all select >>>the same person to cast votes on their behalf. Presumably each member >>>organization is capable of choosing a voting representative who will >>>vote in a manner consistent with their desires and interests. Likely if >>>they were each forced to choose a different person in order to avoid >>>being disenfranchised as you propose, you would simply see a larger >>>group of voters who are potentially less informed and less motivated. I >>>do not think that would be beneficial to AfriNIC, to the community, nor >>>to the members. >>> >>> It seems to me that this is not in any way equivalent to stuffing the >>>ballot box or rigging the election. If those organizations all pick the >>>same person to represent them, either they trust that person to share >>>their ideals/needs/wants or they trust that person to vote as they >>>instruct on their behalf. In either case, that person is legitimately >>>exercising the vote designated by the member organization on behalf of >>>each member organization. >>> >>> Owen >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> rpd mailing list >>> rpd at afrinic.net >>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >> >> _______________________________________________ >> rpd mailing list >> rpd at afrinic.net >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >_______________________________________________ >rpd mailing list >rpd at afrinic.net >https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd DISCLAIMER: This email contains proprietary information some or all of which may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this email, please notify the author by replying to this email. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose, copy, print, or rely on this email. We cannot accept liability for any statements made which are clearly the sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of this company or one of its agents. From ademola at ng.lopworks.com Tue May 13 06:39:46 2014 From: ademola at ng.lopworks.com (ademola at ng.lopworks.com) Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 07:39:46 +0100 Subject: [rpd] Discussion about e-voting In-Reply-To: References: <1399910009.13446.145.camel@mje.posix.co.za> <650DBB00-330D-45D9-9B49-D16F9856E826@delong.com> <20140512220305.5308547.91184.12297@ng.lopworks.com> <152A2B6E-C7B2-4188-9E8C-34458B1DB642@delong.com> <20140512222044.5308547.99058.12302@ng.lopworks.com> <0A220B0B-00E2-42A9-87EA-DC10ECF76DEF@ghana.com> Message-ID: <20140513063946.5308547.84143.12314@ng.lopworks.com> Hi All,? My point is this is easily prone to abuse and would lead to Animal Farm situation. On Andrew's example of board directorship, a Director is allowed to cast a vote "on the board of each company he or she is present". That is completely different from the director trying to cast a vote on a platform including many companies he or she represents. The later is the case of Afrinic. To be lenient, it is worth reviewing the limit on proxy votes as stated by Nii Quaynor. Regards, Ademola Osindero CEO/Consulting Director, Lopworks Limited www.lopworks.com ? Original Message ? From: Andrew Alston Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 7:22 AM To: Nii Narku Quaynor; ademola at ng.lopworks.com Cc: rpd at afrinic.net Subject: Re: [rpd] Discussion about e-voting Form my perspective, its a completely different issue. People wearing different hats is part of life, and part of standard business. Let me give you an example: An individual holds directorships on multiple boards (this is very common in business, and I can point to several examples). That individual has the right to vote within the board structures of each entity that he represents. Same thing. Or, to put this another way, when an individual votes at the AfriNIC elections, he does not vote as himself, he votes as a member. If the member chooses to designate him the right to vote, that is their right as member. To restrict an individual from representing multiple organisations would be equivalent to saying, if you?re a director of one organisation, you cannot hold a directorship in another. If this were to happen, it might be noted that this would potentially exclude a lot of people from current and past boards who do hold directorships in other organisations. As stated by Ademola, one voice, one vote. The only thing is, it is still one voice one vote, where one voice = ONE MEMBER, the people actually costing the votes are the members, NOT the individual who is merely the instrument through which the members voice is heard. That?s my opinion anyway Andrew On 5/13/14, 8:45 AM, "Nii Narku Quaynor" wrote: >Just curious. How different is this multi hat different from holding >proxy? I recall Afrinic has a limit on proxy? > >> On May 13, 2014, at 0:20, ademola at ng.lopworks.com wrote: >> >> What I find rather absurd is one person having multiple votes. What >>kind of election is that? It should be one voice one vote and that >>should mean one individual one vote. >> >> Regards, >> Ademola Osindero >> CEO/Consulting Director, >> Lopworks Limited >> >> www.lopworks.com >> Original Message >> From: Owen DeLong >> Sent: Monday, May 12, 2014 11:14 PM >> To: ademola at ng.lopworks.com >> Cc: mje at posix.co.za; rpd at afrinic.net >> Subject: Re: [rpd] Discussion about e-voting >> >> I?m sorry, but I think that is absurd. All it accomplishes is to force >>organizations to scramble trying to find additional individuals to cast >>their votes. It serves absolutely no useful purpose whatsoever, IMHO. >> >> Owen >> >>> On May 12, 2014, at 3:03 PM, ademola at ng.lopworks.com wrote: >>> >>> One individual one vote, irrespective of how many member organizations >>>you are affiliated to. Once an individual's identity is associated with >>>a member, then the person will cast vote for only that member and no >>>other member. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Ademola Osindero >>> CEO/Consulting Director, >>> Lopworks Limited >>> >>> www.lopworks.com >>> Original Message >>> From: Owen DeLong >>> Sent: Monday, May 12, 2014 10:58 PM >>> To: mje at posix.co.za >>> Cc: rpd at afrinic.net >>> Subject: Re: Fwd: [rpd] Discussion about e-voting >>> >>>>> 2. Going forward IMHO I think we should discouraged multiple voting >>>>>by >>>>> an individual for different members since the probability of voting >>>>> differently is low and this only goes to increase votes across one >>>>> side only. A "polished form" of election rigging. I know some will >>>>> argue one can still like gin with different credentials and vote one >>>>> sided but then :) >>>>> >>>>> Could someone from the community enlighten me on this please. >>> >>> To echo what Mark said in slightly less confrontational language? >>> >>> One member, one vote. Each member should be able to choose who casts >>>the vote on behalf of that member. I see nothing wrong with members who >>>wish to have the same person represent their interests doing so. It is >>>not election rigging if 25 different member organizations all select >>>the same person to cast votes on their behalf. Presumably each member >>>organization is capable of choosing a voting representative who will >>>vote in a manner consistent with their desires and interests. Likely if >>>they were each forced to choose a different person in order to avoid >>>being disenfranchised as you propose, you would simply see a larger >>>group of voters who are potentially less informed and less motivated. I >>>do not think that would be beneficial to AfriNIC, to the community, nor >>>to the members. >>> >>> It seems to me that this is not in any way equivalent to stuffing the >>>ballot box or rigging the election. If those organizations all pick the >>>same person to represent them, either they trust that person to share >>>their ideals/needs/wants or they trust that person to vote as they >>>instruct on their behalf. In either case, that person is legitimately >>>exercising the vote designated by the member organization on behalf of >>>each member organization. >>> >>> Owen >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> rpd mailing list >>> rpd at afrinic.net >>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >> >> _______________________________________________ >> rpd mailing list >> rpd at afrinic.net >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >_______________________________________________ >rpd mailing list >rpd at afrinic.net >https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd DISCLAIMER: This email contains proprietary information some or all of which may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this email, please notify the author by replying to this email. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose, copy, print, or rely on this email. We cannot accept liability for any statements made which are clearly the sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of this company or one of its agents. From Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com Tue May 13 06:48:02 2014 From: Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com (Andrew Alston) Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 07:48:02 +0100 Subject: [rpd] Discussion about e-voting In-Reply-To: <20140513063946.5308547.84143.12314@ng.lopworks.com> References: <1399910009.13446.145.camel@mje.posix.co.za> <650DBB00-330D-45D9-9B49-D16F9856E826@delong.com> <20140512220305.5308547.91184.12297@ng.lopworks.com> <152A2B6E-C7B2-4188-9E8C-34458B1DB642@delong.com> <20140512222044.5308547.99058.12302@ng.lopworks.com> <0A220B0B-00E2-42A9-87EA-DC10ECF76DEF@ghana.com> <20140513063946.5308547.84143.12314@ng.lopworks.com> Message-ID: <7FF93785BD2D534EA45841A8AAA1D89B2EE07A802F@liquid-exch.liquidtelecom.local> The limit on proxies was already reviewed and reduced to 5 after the fiasco in Tanzania a few elections back. This is as defined in the bylaws (I believe it's in section 12.12, but I'm open to correction). Do you propose to reduce this still further? Thanks Andrew -----Original Message----- From: ademola at ng.lopworks.com [mailto:ademola at ng.lopworks.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 9:40 AM To: Andrew Alston; Nii Narku Quaynor Cc: rpd at afrinic.net Subject: Re: [rpd] Discussion about e-voting Hi All, My point is this is easily prone to abuse and would lead to Animal Farm situation. On Andrew's example of board directorship, a Director is allowed to cast a vote "on the board of each company he or she is present". That is completely different from the director trying to cast a vote on a platform including many companies he or she represents. The later is the case of Afrinic. To be lenient, it is worth reviewing the limit on proxy votes as stated by Nii Quaynor. Regards, Ademola Osindero CEO/Consulting Director, Lopworks Limited www.lopworks.com Original Message From: Andrew Alston Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 7:22 AM To: Nii Narku Quaynor; ademola at ng.lopworks.com Cc: rpd at afrinic.net Subject: Re: [rpd] Discussion about e-voting Form my perspective, its a completely different issue. People wearing different hats is part of life, and part of standard business. Let me give you an example: An individual holds directorships on multiple boards (this is very common in business, and I can point to several examples). That individual has the right to vote within the board structures of each entity that he represents. Same thing. Or, to put this another way, when an individual votes at the AfriNIC elections, he does not vote as himself, he votes as a member. If the member chooses to designate him the right to vote, that is their right as member. To restrict an individual from representing multiple organisations would be equivalent to saying, if you?re a director of one organisation, you cannot hold a directorship in another. If this were to happen, it might be noted that this would potentially exclude a lot of people from current and past boards who do hold directorships in other organisations. As stated by Ademola, one voice, one vote. The only thing is, it is still one voice one vote, where one voice = ONE MEMBER, the people actually costing the votes are the members, NOT the individual who is merely the instrument through which the members voice is heard. That?s my opinion anyway Andrew On 5/13/14, 8:45 AM, "Nii Narku Quaynor" wrote: >Just curious. How different is this multi hat different from holding >proxy? I recall Afrinic has a limit on proxy? > >> On May 13, 2014, at 0:20, ademola at ng.lopworks.com wrote: >> >> What I find rather absurd is one person having multiple votes. What >>kind of election is that? It should be one voice one vote and that >>should mean one individual one vote. >> >> Regards, >> Ademola Osindero >> CEO/Consulting Director, >> Lopworks Limited >> >> www.lopworks.com >> Original Message >> From: Owen DeLong >> Sent: Monday, May 12, 2014 11:14 PM >> To: ademola at ng.lopworks.com >> Cc: mje at posix.co.za; rpd at afrinic.net >> Subject: Re: [rpd] Discussion about e-voting >> >> I?m sorry, but I think that is absurd. All it accomplishes is to >>force organizations to scramble trying to find additional individuals >>to cast their votes. It serves absolutely no useful purpose whatsoever, IMHO. >> >> Owen >> >>> On May 12, 2014, at 3:03 PM, ademola at ng.lopworks.com wrote: >>> >>> One individual one vote, irrespective of how many member >>>organizations you are affiliated to. Once an individual's identity is >>>associated with a member, then the person will cast vote for only >>>that member and no other member. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Ademola Osindero >>> CEO/Consulting Director, >>> Lopworks Limited >>> >>> www.lopworks.com >>> Original Message >>> From: Owen DeLong >>> Sent: Monday, May 12, 2014 10:58 PM >>> To: mje at posix.co.za >>> Cc: rpd at afrinic.net >>> Subject: Re: Fwd: [rpd] Discussion about e-voting >>> >>>>> 2. Going forward IMHO I think we should discouraged multiple >>>>>voting by an individual for different members since the >>>>>probability of voting differently is low and this only goes to >>>>>increase votes across one side only. A "polished form" of election >>>>>rigging. I know some will argue one can still like gin with >>>>>different credentials and vote one sided but then :) >>>>> >>>>> Could someone from the community enlighten me on this please. >>> >>> To echo what Mark said in slightly less confrontational language? >>> >>> One member, one vote. Each member should be able to choose who casts >>>the vote on behalf of that member. I see nothing wrong with members >>>who wish to have the same person represent their interests doing so. >>>It is not election rigging if 25 different member organizations all >>>select the same person to cast votes on their behalf. Presumably each >>>member organization is capable of choosing a voting representative >>>who will vote in a manner consistent with their desires and >>>interests. Likely if they were each forced to choose a different >>>person in order to avoid being disenfranchised as you propose, you >>>would simply see a larger group of voters who are potentially less >>>informed and less motivated. I do not think that would be beneficial >>>to AfriNIC, to the community, nor to the members. >>> >>> It seems to me that this is not in any way equivalent to stuffing >>>the ballot box or rigging the election. If those organizations all >>>pick the same person to represent them, either they trust that person >>>to share their ideals/needs/wants or they trust that person to vote >>>as they instruct on their behalf. In either case, that person is >>>legitimately exercising the vote designated by the member >>>organization on behalf of each member organization. >>> >>> Owen >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> rpd mailing list >>> rpd at afrinic.net >>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >> >> _______________________________________________ >> rpd mailing list >> rpd at afrinic.net >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >_______________________________________________ >rpd mailing list >rpd at afrinic.net >https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd DISCLAIMER: This email contains proprietary information some or all of which may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this email, please notify the author by replying to this email. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose, copy, print, or rely on this email. We cannot accept liability for any statements made which are clearly the sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of this company or one of its agents. DISCLAIMER: This email contains proprietary information some or all of which may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this email, please notify the author by replying to this email. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose, copy, print, or rely on this email. We cannot accept liability for any statements made which are clearly the sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of this company or one of its agents. From ademola at ng.lopworks.com Tue May 13 07:03:26 2014 From: ademola at ng.lopworks.com (ademola at ng.lopworks.com) Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 08:03:26 +0100 Subject: [rpd] Discussion about e-voting In-Reply-To: <7FF93785BD2D534EA45841A8AAA1D89B2EE07A802F@liquid-exch.liquidtelecom.local> References: <1399910009.13446.145.camel@mje.posix.co.za> <650DBB00-330D-45D9-9B49-D16F9856E826@delong.com> <20140512220305.5308547.91184.12297@ng.lopworks.com> <152A2B6E-C7B2-4188-9E8C-34458B1DB642@delong.com> <20140512222044.5308547.99058.12302@ng.lopworks.com> <0A220B0B-00E2-42A9-87EA-DC10ECF76DEF@ghana.com> <20140513063946.5308547.84143.12314@ng.lopworks.com> <7FF93785BD2D534EA45841A8AAA1D89B2EE07A802F@liquid-exch.liquidtelecom.local> Message-ID: <20140513070326.5308547.90076.12320@ng.lopworks.com> Dear, If it has already been agreed to, I'm sure it was well reviewed by your noble selves, then it should be 5. And that implies that an individual could vote as many as 5 times while acting as a proxy. Fair enough except any case of abuse is shown. Regards, Ademola Osindero CEO/Consulting Director, Lopworks Limited www.lopworks.com ? Original Message ? From: Andrew Alston Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 7:48 AM To: ademola at ng.lopworks.com; Nii Narku Quaynor Cc: rpd at afrinic.net Subject: RE: [rpd] Discussion about e-voting The limit on proxies was already reviewed and reduced to 5 after the fiasco in Tanzania a few elections back. This is as defined in the bylaws (I believe it's in section 12.12, but I'm open to correction). Do you propose to reduce this still further? Thanks Andrew -----Original Message----- From: ademola at ng.lopworks.com [mailto:ademola at ng.lopworks.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 9:40 AM To: Andrew Alston; Nii Narku Quaynor Cc: rpd at afrinic.net Subject: Re: [rpd] Discussion about e-voting Hi All, My point is this is easily prone to abuse and would lead to Animal Farm situation. On Andrew's example of board directorship, a Director is allowed to cast a vote "on the board of each company he or she is present". That is completely different from the director trying to cast a vote on a platform including many companies he or she represents. The later is the case of Afrinic. To be lenient, it is worth reviewing the limit on proxy votes as stated by Nii Quaynor. Regards, Ademola Osindero CEO/Consulting Director, Lopworks Limited www.lopworks.com Original Message From: Andrew Alston Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 7:22 AM To: Nii Narku Quaynor; ademola at ng.lopworks.com Cc: rpd at afrinic.net Subject: Re: [rpd] Discussion about e-voting Form my perspective, its a completely different issue. People wearing different hats is part of life, and part of standard business. Let me give you an example: An individual holds directorships on multiple boards (this is very common in business, and I can point to several examples). That individual has the right to vote within the board structures of each entity that he represents. Same thing. Or, to put this another way, when an individual votes at the AfriNIC elections, he does not vote as himself, he votes as a member. If the member chooses to designate him the right to vote, that is their right as member. To restrict an individual from representing multiple organisations would be equivalent to saying, if you?re a director of one organisation, you cannot hold a directorship in another. If this were to happen, it might be noted that this would potentially exclude a lot of people from current and past boards who do hold directorships in other organisations. As stated by Ademola, one voice, one vote. The only thing is, it is still one voice one vote, where one voice = ONE MEMBER, the people actually costing the votes are the members, NOT the individual who is merely the instrument through which the members voice is heard. That?s my opinion anyway Andrew On 5/13/14, 8:45 AM, "Nii Narku Quaynor" wrote: >Just curious. How different is this multi hat different from holding >proxy? I recall Afrinic has a limit on proxy? > >> On May 13, 2014, at 0:20, ademola at ng.lopworks.com wrote: >> >> What I find rather absurd is one person having multiple votes. What >>kind of election is that? It should be one voice one vote and that >>should mean one individual one vote. >> >> Regards, >> Ademola Osindero >> CEO/Consulting Director, >> Lopworks Limited >> >> www.lopworks.com >> Original Message >> From: Owen DeLong >> Sent: Monday, May 12, 2014 11:14 PM >> To: ademola at ng.lopworks.com >> Cc: mje at posix.co.za; rpd at afrinic.net >> Subject: Re: [rpd] Discussion about e-voting >> >> I?m sorry, but I think that is absurd. All it accomplishes is to >>force organizations to scramble trying to find additional individuals >>to cast their votes. It serves absolutely no useful purpose whatsoever, IMHO. >> >> Owen >> >>> On May 12, 2014, at 3:03 PM, ademola at ng.lopworks.com wrote: >>> >>> One individual one vote, irrespective of how many member >>>organizations you are affiliated to. Once an individual's identity is >>>associated with a member, then the person will cast vote for only >>>that member and no other member. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Ademola Osindero >>> CEO/Consulting Director, >>> Lopworks Limited >>> >>> www.lopworks.com >>> Original Message >>> From: Owen DeLong >>> Sent: Monday, May 12, 2014 10:58 PM >>> To: mje at posix.co.za >>> Cc: rpd at afrinic.net >>> Subject: Re: Fwd: [rpd] Discussion about e-voting >>> >>>>> 2. Going forward IMHO I think we should discouraged multiple >>>>>voting by an individual for different members since the >>>>>probability of voting differently is low and this only goes to >>>>>increase votes across one side only. A "polished form" of election >>>>>rigging. I know some will argue one can still like gin with >>>>>different credentials and vote one sided but then :) >>>>> >>>>> Could someone from the community enlighten me on this please. >>> >>> To echo what Mark said in slightly less confrontational language? >>> >>> One member, one vote. Each member should be able to choose who casts >>>the vote on behalf of that member. I see nothing wrong with members >>>who wish to have the same person represent their interests doing so. >>>It is not election rigging if 25 different member organizations all >>>select the same person to cast votes on their behalf. Presumably each >>>member organization is capable of choosing a voting representative >>>who will vote in a manner consistent with their desires and >>>interests. Likely if they were each forced to choose a different >>>person in order to avoid being disenfranchised as you propose, you >>>would simply see a larger group of voters who are potentially less >>>informed and less motivated. I do not think that would be beneficial >>>to AfriNIC, to the community, nor to the members. >>> >>> It seems to me that this is not in any way equivalent to stuffing >>>the ballot box or rigging the election. If those organizations all >>>pick the same person to represent them, either they trust that person >>>to share their ideals/needs/wants or they trust that person to vote >>>as they instruct on their behalf. In either case, that person is >>>legitimately exercising the vote designated by the member >>>organization on behalf of each member organization. >>> >>> Owen >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> rpd mailing list >>> rpd at afrinic.net >>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >> >> _______________________________________________ >> rpd mailing list >> rpd at afrinic.net >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >_______________________________________________ >rpd mailing list >rpd at afrinic.net >https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd DISCLAIMER: This email contains proprietary information some or all of which may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this email, please notify the author by replying to this email. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose, copy, print, or rely on this email. We cannot accept liability for any statements made which are clearly the sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of this company or one of its agents. DISCLAIMER: This email contains proprietary information some or all of which may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this email, please notify the author by replying to this email. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose, copy, print, or rely on this email. We cannot accept liability for any statements made which are clearly the sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of this company or one of its agents. From neriah at afrinic.net Tue May 13 07:45:03 2014 From: neriah at afrinic.net (Neriah Sossou) Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 11:45:03 +0400 Subject: [rpd] Re: [AfrICANN-discuss] AFRINIC Board Elections - 2014: Call for Nominations In-Reply-To: References: <72B07AC2-F4C2-4A95-B9BA-E71E6DFB20BA@afrinic.net> <1395406604.7293.245.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> <1395426016.7373.31.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> <1399571485.8679.21.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> Message-ID: Hello all, There was indeed a glitch with the display of all candidates CVs online which has now been addressed. The only exception remains Mr. Antoine Joseph Junior Tonye for whom we have unfortunately not received neither a picture nor the CV. Our sincere apologies for that oversight. __________ Neriah Sossou Head IT & Engineering, AFRINIC Ltd. t: +230 403 51 00 | f: +230 466 6758 | tt: @afrinic | w: www.afrinic.net facebook.com/afrinic | flickr.com/afrinic | youtube.com/afrinicmedia ___________________________ Join us at AIS14 / AFRINIC20 in Djibouti, 25 May - 6 June 2014. On May 13, 2014, at 7:41 AM, Bope Domilongo Christian wrote: > Hi Mark, > > Nearly one week after revealing the final slate of candidates for BOD election, there is AIS 2014 website logistic problem because some of CVs and candidates pictures are not yet online and the E-voting will start shortly, which could have an impact or may even biased the fairness of the process. > > With best regards, > Christian Bope > > > On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 1:51 AM, Mark Elkins wrote: > Dear Colleagues, > > We are seeking nominations for 1 Co-Chair of the Policy Development > Working Group (PDWG) for a 2-year term (June 2014 ? June 2016). > > Co-Chairs of the PDWG are volunteers selected by the community per > the current Policy Development Process (PDP) to carry out all > administrative functions of the Policy Development Working Group > (PDWG). Their responsibilities may include (but are not limited to) > the following: > > 1. Chairing face-to-face policy meeting sessions and determining > consensus. > > 2. Preparing post-meeting policy reports to share with the community > as appropriate. > > 3. Preparing pre-meeting reports (usually mailing list discussion > summaries) in preparation for face-to-face meetings. > > 4. Advising the board about ratification of proposals that reached > consensus. > > 5. Evaluating emergencies that may necessitate varying the normal > policy development process. > > Nominated candidates must be from the AFRINIC community and cannot > be AFRINIC staff. Candidates can be nominated by anyone, but > excluding AFRINIC or other RIR staff, and must permanently reside in > a country within the AFRINIC service region. > > To nominate yourself or a candidate of your choice, please send an > email to the Nominations Committee (nomcom2014 at afrinic.net) with the > following information: > > a. Information of the Nominee: > ? Full Name: > ? Organization name (or Affiliation): > ? Position: > ? E-mail address: > ? Postal/Physical address: > ? Phone number: > ? Country of residence: > ? Brief Bio with a highlight of how the Nominee intends to > contribute to the PDWG in particular and the Region's Policy > Development Process (PDP) in General (not more than 500 words): > > b. Information about the Nominator: > > ? Full Name: > ? Organization: > ? E-mail address: > ? Motivation for nomination: > > If self-nominated, please indicate "self" in section (b) above. > > Please refer to the following for more information: > > ? The PDWG Co-Chair election process: > http://www.afrinic.net/elections/process/ep_pdwg.htm for more > information. > > > ? The Policy Development Process: > http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/251-policy-development-process-in-the-afrinic-service-region-afpub-2010-gen-005 > > > > The Deadline for nominations is Wednesday 14th May 2014 20:00 UTC. > > > > -- > Mark J Elkins - AFRINIC 2014 Nominations Committee Chair > mje at posix.co.za - nomcom2014 (at) afrinic.net > Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 > > > _______________________________________________ > AfrICANN mailing list > AfrICANN at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/africann > > > _______________________________________________ > AfrICANN mailing list > AfrICANN at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/africann -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 495 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From jwalu at yahoo.com Tue May 13 07:28:44 2014 From: jwalu at yahoo.com (Walubengo J) Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 00:28:44 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [rpd] Discussion about e-voting In-Reply-To: <20140513070326.5308547.90076.12320@ng.lopworks.com> Message-ID: <1399966124.8782.YahooMailBasic@web141504.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> @Ademola, jst to complicate matters abit with the following hypothetical case. I can carry 5 Proxies and still have additional 5votes for the companies of which I am a Director/Owner. Total votes individual cast =10. walu. Lesson Learnt: A proxy vote is not necessarily the same as a resource member vote. Or so i think. -------------------------------------------- On Tue, 5/13/14, ademola at ng.lopworks.com wrote: Subject: Re: [rpd] Discussion about e-voting To: "Andrew Alston" , "Nii Narku Quaynor" Cc: rpd at afrinic.net Date: Tuesday, May 13, 2014, 10:03 AM Dear, If it has already been agreed to, I'm sure it was well reviewed by your noble selves, then it should be 5. And that implies that an individual could vote as many as 5 times while acting as a proxy. Fair enough except any case of abuse is shown. Regards, Ademola Osindero CEO/Consulting Director, Lopworks Limited www.lopworks.com ? Original Message ? From: Andrew Alston Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 7:48 AM To: ademola at ng.lopworks.com; Nii Narku Quaynor Cc: rpd at afrinic.net Subject: RE: [rpd] Discussion about e-voting The limit on proxies was already reviewed and reduced to 5 after the fiasco in Tanzania a few elections back. This is as defined in the bylaws (I believe it's in section 12.12, but I'm open to correction). Do you propose to reduce this still further? Thanks Andrew -----Original Message----- From: ademola at ng.lopworks.com [mailto:ademola at ng.lopworks.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 9:40 AM To: Andrew Alston; Nii Narku Quaynor Cc: rpd at afrinic.net Subject: Re: [rpd] Discussion about e-voting Hi All, My point is this is easily prone to abuse and would lead to Animal Farm situation. On Andrew's example of board directorship, a Director is allowed to cast a vote "on the board of each company he or she is present". That is completely different from the director trying to cast a vote on a platform including many companies he or she represents. The later is the case of Afrinic. To be lenient, it is worth reviewing the limit on proxy votes as stated by Nii Quaynor. Regards, Ademola Osindero CEO/Consulting Director, Lopworks Limited www.lopworks.com Original Message From: Andrew Alston Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 7:22 AM To: Nii Narku Quaynor; ademola at ng.lopworks.com Cc: rpd at afrinic.net Subject: Re: [rpd] Discussion about e-voting Form my perspective, its a completely different issue. People wearing different hats is part of life, and part of standard business. Let me give you an example: An individual holds directorships on multiple boards (this is very common in business, and I can point to several examples). That individual has the right to vote within the board structures of each entity that he represents. Same thing. Or, to put this another way, when an individual votes at the AfriNIC elections, he does not vote as himself, he votes as a member. If the member chooses to designate him the right to vote, that is their right as member. To restrict an individual from representing multiple organisations would be equivalent to saying, if you?re a director of one organisation, you cannot hold a directorship in another. If this were to happen, it might be noted that this would potentially exclude a lot of people from current and past boards who do hold directorships in other organisations. As stated by Ademola, one voice, one vote. The only thing is, it is still one voice one vote, where one voice = ONE MEMBER, the people actually costing the votes are the members, NOT the individual who is merely the instrument through which the members voice is heard. That?s my opinion anyway Andrew On 5/13/14, 8:45 AM, "Nii Narku Quaynor" wrote: >Just curious. How different is this multi hat different from holding >proxy? I recall Afrinic has a limit on proxy? > >> On May 13, 2014, at 0:20, ademola at ng.lopworks.com wrote: >> >> What I find rather absurd is one person having multiple votes. What >>kind of election is that? It should be one voice one vote and that >>should mean one individual one vote. >> >> Regards, >> Ademola Osindero >> CEO/Consulting Director, >> Lopworks Limited >> >> www.lopworks.com >> Original Message >> From: Owen DeLong >> Sent: Monday, May 12, 2014 11:14 PM >> To: ademola at ng.lopworks.com >> Cc: mje at posix.co.za; rpd at afrinic.net >> Subject: Re: [rpd] Discussion about e-voting >> >> I?m sorry, but I think that is absurd. All it accomplishes is to >>force organizations to scramble trying to find additional individuals >>to cast their votes. It serves absolutely no useful purpose whatsoever, IMHO. >> >> Owen >> >>> On May 12, 2014, at 3:03 PM, ademola at ng.lopworks.com wrote: >>> >>> One individual one vote, irrespective of how many member >>>organizations you are affiliated to. Once an individual's identity is >>>associated with a member, then the person will cast vote for only >>>that member and no other member. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Ademola Osindero >>> CEO/Consulting Director, >>> Lopworks Limited >>> >>> www.lopworks.com >>> Original Message >>> From: Owen DeLong >>> Sent: Monday, May 12, 2014 10:58 PM >>> To: mje at posix.co.za >>> Cc: rpd at afrinic.net >>> Subject: Re: Fwd: [rpd] Discussion about e-voting >>> >>>>> 2. Going forward IMHO I think we should discouraged multiple >>>>>voting by an individual for different members since the >>>>>probability of voting differently is low and this only goes to >>>>>increase votes across one side only. A "polished form" of election >>>>>rigging. I know some will argue one can still like gin with >>>>>different credentials and vote one sided but then :) >>>>> >>>>> Could someone from the community enlighten me on this please. >>> >>> To echo what Mark said in slightly less confrontational language? >>> >>> One member, one vote. Each member should be able to choose who casts >>>the vote on behalf of that member. I see nothing wrong with members >>>who wish to have the same person represent their interests doing so. >>>It is not election rigging if 25 different member organizations all >>>select the same person to cast votes on their behalf. Presumably each >>>member organization is capable of choosing a voting representative >>>who will vote in a manner consistent with their desires and >>>interests. Likely if they were each forced to choose a different >>>person in order to avoid being disenfranchised as you propose, you >>>would simply see a larger group of voters who are potentially less >>>informed and less motivated. I do not think that would be beneficial >>>to AfriNIC, to the community, nor to the members. >>> >>> It seems to me that this is not in any way equivalent to stuffing >>>the ballot box or rigging the election. If those organizations all >>>pick the same person to represent them, either they trust that person >>>to share their ideals/needs/wants or they trust that person to vote >>>as they instruct on their behalf. In either case, that person is >>>legitimately exercising the vote designated by the member >>>organization on behalf of each member organization. >>> >>> Owen >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> rpd mailing list >>> rpd at afrinic.net >>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >> >> _______________________________________________ >> rpd mailing list >> rpd at afrinic.net >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >_______________________________________________ >rpd mailing list >rpd at afrinic.net >https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd DISCLAIMER: This email contains proprietary information some or all of which may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this email, please notify the author by replying to this email. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose, copy, print, or rely on this email. We cannot accept liability for any statements made which are clearly the sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of this company or one of its agents. DISCLAIMER: This email contains proprietary information some or all of which may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this email, please notify the author by replying to this email. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose, copy, print, or rely on this email. We cannot accept liability for any statements made which are clearly the sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of this company or one of its agents. _______________________________________________ rpd mailing list rpd at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd From kofi.ansa at gmail.com Tue May 13 07:48:38 2014 From: kofi.ansa at gmail.com (Kofi ansa akufo) Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 11:48:38 +0400 Subject: [rpd] Discussion about e-voting In-Reply-To: <20140513063946.5308547.84143.12314@ng.lopworks.com> References: <1399910009.13446.145.camel@mje.posix.co.za> <650DBB00-330D-45D9-9B49-D16F9856E826@delong.com> <20140512220305.5308547.91184.12297@ng.lopworks.com> <152A2B6E-C7B2-4188-9E8C-34458B1DB642@delong.com> <20140512222044.5308547.99058.12302@ng.lopworks.com> <0A220B0B-00E2-42A9-87EA-DC10ECF76DEF@ghana.com> <20140513063946.5308547.84143.12314@ng.lopworks.com> Message-ID: @Ademola ++1 Multiple votes casts by a single individual in an election should be discouraged. There is a considerable wide time frame for voting. Any Election 101 course will never advocate such "one-to-many" voting mechanism since it is a cunning recipe for election fiasco and rigging. If ARIN encourages that does not mean AFRINIC should encourage it :) The current by-laws also places too much power in certain AFRINIC staff with respect to nomination and election process. Lets not forget the election of BoD seeks to steer and more importantly debate AFRINIC management activities such as approval of budget. IMHO the NomCom and Electoral Body should not consist of any AFRINIC staff but completely independent. cheers Kofi On 13 May 2014 10:39, wrote: > Hi All, > > My point is this is easily prone to abuse and would lead to Animal Farm > situation. On Andrew's example of board directorship, a Director is allowed to cast a > vote "on the board of each company he or she is present". That is > completely different from the director trying to cast a vote on a platform > including many companies he or she represents. The later is the case of > Afrinic. > > To be lenient, it is worth reviewing the limit on proxy votes as stated by > Nii Quaynor. > > > Regards, > Ademola Osindero > CEO/Consulting Director, > Lopworks Limited > > www.lopworks.com > Original Message > From: Andrew Alston > Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 7:22 AM > To: Nii Narku Quaynor; ademola at ng.lopworks.com > Cc: rpd at afrinic.net > Subject: Re: [rpd] Discussion about e-voting > > Form my perspective, its a completely different issue. > > People wearing different hats is part of life, and part of standard > business. Let me give you an example: > > An individual holds directorships on multiple boards (this is very common > in business, and I can point to several examples). > > That individual has the right to vote within the board structures of each > entity that he represents. Same thing. > > Or, to put this another way, when an individual votes at the AfriNIC > elections, he does not vote as himself, he votes as a member. If the > member chooses to designate him the right to vote, that is their right as > member. To restrict an individual from representing multiple > organisations would be equivalent to saying, if you?re a director of one > organisation, you cannot hold a directorship in another. If this were to > happen, it might be noted that this would potentially exclude a lot of > people from current and past boards who do hold directorships in other > organisations. > > As stated by Ademola, one voice, one vote. The only thing is, it is still > one voice one vote, where one voice = ONE MEMBER, the people actually > costing the votes are the members, NOT the individual who is merely the > instrument through which the members voice is heard. > > That?s my opinion anyway > > Andrew > > > On 5/13/14, 8:45 AM, "Nii Narku Quaynor" wrote: > > >Just curious. How different is this multi hat different from holding > >proxy? I recall Afrinic has a limit on proxy? > > > >> On May 13, 2014, at 0:20, ademola at ng.lopworks.com wrote: > >> > >> What I find rather absurd is one person having multiple votes. What > >>kind of election is that? It should be one voice one vote and that > >>should mean one individual one vote. > >> > >> Regards, > >> Ademola Osindero > >> CEO/Consulting Director, > >> Lopworks Limited > >> > >> www.lopworks.com > >> Original Message > >> From: Owen DeLong > >> Sent: Monday, May 12, 2014 11:14 PM > >> To: ademola at ng.lopworks.com > >> Cc: mje at posix.co.za; rpd at afrinic.net > >> Subject: Re: [rpd] Discussion about e-voting > >> > >> I?m sorry, but I think that is absurd. All it accomplishes is to force > >>organizations to scramble trying to find additional individuals to cast > >>their votes. It serves absolutely no useful purpose whatsoever, IMHO. > >> > >> Owen > >> > >>> On May 12, 2014, at 3:03 PM, ademola at ng.lopworks.com wrote: > >>> > >>> One individual one vote, irrespective of how many member organizations > >>>you are affiliated to. Once an individual's identity is associated with > >>>a member, then the person will cast vote for only that member and no > >>>other member. > >>> > >>> Regards, > >>> Ademola Osindero > >>> CEO/Consulting Director, > >>> Lopworks Limited > >>> > >>> www.lopworks.com > >>> Original Message > >>> From: Owen DeLong > >>> Sent: Monday, May 12, 2014 10:58 PM > >>> To: mje at posix.co.za > >>> Cc: rpd at afrinic.net > >>> Subject: Re: Fwd: [rpd] Discussion about e-voting > >>> > >>>>> 2. Going forward IMHO I think we should discouraged multiple voting > >>>>>by > >>>>> an individual for different members since the probability of voting > >>>>> differently is low and this only goes to increase votes across one > >>>>> side only. A "polished form" of election rigging. I know some will > >>>>> argue one can still like gin with different credentials and vote one > >>>>> sided but then :) > >>>>> > >>>>> Could someone from the community enlighten me on this please. > >>> > >>> To echo what Mark said in slightly less confrontational language? > >>> > >>> One member, one vote. Each member should be able to choose who casts > >>>the vote on behalf of that member. I see nothing wrong with members who > >>>wish to have the same person represent their interests doing so. It is > >>>not election rigging if 25 different member organizations all select > >>>the same person to cast votes on their behalf. Presumably each member > >>>organization is capable of choosing a voting representative who will > >>>vote in a manner consistent with their desires and interests. Likely if > >>>they were each forced to choose a different person in order to avoid > >>>being disenfranchised as you propose, you would simply see a larger > >>>group of voters who are potentially less informed and less motivated. I > >>>do not think that would be beneficial to AfriNIC, to the community, nor > >>>to the members. > >>> > >>> It seems to me that this is not in any way equivalent to stuffing the > >>>ballot box or rigging the election. If those organizations all pick the > >>>same person to represent them, either they trust that person to share > >>>their ideals/needs/wants or they trust that person to vote as they > >>>instruct on their behalf. In either case, that person is legitimately > >>>exercising the vote designated by the member organization on behalf of > >>>each member organization. > >>> > >>> Owen > >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> rpd mailing list > >>> rpd at afrinic.net > >>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> rpd mailing list > >> rpd at afrinic.net > >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > >_______________________________________________ > >rpd mailing list > >rpd at afrinic.net > >https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > > DISCLAIMER: This email contains proprietary information some or all of > which may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. If > an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this email, please > notify the author by replying to this email. If you are not the intended > recipient, you must not use, disclose, copy, print, or rely on this email. > We cannot accept liability for any statements made which are clearly the > sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of this company or one of its > agents. > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com Tue May 13 08:01:10 2014 From: Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com (Andrew Alston) Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 09:01:10 +0100 Subject: [rpd] Discussion about e-voting In-Reply-To: <1399966124.8782.YahooMailBasic@web141504.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> References: <20140513070326.5308547.90076.12320@ng.lopworks.com> <1399966124.8782.YahooMailBasic@web141504.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7FF93785BD2D534EA45841A8AAA1D89B2EE07A804E@liquid-exch.liquidtelecom.local> Again, I would argue that this is actually normal practice. Going back to the corporate example before: An individual sits on 5 boards, he can vote on all 5 boards. On board 1, comprising of 15 members, with a quorum of 10, 4 members cannot make a board meeting, and assign proxies to one individual to vote on their behalf. At this point, said individual on board 1 carries his own vote, and 4 proxies. Have seen that happen before in several cases. What I *WOULD* like to see is that the proxy form contains a field where the member organization assigning the proxy specifies on the proxy form which way the individual casting the proxy shall vote, or an optional "discretionary" box. So when the proxies are allocated, the individual can be forced by the member organization assigning the proxy to vote in a particular way, or can specifically be granted the discretion to choose who he/she casts the members vote for. This would eliminate a lot of the potential problems, where someone shows up with 5 proxies, and can potentially be influenced at the meeting to throw all his/her proxies behind a single candidate, since the votes are already indicated on the proxy ballot. Just a thought Andrew -----Original Message----- From: Walubengo J [mailto:jwalu at yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 10:29 AM To: Andrew Alston; Nii Narku Quaynor; ademola at ng.lopworks.com Cc: rpd at afrinic.net Subject: Re: [rpd] Discussion about e-voting @Ademola, jst to complicate matters abit with the following hypothetical case. I can carry 5 Proxies and still have additional 5votes for the companies of which I am a Director/Owner. Total votes individual cast =10. walu. Lesson Learnt: A proxy vote is not necessarily the same as a resource member vote. Or so i think. -------------------------------------------- On Tue, 5/13/14, ademola at ng.lopworks.com wrote: Subject: Re: [rpd] Discussion about e-voting To: "Andrew Alston" , "Nii Narku Quaynor" Cc: rpd at afrinic.net Date: Tuesday, May 13, 2014, 10:03 AM Dear, If it has already been agreed to, I'm sure it was well reviewed by your noble selves, then it should be 5. And that implies that an individual could vote as many as 5 times while acting as a proxy. Fair enough except any case of abuse is shown. Regards, Ademola Osindero CEO/Consulting Director, Lopworks Limited www.lopworks.com Original Message From: Andrew Alston Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 7:48 AM To: ademola at ng.lopworks.com; Nii Narku Quaynor Cc: rpd at afrinic.net Subject: RE: [rpd] Discussion about e-voting The limit on proxies was already reviewed and reduced to 5 after the fiasco in Tanzania a few elections back. This is as defined in the bylaws (I believe it's in section 12.12, but I'm open to correction). Do you propose to reduce this still further? Thanks Andrew -----Original Message----- From: ademola at ng.lopworks.com [mailto:ademola at ng.lopworks.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 9:40 AM To: Andrew Alston; Nii Narku Quaynor Cc: rpd at afrinic.net Subject: Re: [rpd] Discussion about e-voting Hi All, My point is this is easily prone to abuse and would lead to Animal Farm situation. On Andrew's example of board directorship, a Director is allowed to cast a vote "on the board of each company he or she is present". That is completely different from the director trying to cast a vote on a platform including many companies he or she represents. The later is the case of Afrinic. To be lenient, it is worth reviewing the limit on proxy votes as stated by Nii Quaynor. Regards, Ademola Osindero CEO/Consulting Director, Lopworks Limited www.lopworks.com Original Message From: Andrew Alston Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 7:22 AM To: Nii Narku Quaynor; ademola at ng.lopworks.com Cc: rpd at afrinic.net Subject: Re: [rpd] Discussion about e-voting Form my perspective, its a completely different issue. People wearing different hats is part of life, and part of standard business. Let me give you an example: An individual holds directorships on multiple boards (this is very common in business, and I can point to several examples). That individual has the right to vote within the board structures of each entity that he represents. Same thing. Or, to put this another way, when an individual votes at the AfriNIC elections, he does not vote as himself, he votes as a member. If the member chooses to designate him the right to vote, that is their right as member. To restrict an individual from representing multiple organisations would be equivalent to saying, if you?re a director of one organisation, you cannot hold a directorship in another. If this were to happen, it might be noted that this would potentially exclude a lot of people from current and past boards who do hold directorships in other organisations. As stated by Ademola, one voice, one vote. The only thing is, it is still one voice one vote, where one voice = ONE MEMBER, the people actually costing the votes are the members, NOT the individual who is merely the instrument through which the members voice is heard. That?s my opinion anyway Andrew On 5/13/14, 8:45 AM, "Nii Narku Quaynor" wrote: >Just curious. How different is this multi hat different from holding >proxy? I recall Afrinic has a limit on proxy? > >> On May 13, 2014, at 0:20, ademola at ng.lopworks.com wrote: >> >> What I find rather absurd is one person having multiple votes. What >>kind of election is that? It should be one voice one vote and that >>should mean one individual one vote. >> >> Regards, >> Ademola Osindero >> CEO/Consulting Director, >> Lopworks Limited >> >> www.lopworks.com >> Original Message >> From: Owen DeLong >> Sent: Monday, May 12, 2014 11:14 PM >> To: ademola at ng.lopworks.com >> Cc: mje at posix.co.za; rpd at afrinic.net >> Subject: Re: [rpd] Discussion about e-voting >> >> I?m sorry, but I think that is absurd. All it accomplishes is to >>force organizations to scramble trying to find additional individuals >>to cast their votes. It serves absolutely no useful purpose whatsoever, IMHO. >> >> Owen >> >>> On May 12, 2014, at 3:03 PM, ademola at ng.lopworks.com wrote: >>> >>> One individual one vote, irrespective of how many member >>>organizations you are affiliated to. Once an individual's identity is >>>associated with a member, then the person will cast vote for only >>>that member and no other member. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Ademola Osindero >>> CEO/Consulting Director, >>> Lopworks Limited >>> >>> www.lopworks.com >>> Original Message >>> From: Owen DeLong >>> Sent: Monday, May 12, 2014 10:58 PM >>> To: mje at posix.co.za >>> Cc: rpd at afrinic.net >>> Subject: Re: Fwd: [rpd] Discussion about e-voting >>> >>>>> 2. Going forward IMHO I think we should discouraged multiple >>>>>voting by an individual for different members since the >>>>>probability of voting differently is low and this only goes to >>>>>increase votes across one side only. A "polished form" of election >>>>>rigging. I know some will argue one can still like gin with >>>>>different credentials and vote one sided but then :) >>>>> >>>>> Could someone from the community enlighten me on this please. >>> >>> To echo what Mark said in slightly less confrontational language? >>> >>> One member, one vote. Each member should be able to choose who casts >>>the vote on behalf of that member. I see nothing wrong with members >>>who wish to have the same person represent their interests doing so. >>>It is not election rigging if 25 different member organizations all >>>select the same person to cast votes on their behalf. Presumably each >>>member organization is capable of choosing a voting representative >>>who will vote in a manner consistent with their desires and >>>interests. Likely if they were each forced to choose a different >>>person in order to avoid being disenfranchised as you propose, you >>>would simply see a larger group of voters who are potentially less >>>informed and less motivated. I do not think that would be beneficial >>>to AfriNIC, to the community, nor to the members. >>> >>> It seems to me that this is not in any way equivalent to stuffing >>>the ballot box or rigging the election. If those organizations all >>>pick the same person to represent them, either they trust that person >>>to share their ideals/needs/wants or they trust that person to vote >>>as they instruct on their behalf. In either case, that person is >>>legitimately exercising the vote designated by the member >>>organization on behalf of each member organization. >>> >>> Owen >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> rpd mailing list >>> rpd at afrinic.net >>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >> >> _______________________________________________ >> rpd mailing list >> rpd at afrinic.net >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >_______________________________________________ >rpd mailing list >rpd at afrinic.net >https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd DISCLAIMER: This email contains proprietary information some or all of which may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this email, please notify the author by replying to this email. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose, copy, print, or rely on this email. We cannot accept liability for any statements made which are clearly the sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of this company or one of its agents. DISCLAIMER: This email contains proprietary information some or all of which may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this email, please notify the author by replying to this email. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose, copy, print, or rely on this email. We cannot accept liability for any statements made which are clearly the sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of this company or one of its agents. _______________________________________________ rpd mailing list rpd at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd DISCLAIMER: This email contains proprietary information some or all of which may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this email, please notify the author by replying to this email. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose, copy, print, or rely on this email. We cannot accept liability for any statements made which are clearly the sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of this company or one of its agents. From gift at itibots.com Tue May 13 08:44:14 2014 From: gift at itibots.com (gift) Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 10:44:14 +0200 Subject: [rpd] Discussion about e-voting In-Reply-To: <7FF93785BD2D534EA45841A8AAA1D89B2EE07A804E@liquid-exch.liquidtelecom.local> References: <20140513070326.5308547.90076.12320@ng.lopworks.com> <1399966124.8782.YahooMailBasic@web141504.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <7FF93785BD2D534EA45841A8AAA1D89B2EE07A804E@liquid-exch.liquidtelecom.local> Message-ID: <5371DB5E.8040105@itibots.com> Dear All The purpose of proxy votes in the corporate world is to allow a member who for what ever reason is not able to attend an AGM to exercise their right by appointing someone to vote at such meeting on their behalf. The point here is that there is only one opportunity and one type of voting usual ballot or show of hands. If there is no proxy then the member is disenfranchised. In the case of AfriNIC, there is an alternative vote being online vote which would suit the absent member. The issue to be asked therefore, if we do away with proxy votes will we violate any member rights considering they have an alternative form of voting which apparently suits their absence at the meeting? The solution could be either f2f ballot voting or e-voting and nothing else. The other question to debate is whether there is any reason to limit the number of resource members any individual can represent. I believe a reasonable limit can be imposed rather than leave it open ended. Certainly where one is representing many members they tend to carry their views along to the vote. Is this necessary a bad thing? May be not entirely as the individual will be putting their vote where their money is as some of the multiple representations may be based one's investment. But there is room for regulation here. On general corporate governance standards and independence, my view has been the board (or member of) should not be directly involved in the running of the elections (by what ever definition) other than by way of policy. As the sitting executive they have a direct interest. But then this seems to be the model for member driven organizations from ICANN to RIRS where board members occupy a representative and ownership role which often appears conflictual depending from which angle one looks. A board member is supposed to have the best interest of AfrINIC at heart yet he also has personal interest about certain views and choices; out going and incoming directors etc. They participate in choosing Nomcom and then sit in Nomcom and certainly the opportunity for undue influence exists as they are the appointing authority for the supposed colleagues in Nomcom. As knowledge and experience on these matters increase within AfriNIC community, I would advocate that there should be no member of the board in Nomcom. The CEO can support Nomcom adequately policy and admin wise. Best corporate governance standards discourage an individual playing multiple/dual roles which have a potential conflict of interest. I guess democracy is dynamic a number of these issues regards GS On 13/05/2014 10:01 AM, Andrew Alston wrote: > Again, I would argue that this is actually normal practice. > > Going back to the corporate example before: > > An individual sits on 5 boards, he can vote on all 5 boards. > > On board 1, comprising of 15 members, with a quorum of 10, 4 members cannot make a board meeting, and assign proxies to one individual to vote on their behalf. At this point, said individual on board 1 carries his own vote, and 4 proxies. Have seen that happen before in several cases. > > What I *WOULD* like to see is that the proxy form contains a field where the member organization assigning the proxy specifies on the proxy form which way the individual casting the proxy shall vote, or an optional "discretionary" box. So when the proxies are allocated, the individual can be forced by the member organization assigning the proxy to vote in a particular way, or can specifically be granted the discretion to choose who he/she casts the members vote for. > > This would eliminate a lot of the potential problems, where someone shows up with 5 proxies, and can potentially be influenced at the meeting to throw all his/her proxies behind a single candidate, since the votes are already indicated on the proxy ballot. > > Just a thought > > Andrew > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Walubengo J [mailto:jwalu at yahoo.com] > Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 10:29 AM > To: Andrew Alston; Nii Narku Quaynor; ademola at ng.lopworks.com > Cc: rpd at afrinic.net > Subject: Re: [rpd] Discussion about e-voting > > @Ademola, > > jst to complicate matters abit with the following hypothetical case. I can carry 5 Proxies and still have additional 5votes for the companies of which I am a Director/Owner. Total votes individual cast =10. > > walu. > Lesson Learnt: A proxy vote is not necessarily the same as a resource member vote. Or so i think. > > > -------------------------------------------- > On Tue, 5/13/14, ademola at ng.lopworks.com wrote: > > Subject: Re: [rpd] Discussion about e-voting > To: "Andrew Alston" , "Nii Narku Quaynor" > Cc: rpd at afrinic.net > Date: Tuesday, May 13, 2014, 10:03 AM > > Dear, > > If it has already been agreed to, I'm sure it was well reviewed by your noble selves, then it should be 5. > > And that implies that an > individual could vote as many as 5 times while acting as a proxy. > > Fair enough except > any case of abuse is shown. > > Regards, > Ademola Osindero > CEO/Consulting Director, > Lopworks Limited > > www.lopworks.com > Original > Message > From: Andrew Alston > Sent: > Tuesday, May 13, 2014 7:48 AM > To: ademola at ng.lopworks.com; > Nii Narku Quaynor > Cc: rpd at afrinic.net > Subject: RE: [rpd] Discussion about e-voting > > The limit on proxies was > already reviewed and reduced to 5 after the fiasco in Tanzania a few elections back. > > This is as defined in the bylaws (I believe it's in section 12.12, but I'm open to correction). > > Do you propose > to reduce this still further? > > Thanks > > Andrew > > > -----Original Message----- > From: ademola at ng.lopworks.com > [mailto:ademola at ng.lopworks.com] > Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 9:40 AM > To: Andrew Alston; Nii Narku Quaynor > Cc: rpd at afrinic.net > Subject: Re: [rpd] Discussion about e-voting > > Hi All, > > My point is this is easily prone to abuse and would lead to Animal Farm situation. > > On Andrew's example of board directorship, a Director is allowed to cast a vote "on the board of each company he or she is present". That is completely different from the director trying to cast a vote on a platform including many companies he or she represents. The later is the case of Afrinic. > > To be lenient, it is worth reviewing the limit on proxy votes as stated by Nii Quaynor. > > Regards, > Ademola Osindero > CEO/Consulting Director, > Lopworks Limited > > www.lopworks.com > Original > Message > From: Andrew Alston > Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 7:22 AM > To: Nii Narku Quaynor; ademola at ng.lopworks.com > Cc: rpd at afrinic.net > Subject: Re: [rpd] Discussion about e-voting > > Form my perspective, its a > completely different issue. > > People wearing different hats is part of life, and part of standard business. Let me give you an > example: > > An individual > holds directorships on multiple boards (this is very common in business, and I can point to several examples). > > That individual has the right > to vote within the board structures of each entity that he represents. Same thing. > > Or, > to put this another way, when an individual votes at the AfriNIC elections, he does not vote as himself, he votes as a member. If the member chooses to designate him the right to vote, that is their right as member. To restrict an individual from representing multiple organisations would be equivalent to saying, if you?re a director of one organisation, you cannot hold a directorship in another. If this were to happen, it might be noted that this would potentially exclude a lot of people from current and past boards who do hold directorships in other organisations. > > As stated by Ademola, one > voice, one vote. The only thing is, it is still one voice one vote, where one voice = ONE MEMBER, the people actually costing the votes are the members, NOT the individual who is merely the instrument through which the members voice is heard. > > That?s my opinion > anyway > > Andrew > > > On 5/13/14, > 8:45 AM, "Nii Narku Quaynor" > wrote: > > >Just curious. > How different is this multi hat different from holding >proxy? I recall Afrinic has a limit on proxy? > > > >> On May > 13, 2014, at 0:20, ademola at ng.lopworks.com > wrote: > >> > >> > What I find rather absurd is one person having multiple votes. What >>kind of election is that? It should be one voice one vote and that >>should mean one individual one vote. > >> > >> Regards, > >> Ademola Osindero > >> CEO/Consulting Director, > >> Lopworks Limited > >> > >> > www.lopworks.com > >> Original > Message > >> From: Owen DeLong > >> Sent: Monday, May 12, 2014 11:14 PM > >> To: ademola at ng.lopworks.com > >> Cc: mje at posix.co.za; rpd at afrinic.net >> Subject: Re: [rpd] Discussion about e-voting >> >> I?m sorry, but I think that is absurd. All it accomplishes is to >>force organizations to scramble trying to find additional individuals >>to cast their votes. It serves absolutely no useful purpose whatsoever, IMHO. > >> > >> Owen > >> > >>> On May > 12, 2014, at 3:03 PM, ademola at ng.lopworks.com > wrote: > >>> > >>> One individual one vote, > irrespective of how many member > >>>organizations you are affiliated > to. Once an individual's identity is > >>>associated with a member, then the > person will cast vote for only > >>>that member and no other member. > >>> > >>> > Regards, > >>> Ademola Osindero > >>> CEO/Consulting Director, > >>> Lopworks Limited > >>> > >>> > www.lopworks.com > >>> Original > Message > >>> From: Owen DeLong > >>> Sent: Monday, May 12, 2014 10:58 > PM > >>> To: mje at posix.co.za > >>> Cc: rpd at afrinic.net > >>> Subject: Re: Fwd: [rpd] Discussion > about e-voting > >>> > >>>>> 2. Going forward IMHO I > think we should discouraged multiple > >>>>>voting by an individual for > different members since the > >>>>>probability of voting > differently is low and this only goes to >>>>>increase votes across one side only. A "polished form" of election >>>>>rigging. I know some will argue one can still like gin with >>>>>different credentials and vote one sided but then :) >>>>> >>>>> Could someone from the community enlighten me on this please. > >>> > >>> To > echo what Mark said in slightly less confrontational languageS( >>> >>> One member, one vote. Each member should be able to choose who casts >>>the vote on behalf of that member. > I see nothing wrong with members > >>>who wish to have the same person > represent their interests doing so. > >>>It is not election rigging if 25 > different member organizations all > >>>select the same person to cast > votes on their behalf. Presumably each > >>>member organization is capable of > choosing a voting representative > >>>who will vote in a manner > consistent with their desires and > >>>interests. Likely if they were each > forced to choose a different > >>>person in order to avoid being > disenfranchised as you propose, you > >>>would simply see a larger group of > voters who are potentially less > >>>informed and less motivated. I do > not think that would be beneficial > >>>to AfriNIC, to the community, nor > to the members. > >>> > >>> It seems to me that this is not in > any way equivalent to stuffing > >>>the ballot box or rigging the > election. If those organizations all > >>>pick the same person to represent > them, either they trust that person > >>>to share their ideals/needs/wants > or they trust that person to vote > >>>as they instruct on their behalf. > In either case, that person is > >>>legitimately exercising the vote > designated by the member > >>>organization on behalf of each > member organization. > >>> > >>> Owen > >>> > >>> > >>> > _______________________________________________ > >>> rpd mailing list > >>> rpd at afrinic.net > >>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ > >> rpd mailing list > >> rpd at afrinic.net > >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > >_______________________________________________ > >rpd mailing list > >rpd at afrinic.net > >https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > > DISCLAIMER: > This email contains proprietary information some or all of which may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this email, please notify the author by replying to this email. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose, copy, print, or rely on this email. > We cannot accept liability for any statements made which are clearly the sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of this company or one of its agents. > > > DISCLAIMER: > This email contains proprietary information some or all of which may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this email, please notify the author by replying to this email. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose, copy, print, or rely on this email. > We cannot accept liability for any statements made which are clearly the sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of this company or one of its agents. > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > DISCLAIMER: This email contains proprietary information some or all of which may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this email, please notify the author by replying to this email. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose, copy, print, or rely on this email. We cannot accept liability for any statements made which are clearly the sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of this company or one of its agents. > > > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd -- Gift Shava Financial Controller Information Technology Integrators www. itibots.com Office: +26739334779, Mobile: +26772115870 Fax: +2673170457 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From neriah at afrinic.net Tue May 13 09:19:16 2014 From: neriah at afrinic.net (Neriah Sossou) Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 13:19:16 +0400 Subject: [rpd] Re: [AfrICANN-discuss] AFRINIC Board Elections - 2014: Call for Nominations In-Reply-To: References: <72B07AC2-F4C2-4A95-B9BA-E71E6DFB20BA@afrinic.net> <1395406604.7293.245.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> <1395426016.7373.31.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> <1399571485.8679.21.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> Message-ID: <0E1B150A-F251-43AF-AF2E-3259F3FA7822@afrinic.net> Hello all, There was indeed a glitch with the display of all candidates CV online which has now been addressed. Our sincere apologies for that oversight. The only exception remains Mr. Antoine Joseph Junior Tonye for whom we have unfortunately not received neither a picture nor the a CV. __________ Neriah Sossou Head IT & Engineering, AFRINIC Ltd. t: +230 403 51 00 | f: +230 466 6758 | tt: @afrinic | w: www.afrinic.net facebook.com/afrinic | flickr.com/afrinic | youtube.com/afrinicmedia ___________________________ Join us at AIS14 / AFRINIC20 in Djibouti, 25 May - 6 June 2014. On May 13, 2014, at 7:41 AM, Bope Domilongo Christian wrote: > Hi Mark, > > Nearly one week after revealing the final slate of candidates for BOD election, there is AIS 2014 website logistic problem because some of CVs and candidates pictures are not yet online and the E-voting will start shortly, which could have an impact or may even biased the fairness of the process. > > With best regards, > Christian Bope > > > On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 1:51 AM, Mark Elkins wrote: > Dear Colleagues, > > We are seeking nominations for 1 Co-Chair of the Policy Development > Working Group (PDWG) for a 2-year term (June 2014 ? June 2016). > > Co-Chairs of the PDWG are volunteers selected by the community per > the current Policy Development Process (PDP) to carry out all > administrative functions of the Policy Development Working Group > (PDWG). Their responsibilities may include (but are not limited to) > the following: > > 1. Chairing face-to-face policy meeting sessions and determining > consensus. > > 2. Preparing post-meeting policy reports to share with the community > as appropriate. > > 3. Preparing pre-meeting reports (usually mailing list discussion > summaries) in preparation for face-to-face meetings. > > 4. Advising the board about ratification of proposals that reached > consensus. > > 5. Evaluating emergencies that may necessitate varying the normal > policy development process. > > Nominated candidates must be from the AFRINIC community and cannot > be AFRINIC staff. Candidates can be nominated by anyone, but > excluding AFRINIC or other RIR staff, and must permanently reside in > a country within the AFRINIC service region. > > To nominate yourself or a candidate of your choice, please send an > email to the Nominations Committee (nomcom2014 at afrinic.net) with the > following information: > > a. Information of the Nominee: > ? Full Name: > ? Organization name (or Affiliation): > ? Position: > ? E-mail address: > ? Postal/Physical address: > ? Phone number: > ? Country of residence: > ? Brief Bio with a highlight of how the Nominee intends to > contribute to the PDWG in particular and the Region's Policy > Development Process (PDP) in General (not more than 500 words): > > b. Information about the Nominator: > > ? Full Name: > ? Organization: > ? E-mail address: > ? Motivation for nomination: > > If self-nominated, please indicate "self" in section (b) above. > > Please refer to the following for more information: > > ? The PDWG Co-Chair election process: > http://www.afrinic.net/elections/process/ep_pdwg.htm for more > information. > > > ? The Policy Development Process: > http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/251-policy-development-process-in-the-afrinic-service-region-afpub-2010-gen-005 > > > > The Deadline for nominations is Wednesday 14th May 2014 20:00 UTC. > > > > -- > Mark J Elkins - AFRINIC 2014 Nominations Committee Chair > mje at posix.co.za - nomcom2014 (at) afrinic.net > Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 > > > _______________________________________________ > AfrICANN mailing list > AfrICANN at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/africann > > > _______________________________________________ > AfrICANN mailing list > AfrICANN at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/africann -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com Tue May 13 11:55:06 2014 From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji) Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 12:55:06 +0100 Subject: [rpd] Discussion about e-voting In-Reply-To: <5371DB5E.8040105@itibots.com> References: <20140513070326.5308547.90076.12320@ng.lopworks.com> <1399966124.8782.YahooMailBasic@web141504.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <7FF93785BD2D534EA45841A8AAA1D89B2EE07A804E@liquid-exch.liquidtelecom.local> <5371DB5E.8040105@itibots.com> Message-ID: Hello Gift, all Let me also add a few personal words below: On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 9:44 AM, gift wrote: > > On general corporate governance standards and independence, my view has > been the board (or member of) should not be directly involved in the > running of the elections (by what ever definition) other than by way of > policy. As the sitting executive they have a direct interest. > +1 imagine the incumbent governor of a state in the electoral committee for that state's governorship election ;) > But then this seems to be the model for member driven organizations from > ICANN to RIRS where board members occupy a representative and ownership > role which often appears conflictual depending from which angle one looks. > Well even ICANN noncom does not operate this way; A board member does not chair nomcom. Although it's good to note that perhaps the AFRINIC nomcom could not achieve consensus of whom to chair hence the reason why the board member became de-facto Chair (as per the bylaw). Nevertheless the main question is whether its even right for board member to be in nomcom in the first place. > A board member is supposed to have the best interest of AfrINIC at heart > yet he also has personal interest about certain views and choices; out > going and incoming directors etc. They participate in choosing Nomcom and > then sit in Nomcom and certainly the opportunity for undue influence exists > as they are the appointing authority for the supposed colleagues in Nomcom. > As knowledge and experience on these matters increase within AfriNIC > community, I would advocate that there should be no member of the board in > Nomcom. The CEO can support Nomcom adequately policy and admin wise. Best > corporate governance standards discourage an individual playing > multiple/dual roles which have a potential conflict of interest. > The best i think board member should do is to perform liaison role in nomcom. IMO the "backup" clause in the bylaw that allows a board member to Chair nomcom needs to be reviewed such that the chair is a non-interest party. The best non-interest party for such role is the AFRINIC staff. However the other important and related one is that i am yet to find on the bylaw where it says board member is to Chair electoral committee. To make the situation quite a puzzle; the nomcom which is suppose to coordinate the electoral committee this time around find itself coordinating itself ;) It is my hope that AFRINIC board will consider all this important comments; its not about the chair rigging election neither is it about conflict of interest.(personally those won't influence who i vote for). It is however more about giving room for due process and integrity. The community will like to continue to see an AFRINIC as an organisation they can boldly defend and be proud of. Kind Regards > > I guess democracy is dynamic a number of these issues > > regards > > GS > > > > > On 13/05/2014 10:01 AM, Andrew Alston wrote: > Again, I would argue that this is actually normal practice. > > Going back to the corporate example before: > > An individual sits on 5 boards, he can vote on all 5 boards. > > On board 1, comprising of 15 members, with a quorum of 10, 4 members cannot make a board meeting, and assign proxies to one individual to vote on their behalf. At this point, said individual on board 1 carries his own vote, and 4 proxies. Have seen that happen before in several cases. > > What I *WOULD* like to see is that the proxy form contains a field where the member organization assigning the proxy specifies on the proxy form which way the individual casting the proxy shall vote, or an optional "discretionary" box. So when the proxies are allocated, the individual can be forced by the member organization assigning the proxy to vote in a particular way, or can specifically be granted the discretion to choose who he/she casts the members vote for. > > This would eliminate a lot of the potential problems, where someone shows up with 5 proxies, and can potentially be influenced at the meeting to throw all his/her proxies behind a single candidate, since the votes are already indicated on the proxy ballot. > > Just a thought > > Andrew > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Walubengo J [mailto:jwalu at yahoo.com ] > Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 10:29 AM > To: Andrew Alston; Nii Narku Quaynor; ademola at ng.lopworks.com > Cc: rpd at afrinic.net > Subject: Re: [rpd] Discussion about e-voting > > @Ademola, > > jst to complicate matters abit with the following hypothetical case. I can carry 5 Proxies and still have additional 5votes for the companies of which I am a Director/Owner. Total votes individual cast =10. > > walu. > Lesson Learnt: A proxy vote is not necessarily the same as a resource member vote. Or so i think. > > > -------------------------------------------- > On Tue, 5/13/14, ademola at ng.lopworks.com wrote: > > Subject: Re: [rpd] Discussion about e-voting > To: "Andrew Alston" , "Nii Narku Quaynor" > Cc: rpd at afrinic.net > Date: Tuesday, May 13, 2014, 10:03 AM > > Dear, > > If it has already been agreed to, I'm sure it was well reviewed by your noble selves, then it should be 5. > > And that implies that an > individual could vote as many as 5 times while acting as a proxy. > > Fair enough except > any case of abuse is shown. > > Regards, > Ademola Osindero > CEO/Consulting Director, > Lopworks Limited > > www.lopworks.com > Original > Message > From: Andrew Alston > Sent: > Tuesday, May 13, 2014 7:48 AM > To: ademola at ng.lopworks.com; > Nii Narku Quaynor > Cc: rpd at afrinic.net > Subject: RE: [rpd] Discussion about e-voting > > The limit on proxies was > already reviewed and reduced to 5 after the fiasco in Tanzania a few elections back. > > This is as defined in the bylaws (I believe it's in section 12.12, but I'm open to correction). > > Do you propose > to reduce this still further? > > Thanks > > Andrew > > > -----Original Message----- > From: ademola at ng.lopworks.com > [mailto:ademola at ng.lopworks.com ] > Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 9:40 AM > To: Andrew Alston; Nii Narku Quaynor > Cc: rpd at afrinic.net > Subject: Re: [rpd] Discussion about e-voting > > Hi All, > > My point is this is easily prone to abuse and would lead to Animal Farm situation. > > On Andrew's example of board directorship, a Director is allowed to cast a vote "on the board of each company he or she is present". That is completely different from the director trying to cast a vote on a platform including many companies he or she represents. The later is the case of Afrinic. > > To be lenient, it is worth reviewing the limit on proxy votes as stated by Nii Quaynor. > > Regards, > Ademola Osindero > CEO/Consulting Director, > Lopworks Limited > > www.lopworks.com > Original > Message > From: Andrew Alston > Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 7:22 AM > To: Nii Narku Quaynor; ademola at ng.lopworks.com > Cc: rpd at afrinic.net > Subject: Re: [rpd] Discussion about e-voting > > Form my perspective, its a > completely different issue. > > People wearing different hats is part of life, and part of standard business. Let me give you an > example: > > An individual > holds directorships on multiple boards (this is very common in business, and I can point to several examples). > > That individual has the right > to vote within the board structures of each entity that he represents. Same thing. > > Or, > to put this another way, when an individual votes at the AfriNIC elections, he does not vote as himself, he votes as a member. If the member chooses to designate him the right to vote, that is their right as member. To restrict an individual from representing multiple organisations would be equivalent to saying, if you?re a director of one organisation, you cannot hold a directorship in another. If this were to happen, it might be noted that this would potentially exclude a lot of people from current and past boards who do hold directorships in other organisations. > > As stated by Ademola, one > voice, one vote. The only thing is, it is still one voice one vote, where one voice = ONE MEMBER, the people actually costing the votes are the members, NOT the individual who is merely the instrument through which the members voice is heard. > > That?s my opinion > anyway > > Andrew > > > On 5/13/14, > 8:45 AM, "Nii Narku Quaynor" > wrote: > > >Just curious. > How different is this multi hat different from holding >proxy? I recall Afrinic has a limit on proxy? > > > >> On May > 13, 2014, at 0:20, ademola at ng.lopworks.com > wrote: > >> > >> > What I find rather absurd is one person having multiple votes. What >>kind of election is that? It should be one voice one vote and that >>should mean one individual one vote. > >> > >> Regards, > >> Ademola Osindero > >> CEO/Consulting Director, > >> Lopworks Limited > >> > >> > www.lopworks.com > >> Original > Message > >> From: Owen DeLong > >> Sent: Monday, May 12, 2014 11:14 PM > >> To: ademola at ng.lopworks.com > >> Cc: mje at posix.co.za; rpd at afrinic.net >> Subject: Re: [rpd] Discussion about e-voting >> >> I?m sorry, but I think that is absurd. All it accomplishes is to >>force organizations to scramble trying to find additional individuals >>to cast their votes. It serves absolutely no useful purpose whatsoever, IMHO. > >> > >> Owen > >> > >>> On May > 12, 2014, at 3:03 PM, ademola at ng.lopworks.com > wrote: > >>> > >>> One individual one vote, > irrespective of how many member > >>>organizations you are affiliated > to. Once an individual's identity is > >>>associated with a member, then the > person will cast vote for only > >>>that member and no other member. > >>> > >>> > Regards, > >>> Ademola Osindero > >>> CEO/Consulting Director, > >>> Lopworks Limited > >>> > >>> > www.lopworks.com > >>> Original > Message > >>> From: Owen DeLong > >>> Sent: Monday, May 12, 2014 10:58 > PM > >>> To: mje at posix.co.za > >>> Cc: rpd at afrinic.net > >>> Subject: Re: Fwd: [rpd] Discussion > about e-voting > >>> > >>>>> 2. Going forward IMHO I > think we should discouraged multiple > >>>>>voting by an individual for > different members since the > >>>>>probability of voting > differently is low and this only goes to >>>>>increase votes across one side only. A "polished form" of election >>>>>rigging. I know some will argue one can still like gin with >>>>>different credentials and vote one sided but then :) >>>>> >>>>> Could someone from the community enlighten me on this please. > >>> > >>> To > echo what Mark said in slightly less confrontational language? >>> >>> One member, one vote. Each member should be able to choose who casts >>>the vote on behalf of that member. > I see nothing wrong with members > >>>who wish to have the same person > represent their interests doing so. > >>>It is not election rigging if 25 > different member organizations all > >>>select the same person to cast > votes on their behalf. Presumably each > >>>member organization is capable of > choosing a voting representative > >>>who will vote in a manner > consistent with their desires and > >>>interests. Likely if they were each > forced to choose a different > >>>person in order to avoid being > disenfranchised as you propose, you > >>>would simply see a larger group of > voters who are potentially less > >>>informed and less motivated. I do > not think that would be beneficial > >>>to AfriNIC, to the community, nor > to the members. > >>> > >>> It seems to me that this is not in > any way equivalent to stuffing > >>>the ballot box or rigging the > election. If those organizations all > >>>pick the same person to represent > them, either they trust that person > >>>to share their ideals/needs/wants > or they trust that person to vote > >>>as they instruct on their behalf. > In either case, that person is > >>>legitimately exercising the vote > designated by the member > >>>organization on behalf of each > member organization. > >>> > >>> Owen > >>> > >>> > >>> > _______________________________________________ > >>> rpd mailing list > >>> rpd at afrinic.net > >>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ > >> rpd mailing list > >> rpd at afrinic.net > >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > >_______________________________________________ > >rpd mailing list > >rpd at afrinic.net > >https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > > DISCLAIMER: > This email contains proprietary information some or all of which may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this email, please notify the author by replying to this email. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose, copy, print, or rely on this email. > We cannot accept liability for any statements made which are clearly the sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of this company or one of its agents. > > > DISCLAIMER: > This email contains proprietary information some or all of which may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this email, please notify the author by replying to this email. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose, copy, print, or rely on this email. > We cannot accept liability for any statements made which are clearly the sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of this company or one of its agents. > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > DISCLAIMER: This email contains proprietary information some or all of which may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this email, please notify the author by replying to this email. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose, copy, print, or rely on this email. We cannot accept liability for any statements made which are clearly the sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of this company or one of its agents. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing listrpd at afrinic.nethttps://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > > > -- > Gift Shava > Financial Controller > > Information Technology Integrators > www. itibots.com > > Office: +26739334779, Mobile: +26772115870 > Fax: +2673170457 > > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng * The key to understanding is humility - my view ! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From owen at delong.com Tue May 13 12:48:18 2014 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 05:48:18 -0700 Subject: [rpd] Discussion about e-voting In-Reply-To: <20140513063946.5308547.84143.12314@ng.lopworks.com> References: <1399910009.13446.145.camel@mje.posix.co.za> <650DBB00-330D-45D9-9B49-D16F9856E826@delong.com> <20140512220305.5308547.91184.12297@ng.lopworks.com> <152A2B6E-C7B2-4188-9E8C-34458B1DB642@delong.com> <20140512222044.5308547.99058.12302@ng.lopworks.com> <0A220B0B-00E2-42A9-87EA-DC10ECF76DEF@ghana.com> <20140513063946.5308547.84143.12314@ng.lopworks.com> Message-ID: On May 12, 2014, at 11:39 PM, ademola at ng.lopworks.com wrote: > Hi All, > > My point is this is easily prone to abuse and would lead to Animal Farm situation. > You are repeating yourself. Can you substantiate this in any way? What is the abuse you expect from this? What do you mean by ?Animal Farm? situation? I doubt that we will be chanting ?four legs good, two legs bad? at AfriNIC meetings any time soon. > On Andrew's example of board directorship, a Director is allowed to cast a vote "on the board of each company he or she is present". That is completely different from the director trying to cast a vote on a platform including many companies he or she represents. The later is the case of Afrinic. Do you think that other industry organizations prohibit people who are on the boards of multiple member organizations from voting for each and every organization they represent? I have never before encountered a situation where that is the case. If AfriNIC were to adopt such a policy, it would be quite unique in my experience. If this is such a source of abuse, then why is it not a problem in many other organizations with similar processes? Owen > > To be lenient, it is worth reviewing the limit on proxy votes as stated by Nii Quaynor. > > Regards, > Ademola Osindero > CEO/Consulting Director, > Lopworks Limited > > www.lopworks.com > Original Message > From: Andrew Alston > Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 7:22 AM > To: Nii Narku Quaynor; ademola at ng.lopworks.com > Cc: rpd at afrinic.net > Subject: Re: [rpd] Discussion about e-voting > > Form my perspective, its a completely different issue. > > People wearing different hats is part of life, and part of standard > business. Let me give you an example: > > An individual holds directorships on multiple boards (this is very common > in business, and I can point to several examples). > > That individual has the right to vote within the board structures of each > entity that he represents. Same thing. > > Or, to put this another way, when an individual votes at the AfriNIC > elections, he does not vote as himself, he votes as a member. If the > member chooses to designate him the right to vote, that is their right as > member. To restrict an individual from representing multiple > organisations would be equivalent to saying, if you?re a director of one > organisation, you cannot hold a directorship in another. If this were to > happen, it might be noted that this would potentially exclude a lot of > people from current and past boards who do hold directorships in other > organisations. > > As stated by Ademola, one voice, one vote. The only thing is, it is still > one voice one vote, where one voice = ONE MEMBER, the people actually > costing the votes are the members, NOT the individual who is merely the > instrument through which the members voice is heard. > > That?s my opinion anyway > > Andrew > > > On 5/13/14, 8:45 AM, "Nii Narku Quaynor" wrote: > >> Just curious. How different is this multi hat different from holding >> proxy? I recall Afrinic has a limit on proxy? >> >>> On May 13, 2014, at 0:20, ademola at ng.lopworks.com wrote: >>> >>> What I find rather absurd is one person having multiple votes. What >>> kind of election is that? It should be one voice one vote and that >>> should mean one individual one vote. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Ademola Osindero >>> CEO/Consulting Director, >>> Lopworks Limited >>> >>> www.lopworks.com >>> Original Message >>> From: Owen DeLong >>> Sent: Monday, May 12, 2014 11:14 PM >>> To: ademola at ng.lopworks.com >>> Cc: mje at posix.co.za; rpd at afrinic.net >>> Subject: Re: [rpd] Discussion about e-voting >>> >>> I?m sorry, but I think that is absurd. All it accomplishes is to force >>> organizations to scramble trying to find additional individuals to cast >>> their votes. It serves absolutely no useful purpose whatsoever, IMHO. >>> >>> Owen >>> >>>> On May 12, 2014, at 3:03 PM, ademola at ng.lopworks.com wrote: >>>> >>>> One individual one vote, irrespective of how many member organizations >>>> you are affiliated to. Once an individual's identity is associated with >>>> a member, then the person will cast vote for only that member and no >>>> other member. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Ademola Osindero >>>> CEO/Consulting Director, >>>> Lopworks Limited >>>> >>>> www.lopworks.com >>>> Original Message >>>> From: Owen DeLong >>>> Sent: Monday, May 12, 2014 10:58 PM >>>> To: mje at posix.co.za >>>> Cc: rpd at afrinic.net >>>> Subject: Re: Fwd: [rpd] Discussion about e-voting >>>> >>>>>> 2. Going forward IMHO I think we should discouraged multiple voting >>>>>> by >>>>>> an individual for different members since the probability of voting >>>>>> differently is low and this only goes to increase votes across one >>>>>> side only. A "polished form" of election rigging. I know some will >>>>>> argue one can still like gin with different credentials and vote one >>>>>> sided but then :) >>>>>> >>>>>> Could someone from the community enlighten me on this please. >>>> >>>> To echo what Mark said in slightly less confrontational language? >>>> >>>> One member, one vote. Each member should be able to choose who casts >>>> the vote on behalf of that member. I see nothing wrong with members who >>>> wish to have the same person represent their interests doing so. It is >>>> not election rigging if 25 different member organizations all select >>>> the same person to cast votes on their behalf. Presumably each member >>>> organization is capable of choosing a voting representative who will >>>> vote in a manner consistent with their desires and interests. Likely if >>>> they were each forced to choose a different person in order to avoid >>>> being disenfranchised as you propose, you would simply see a larger >>>> group of voters who are potentially less informed and less motivated. I >>>> do not think that would be beneficial to AfriNIC, to the community, nor >>>> to the members. >>>> >>>> It seems to me that this is not in any way equivalent to stuffing the >>>> ballot box or rigging the election. If those organizations all pick the >>>> same person to represent them, either they trust that person to share >>>> their ideals/needs/wants or they trust that person to vote as they >>>> instruct on their behalf. In either case, that person is legitimately >>>> exercising the vote designated by the member organization on behalf of >>>> each member organization. >>>> >>>> Owen >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> rpd mailing list >>>> rpd at afrinic.net >>>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> rpd mailing list >>> rpd at afrinic.net >>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >> _______________________________________________ >> rpd mailing list >> rpd at afrinic.net >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > > DISCLAIMER: This email contains proprietary information some or all of which may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this email, please notify the author by replying to this email. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose, copy, print, or rely on this email. We cannot accept liability for any statements made which are clearly the sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of this company or one of its agents. > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd From ademola at ng.lopworks.com Tue May 13 13:02:19 2014 From: ademola at ng.lopworks.com (ademola at ng.lopworks.com) Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 14:02:19 +0100 Subject: [rpd] Discussion about e-voting In-Reply-To: References: <1399910009.13446.145.camel@mje.posix.co.za> <650DBB00-330D-45D9-9B49-D16F9856E826@delong.com> <20140512220305.5308547.91184.12297@ng.lopworks.com> <152A2B6E-C7B2-4188-9E8C-34458B1DB642@delong.com> <20140512222044.5308547.99058.12302@ng.lopworks.com> <0A220B0B-00E2-42A9-87EA-DC10ECF76DEF@ghana.com> <20140513063946.5308547.84143.12314@ng.lopworks.com> Message-ID: <20140513130219.5312649.41191.12338@ng.lopworks.com> Animal Farm is all animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others. That is not democratic. Abuse is quite easy. I lobby to represent ?so many members who really care less about what is happening on Afrinic. I end up with so many voting rights. I even go further to get a few more colleagues to do the same. Collectively we can block votes in our own personal interest. That is not even far fetched. One voice should be one individual and one vote. Regards, Ademola Osindero CEO/Consulting Director, Lopworks Limited www.lopworks.com ? Original Message ? From: Owen DeLong Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 1:54 PM To: ademola at ng.lopworks.com Cc: Andrew Alston; Nii Narku Quaynor; rpd at afrinic.net Subject: Re: [rpd] Discussion about e-voting On May 12, 2014, at 11:39 PM, ademola at ng.lopworks.com wrote: > Hi All, > > My point is this is easily prone to abuse and would lead to Animal Farm situation. > You are repeating yourself. Can you substantiate this in any way? What is the abuse you expect from this? What do you mean by ?Animal Farm? situation? I doubt that we will be chanting ?four legs good, two legs bad? at AfriNIC meetings any time soon. > On Andrew's example of board directorship, a Director is allowed to cast a vote "on the board of each company he or she is present". That is completely different from the director trying to cast a vote on a platform including many companies he or she represents. The later is the case of Afrinic. Do you think that other industry organizations prohibit people who are on the boards of multiple member organizations from voting for each and every organization they represent? I have never before encountered a situation where that is the case. If AfriNIC were to adopt such a policy, it would be quite unique in my experience. If this is such a source of abuse, then why is it not a problem in many other organizations with similar processes? Owen > > To be lenient, it is worth reviewing the limit on proxy votes as stated by Nii Quaynor. > > Regards, > Ademola Osindero > CEO/Consulting Director, > Lopworks Limited > > www.lopworks.com > Original Message > From: Andrew Alston > Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 7:22 AM > To: Nii Narku Quaynor; ademola at ng.lopworks.com > Cc: rpd at afrinic.net > Subject: Re: [rpd] Discussion about e-voting > > Form my perspective, its a completely different issue. > > People wearing different hats is part of life, and part of standard > business. Let me give you an example: > > An individual holds directorships on multiple boards (this is very common > in business, and I can point to several examples). > > That individual has the right to vote within the board structures of each > entity that he represents. Same thing. > > Or, to put this another way, when an individual votes at the AfriNIC > elections, he does not vote as himself, he votes as a member. If the > member chooses to designate him the right to vote, that is their right as > member. To restrict an individual from representing multiple > organisations would be equivalent to saying, if you?re a director of one > organisation, you cannot hold a directorship in another. If this were to > happen, it might be noted that this would potentially exclude a lot of > people from current and past boards who do hold directorships in other > organisations. > > As stated by Ademola, one voice, one vote. The only thing is, it is still > one voice one vote, where one voice = ONE MEMBER, the people actually > costing the votes are the members, NOT the individual who is merely the > instrument through which the members voice is heard. > > That?s my opinion anyway > > Andrew > > > On 5/13/14, 8:45 AM, "Nii Narku Quaynor" wrote: > >> Just curious. How different is this multi hat different from holding >> proxy? I recall Afrinic has a limit on proxy? >> >>> On May 13, 2014, at 0:20, ademola at ng.lopworks.com wrote: >>> >>> What I find rather absurd is one person having multiple votes. What >>> kind of election is that? It should be one voice one vote and that >>> should mean one individual one vote. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Ademola Osindero >>> CEO/Consulting Director, >>> Lopworks Limited >>> >>> www.lopworks.com >>> Original Message >>> From: Owen DeLong >>> Sent: Monday, May 12, 2014 11:14 PM >>> To: ademola at ng.lopworks.com >>> Cc: mje at posix.co.za; rpd at afrinic.net >>> Subject: Re: [rpd] Discussion about e-voting >>> >>> I?m sorry, but I think that is absurd. All it accomplishes is to force >>> organizations to scramble trying to find additional individuals to cast >>> their votes. It serves absolutely no useful purpose whatsoever, IMHO. >>> >>> Owen >>> >>>> On May 12, 2014, at 3:03 PM, ademola at ng.lopworks.com wrote: >>>> >>>> One individual one vote, irrespective of how many member organizations >>>> you are affiliated to. Once an individual's identity is associated with >>>> a member, then the person will cast vote for only that member and no >>>> other member. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Ademola Osindero >>>> CEO/Consulting Director, >>>> Lopworks Limited >>>> >>>> www.lopworks.com >>>> Original Message >>>> From: Owen DeLong >>>> Sent: Monday, May 12, 2014 10:58 PM >>>> To: mje at posix.co.za >>>> Cc: rpd at afrinic.net >>>> Subject: Re: Fwd: [rpd] Discussion about e-voting >>>> >>>>>> 2. Going forward IMHO I think we should discouraged multiple voting >>>>>> by >>>>>> an individual for different members since the probability of voting >>>>>> differently is low and this only goes to increase votes across one >>>>>> side only. A "polished form" of election rigging. I know some will >>>>>> argue one can still like gin with different credentials and vote one >>>>>> sided but then :) >>>>>> >>>>>> Could someone from the community enlighten me on this please. >>>> >>>> To echo what Mark said in slightly less confrontational language? >>>> >>>> One member, one vote. Each member should be able to choose who casts >>>> the vote on behalf of that member. I see nothing wrong with members who >>>> wish to have the same person represent their interests doing so. It is >>>> not election rigging if 25 different member organizations all select >>>> the same person to cast votes on their behalf. Presumably each member >>>> organization is capable of choosing a voting representative who will >>>> vote in a manner consistent with their desires and interests. Likely if >>>> they were each forced to choose a different person in order to avoid >>>> being disenfranchised as you propose, you would simply see a larger >>>> group of voters who are potentially less informed and less motivated. I >>>> do not think that would be beneficial to AfriNIC, to the community, nor >>>> to the members. >>>> >>>> It seems to me that this is not in any way equivalent to stuffing the >>>> ballot box or rigging the election. If those organizations all pick the >>>> same person to represent them, either they trust that person to share >>>> their ideals/needs/wants or they trust that person to vote as they >>>> instruct on their behalf. In either case, that person is legitimately >>>> exercising the vote designated by the member organization on behalf of >>>> each member organization. >>>> >>>> Owen >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> rpd mailing list >>>> rpd at afrinic.net >>>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> rpd mailing list >>> rpd at afrinic.net >>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >> _______________________________________________ >> rpd mailing list >> rpd at afrinic.net >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > > DISCLAIMER: This email contains proprietary information some or all of which may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this email, please notify the author by replying to this email. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose, copy, print, or rely on this email. We cannot accept liability for any statements made which are clearly the sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of this company or one of its agents. > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd From owen at delong.com Tue May 13 15:17:23 2014 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 08:17:23 -0700 Subject: [rpd] Discussion about e-voting In-Reply-To: <20140513130219.5312649.41191.12338@ng.lopworks.com> References: <1399910009.13446.145.camel@mje.posix.co.za> <650DBB00-330D-45D9-9B49-D16F9856E826@delong.com> <20140512220305.5308547.91184.12297@ng.lopworks.com> <152A2B6E-C7B2-4188-9E8C-34458B1DB642@delong.com> <20140512222044.5308547.99058.12302@ng.lopworks.com> <0A220B0B-00E2-42A9-87EA-DC10ECF76DEF@ghana.com> <20140513063946.5308547.84143.12314@ng.lopworks.com> <20140513130219.5312649.41191.12338@ng.lopworks.com> Message-ID: <0DF1D875-CB1C-4C1D-B1FC-612D016BEFED@delong.com> On May 13, 2014, at 6:02 AM, ademola at ng.lopworks.com wrote: > Animal Farm is all animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others. That is not democratic. True, but it also has no relationship whatsoever to the voting we are talking about. Each member organization still has only one vote. > Abuse is quite easy. I lobby to represent so many members who really care less about what is happening on Afrinic. I end up with so many voting rights. I even go further to get a few more colleagues to do the same. Collectively we can block votes in our own personal interest. That is not even far fetched. I suppose that is possible, but I haven?t seen anything to indicate that it is actually happening or is likely to happen. Also, if this really is an issue, then wouldn?t others with competing interests have an equal ability to lobby for those same votes? Why would someone attempting to abuse the process have a greater advantage than one trying to prevent such abuse? > One voice should be one individual and one vote. Repeating this over and over again doesn?t make it any more rational than the firs time you said it. Owen > > > Regards, > Ademola Osindero > CEO/Consulting Director, > Lopworks Limited > > www.lopworks.com > Original Message > From: Owen DeLong > Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 1:54 PM > To: ademola at ng.lopworks.com > Cc: Andrew Alston; Nii Narku Quaynor; rpd at afrinic.net > Subject: Re: [rpd] Discussion about e-voting > > > On May 12, 2014, at 11:39 PM, ademola at ng.lopworks.com wrote: > >> Hi All, >> >> My point is this is easily prone to abuse and would lead to Animal Farm situation. >> > > You are repeating yourself. Can you substantiate this in any way? What is the abuse you expect from this? > > What do you mean by ?Animal Farm? situation? I doubt that we will be chanting ?four legs good, two legs bad? at AfriNIC meetings any time soon. > >> On Andrew's example of board directorship, a Director is allowed to cast a vote "on the board of each company he or she is present". That is completely different from the director trying to cast a vote on a platform including many companies he or she represents. The later is the case of Afrinic. > > Do you think that other industry organizations prohibit people who are on the boards of multiple member organizations from voting for each and every organization they represent? I have never before encountered a situation where that is the case. If AfriNIC were to adopt such a policy, it would be quite unique in my experience. > > If this is such a source of abuse, then why is it not a problem in many other organizations with similar processes? > > Owen > >> >> To be lenient, it is worth reviewing the limit on proxy votes as stated by Nii Quaynor. >> >> Regards, >> Ademola Osindero >> CEO/Consulting Director, >> Lopworks Limited >> >> www.lopworks.com >> Original Message >> From: Andrew Alston >> Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 7:22 AM >> To: Nii Narku Quaynor; ademola at ng.lopworks.com >> Cc: rpd at afrinic.net >> Subject: Re: [rpd] Discussion about e-voting >> >> Form my perspective, its a completely different issue. >> >> People wearing different hats is part of life, and part of standard >> business. Let me give you an example: >> >> An individual holds directorships on multiple boards (this is very common >> in business, and I can point to several examples). >> >> That individual has the right to vote within the board structures of each >> entity that he represents. Same thing. >> >> Or, to put this another way, when an individual votes at the AfriNIC >> elections, he does not vote as himself, he votes as a member. If the >> member chooses to designate him the right to vote, that is their right as >> member. To restrict an individual from representing multiple >> organisations would be equivalent to saying, if you?re a director of one >> organisation, you cannot hold a directorship in another. If this were to >> happen, it might be noted that this would potentially exclude a lot of >> people from current and past boards who do hold directorships in other >> organisations. >> >> As stated by Ademola, one voice, one vote. The only thing is, it is still >> one voice one vote, where one voice = ONE MEMBER, the people actually >> costing the votes are the members, NOT the individual who is merely the >> instrument through which the members voice is heard. >> >> That?s my opinion anyway >> >> Andrew >> >> >> On 5/13/14, 8:45 AM, "Nii Narku Quaynor" wrote: >> >>> Just curious. How different is this multi hat different from holding >>> proxy? I recall Afrinic has a limit on proxy? >>> >>>> On May 13, 2014, at 0:20, ademola at ng.lopworks.com wrote: >>>> >>>> What I find rather absurd is one person having multiple votes. What >>>> kind of election is that? It should be one voice one vote and that >>>> should mean one individual one vote. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Ademola Osindero >>>> CEO/Consulting Director, >>>> Lopworks Limited >>>> >>>> www.lopworks.com >>>> Original Message >>>> From: Owen DeLong >>>> Sent: Monday, May 12, 2014 11:14 PM >>>> To: ademola at ng.lopworks.com >>>> Cc: mje at posix.co.za; rpd at afrinic.net >>>> Subject: Re: [rpd] Discussion about e-voting >>>> >>>> I?m sorry, but I think that is absurd. All it accomplishes is to force >>>> organizations to scramble trying to find additional individuals to cast >>>> their votes. It serves absolutely no useful purpose whatsoever, IMHO. >>>> >>>> Owen >>>> >>>>> On May 12, 2014, at 3:03 PM, ademola at ng.lopworks.com wrote: >>>>> >>>>> One individual one vote, irrespective of how many member organizations >>>>> you are affiliated to. Once an individual's identity is associated with >>>>> a member, then the person will cast vote for only that member and no >>>>> other member. >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> Ademola Osindero >>>>> CEO/Consulting Director, >>>>> Lopworks Limited >>>>> >>>>> www.lopworks.com >>>>> Original Message >>>>> From: Owen DeLong >>>>> Sent: Monday, May 12, 2014 10:58 PM >>>>> To: mje at posix.co.za >>>>> Cc: rpd at afrinic.net >>>>> Subject: Re: Fwd: [rpd] Discussion about e-voting >>>>> >>>>>>> 2. Going forward IMHO I think we should discouraged multiple voting >>>>>>> by >>>>>>> an individual for different members since the probability of voting >>>>>>> differently is low and this only goes to increase votes across one >>>>>>> side only. A "polished form" of election rigging. I know some will >>>>>>> argue one can still like gin with different credentials and vote one >>>>>>> sided but then :) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Could someone from the community enlighten me on this please. >>>>> >>>>> To echo what Mark said in slightly less confrontational language? >>>>> >>>>> One member, one vote. Each member should be able to choose who casts >>>>> the vote on behalf of that member. I see nothing wrong with members who >>>>> wish to have the same person represent their interests doing so. It is >>>>> not election rigging if 25 different member organizations all select >>>>> the same person to cast votes on their behalf. Presumably each member >>>>> organization is capable of choosing a voting representative who will >>>>> vote in a manner consistent with their desires and interests. Likely if >>>>> they were each forced to choose a different person in order to avoid >>>>> being disenfranchised as you propose, you would simply see a larger >>>>> group of voters who are potentially less informed and less motivated. I >>>>> do not think that would be beneficial to AfriNIC, to the community, nor >>>>> to the members. >>>>> >>>>> It seems to me that this is not in any way equivalent to stuffing the >>>>> ballot box or rigging the election. If those organizations all pick the >>>>> same person to represent them, either they trust that person to share >>>>> their ideals/needs/wants or they trust that person to vote as they >>>>> instruct on their behalf. In either case, that person is legitimately >>>>> exercising the vote designated by the member organization on behalf of >>>>> each member organization. >>>>> >>>>> Owen >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> rpd mailing list >>>>> rpd at afrinic.net >>>>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> rpd mailing list >>>> rpd at afrinic.net >>>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >>> _______________________________________________ >>> rpd mailing list >>> rpd at afrinic.net >>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >> >> >> DISCLAIMER: This email contains proprietary information some or all of which may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this email, please notify the author by replying to this email. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose, copy, print, or rely on this email. We cannot accept liability for any statements made which are clearly the sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of this company or one of its agents. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> rpd mailing list >> rpd at afrinic.net >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd From boubakarbarry at gmail.com Tue May 13 15:36:37 2014 From: boubakarbarry at gmail.com (Boubakar Barry) Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 15:36:37 +0000 Subject: [rpd] Discussion about e-voting In-Reply-To: <0DF1D875-CB1C-4C1D-B1FC-612D016BEFED@delong.com> References: <1399910009.13446.145.camel@mje.posix.co.za> <650DBB00-330D-45D9-9B49-D16F9856E826@delong.com> <20140512220305.5308547.91184.12297@ng.lopworks.com> <152A2B6E-C7B2-4188-9E8C-34458B1DB642@delong.com> <20140512222044.5308547.99058.12302@ng.lopworks.com> <0A220B0B-00E2-42A9-87EA-DC10ECF76DEF@ghana.com> <20140513063946.5308547.84143.12314@ng.lopworks.com> <20140513130219.5312649.41191.12338@ng.lopworks.com> <0DF1D875-CB1C-4C1D-B1FC-612D016BEFED@delong.com> Message-ID: Interesting discussions here. I think that what we can learn from all the expressed views is that AfriNIC has to seriously look at the election process, starting from the composition of NomCom and ending with the counting of votes. Nobody in this world can claim having in place a _perfect_ system, but for our community, there is obviously room for improvement. And after improving what we have right now, we will for sure still have to improve again and again... Best, B. On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 3:17 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > > On May 13, 2014, at 6:02 AM, ademola at ng.lopworks.com wrote: > > > Animal Farm is all animals are equal but some animals are more equal > than others. That is not democratic. > > True, but it also has no relationship whatsoever to the voting we are > talking about. Each member organization still has only one vote. > > > Abuse is quite easy. I lobby to represent so many members who really > care less about what is happening on Afrinic. I end up with so many voting > rights. I even go further to get a few more colleagues to do the same. > Collectively we can block votes in our own personal interest. That is not > even far fetched. > > I suppose that is possible, but I haven?t seen anything to indicate that > it is actually happening or is likely to happen. Also, if this really is an > issue, then wouldn?t others with competing interests have an equal ability > to lobby for those same votes? Why would someone attempting to abuse the > process have a greater advantage than one trying to prevent such abuse? > > > One voice should be one individual and one vote. > > Repeating this over and over again doesn?t make it any more rational than > the firs time you said it. > > Owen > > > > > > > Regards, > > Ademola Osindero > > CEO/Consulting Director, > > Lopworks Limited > > > > www.lopworks.com > > Original Message > > From: Owen DeLong > > Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 1:54 PM > > To: ademola at ng.lopworks.com > > Cc: Andrew Alston; Nii Narku Quaynor; rpd at afrinic.net > > Subject: Re: [rpd] Discussion about e-voting > > > > > > On May 12, 2014, at 11:39 PM, ademola at ng.lopworks.com wrote: > > > >> Hi All, > >> > >> My point is this is easily prone to abuse and would lead to Animal Farm > situation. > >> > > > > You are repeating yourself. Can you substantiate this in any way? What > is the abuse you expect from this? > > > > What do you mean by ?Animal Farm? situation? I doubt that we will be > chanting ?four legs good, two legs bad? at AfriNIC meetings any time soon. > > > >> On Andrew's example of board directorship, a Director is allowed to > cast a vote "on the board of each company he or she is present". That is > completely different from the director trying to cast a vote on a platform > including many companies he or she represents. The later is the case of > Afrinic. > > > > Do you think that other industry organizations prohibit people who are > on the boards of multiple member organizations from voting for each and > every organization they represent? I have never before encountered a > situation where that is the case. If AfriNIC were to adopt such a policy, > it would be quite unique in my experience. > > > > If this is such a source of abuse, then why is it not a problem in many > other organizations with similar processes? > > > > Owen > > > >> > >> To be lenient, it is worth reviewing the limit on proxy votes as stated > by Nii Quaynor. > >> > >> Regards, > >> Ademola Osindero > >> CEO/Consulting Director, > >> Lopworks Limited > >> > >> www.lopworks.com > >> Original Message > >> From: Andrew Alston > >> Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 7:22 AM > >> To: Nii Narku Quaynor; ademola at ng.lopworks.com > >> Cc: rpd at afrinic.net > >> Subject: Re: [rpd] Discussion about e-voting > >> > >> Form my perspective, its a completely different issue. > >> > >> People wearing different hats is part of life, and part of standard > >> business. Let me give you an example: > >> > >> An individual holds directorships on multiple boards (this is very > common > >> in business, and I can point to several examples). > >> > >> That individual has the right to vote within the board structures of > each > >> entity that he represents. Same thing. > >> > >> Or, to put this another way, when an individual votes at the AfriNIC > >> elections, he does not vote as himself, he votes as a member. If the > >> member chooses to designate him the right to vote, that is their right > as > >> member. To restrict an individual from representing multiple > >> organisations would be equivalent to saying, if you?re a director of one > >> organisation, you cannot hold a directorship in another. If this were to > >> happen, it might be noted that this would potentially exclude a lot of > >> people from current and past boards who do hold directorships in other > >> organisations. > >> > >> As stated by Ademola, one voice, one vote. The only thing is, it is > still > >> one voice one vote, where one voice = ONE MEMBER, the people actually > >> costing the votes are the members, NOT the individual who is merely the > >> instrument through which the members voice is heard. > >> > >> That?s my opinion anyway > >> > >> Andrew > >> > >> > >> On 5/13/14, 8:45 AM, "Nii Narku Quaynor" wrote: > >> > >>> Just curious. How different is this multi hat different from holding > >>> proxy? I recall Afrinic has a limit on proxy? > >>> > >>>> On May 13, 2014, at 0:20, ademola at ng.lopworks.com wrote: > >>>> > >>>> What I find rather absurd is one person having multiple votes. What > >>>> kind of election is that? It should be one voice one vote and that > >>>> should mean one individual one vote. > >>>> > >>>> Regards, > >>>> Ademola Osindero > >>>> CEO/Consulting Director, > >>>> Lopworks Limited > >>>> > >>>> www.lopworks.com > >>>> Original Message > >>>> From: Owen DeLong > >>>> Sent: Monday, May 12, 2014 11:14 PM > >>>> To: ademola at ng.lopworks.com > >>>> Cc: mje at posix.co.za; rpd at afrinic.net > >>>> Subject: Re: [rpd] Discussion about e-voting > >>>> > >>>> I?m sorry, but I think that is absurd. All it accomplishes is to force > >>>> organizations to scramble trying to find additional individuals to > cast > >>>> their votes. It serves absolutely no useful purpose whatsoever, IMHO. > >>>> > >>>> Owen > >>>> > >>>>> On May 12, 2014, at 3:03 PM, ademola at ng.lopworks.com wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> One individual one vote, irrespective of how many member > organizations > >>>>> you are affiliated to. Once an individual's identity is associated > with > >>>>> a member, then the person will cast vote for only that member and no > >>>>> other member. > >>>>> > >>>>> Regards, > >>>>> Ademola Osindero > >>>>> CEO/Consulting Director, > >>>>> Lopworks Limited > >>>>> > >>>>> www.lopworks.com > >>>>> Original Message > >>>>> From: Owen DeLong > >>>>> Sent: Monday, May 12, 2014 10:58 PM > >>>>> To: mje at posix.co.za > >>>>> Cc: rpd at afrinic.net > >>>>> Subject: Re: Fwd: [rpd] Discussion about e-voting > >>>>> > >>>>>>> 2. Going forward IMHO I think we should discouraged multiple voting > >>>>>>> by > >>>>>>> an individual for different members since the probability of voting > >>>>>>> differently is low and this only goes to increase votes across one > >>>>>>> side only. A "polished form" of election rigging. I know some will > >>>>>>> argue one can still like gin with different credentials and vote > one > >>>>>>> sided but then :) > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Could someone from the community enlighten me on this please. > >>>>> > >>>>> To echo what Mark said in slightly less confrontational language? > >>>>> > >>>>> One member, one vote. Each member should be able to choose who casts > >>>>> the vote on behalf of that member. I see nothing wrong with members > who > >>>>> wish to have the same person represent their interests doing so. It > is > >>>>> not election rigging if 25 different member organizations all select > >>>>> the same person to cast votes on their behalf. Presumably each member > >>>>> organization is capable of choosing a voting representative who will > >>>>> vote in a manner consistent with their desires and interests. Likely > if > >>>>> they were each forced to choose a different person in order to avoid > >>>>> being disenfranchised as you propose, you would simply see a larger > >>>>> group of voters who are potentially less informed and less > motivated. I > >>>>> do not think that would be beneficial to AfriNIC, to the community, > nor > >>>>> to the members. > >>>>> > >>>>> It seems to me that this is not in any way equivalent to stuffing the > >>>>> ballot box or rigging the election. If those organizations all pick > the > >>>>> same person to represent them, either they trust that person to share > >>>>> their ideals/needs/wants or they trust that person to vote as they > >>>>> instruct on their behalf. In either case, that person is legitimately > >>>>> exercising the vote designated by the member organization on behalf > of > >>>>> each member organization. > >>>>> > >>>>> Owen > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>> rpd mailing list > >>>>> rpd at afrinic.net > >>>>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > >>>> > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> rpd mailing list > >>>> rpd at afrinic.net > >>>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> rpd mailing list > >>> rpd at afrinic.net > >>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > >> > >> > >> DISCLAIMER: This email contains proprietary information some or all of > which may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. If > an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this email, please > notify the author by replying to this email. If you are not the intended > recipient, you must not use, disclose, copy, print, or rely on this email. > We cannot accept liability for any statements made which are clearly the > sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of this company or one of its > agents. > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> rpd mailing list > >> rpd at afrinic.net > >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kofi.ansa at gmail.com Tue May 13 17:52:45 2014 From: kofi.ansa at gmail.com (Kofi ansa akufo) Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 21:52:45 +0400 Subject: [rpd] Discussion about e-voting In-Reply-To: References: <1399910009.13446.145.camel@mje.posix.co.za> <650DBB00-330D-45D9-9B49-D16F9856E826@delong.com> <20140512220305.5308547.91184.12297@ng.lopworks.com> <152A2B6E-C7B2-4188-9E8C-34458B1DB642@delong.com> <20140512222044.5308547.99058.12302@ng.lopworks.com> <0A220B0B-00E2-42A9-87EA-DC10ECF76DEF@ghana.com> <20140513063946.5308547.84143.12314@ng.lopworks.com> <20140513130219.5312649.41191.12338@ng.lopworks.com> <0DF1D875-CB1C-4C1D-B1FC-612D016BEFED@delong.com> Message-ID: There is in deed the need for restructuring and composition if our organisation is to remain relevant in the continents growth through enabling ICT promotion. The election process should be then reviewed not to be just casting of votes relegated to decision taken by a few for many passive members but rather as means to kick the impulse in many members to be active to decide how the organisation is steered. This brings to mind decentralization of AFRINIC operations across the continents to get many members actively involved and sensitized and not just light up during meetings. What is the status of that discussion? I see countries like Nigeria, South Africa, Kenya with many members yet little or no operations of the RIR established there? Something for thought :) Kofi On May 13, 2014 7:38 PM, "Boubakar Barry" wrote: > Interesting discussions here. > > I think that what we can learn from all the expressed views is that > AfriNIC has to seriously look at the election process, starting from the > composition of NomCom and ending with the counting of votes. > > Nobody in this world can claim having in place a _perfect_ system, but for > our community, there is obviously room for improvement. > > And after improving what we have right now, we will for sure still have to > improve again and again... > > Best, > B. > > > > On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 3:17 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > >> >> On May 13, 2014, at 6:02 AM, ademola at ng.lopworks.com wrote: >> >> > Animal Farm is all animals are equal but some animals are more equal >> than others. That is not democratic. >> >> True, but it also has no relationship whatsoever to the voting we are >> talking about. Each member organization still has only one vote. >> >> > Abuse is quite easy. I lobby to represent so many members who really >> care less about what is happening on Afrinic. I end up with so many voting >> rights. I even go further to get a few more colleagues to do the same. >> Collectively we can block votes in our own personal interest. That is not >> even far fetched. >> >> I suppose that is possible, but I haven?t seen anything to indicate that >> it is actually happening or is likely to happen. Also, if this really is an >> issue, then wouldn?t others with competing interests have an equal ability >> to lobby for those same votes? Why would someone attempting to abuse the >> process have a greater advantage than one trying to prevent such abuse? >> >> > One voice should be one individual and one vote. >> >> Repeating this over and over again doesn?t make it any more rational than >> the firs time you said it. >> >> Owen >> >> > >> > >> > Regards, >> > Ademola Osindero >> > CEO/Consulting Director, >> > Lopworks Limited >> > >> > www.lopworks.com >> > Original Message >> > From: Owen DeLong >> > Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 1:54 PM >> > To: ademola at ng.lopworks.com >> > Cc: Andrew Alston; Nii Narku Quaynor; rpd at afrinic.net >> > Subject: Re: [rpd] Discussion about e-voting >> > >> > >> > On May 12, 2014, at 11:39 PM, ademola at ng.lopworks.com wrote: >> > >> >> Hi All, >> >> >> >> My point is this is easily prone to abuse and would lead to Animal >> Farm situation. >> >> >> > >> > You are repeating yourself. Can you substantiate this in any way? What >> is the abuse you expect from this? >> > >> > What do you mean by ?Animal Farm? situation? I doubt that we will be >> chanting ?four legs good, two legs bad? at AfriNIC meetings any time soon. >> > >> >> On Andrew's example of board directorship, a Director is allowed to >> cast a vote "on the board of each company he or she is present". That is >> completely different from the director trying to cast a vote on a platform >> including many companies he or she represents. The later is the case of >> Afrinic. >> > >> > Do you think that other industry organizations prohibit people who are >> on the boards of multiple member organizations from voting for each and >> every organization they represent? I have never before encountered a >> situation where that is the case. If AfriNIC were to adopt such a policy, >> it would be quite unique in my experience. >> > >> > If this is such a source of abuse, then why is it not a problem in many >> other organizations with similar processes? >> > >> > Owen >> > >> >> >> >> To be lenient, it is worth reviewing the limit on proxy votes as >> stated by Nii Quaynor. >> >> >> >> Regards, >> >> Ademola Osindero >> >> CEO/Consulting Director, >> >> Lopworks Limited >> >> >> >> www.lopworks.com >> >> Original Message >> >> From: Andrew Alston >> >> Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 7:22 AM >> >> To: Nii Narku Quaynor; ademola at ng.lopworks.com >> >> Cc: rpd at afrinic.net >> >> Subject: Re: [rpd] Discussion about e-voting >> >> >> >> Form my perspective, its a completely different issue. >> >> >> >> People wearing different hats is part of life, and part of standard >> >> business. Let me give you an example: >> >> >> >> An individual holds directorships on multiple boards (this is very >> common >> >> in business, and I can point to several examples). >> >> >> >> That individual has the right to vote within the board structures of >> each >> >> entity that he represents. Same thing. >> >> >> >> Or, to put this another way, when an individual votes at the AfriNIC >> >> elections, he does not vote as himself, he votes as a member. If the >> >> member chooses to designate him the right to vote, that is their right >> as >> >> member. To restrict an individual from representing multiple >> >> organisations would be equivalent to saying, if you?re a director of >> one >> >> organisation, you cannot hold a directorship in another. If this were >> to >> >> happen, it might be noted that this would potentially exclude a lot of >> >> people from current and past boards who do hold directorships in other >> >> organisations. >> >> >> >> As stated by Ademola, one voice, one vote. The only thing is, it is >> still >> >> one voice one vote, where one voice = ONE MEMBER, the people actually >> >> costing the votes are the members, NOT the individual who is merely the >> >> instrument through which the members voice is heard. >> >> >> >> That?s my opinion anyway >> >> >> >> Andrew >> >> >> >> >> >> On 5/13/14, 8:45 AM, "Nii Narku Quaynor" wrote: >> >> >> >>> Just curious. How different is this multi hat different from holding >> >>> proxy? I recall Afrinic has a limit on proxy? >> >>> >> >>>> On May 13, 2014, at 0:20, ademola at ng.lopworks.com wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> What I find rather absurd is one person having multiple votes. What >> >>>> kind of election is that? It should be one voice one vote and that >> >>>> should mean one individual one vote. >> >>>> >> >>>> Regards, >> >>>> Ademola Osindero >> >>>> CEO/Consulting Director, >> >>>> Lopworks Limited >> >>>> >> >>>> www.lopworks.com >> >>>> Original Message >> >>>> From: Owen DeLong >> >>>> Sent: Monday, May 12, 2014 11:14 PM >> >>>> To: ademola at ng.lopworks.com >> >>>> Cc: mje at posix.co.za; rpd at afrinic.net >> >>>> Subject: Re: [rpd] Discussion about e-voting >> >>>> >> >>>> I?m sorry, but I think that is absurd. All it accomplishes is to >> force >> >>>> organizations to scramble trying to find additional individuals to >> cast >> >>>> their votes. It serves absolutely no useful purpose whatsoever, IMHO. >> >>>> >> >>>> Owen >> >>>> >> >>>>> On May 12, 2014, at 3:03 PM, ademola at ng.lopworks.com wrote: >> >>>>> >> >>>>> One individual one vote, irrespective of how many member >> organizations >> >>>>> you are affiliated to. Once an individual's identity is associated >> with >> >>>>> a member, then the person will cast vote for only that member and no >> >>>>> other member. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Regards, >> >>>>> Ademola Osindero >> >>>>> CEO/Consulting Director, >> >>>>> Lopworks Limited >> >>>>> >> >>>>> www.lopworks.com >> >>>>> Original Message >> >>>>> From: Owen DeLong >> >>>>> Sent: Monday, May 12, 2014 10:58 PM >> >>>>> To: mje at posix.co.za >> >>>>> Cc: rpd at afrinic.net >> >>>>> Subject: Re: Fwd: [rpd] Discussion about e-voting >> >>>>> >> >>>>>>> 2. Going forward IMHO I think we should discouraged multiple >> voting >> >>>>>>> by >> >>>>>>> an individual for different members since the probability of >> voting >> >>>>>>> differently is low and this only goes to increase votes across one >> >>>>>>> side only. A "polished form" of election rigging. I know some will >> >>>>>>> argue one can still like gin with different credentials and vote >> one >> >>>>>>> sided but then :) >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Could someone from the community enlighten me on this please. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> To echo what Mark said in slightly less confrontational language? >> >>>>> >> >>>>> One member, one vote. Each member should be able to choose who casts >> >>>>> the vote on behalf of that member. I see nothing wrong with members >> who >> >>>>> wish to have the same person represent their interests doing so. It >> is >> >>>>> not election rigging if 25 different member organizations all select >> >>>>> the same person to cast votes on their behalf. Presumably each >> member >> >>>>> organization is capable of choosing a voting representative who will >> >>>>> vote in a manner consistent with their desires and interests. >> Likely if >> >>>>> they were each forced to choose a different person in order to avoid >> >>>>> being disenfranchised as you propose, you would simply see a larger >> >>>>> group of voters who are potentially less informed and less >> motivated. I >> >>>>> do not think that would be beneficial to AfriNIC, to the community, >> nor >> >>>>> to the members. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> It seems to me that this is not in any way equivalent to stuffing >> the >> >>>>> ballot box or rigging the election. If those organizations all pick >> the >> >>>>> same person to represent them, either they trust that person to >> share >> >>>>> their ideals/needs/wants or they trust that person to vote as they >> >>>>> instruct on their behalf. In either case, that person is >> legitimately >> >>>>> exercising the vote designated by the member organization on behalf >> of >> >>>>> each member organization. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Owen >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >> >>>>> rpd mailing list >> >>>>> rpd at afrinic.net >> >>>>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >> >>>> >> >>>> _______________________________________________ >> >>>> rpd mailing list >> >>>> rpd at afrinic.net >> >>>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >> >>> _______________________________________________ >> >>> rpd mailing list >> >>> rpd at afrinic.net >> >>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >> >> >> >> >> >> DISCLAIMER: This email contains proprietary information some or all of >> which may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. If >> an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this email, please >> notify the author by replying to this email. If you are not the intended >> recipient, you must not use, disclose, copy, print, or rely on this email. >> We cannot accept liability for any statements made which are clearly the >> sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of this company or one of its >> agents. >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> rpd mailing list >> >> rpd at afrinic.net >> >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >> >> _______________________________________________ >> rpd mailing list >> rpd at afrinic.net >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >> > > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kofi.ansa at gmail.com Wed May 14 10:10:26 2014 From: kofi.ansa at gmail.com (Kofi ansa akufo) Date: Wed, 14 May 2014 14:10:26 +0400 Subject: [rpd] Discussion about e-voting In-Reply-To: <65df7caf.00000e08.0000019a@SAUL-PC.eNetworks.local> References: <1399910009.13446.145.camel@mje.posix.co.za> <650DBB00-330D-45D9-9B49-D16F9856E826@delong.com> <20140512220305.5308547.91184.12297@ng.lopworks.com> <152A2B6E-C7B2-4188-9E8C-34458B1DB642@delong.com> <20140512222044.5308547.99058.12302@ng.lopworks.com> <0A220B0B-00E2-42A9-87EA-DC10ECF76DEF@ghana.com> <20140513063946.5308547.84143.12314@ng.lopworks.com> <20140513130219.5312649.41191.12338@ng.lopworks.com> <0DF1D875-CB1C-4C1D-B1FC-612D016BEFED@delong.com> <65df7caf.00000e08.0000019a@SAUL-PC.eNetworks.local> Message-ID: Saul thank you for sharing the stats. Doest it mean basically 29 members patronized e-voting (19 votes representing 4 countries) out of over 500 active members in the last election? AFRINIC reach and positive impact on the continent could be translated into many members participating in the running and decision making processes if certain operational functions are distributed over the continent. Presence around the region should not be overlooked. This is another topic of discussion all together. Cheers Kofi On May 14, 2014 11:09 AM, "Saul" wrote: > Hi Guys, > > Sorry for a bit of cross posting, but > > For those of you that aren?t on the members-discuss list, attached is the > voting numbers from last year?s election. > > Rather dismal. > > > > I don?t quite see the need for dividing the region, but would first like > to see at a plan for AFRNIC to have better reach & impact to all of the > region, all the major languages (maybe that creates a need to split into > different divisions for the 3 major languages but under one roof) > > > > Based on the attached voting stats (only e voting from last year), it is > clear that very few control AFRNIC & there is serious work that needs to be > done to enable voting, educate and encourage its members to participate. > > > > *From:* rpd-bounces at afrinic.net [mailto:rpd-bounces at afrinic.net] *On > Behalf Of *Kofi ansa akufo > *Sent:* 13 May 2014 07:53 PM > *To:* Boubakar Barry > *Cc:* rpd at afrinic.net; Andrew Alston > *Subject:* Re: [rpd] Discussion about e-voting > > > > There is in deed the need for restructuring and composition if our > organisation is to remain relevant in the continents growth through > enabling ICT promotion. > > The election process should be then reviewed not to be just casting of > votes relegated to decision taken by a few for many passive members but > rather as means to kick the impulse in many members to be active to decide > how the organisation is steered. > > This brings to mind decentralization of AFRINIC operations across the > continents to get many members actively involved and sensitized and not > just light up during meetings. What is the status of that discussion? > > I see countries like Nigeria, South Africa, Kenya with many members yet > little or no operations of the RIR established there? > > Something for thought :) > > Kofi > > On May 13, 2014 7:38 PM, "Boubakar Barry" wrote: > > Interesting discussions here. > > I think that what we can learn from all the expressed views is that > AfriNIC has to seriously look at the election process, starting from the > composition of NomCom and ending with the counting of votes. > > Nobody in this world can claim having in place a _perfect_ system, but for > our community, there is obviously room for improvement. > > > And after improving what we have right now, we will for sure still have to > improve again and again... > > > Best, > B. > > > > On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 3:17 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > > > On May 13, 2014, at 6:02 AM, ademola at ng.lopworks.com wrote: > > > Animal Farm is all animals are equal but some animals are more equal > than others. That is not democratic. > > True, but it also has no relationship whatsoever to the voting we are > talking about. Each member organization still has only one vote. > > > > Abuse is quite easy. I lobby to represent so many members who really > care less about what is happening on Afrinic. I end up with so many voting > rights. I even go further to get a few more colleagues to do the same. > Collectively we can block votes in our own personal interest. That is not > even far fetched. > > I suppose that is possible, but I haven?t seen anything to indicate that > it is actually happening or is likely to happen. Also, if this really is an > issue, then wouldn?t others with competing interests have an equal ability > to lobby for those same votes? Why would someone attempting to abuse the > process have a greater advantage than one trying to prevent such abuse? > > > > One voice should be one individual and one vote. > > Repeating this over and over again doesn?t make it any more rational than > the firs time you said it. > > Owen > > > > > > > > Regards, > > Ademola Osindero > > CEO/Consulting Director, > > Lopworks Limited > > > > www.lopworks.com > > Original Message > > From: Owen DeLong > > Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 1:54 PM > > To: ademola at ng.lopworks.com > > Cc: Andrew Alston; Nii Narku Quaynor; rpd at afrinic.net > > Subject: Re: [rpd] Discussion about e-voting > > > > > > On May 12, 2014, at 11:39 PM, ademola at ng.lopworks.com wrote: > > > >> Hi All, > >> > >> My point is this is easily prone to abuse and would lead to Animal Farm > situation. > >> > > > > You are repeating yourself. Can you substantiate this in any way? What > is the abuse you expect from this? > > > > What do you mean by ?Animal Farm? situation? I doubt that we will be > chanting ?four legs good, two legs bad? at AfriNIC meetings any time soon. > > > >> On Andrew's example of board directorship, a Director is allowed to > cast a vote "on the board of each company he or she is present". That is > completely different from the director trying to cast a vote on a platform > including many companies he or she represents. The later is the case of > Afrinic. > > > > Do you think that other industry organizations prohibit people who are > on the boards of multiple member organizations from voting for each and > every organization they represent? I have never before encountered a > situation where that is the case. If AfriNIC were to adopt such a policy, > it would be quite unique in my experience. > > > > If this is such a source of abuse, then why is it not a problem in many > other organizations with similar processes? > > > > Owen > > > >> > >> To be lenient, it is worth reviewing the limit on proxy votes as stated > by Nii Quaynor. > >> > >> Regards, > >> Ademola Osindero > >> CEO/Consulting Director, > >> Lopworks Limited > >> > >> www.lopworks.com > >> Original Message > >> From: Andrew Alston > >> Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 7:22 AM > >> To: Nii Narku Quaynor; ademola at ng.lopworks.com > >> Cc: rpd at afrinic.net > >> Subject: Re: [rpd] Discussion about e-voting > >> > >> Form my perspective, its a completely different issue. > >> > >> People wearing different hats is part of life, and part of standard > >> business. Let me give you an example: > >> > >> An individual holds directorships on multiple boards (this is very > common > >> in business, and I can point to several examples). > >> > >> That individual has the right to vote within the board structures of > each > >> entity that he represents. Same thing. > >> > >> Or, to put this another way, when an individual votes at the AfriNIC > >> elections, he does not vote as himself, he votes as a member. If the > >> member chooses to designate him the right to vote, that is their right > as > >> member. To restrict an individual from representing multiple > >> organisations would be equivalent to saying, if you?re a director of one > >> organisation, you cannot hold a directorship in another. If this were to > >> happen, it might be noted that this would potentially exclude a lot of > >> people from current and past boards who do hold directorships in other > >> organisations. > >> > >> As stated by Ademola, one voice, one vote. The only thing is, it is > still > >> one voice one vote, where one voice = ONE MEMBER, the people actually > >> costing the votes are the members, NOT the individual who is merely the > >> instrument through which the members voice is heard. > >> > >> That?s my opinion anyway > >> > >> Andrew > >> > >> > >> On 5/13/14, 8:45 AM, "Nii Narku Quaynor" wrote: > >> > >>> Just curious. How different is this multi hat different from holding > >>> proxy? I recall Afrinic has a limit on proxy? > >>> > >>>> On May 13, 2014, at 0:20, ademola at ng.lopworks.com wrote: > >>>> > >>>> What I find rather absurd is one person having multiple votes. What > >>>> kind of election is that? It should be one voice one vote and that > >>>> should mean one individual one vote. > >>>> > >>>> Regards, > >>>> Ademola Osindero > >>>> CEO/Consulting Director, > >>>> Lopworks Limited > >>>> > >>>> www.lopworks.com > >>>> Original Message > >>>> From: Owen DeLong > >>>> Sent: Monday, May 12, 2014 11:14 PM > >>>> To: ademola at ng.lopworks.com > >>>> Cc: mje at posix.co.za; rpd at afrinic.net > >>>> Subject: Re: [rpd] Discussion about e-voting > >>>> > >>>> I?m sorry, but I think that is absurd. All it accomplishes is to force > >>>> organizations to scramble trying to find additional individuals to > cast > >>>> their votes. It serves absolutely no useful purpose whatsoever, IMHO. > >>>> > >>>> Owen > >>>> > >>>>> On May 12, 2014, at 3:03 PM, ademola at ng.lopworks.com wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> One individual one vote, irrespective of how many member > organizations > >>>>> you are affiliated to. Once an individual's identity is associated > with > >>>>> a member, then the person will cast vote for only that member and no > >>>>> other member. > >>>>> > >>>>> Regards, > >>>>> Ademola Osindero > >>>>> CEO/Consulting Director, > >>>>> Lopworks Limited > >>>>> > >>>>> www.lopworks.com > >>>>> Original Message > >>>>> From: Owen DeLong > >>>>> Sent: Monday, May 12, 2014 10:58 PM > >>>>> To: mje at posix.co.za > >>>>> Cc: rpd at afrinic.net > >>>>> Subject: Re: Fwd: [rpd] Discussion about e-voting > >>>>> > >>>>>>> 2. Going forward IMHO I think we should discouraged multiple voting > >>>>>>> by > >>>>>>> an individual for different members since the probability of voting > >>>>>>> differently is low and this only goes to increase votes across one > >>>>>>> side only. A "polished form" of election rigging. I know some will > >>>>>>> argue one can still like gin with different credentials and vote > one > >>>>>>> sided but then :) > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Could someone from the community enlighten me on this please. > >>>>> > >>>>> To echo what Mark said in slightly less confrontational language? > >>>>> > >>>>> One member, one vote. Each member should be able to choose who casts > >>>>> the vote on behalf of that member. I see nothing wrong with members > who > >>>>> wish to have the same person represent their interests doing so. It > is > >>>>> not election rigging if 25 different member organizations all select > >>>>> the same person to cast votes on their behalf. Presumably each member > >>>>> organization is capable of choosing a voting representative who will > >>>>> vote in a manner consistent with their desires and interests. Likely > if > >>>>> they were each forced to choose a different person in order to avoid > >>>>> being disenfranchised as you propose, you would simply see a larger > >>>>> group of voters who are potentially less informed and less > motivated. I > >>>>> do not think that would be beneficial to AfriNIC, to the community, > nor > >>>>> to the members. > >>>>> > >>>>> It seems to me that this is not in any way equivalent to stuffing the > >>>>> ballot box or rigging the election. If those organizations all pick > the > >>>>> same person to represent them, either they trust that person to share > >>>>> their ideals/needs/wants or they trust that person to vote as they > >>>>> instruct on their behalf. In either case, that person is legitimately > >>>>> exercising the vote designated by the member organization on behalf > of > >>>>> each member organization. > >>>>> > >>>>> Owen > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>> rpd mailing list > >>>>> rpd at afrinic.net > >>>>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > >>>> > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> rpd mailing list > >>>> rpd at afrinic.net > >>>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> rpd mailing list > >>> rpd at afrinic.net > >>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > >> > >> > >> DISCLAIMER: This email contains proprietary information some or all of > which may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. If > an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this email, please > notify the author by replying to this email. If you are not the intended > recipient, you must not use, disclose, copy, print, or rely on this email. > We cannot accept liability for any statements made which are clearly the > sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of this company or one of its > agents. > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> rpd mailing list > >> rpd at afrinic.net > >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > > > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From saul at enetworks.co.za Wed May 14 11:45:42 2014 From: saul at enetworks.co.za (Saul) Date: Wed, 14 May 2014 13:45:42 +0200 (SAST) Subject: [rpd] Discussion about e-voting In-Reply-To: References: <1399910009.13446.145.camel@mje.posix.co.za> <650DBB00-330D-45D9-9B49-D16F9856E826@delong.com> <20140512220305.5308547.91184.12297@ng.lopworks.com> <152A2B6E-C7B2-4188-9E8C-34458B1DB642@delong.com> <20140512222044.5308547.99058.12302@ng.lopworks.com> <0A220B0B-00E2-42A9-87EA-DC10ECF76DEF@ghana.com> <20140513063946.5308547.84143.12314@ng.lopworks.com> <20140513130219.5312649.41191.12338@ng.lopworks.com> <0DF1D875-CB1C-4C1D-B1FC-612D016BEFED@delong.com> <65df7caf.00000e08.0000019a@SAUL-PC.eNetworks.local> Message-ID: Hi They don?t have stats from the paper votes, unless they go into archives to retrieve them?but I doubt, barring proxies would amount to much more? From: Kofi ansa akufo [mailto:kofi.ansa at gmail.com] Sent: 14 May 2014 12:10 PM To: Saul; rpd at afrinic.net; ademola at ng.loopworks.com Cc: members-discuss at afrinic.net Subject: RE: [rpd] Discussion about e-voting Saul thank you for sharing the stats. Doest it mean basically 29 members patronized e-voting (19 votes representing 4 countries) out of over 500 active members in the last election? AFRINIC reach and positive impact on the continent could be translated into many members participating in the running and decision making processes if certain operational functions are distributed over the continent. Presence around the region should not be overlooked. This is another topic of discussion all together. Cheers Kofi On May 14, 2014 11:09 AM, "Saul" wrote: Hi Guys, Sorry for a bit of cross posting, but For those of you that aren?t on the members-discuss list, attached is the voting numbers from last year?s election. Rather dismal. I don?t quite see the need for dividing the region, but would first like to see at a plan for AFRNIC to have better reach & impact to all of the region, all the major languages (maybe that creates a need to split into different divisions for the 3 major languages but under one roof) Based on the attached voting stats (only e voting from last year), it is clear that very few control AFRNIC & there is serious work that needs to be done to enable voting, educate and encourage its members to participate. From: rpd-bounces at afrinic.net [mailto:rpd-bounces at afrinic.net ] On Behalf Of Kofi ansa akufo Sent: 13 May 2014 07:53 PM To: Boubakar Barry Cc: rpd at afrinic.net ; Andrew Alston Subject: Re: [rpd] Discussion about e-voting There is in deed the need for restructuring and composition if our organisation is to remain relevant in the continents growth through enabling ICT promotion. The election process should be then reviewed not to be just casting of votes relegated to decision taken by a few for many passive members but rather as means to kick the impulse in many members to be active to decide how the organisation is steered. This brings to mind decentralization of AFRINIC operations across the continents to get many members actively involved and sensitized and not just light up during meetings. What is the status of that discussion? I see countries like Nigeria, South Africa, Kenya with many members yet little or no operations of the RIR established there? Something for thought :) Kofi On May 13, 2014 7:38 PM, "Boubakar Barry" > wrote: Interesting discussions here. I think that what we can learn from all the expressed views is that AfriNIC has to seriously look at the election process, starting from the composition of NomCom and ending with the counting of votes. Nobody in this world can claim having in place a _perfect_ system, but for our community, there is obviously room for improvement. And after improving what we have right now, we will for sure still have to improve again and again... Best, B. On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 3:17 PM, Owen DeLong > wrote: On May 13, 2014, at 6:02 AM, ademola at ng.lopworks.com wrote: > Animal Farm is all animals are equal but some animals are more equal than > others. That is not democratic. True, but it also has no relationship whatsoever to the voting we are talking about. Each member organization still has only one vote. > Abuse is quite easy. I lobby to represent so many members who really care > less about what is happening on Afrinic. I end up with so many voting > rights. I even go further to get a few more colleagues to do the same. > Collectively we can block votes in our own personal interest. That is not > even far fetched. I suppose that is possible, but I haven?t seen anything to indicate that it is actually happening or is likely to happen. Also, if this really is an issue, then wouldn?t others with competing interests have an equal ability to lobby for those same votes? Why would someone attempting to abuse the process have a greater advantage than one trying to prevent such abuse? > One voice should be one individual and one vote. Repeating this over and over again doesn?t make it any more rational than the firs time you said it. Owen > > > Regards, > Ademola Osindero > CEO/Consulting Director, > Lopworks Limited > > www.lopworks.com > Original Message > From: Owen DeLong > Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 1:54 PM > To: ademola at ng.lopworks.com > Cc: Andrew Alston; Nii Narku Quaynor; rpd at afrinic.net > > Subject: Re: [rpd] Discussion about e-voting > > > On May 12, 2014, at 11:39 PM, ademola at ng.lopworks.com > wrote: > >> Hi All, >> >> My point is this is easily prone to abuse and would lead to Animal Farm >> situation. >> > > You are repeating yourself. Can you substantiate this in any way? What is > the abuse you expect from this? > > What do you mean by ?Animal Farm? situation? I doubt that we will be > chanting ?four legs good, two legs bad? at AfriNIC meetings any time soon. > >> On Andrew's example of board directorship, a Director is allowed to cast >> a vote "on the board of each company he or she is present". That is >> completely different from the director trying to cast a vote on a >> platform including many companies he or she represents. The later is the >> case of Afrinic. > > Do you think that other industry organizations prohibit people who are on > the boards of multiple member organizations from voting for each and every > organization they represent? I have never before encountered a situation > where that is the case. If AfriNIC were to adopt such a policy, it would > be quite unique in my experience. > > If this is such a source of abuse, then why is it not a problem in many > other organizations with similar processes? > > Owen > >> >> To be lenient, it is worth reviewing the limit on proxy votes as stated >> by Nii Quaynor. >> >> Regards, >> Ademola Osindero >> CEO/Consulting Director, >> Lopworks Limited >> >> www.lopworks.com >> Original Message >> From: Andrew Alston >> Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 7:22 AM >> To: Nii Narku Quaynor; ademola at ng.lopworks.com >> >> Cc: rpd at afrinic.net >> Subject: Re: [rpd] Discussion about e-voting >> >> Form my perspective, its a completely different issue. >> >> People wearing different hats is part of life, and part of standard >> business. Let me give you an example: >> >> An individual holds directorships on multiple boards (this is very common >> in business, and I can point to several examples). >> >> That individual has the right to vote within the board structures of each >> entity that he represents. Same thing. >> >> Or, to put this another way, when an individual votes at the AfriNIC >> elections, he does not vote as himself, he votes as a member. If the >> member chooses to designate him the right to vote, that is their right as >> member. To restrict an individual from representing multiple >> organisations would be equivalent to saying, if you?re a director of one >> organisation, you cannot hold a directorship in another. If this were to >> happen, it might be noted that this would potentially exclude a lot of >> people from current and past boards who do hold directorships in other >> organisations. >> >> As stated by Ademola, one voice, one vote. The only thing is, it is still >> one voice one vote, where one voice = ONE MEMBER, the people actually >> costing the votes are the members, NOT the individual who is merely the >> instrument through which the members voice is heard. >> >> That?s my opinion anyway >> >> Andrew >> >> >> On 5/13/14, 8:45 AM, "Nii Narku Quaynor" > > wrote: >> >>> Just curious. How different is this multi hat different from holding >>> proxy? I recall Afrinic has a limit on proxy? >>> >>>> On May 13, 2014, at 0:20, ademola at ng.lopworks.com >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> What I find rather absurd is one person having multiple votes. What >>>> kind of election is that? It should be one voice one vote and that >>>> should mean one individual one vote. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Ademola Osindero >>>> CEO/Consulting Director, >>>> Lopworks Limited >>>> >>>> www.lopworks.com >>>> Original Message >>>> From: Owen DeLong >>>> Sent: Monday, May 12, 2014 11:14 PM >>>> To: ademola at ng.lopworks.com >>>> Cc: mje at posix.co.za ; rpd at afrinic.net >>>> >>>> Subject: Re: [rpd] Discussion about e-voting >>>> >>>> I?m sorry, but I think that is absurd. All it accomplishes is to force >>>> organizations to scramble trying to find additional individuals to cast >>>> their votes. It serves absolutely no useful purpose whatsoever, IMHO. >>>> >>>> Owen >>>> >>>>> On May 12, 2014, at 3:03 PM, ademola at ng.lopworks.com >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> One individual one vote, irrespective of how many member organizations >>>>> you are affiliated to. Once an individual's identity is associated >>>>> with >>>>> a member, then the person will cast vote for only that member and no >>>>> other member. >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> Ademola Osindero >>>>> CEO/Consulting Director, >>>>> Lopworks Limited >>>>> >>>>> www.lopworks.com >>>>> Original Message >>>>> From: Owen DeLong >>>>> Sent: Monday, May 12, 2014 10:58 PM >>>>> To: mje at posix.co.za >>>>> Cc: rpd at afrinic.net >>>>> Subject: Re: Fwd: [rpd] Discussion about e-voting >>>>> >>>>>>> 2. Going forward IMHO I think we should discouraged multiple voting >>>>>>> by >>>>>>> an individual for different members since the probability of voting >>>>>>> differently is low and this only goes to increase votes across one >>>>>>> side only. A "polished form" of election rigging. I know some will >>>>>>> argue one can still like gin with different credentials and vote one >>>>>>> sided but then :) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Could someone from the community enlighten me on this please. >>>>> >>>>> To echo what Mark said in slightly less confrontational language? >>>>> >>>>> One member, one vote. Each member should be able to choose who casts >>>>> the vote on behalf of that member. I see nothing wrong with members >>>>> who >>>>> wish to have the same person represent their interests doing so. It is >>>>> not election rigging if 25 different member organizations all select >>>>> the same person to cast votes on their behalf. Presumably each member >>>>> organization is capable of choosing a voting representative who will >>>>> vote in a manner consistent with their desires and interests. Likely >>>>> if >>>>> they were each forced to choose a different person in order to avoid >>>>> being disenfranchised as you propose, you would simply see a larger >>>>> group of voters who are potentially less informed and less motivated. >>>>> I >>>>> do not think that would be beneficial to AfriNIC, to the community, >>>>> nor >>>>> to the members. >>>>> >>>>> It seems to me that this is not in any way equivalent to stuffing the >>>>> ballot box or rigging the election. If those organizations all pick >>>>> the >>>>> same person to represent them, either they trust that person to share >>>>> their ideals/needs/wants or they trust that person to vote as they >>>>> instruct on their behalf. In either case, that person is legitimately >>>>> exercising the vote designated by the member organization on behalf of >>>>> each member organization. >>>>> >>>>> Owen >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> rpd mailing list >>>>> rpd at afrinic.net >>>>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> rpd mailing list >>>> rpd at afrinic.net >>>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >>> _______________________________________________ >>> rpd mailing list >>> rpd at afrinic.net >>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >> >> >> DISCLAIMER: This email contains proprietary information some or all of >> which may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. >> If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this email, please >> notify the author by replying to this email. If you are not the intended >> recipient, you must not use, disclose, copy, print, or rely on this >> email. We cannot accept liability for any statements made which are >> clearly the sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of this company >> or one of its agents. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> rpd mailing list >> rpd at afrinic.net >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd _______________________________________________ rpd mailing list rpd at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd _______________________________________________ rpd mailing list rpd at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From adiel at afrinic.net Wed May 14 18:49:30 2014 From: adiel at afrinic.net (Adiel Akplogan) Date: Wed, 14 May 2014 22:49:30 +0400 Subject: [rpd] Discussion about e-voting In-Reply-To: <2607AFE6-2BCE-47C3-8D94-6B469C7339A9@ghana.com> References: <2607AFE6-2BCE-47C3-8D94-6B469C7339A9@ghana.com> Message-ID: <9A2170D3-6890-4CF1-8EE0-BE0DD10DB371@afrinic.net> Dear Nii and all, I think some aspects need to be clarified. The decision of what is in the Election Guideline is taken by the Board (and has been published for comment before final ratification and use). The fact that Mark has these three functions comes from a recommendation of the guideline that if the NomCome fail to select a Chair among themselves within a certain period, the reps from the Board will be appointed (that is where the problem starts from). And in all fairness (as observer on the NomCom list), he (mark) has been reluctant right from the beginning to wear that hat until he was ?forced? in by the other NomCom members. Now the real problem here is to review that part of the guideline and prevent the NomCom to be chaired by a Board member. NomCom chair also chairing the Ecom: here again it is something that we have done last year (on my suggestion as there was no specific recommendation anywhere for that). The reason behind that is to balance the composition of the E-Com as per Article 10 of the Bylaws with someone from the community with the idea to increase transparency of E-com work (? without at the same time adding additional cost to the process if we had to have an additional new volunteer from the community who we have to pay travels for etc ?). In their report, the 2013 NomCom has requested the board to formalise that practice. that is what was done in the current guideline (and will be proposed as revision to bylaws as well). So I guess the concern is heard and the board is watching this and is open for suggestions so to improve the process Thank you all. - a. On May 12, 2014, at 23:34 PM, Nii Narku Quaynor wrote: > Gee, I now understand why I never got an answer to a very simple question on who decides.... > > Sounds like a corporate governance challenge > > On May 12, 2014, at 19:18, Bope Domilongo Christian wrote: > >> Speaking on my own capacity:) >> >> Following the discussion on rdp, I feel there is also a balance issue, whereby the one person wearing three hat (Nomcom chair, chair election committee, Board member) and am a bit confuse. For the sake of check and balance, as in happen in the normal election process, it will normal that the chair of election committee ought to be not a board member just as electoral commissioners are independent of parties. >> >> With best regards, >> christian >> >> >> >> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 12:54 AM, Kofi ansa akufo wrote: >> Mark >> >> Thanks for pointing out the voting procedure for individuals with multiple votes. >> >> What I am driving at is the integrity of the votes cast and how it fairly represents the diverse community. >> >> Member entities should be encouraged as much as possible to participate in the election process as well as being ptesent in meetings instead of encouraging proxies be it they understand "AFRINIC politics" or NOT to vote for multiple representatives. >> >> I believe the community can do better by exploring how to map entities eligible to vote to the electoral system to involve the diverse community. >> >> cheers >> >> Kofi. >> >> On May 12, 2014 7:55 PM, "Mark Elkins" wrote: >> On Mon, 2014-05-12 at 18:42 +0400, Kofi ansa akufo wrote: >> > Dear All >> > >> > 1. I am currently curious how individuals representing more than one >> > registered and / or resource member currently proceeds to casting >> > votes online. >> >> I have posted on this subject a few postings ago.... >> I am perhaps a perfect example of this scenario. >> >> > Does the person login with the same nic-handle or different >> > nic-handles to cast multiple votes respectively? >> >> The same NIC handle and Password to the same account. >> >> Once in, there is a drop-down box to allow the representative (me, in >> this case) to 'switch' to which ever entity I need to represent or >> manage. >> This is a very convenient way of managing different entities. >> >> > If by nic-handle wouldn't it be easy for voters to be identified by >> > the entities the represent (e.g. organisation ids) at least as a >> > secondary check prior to login to vote. >> >> Generally, it is the entity that is the Member, not the person with the >> NIC-Handle.. more correctly, it is the entity's voting representative >> who can vote. There may be more than one person per entity who is >> enabled to use that privilege, but there is only one vote per entity, >> for example "Resource Member". >> >> >> > I ask this because this will facilitate implementation of dispensing >> > machine for paper ballot sheets for those not able to exercise >> > e-voting based on logic and eliminate ending one voting option before >> > the other as well as human errors. Obviously NOT in the coming 2014 >> > elections but later. >> >> >> > 2. Going forward IMHO I think we should discouraged multiple voting by >> > an individual for different members since the probability of voting >> > differently is low and this only goes to increase votes across one >> > side only. A "polished form" of election rigging. I know some will >> > argue one can still like gin with different credentials and vote one >> > sided but then :) >> > >> > Could someone from the community enlighten me on this please. >> >> I'm a Director of multiple, independent companies each with their own >> resources and each members of AFRINIC in their own right. My fellow >> Directors may prefer me to do all the voting because I understand a fair >> amount of the 'Politics' of AFRINIC. Are you suggesting I should not be >> allowed? That will not make them happy. >> >> Board Members have a Vote. If they also represent a resource Member, are >> you going to disenfranchise them that direct resource vote??? >> >> As you almost suggested, all I need to do then is sit down with various >> collogues and have them login to my-afrinic and cast their vote >> according to my suggestions. >> >> Your suggestion will achieve inconvenience. >> >> Simply creating extra NIC-Handles should not work as AFRINIC requires >> the official Identity of everyone who wishes to use the e-voting >> system. >> >> >> Posted on my own behalf - representing multiple AFRINIC resource >> members. >> >> > Kofi >> >> -- >> Mark James ELKINS - Posix Systems - (South) Africa >> mje at posix.co.za Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 >> For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: https://ftth.posix.co.za >> >> _______________________________________________ >> rpd mailing list >> rpd at afrinic.net >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> rpd mailing list >> rpd at afrinic.net >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> rpd mailing list >> rpd at afrinic.net >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 313 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From owen at delong.com Wed May 14 18:57:30 2014 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Wed, 14 May 2014 11:57:30 -0700 Subject: [rpd] Discussion about e-voting In-Reply-To: <9A2170D3-6890-4CF1-8EE0-BE0DD10DB371@afrinic.net> References: <2607AFE6-2BCE-47C3-8D94-6B469C7339A9@ghana.com> <9A2170D3-6890-4CF1-8EE0-BE0DD10DB371@afrinic.net> Message-ID: I would propose that sitting board members being present on NomCom or ECom is not a problem. Chairmanship also not a problem. However, in no case should the NomCom and Ecom overlap, nor should there be any possibility for anyone who is a candidate in the relevant election to be a member of either committee. Owen On May 14, 2014, at 11:49 AM, Adiel Akplogan wrote: > Dear Nii and all, > > I think some aspects need to be clarified. The decision of what is in the Election Guideline is taken by the Board (and has been published for comment before final ratification and use). The fact that Mark has these three functions comes from a recommendation of the guideline that if the NomCome fail to select a Chair among themselves within a certain period, the reps from the Board will be appointed (that is where the problem starts from). And in all fairness (as observer on the NomCom list), he (mark) has been reluctant right from the beginning to wear that hat until he was ?forced? in by the other NomCom members. Now the real problem here is to review that part of the guideline and prevent the NomCom to be chaired by a Board member. > > NomCom chair also chairing the Ecom: here again it is something that we have done last year (on my suggestion as there was no specific recommendation anywhere for that). The reason behind that is to balance the composition of the E-Com as per Article 10 of the Bylaws with someone from the community with the idea to increase transparency of E-com work (? without at the same time adding additional cost to the process if we had to have an additional new volunteer from the community who we have to pay travels for etc ?). In their report, the 2013 NomCom has requested the board to formalise that practice. that is what was done in the current guideline (and will be proposed as revision to bylaws as well). > > So I guess the concern is heard and the board is watching this and is open for suggestions so to improve the process > > Thank you all. > > - a. > > > On May 12, 2014, at 23:34 PM, Nii Narku Quaynor wrote: > >> Gee, I now understand why I never got an answer to a very simple question on who decides.... >> >> Sounds like a corporate governance challenge >> >> On May 12, 2014, at 19:18, Bope Domilongo Christian wrote: >> >>> Speaking on my own capacity:) >>> >>> Following the discussion on rdp, I feel there is also a balance issue, whereby the one person wearing three hat (Nomcom chair, chair election committee, Board member) and am a bit confuse. For the sake of check and balance, as in happen in the normal election process, it will normal that the chair of election committee ought to be not a board member just as electoral commissioners are independent of parties. >>> >>> With best regards, >>> christian >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 12:54 AM, Kofi ansa akufo wrote: >>> Mark >>> >>> Thanks for pointing out the voting procedure for individuals with multiple votes. >>> >>> What I am driving at is the integrity of the votes cast and how it fairly represents the diverse community. >>> >>> Member entities should be encouraged as much as possible to participate in the election process as well as being ptesent in meetings instead of encouraging proxies be it they understand "AFRINIC politics" or NOT to vote for multiple representatives. >>> >>> I believe the community can do better by exploring how to map entities eligible to vote to the electoral system to involve the diverse community. >>> >>> cheers >>> >>> Kofi. >>> >>> On May 12, 2014 7:55 PM, "Mark Elkins" wrote: >>> On Mon, 2014-05-12 at 18:42 +0400, Kofi ansa akufo wrote: >>>> Dear All >>>> >>>> 1. I am currently curious how individuals representing more than one >>>> registered and / or resource member currently proceeds to casting >>>> votes online. >>> >>> I have posted on this subject a few postings ago.... >>> I am perhaps a perfect example of this scenario. >>> >>>> Does the person login with the same nic-handle or different >>>> nic-handles to cast multiple votes respectively? >>> >>> The same NIC handle and Password to the same account. >>> >>> Once in, there is a drop-down box to allow the representative (me, in >>> this case) to 'switch' to which ever entity I need to represent or >>> manage. >>> This is a very convenient way of managing different entities. >>> >>>> If by nic-handle wouldn't it be easy for voters to be identified by >>>> the entities the represent (e.g. organisation ids) at least as a >>>> secondary check prior to login to vote. >>> >>> Generally, it is the entity that is the Member, not the person with the >>> NIC-Handle.. more correctly, it is the entity's voting representative >>> who can vote. There may be more than one person per entity who is >>> enabled to use that privilege, but there is only one vote per entity, >>> for example "Resource Member". >>> >>> >>>> I ask this because this will facilitate implementation of dispensing >>>> machine for paper ballot sheets for those not able to exercise >>>> e-voting based on logic and eliminate ending one voting option before >>>> the other as well as human errors. Obviously NOT in the coming 2014 >>>> elections but later. >>> >>> >>>> 2. Going forward IMHO I think we should discouraged multiple voting by >>>> an individual for different members since the probability of voting >>>> differently is low and this only goes to increase votes across one >>>> side only. A "polished form" of election rigging. I know some will >>>> argue one can still like gin with different credentials and vote one >>>> sided but then :) >>>> >>>> Could someone from the community enlighten me on this please. >>> >>> I'm a Director of multiple, independent companies each with their own >>> resources and each members of AFRINIC in their own right. My fellow >>> Directors may prefer me to do all the voting because I understand a fair >>> amount of the 'Politics' of AFRINIC. Are you suggesting I should not be >>> allowed? That will not make them happy. >>> >>> Board Members have a Vote. If they also represent a resource Member, are >>> you going to disenfranchise them that direct resource vote??? >>> >>> As you almost suggested, all I need to do then is sit down with various >>> collogues and have them login to my-afrinic and cast their vote >>> according to my suggestions. >>> >>> Your suggestion will achieve inconvenience. >>> >>> Simply creating extra NIC-Handles should not work as AFRINIC requires >>> the official Identity of everyone who wishes to use the e-voting >>> system. >>> >>> >>> Posted on my own behalf - representing multiple AFRINIC resource >>> members. >>> >>>> Kofi >>> >>> -- >>> Mark James ELKINS - Posix Systems - (South) Africa >>> mje at posix.co.za Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 >>> For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: https://ftth.posix.co.za >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> rpd mailing list >>> rpd at afrinic.net >>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> rpd mailing list >>> rpd at afrinic.net >>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> rpd mailing list >>> rpd at afrinic.net >>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >> _______________________________________________ >> rpd mailing list >> rpd at afrinic.net >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd From seeburn.k at gmail.com Wed May 14 19:31:39 2014 From: seeburn.k at gmail.com (Kris Seeburn) Date: Wed, 14 May 2014 23:31:39 +0400 Subject: [rpd] Discussion about e-voting In-Reply-To: References: <2607AFE6-2BCE-47C3-8D94-6B469C7339A9@ghana.com> <9A2170D3-6890-4CF1-8EE0-BE0DD10DB371@afrinic.net> Message-ID: <861E34E7-2909-49E5-BBF7-177F3219334B@gmail.com> The second part is already catered in and in no instance has anyone who is on for election or from a region on for election is nominated in from the board on the Nomcomm. The only change that has however happened is that of non-regional candidate seat who can come from any region and this is perhaps the biggest challenge in the process from a regional perspective the choice is clear but non-regional is something no one will ever know until such time that the nomcomm would see the candidates. The question then is should we then find someone from outside Africa to hold the Chair without being biased and members of the nomcomm ? I think this is one of the real challenges. On May 14, 2014, at 10:57 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > I would propose that sitting board members being present on NomCom or ECom is not a problem. Chairmanship also not a problem. > > However, in no case should the NomCom and Ecom overlap, nor should there be any possibility for anyone who is a candidate in the relevant election to be a member of either committee. > > Owen > > On May 14, 2014, at 11:49 AM, Adiel Akplogan wrote: > >> Dear Nii and all, >> >> I think some aspects need to be clarified. The decision of what is in the Election Guideline is taken by the Board (and has been published for comment before final ratification and use). The fact that Mark has these three functions comes from a recommendation of the guideline that if the NomCome fail to select a Chair among themselves within a certain period, the reps from the Board will be appointed (that is where the problem starts from). And in all fairness (as observer on the NomCom list), he (mark) has been reluctant right from the beginning to wear that hat until he was ?forced? in by the other NomCom members. Now the real problem here is to review that part of the guideline and prevent the NomCom to be chaired by a Board member. >> >> NomCom chair also chairing the Ecom: here again it is something that we have done last year (on my suggestion as there was no specific recommendation anywhere for that). The reason behind that is to balance the composition of the E-Com as per Article 10 of the Bylaws with someone from the community with the idea to increase transparency of E-com work (? without at the same time adding additional cost to the process if we had to have an additional new volunteer from the community who we have to pay travels for etc ?). In their report, the 2013 NomCom has requested the board to formalise that practice. that is what was done in the current guideline (and will be proposed as revision to bylaws as well). >> >> So I guess the concern is heard and the board is watching this and is open for suggestions so to improve the process >> >> Thank you all. >> >> - a. >> >> >> On May 12, 2014, at 23:34 PM, Nii Narku Quaynor wrote: >> >>> Gee, I now understand why I never got an answer to a very simple question on who decides.... >>> >>> Sounds like a corporate governance challenge >>> >>> On May 12, 2014, at 19:18, Bope Domilongo Christian wrote: >>> >>>> Speaking on my own capacity:) >>>> >>>> Following the discussion on rdp, I feel there is also a balance issue, whereby the one person wearing three hat (Nomcom chair, chair election committee, Board member) and am a bit confuse. For the sake of check and balance, as in happen in the normal election process, it will normal that the chair of election committee ought to be not a board member just as electoral commissioners are independent of parties. >>>> >>>> With best regards, >>>> christian >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 12:54 AM, Kofi ansa akufo wrote: >>>> Mark >>>> >>>> Thanks for pointing out the voting procedure for individuals with multiple votes. >>>> >>>> What I am driving at is the integrity of the votes cast and how it fairly represents the diverse community. >>>> >>>> Member entities should be encouraged as much as possible to participate in the election process as well as being ptesent in meetings instead of encouraging proxies be it they understand "AFRINIC politics" or NOT to vote for multiple representatives. >>>> >>>> I believe the community can do better by exploring how to map entities eligible to vote to the electoral system to involve the diverse community. >>>> >>>> cheers >>>> >>>> Kofi. >>>> >>>> On May 12, 2014 7:55 PM, "Mark Elkins" wrote: >>>> On Mon, 2014-05-12 at 18:42 +0400, Kofi ansa akufo wrote: >>>>> Dear All >>>>> >>>>> 1. I am currently curious how individuals representing more than one >>>>> registered and / or resource member currently proceeds to casting >>>>> votes online. >>>> >>>> I have posted on this subject a few postings ago.... >>>> I am perhaps a perfect example of this scenario. >>>> >>>>> Does the person login with the same nic-handle or different >>>>> nic-handles to cast multiple votes respectively? >>>> >>>> The same NIC handle and Password to the same account. >>>> >>>> Once in, there is a drop-down box to allow the representative (me, in >>>> this case) to 'switch' to which ever entity I need to represent or >>>> manage. >>>> This is a very convenient way of managing different entities. >>>> >>>>> If by nic-handle wouldn't it be easy for voters to be identified by >>>>> the entities the represent (e.g. organisation ids) at least as a >>>>> secondary check prior to login to vote. >>>> >>>> Generally, it is the entity that is the Member, not the person with the >>>> NIC-Handle.. more correctly, it is the entity's voting representative >>>> who can vote. There may be more than one person per entity who is >>>> enabled to use that privilege, but there is only one vote per entity, >>>> for example "Resource Member". >>>> >>>> >>>>> I ask this because this will facilitate implementation of dispensing >>>>> machine for paper ballot sheets for those not able to exercise >>>>> e-voting based on logic and eliminate ending one voting option before >>>>> the other as well as human errors. Obviously NOT in the coming 2014 >>>>> elections but later. >>>> >>>> >>>>> 2. Going forward IMHO I think we should discouraged multiple voting by >>>>> an individual for different members since the probability of voting >>>>> differently is low and this only goes to increase votes across one >>>>> side only. A "polished form" of election rigging. I know some will >>>>> argue one can still like gin with different credentials and vote one >>>>> sided but then :) >>>>> >>>>> Could someone from the community enlighten me on this please. >>>> >>>> I'm a Director of multiple, independent companies each with their own >>>> resources and each members of AFRINIC in their own right. My fellow >>>> Directors may prefer me to do all the voting because I understand a fair >>>> amount of the 'Politics' of AFRINIC. Are you suggesting I should not be >>>> allowed? That will not make them happy. >>>> >>>> Board Members have a Vote. If they also represent a resource Member, are >>>> you going to disenfranchise them that direct resource vote??? >>>> >>>> As you almost suggested, all I need to do then is sit down with various >>>> collogues and have them login to my-afrinic and cast their vote >>>> according to my suggestions. >>>> >>>> Your suggestion will achieve inconvenience. >>>> >>>> Simply creating extra NIC-Handles should not work as AFRINIC requires >>>> the official Identity of everyone who wishes to use the e-voting >>>> system. >>>> >>>> >>>> Posted on my own behalf - representing multiple AFRINIC resource >>>> members. >>>> >>>>> Kofi >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Mark James ELKINS - Posix Systems - (South) Africa >>>> mje at posix.co.za Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 >>>> For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: https://ftth.posix.co.za >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> rpd mailing list >>>> rpd at afrinic.net >>>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> rpd mailing list >>>> rpd at afrinic.net >>>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> rpd mailing list >>>> rpd at afrinic.net >>>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >>> _______________________________________________ >>> rpd mailing list >>> rpd at afrinic.net >>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >> >> _______________________________________________ >> rpd mailing list >> rpd at afrinic.net >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd Kris Seeburn seeburn.k at gmail.com www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 496 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From adiel at afrinic.net Wed May 14 19:33:45 2014 From: adiel at afrinic.net (Adiel Akplogan) Date: Wed, 14 May 2014 23:33:45 +0400 Subject: [rpd] Discussion about e-voting In-Reply-To: References: <2607AFE6-2BCE-47C3-8D94-6B469C7339A9@ghana.com> <9A2170D3-6890-4CF1-8EE0-BE0DD10DB371@afrinic.net> Message-ID: <6C83BBE5-3D24-4D41-8259-F8DC9B06CB29@afrinic.net> On May 14, 2014, at 22:57 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > I would propose that sitting board members being present on NomCom or ECom is not a problem. Chairmanship also not a problem. Ok. > However, in no case should the NomCom and Ecom overlap, Ok, that can also be addressed. > nor should there be any possibility for anyone who is a candidate in the relevant election to be a member of either committee. Yes and that is already well covered. Even anyone from regions' seat that are open for re-election can not be in the NomCom. - a. > On May 14, 2014, at 11:49 AM, Adiel Akplogan wrote: > >> Dear Nii and all, >> >> I think some aspects need to be clarified. The decision of what is in the Election Guideline is taken by the Board (and has been published for comment before final ratification and use). The fact that Mark has these three functions comes from a recommendation of the guideline that if the NomCome fail to select a Chair among themselves within a certain period, the reps from the Board will be appointed (that is where the problem starts from). And in all fairness (as observer on the NomCom list), he (mark) has been reluctant right from the beginning to wear that hat until he was ?forced? in by the other NomCom members. Now the real problem here is to review that part of the guideline and prevent the NomCom to be chaired by a Board member. >> >> NomCom chair also chairing the Ecom: here again it is something that we have done last year (on my suggestion as there was no specific recommendation anywhere for that). The reason behind that is to balance the composition of the E-Com as per Article 10 of the Bylaws with someone from the community with the idea to increase transparency of E-com work (? without at the same time adding additional cost to the process if we had to have an additional new volunteer from the community who we have to pay travels for etc ?). In their report, the 2013 NomCom has requested the board to formalise that practice. that is what was done in the current guideline (and will be proposed as revision to bylaws as well). >> >> So I guess the concern is heard and the board is watching this and is open for suggestions so to improve the process >> >> Thank you all. >> >> - a. >> >> >> On May 12, 2014, at 23:34 PM, Nii Narku Quaynor wrote: >> >>> Gee, I now understand why I never got an answer to a very simple question on who decides.... >>> >>> Sounds like a corporate governance challenge >>> >>> On May 12, 2014, at 19:18, Bope Domilongo Christian wrote: >>> >>>> Speaking on my own capacity:) >>>> >>>> Following the discussion on rdp, I feel there is also a balance issue, whereby the one person wearing three hat (Nomcom chair, chair election committee, Board member) and am a bit confuse. For the sake of check and balance, as in happen in the normal election process, it will normal that the chair of election committee ought to be not a board member just as electoral commissioners are independent of parties. >>>> >>>> With best regards, >>>> christian >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 12:54 AM, Kofi ansa akufo wrote: >>>> Mark >>>> >>>> Thanks for pointing out the voting procedure for individuals with multiple votes. >>>> >>>> What I am driving at is the integrity of the votes cast and how it fairly represents the diverse community. >>>> >>>> Member entities should be encouraged as much as possible to participate in the election process as well as being ptesent in meetings instead of encouraging proxies be it they understand "AFRINIC politics" or NOT to vote for multiple representatives. >>>> >>>> I believe the community can do better by exploring how to map entities eligible to vote to the electoral system to involve the diverse community. >>>> >>>> cheers >>>> >>>> Kofi. >>>> >>>> On May 12, 2014 7:55 PM, "Mark Elkins" wrote: >>>> On Mon, 2014-05-12 at 18:42 +0400, Kofi ansa akufo wrote: >>>>> Dear All >>>>> >>>>> 1. I am currently curious how individuals representing more than one >>>>> registered and / or resource member currently proceeds to casting >>>>> votes online. >>>> >>>> I have posted on this subject a few postings ago.... >>>> I am perhaps a perfect example of this scenario. >>>> >>>>> Does the person login with the same nic-handle or different >>>>> nic-handles to cast multiple votes respectively? >>>> >>>> The same NIC handle and Password to the same account. >>>> >>>> Once in, there is a drop-down box to allow the representative (me, in >>>> this case) to 'switch' to which ever entity I need to represent or >>>> manage. >>>> This is a very convenient way of managing different entities. >>>> >>>>> If by nic-handle wouldn't it be easy for voters to be identified by >>>>> the entities the represent (e.g. organisation ids) at least as a >>>>> secondary check prior to login to vote. >>>> >>>> Generally, it is the entity that is the Member, not the person with the >>>> NIC-Handle.. more correctly, it is the entity's voting representative >>>> who can vote. There may be more than one person per entity who is >>>> enabled to use that privilege, but there is only one vote per entity, >>>> for example "Resource Member". >>>> >>>> >>>>> I ask this because this will facilitate implementation of dispensing >>>>> machine for paper ballot sheets for those not able to exercise >>>>> e-voting based on logic and eliminate ending one voting option before >>>>> the other as well as human errors. Obviously NOT in the coming 2014 >>>>> elections but later. >>>> >>>> >>>>> 2. Going forward IMHO I think we should discouraged multiple voting by >>>>> an individual for different members since the probability of voting >>>>> differently is low and this only goes to increase votes across one >>>>> side only. A "polished form" of election rigging. I know some will >>>>> argue one can still like gin with different credentials and vote one >>>>> sided but then :) >>>>> >>>>> Could someone from the community enlighten me on this please. >>>> >>>> I'm a Director of multiple, independent companies each with their own >>>> resources and each members of AFRINIC in their own right. My fellow >>>> Directors may prefer me to do all the voting because I understand a fair >>>> amount of the 'Politics' of AFRINIC. Are you suggesting I should not be >>>> allowed? That will not make them happy. >>>> >>>> Board Members have a Vote. If they also represent a resource Member, are >>>> you going to disenfranchise them that direct resource vote??? >>>> >>>> As you almost suggested, all I need to do then is sit down with various >>>> collogues and have them login to my-afrinic and cast their vote >>>> according to my suggestions. >>>> >>>> Your suggestion will achieve inconvenience. >>>> >>>> Simply creating extra NIC-Handles should not work as AFRINIC requires >>>> the official Identity of everyone who wishes to use the e-voting >>>> system. >>>> >>>> >>>> Posted on my own behalf - representing multiple AFRINIC resource >>>> members. >>>> >>>>> Kofi >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Mark James ELKINS - Posix Systems - (South) Africa >>>> mje at posix.co.za Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 >>>> For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: https://ftth.posix.co.za >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> rpd mailing list >>>> rpd at afrinic.net >>>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> rpd mailing list >>>> rpd at afrinic.net >>>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> rpd mailing list >>>> rpd at afrinic.net >>>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >>> _______________________________________________ >>> rpd mailing list >>> rpd at afrinic.net >>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >> >> _______________________________________________ >> rpd mailing list >> rpd at afrinic.net >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 313 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com Wed May 14 19:41:57 2014 From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji) Date: Wed, 14 May 2014 20:41:57 +0100 Subject: [rpd] Discussion about e-voting In-Reply-To: References: <2607AFE6-2BCE-47C3-8D94-6B469C7339A9@ghana.com> <9A2170D3-6890-4CF1-8EE0-BE0DD10DB371@afrinic.net> Message-ID: Hello Owen, On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 7:57 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > I would propose that sitting board members being present on NomCom or ECom > is not a problem. Maybe not but i suggest as liason role as much possible (more like an observer role) Chairmanship also not a problem. > This definitely is what i will not give a +1 on. However chairmanship to board on nomcom could remain as an alternate backup plan for nomcom chair (as per the current bylaw) nevertheless such should not happen with Ecom. As a matter of fact i don't see why we need a chair for Ecom, since there is already an election coordinator. However if we must, then it should not be board member but someone within staff or non-board member (but AFRINIC member in good standing) > > However, in no case should the NomCom and Ecom overlap, +1 > nor should there be any possibility for anyone who is a candidate in the > relevant election to be a member of either committee. > > This is already covered in the bylaw and i don't think it has ever happened before. Regards > Owen > > On May 14, 2014, at 11:49 AM, Adiel Akplogan wrote: > > > Dear Nii and all, > > > > I think some aspects need to be clarified. The decision of what is in > the Election Guideline is taken by the Board (and has been published for > comment before final ratification and use). The fact that Mark has these > three functions comes from a recommendation of the guideline that if the > NomCome fail to select a Chair among themselves within a certain period, > the reps from the Board will be appointed (that is where the problem starts > from). And in all fairness (as observer on the NomCom list), he (mark) has > been reluctant right from the beginning to wear that hat until he was > ?forced? in by the other NomCom members. Now the real problem here is to > review that part of the guideline and prevent the NomCom to be chaired by a > Board member. > > > > NomCom chair also chairing the Ecom: here again it is something that we > have done last year (on my suggestion as there was no specific > recommendation anywhere for that). The reason behind that is to balance the > composition of the E-Com as per Article 10 of the Bylaws with someone from > the community with the idea to increase transparency of E-com work (? > without at the same time adding additional cost to the process if we had to > have an additional new volunteer from the community who we have to pay > travels for etc ?). In their report, the 2013 NomCom has requested the > board to formalise that practice. that is what was done in the current > guideline (and will be proposed as revision to bylaws as well). > > > > So I guess the concern is heard and the board is watching this and is > open for suggestions so to improve the process > > > > Thank you all. > > > > - a. > > > > > > On May 12, 2014, at 23:34 PM, Nii Narku Quaynor > wrote: > > > >> Gee, I now understand why I never got an answer to a very simple > question on who decides.... > >> > >> Sounds like a corporate governance challenge > >> > >> On May 12, 2014, at 19:18, Bope Domilongo Christian < > christianbope at gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >>> Speaking on my own capacity:) > >>> > >>> Following the discussion on rdp, I feel there is also a balance issue, > whereby the one person wearing three hat (Nomcom chair, chair election > committee, Board member) and am a bit confuse. For the sake of check and > balance, as in happen in the normal election process, it will normal that > the chair of election committee ought to be not a board member just as > electoral commissioners are independent of parties. > >>> > >>> With best regards, > >>> christian > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 12:54 AM, Kofi ansa akufo > wrote: > >>> Mark > >>> > >>> Thanks for pointing out the voting procedure for individuals with > multiple votes. > >>> > >>> What I am driving at is the integrity of the votes cast and how it > fairly represents the diverse community. > >>> > >>> Member entities should be encouraged as much as possible to > participate in the election process as well as being ptesent in meetings > instead of encouraging proxies be it they understand "AFRINIC politics" or > NOT to vote for multiple representatives. > >>> > >>> I believe the community can do better by exploring how to map entities > eligible to vote to the electoral system to involve the diverse community. > >>> > >>> cheers > >>> > >>> Kofi. > >>> > >>> On May 12, 2014 7:55 PM, "Mark Elkins" wrote: > >>> On Mon, 2014-05-12 at 18:42 +0400, Kofi ansa akufo wrote: > >>>> Dear All > >>>> > >>>> 1. I am currently curious how individuals representing more than one > >>>> registered and / or resource member currently proceeds to casting > >>>> votes online. > >>> > >>> I have posted on this subject a few postings ago.... > >>> I am perhaps a perfect example of this scenario. > >>> > >>>> Does the person login with the same nic-handle or different > >>>> nic-handles to cast multiple votes respectively? > >>> > >>> The same NIC handle and Password to the same account. > >>> > >>> Once in, there is a drop-down box to allow the representative (me, in > >>> this case) to 'switch' to which ever entity I need to represent or > >>> manage. > >>> This is a very convenient way of managing different entities. > >>> > >>>> If by nic-handle wouldn't it be easy for voters to be identified by > >>>> the entities the represent (e.g. organisation ids) at least as a > >>>> secondary check prior to login to vote. > >>> > >>> Generally, it is the entity that is the Member, not the person with the > >>> NIC-Handle.. more correctly, it is the entity's voting representative > >>> who can vote. There may be more than one person per entity who is > >>> enabled to use that privilege, but there is only one vote per entity, > >>> for example "Resource Member". > >>> > >>> > >>>> I ask this because this will facilitate implementation of dispensing > >>>> machine for paper ballot sheets for those not able to exercise > >>>> e-voting based on logic and eliminate ending one voting option before > >>>> the other as well as human errors. Obviously NOT in the coming 2014 > >>>> elections but later. > >>> > >>> > >>>> 2. Going forward IMHO I think we should discouraged multiple voting by > >>>> an individual for different members since the probability of voting > >>>> differently is low and this only goes to increase votes across one > >>>> side only. A "polished form" of election rigging. I know some will > >>>> argue one can still like gin with different credentials and vote one > >>>> sided but then :) > >>>> > >>>> Could someone from the community enlighten me on this please. > >>> > >>> I'm a Director of multiple, independent companies each with their own > >>> resources and each members of AFRINIC in their own right. My fellow > >>> Directors may prefer me to do all the voting because I understand a > fair > >>> amount of the 'Politics' of AFRINIC. Are you suggesting I should not be > >>> allowed? That will not make them happy. > >>> > >>> Board Members have a Vote. If they also represent a resource Member, > are > >>> you going to disenfranchise them that direct resource vote??? > >>> > >>> As you almost suggested, all I need to do then is sit down with various > >>> collogues and have them login to my-afrinic and cast their vote > >>> according to my suggestions. > >>> > >>> Your suggestion will achieve inconvenience. > >>> > >>> Simply creating extra NIC-Handles should not work as AFRINIC requires > >>> the official Identity of everyone who wishes to use the e-voting > >>> system. > >>> > >>> > >>> Posted on my own behalf - representing multiple AFRINIC resource > >>> members. > >>> > >>>> Kofi > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Mark James ELKINS - Posix Systems - (South) Africa > >>> mje at posix.co.za Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 > >>> For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: https://ftth.posix.co.za > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> rpd mailing list > >>> rpd at afrinic.net > >>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> rpd mailing list > >>> rpd at afrinic.net > >>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> rpd mailing list > >>> rpd at afrinic.net > >>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > >> _______________________________________________ > >> rpd mailing list > >> rpd at afrinic.net > >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > > > _______________________________________________ > > rpd mailing list > > rpd at afrinic.net > > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng * The key to understanding is humility - my view ! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kofi.ansa at gmail.com Wed May 14 20:26:05 2014 From: kofi.ansa at gmail.com (Kofi ansa akufo) Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 00:26:05 +0400 Subject: [rpd] Discussion about e-voting In-Reply-To: References: <2607AFE6-2BCE-47C3-8D94-6B469C7339A9@ghana.com> <9A2170D3-6890-4CF1-8EE0-BE0DD10DB371@afrinic.net> Message-ID: Hello Adiel and All Interesting discussion. Forgive me to play the devils advocate for a while - few questions below regarding the immediate past election for board members. 1. What was the total votes casts? 2. How many votes were cast as proxy votes? 3. How many individuals voted more than once due to being associated to more than one member? 4. What was the total active members as at the time of opening voting? 5. How many votes were cast through ballot paper at the election? 6. Do we have a minimum number of votes casted (%) relative to the number of active members to determine dismissal or approval of the election? Cheers Kofi On May 14, 2014 11:44 PM, "Seun Ojedeji" wrote: > Hello Owen, > > On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 7:57 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > >> I would propose that sitting board members being present on NomCom or >> ECom is not a problem. > > > Maybe not but i suggest as liason role as much possible (more like an > observer role) > > Chairmanship also not a problem. >> > > This definitely is what i will not give a +1 on. However chairmanship to > board on nomcom could remain as an alternate backup plan for nomcom chair > (as per the current bylaw) nevertheless such should not happen with Ecom. > As a matter of fact i don't see why we need a chair for Ecom, since there > is already an election coordinator. However if we must, then it should not > be board member but someone within staff or non-board member (but AFRINIC > member in good standing) > >> >> However, in no case should the NomCom and Ecom overlap, > > > +1 > >> nor should there be any possibility for anyone who is a candidate in the >> relevant election to be a member of either committee. >> >> This is already covered in the bylaw and i don't think it has ever > happened before. > > Regards > >> Owen >> >> On May 14, 2014, at 11:49 AM, Adiel Akplogan wrote: >> >> > Dear Nii and all, >> > >> > I think some aspects need to be clarified. The decision of what is in >> the Election Guideline is taken by the Board (and has been published for >> comment before final ratification and use). The fact that Mark has these >> three functions comes from a recommendation of the guideline that if the >> NomCome fail to select a Chair among themselves within a certain period, >> the reps from the Board will be appointed (that is where the problem starts >> from). And in all fairness (as observer on the NomCom list), he (mark) has >> been reluctant right from the beginning to wear that hat until he was >> ?forced? in by the other NomCom members. Now the real problem here is to >> review that part of the guideline and prevent the NomCom to be chaired by a >> Board member. >> > >> > NomCom chair also chairing the Ecom: here again it is something that we >> have done last year (on my suggestion as there was no specific >> recommendation anywhere for that). The reason behind that is to balance the >> composition of the E-Com as per Article 10 of the Bylaws with someone from >> the community with the idea to increase transparency of E-com work (? >> without at the same time adding additional cost to the process if we had to >> have an additional new volunteer from the community who we have to pay >> travels for etc ?). In their report, the 2013 NomCom has requested the >> board to formalise that practice. that is what was done in the current >> guideline (and will be proposed as revision to bylaws as well). >> > >> > So I guess the concern is heard and the board is watching this and is >> open for suggestions so to improve the process >> > >> > Thank you all. >> > >> > - a. >> > >> > >> > On May 12, 2014, at 23:34 PM, Nii Narku Quaynor >> wrote: >> > >> >> Gee, I now understand why I never got an answer to a very simple >> question on who decides.... >> >> >> >> Sounds like a corporate governance challenge >> >> >> >> On May 12, 2014, at 19:18, Bope Domilongo Christian < >> christianbope at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >>> Speaking on my own capacity:) >> >>> >> >>> Following the discussion on rdp, I feel there is also a balance >> issue, whereby the one person wearing three hat (Nomcom chair, chair >> election committee, Board member) and am a bit confuse. For the sake of >> check and balance, as in happen in the normal election process, it will >> normal that the chair of election committee ought to be not a board member >> just as electoral commissioners are independent of parties. >> >>> >> >>> With best regards, >> >>> christian >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 12:54 AM, Kofi ansa akufo < >> kofi.ansa at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Mark >> >>> >> >>> Thanks for pointing out the voting procedure for individuals with >> multiple votes. >> >>> >> >>> What I am driving at is the integrity of the votes cast and how it >> fairly represents the diverse community. >> >>> >> >>> Member entities should be encouraged as much as possible to >> participate in the election process as well as being ptesent in meetings >> instead of encouraging proxies be it they understand "AFRINIC politics" or >> NOT to vote for multiple representatives. >> >>> >> >>> I believe the community can do better by exploring how to map >> entities eligible to vote to the electoral system to involve the diverse >> community. >> >>> >> >>> cheers >> >>> >> >>> Kofi. >> >>> >> >>> On May 12, 2014 7:55 PM, "Mark Elkins" wrote: >> >>> On Mon, 2014-05-12 at 18:42 +0400, Kofi ansa akufo wrote: >> >>>> Dear All >> >>>> >> >>>> 1. I am currently curious how individuals representing more than one >> >>>> registered and / or resource member currently proceeds to casting >> >>>> votes online. >> >>> >> >>> I have posted on this subject a few postings ago.... >> >>> I am perhaps a perfect example of this scenario. >> >>> >> >>>> Does the person login with the same nic-handle or different >> >>>> nic-handles to cast multiple votes respectively? >> >>> >> >>> The same NIC handle and Password to the same account. >> >>> >> >>> Once in, there is a drop-down box to allow the representative (me, in >> >>> this case) to 'switch' to which ever entity I need to represent or >> >>> manage. >> >>> This is a very convenient way of managing different entities. >> >>> >> >>>> If by nic-handle wouldn't it be easy for voters to be identified by >> >>>> the entities the represent (e.g. organisation ids) at least as a >> >>>> secondary check prior to login to vote. >> >>> >> >>> Generally, it is the entity that is the Member, not the person with >> the >> >>> NIC-Handle.. more correctly, it is the entity's voting representative >> >>> who can vote. There may be more than one person per entity who is >> >>> enabled to use that privilege, but there is only one vote per entity, >> >>> for example "Resource Member". >> >>> >> >>> >> >>>> I ask this because this will facilitate implementation of dispensing >> >>>> machine for paper ballot sheets for those not able to exercise >> >>>> e-voting based on logic and eliminate ending one voting option before >> >>>> the other as well as human errors. Obviously NOT in the coming 2014 >> >>>> elections but later. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>>> 2. Going forward IMHO I think we should discouraged multiple voting >> by >> >>>> an individual for different members since the probability of voting >> >>>> differently is low and this only goes to increase votes across one >> >>>> side only. A "polished form" of election rigging. I know some will >> >>>> argue one can still like gin with different credentials and vote one >> >>>> sided but then :) >> >>>> >> >>>> Could someone from the community enlighten me on this please. >> >>> >> >>> I'm a Director of multiple, independent companies each with their own >> >>> resources and each members of AFRINIC in their own right. My fellow >> >>> Directors may prefer me to do all the voting because I understand a >> fair >> >>> amount of the 'Politics' of AFRINIC. Are you suggesting I should not >> be >> >>> allowed? That will not make them happy. >> >>> >> >>> Board Members have a Vote. If they also represent a resource Member, >> are >> >>> you going to disenfranchise them that direct resource vote??? >> >>> >> >>> As you almost suggested, all I need to do then is sit down with >> various >> >>> collogues and have them login to my-afrinic and cast their vote >> >>> according to my suggestions. >> >>> >> >>> Your suggestion will achieve inconvenience. >> >>> >> >>> Simply creating extra NIC-Handles should not work as AFRINIC requires >> >>> the official Identity of everyone who wishes to use the e-voting >> >>> system. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> Posted on my own behalf - representing multiple AFRINIC resource >> >>> members. >> >>> >> >>>> Kofi >> >>> >> >>> -- >> >>> Mark James ELKINS - Posix Systems - (South) Africa >> >>> mje at posix.co.za Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 >> >>> For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: https://ftth.posix.co.za >> >>> >> >>> _______________________________________________ >> >>> rpd mailing list >> >>> rpd at afrinic.net >> >>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> _______________________________________________ >> >>> rpd mailing list >> >>> rpd at afrinic.net >> >>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> _______________________________________________ >> >>> rpd mailing list >> >>> rpd at afrinic.net >> >>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> rpd mailing list >> >> rpd at afrinic.net >> >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > rpd mailing list >> > rpd at afrinic.net >> > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >> >> _______________________________________________ >> rpd mailing list >> rpd at afrinic.net >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >> > > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > > *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: > http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535**alt > email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng > * > > The key to understanding is humility - my view ! > > > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From owen at delong.com Wed May 14 20:35:16 2014 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Wed, 14 May 2014 13:35:16 -0700 Subject: [rpd] Discussion about e-voting In-Reply-To: References: <2607AFE6-2BCE-47C3-8D94-6B469C7339A9@ghana.com> <9A2170D3-6890-4CF1-8EE0-BE0DD10DB371@afrinic.net> Message-ID: <49969D0C-72F0-49CE-9622-9F4F8E7B1C1B@delong.com> On May 14, 2014, at 12:41 PM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: > Hello Owen, > > On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 7:57 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > I would propose that sitting board members being present on NomCom or ECom is not a problem. > > Maybe not but i suggest as liason role as much possible (more like an observer role) Not sure what you mean by this. To me, the NomCom?s job is done before the ECom?s job begins. NomCom?s job is to produce a viable slate of candidates and provide that to the ECom so that they can begin the election process. The document output from NomCom can easily be transmitted to ECom by AfriNIC staff. > > Chairmanship also not a problem. > > This definitely is what i will not give a +1 on. However chairmanship to board on nomcom could remain as an alternate backup plan for nomcom chair (as per the current bylaw) nevertheless such should not happen with Ecom. As a matter of fact i don't see why we need a chair for Ecom, since there is already an election coordinator. However if we must, then it should not be board member but someone within staff or non-board member (but AFRINIC member in good standing) Agreed? The eCom chair should be the Election Coordinator, that makes sense to me. Owen > > However, in no case should the NomCom and Ecom overlap, > > +1 > nor should there be any possibility for anyone who is a candidate in the relevant election to be a member of either committee. > > This is already covered in the bylaw and i don't think it has ever happened before. > > Regards > Owen > > On May 14, 2014, at 11:49 AM, Adiel Akplogan wrote: > > > Dear Nii and all, > > > > I think some aspects need to be clarified. The decision of what is in the Election Guideline is taken by the Board (and has been published for comment before final ratification and use). The fact that Mark has these three functions comes from a recommendation of the guideline that if the NomCome fail to select a Chair among themselves within a certain period, the reps from the Board will be appointed (that is where the problem starts from). And in all fairness (as observer on the NomCom list), he (mark) has been reluctant right from the beginning to wear that hat until he was ?forced? in by the other NomCom members. Now the real problem here is to review that part of the guideline and prevent the NomCom to be chaired by a Board member. > > > > NomCom chair also chairing the Ecom: here again it is something that we have done last year (on my suggestion as there was no specific recommendation anywhere for that). The reason behind that is to balance the composition of the E-Com as per Article 10 of the Bylaws with someone from the community with the idea to increase transparency of E-com work (? without at the same time adding additional cost to the process if we had to have an additional new volunteer from the community who we have to pay travels for etc ?). In their report, the 2013 NomCom has requested the board to formalise that practice. that is what was done in the current guideline (and will be proposed as revision to bylaws as well). > > > > So I guess the concern is heard and the board is watching this and is open for suggestions so to improve the process > > > > Thank you all. > > > > - a. > > > > > > On May 12, 2014, at 23:34 PM, Nii Narku Quaynor wrote: > > > >> Gee, I now understand why I never got an answer to a very simple question on who decides.... > >> > >> Sounds like a corporate governance challenge > >> > >> On May 12, 2014, at 19:18, Bope Domilongo Christian wrote: > >> > >>> Speaking on my own capacity:) > >>> > >>> Following the discussion on rdp, I feel there is also a balance issue, whereby the one person wearing three hat (Nomcom chair, chair election committee, Board member) and am a bit confuse. For the sake of check and balance, as in happen in the normal election process, it will normal that the chair of election committee ought to be not a board member just as electoral commissioners are independent of parties. > >>> > >>> With best regards, > >>> christian > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 12:54 AM, Kofi ansa akufo wrote: > >>> Mark > >>> > >>> Thanks for pointing out the voting procedure for individuals with multiple votes. > >>> > >>> What I am driving at is the integrity of the votes cast and how it fairly represents the diverse community. > >>> > >>> Member entities should be encouraged as much as possible to participate in the election process as well as being ptesent in meetings instead of encouraging proxies be it they understand "AFRINIC politics" or NOT to vote for multiple representatives. > >>> > >>> I believe the community can do better by exploring how to map entities eligible to vote to the electoral system to involve the diverse community. > >>> > >>> cheers > >>> > >>> Kofi. > >>> > >>> On May 12, 2014 7:55 PM, "Mark Elkins" wrote: > >>> On Mon, 2014-05-12 at 18:42 +0400, Kofi ansa akufo wrote: > >>>> Dear All > >>>> > >>>> 1. I am currently curious how individuals representing more than one > >>>> registered and / or resource member currently proceeds to casting > >>>> votes online. > >>> > >>> I have posted on this subject a few postings ago.... > >>> I am perhaps a perfect example of this scenario. > >>> > >>>> Does the person login with the same nic-handle or different > >>>> nic-handles to cast multiple votes respectively? > >>> > >>> The same NIC handle and Password to the same account. > >>> > >>> Once in, there is a drop-down box to allow the representative (me, in > >>> this case) to 'switch' to which ever entity I need to represent or > >>> manage. > >>> This is a very convenient way of managing different entities. > >>> > >>>> If by nic-handle wouldn't it be easy for voters to be identified by > >>>> the entities the represent (e.g. organisation ids) at least as a > >>>> secondary check prior to login to vote. > >>> > >>> Generally, it is the entity that is the Member, not the person with the > >>> NIC-Handle.. more correctly, it is the entity's voting representative > >>> who can vote. There may be more than one person per entity who is > >>> enabled to use that privilege, but there is only one vote per entity, > >>> for example "Resource Member". > >>> > >>> > >>>> I ask this because this will facilitate implementation of dispensing > >>>> machine for paper ballot sheets for those not able to exercise > >>>> e-voting based on logic and eliminate ending one voting option before > >>>> the other as well as human errors. Obviously NOT in the coming 2014 > >>>> elections but later. > >>> > >>> > >>>> 2. Going forward IMHO I think we should discouraged multiple voting by > >>>> an individual for different members since the probability of voting > >>>> differently is low and this only goes to increase votes across one > >>>> side only. A "polished form" of election rigging. I know some will > >>>> argue one can still like gin with different credentials and vote one > >>>> sided but then :) > >>>> > >>>> Could someone from the community enlighten me on this please. > >>> > >>> I'm a Director of multiple, independent companies each with their own > >>> resources and each members of AFRINIC in their own right. My fellow > >>> Directors may prefer me to do all the voting because I understand a fair > >>> amount of the 'Politics' of AFRINIC. Are you suggesting I should not be > >>> allowed? That will not make them happy. > >>> > >>> Board Members have a Vote. If they also represent a resource Member, are > >>> you going to disenfranchise them that direct resource vote??? > >>> > >>> As you almost suggested, all I need to do then is sit down with various > >>> collogues and have them login to my-afrinic and cast their vote > >>> according to my suggestions. > >>> > >>> Your suggestion will achieve inconvenience. > >>> > >>> Simply creating extra NIC-Handles should not work as AFRINIC requires > >>> the official Identity of everyone who wishes to use the e-voting > >>> system. > >>> > >>> > >>> Posted on my own behalf - representing multiple AFRINIC resource > >>> members. > >>> > >>>> Kofi > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Mark James ELKINS - Posix Systems - (South) Africa > >>> mje at posix.co.za Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 > >>> For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: https://ftth.posix.co.za > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> rpd mailing list > >>> rpd at afrinic.net > >>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> rpd mailing list > >>> rpd at afrinic.net > >>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> rpd mailing list > >>> rpd at afrinic.net > >>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > >> _______________________________________________ > >> rpd mailing list > >> rpd at afrinic.net > >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > > > _______________________________________________ > > rpd mailing list > > rpd at afrinic.net > > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Seun Ojedeji, > Federal University Oye-Ekiti > web: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng > Mobile: +2348035233535 > alt email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng > > The key to understanding is humility - my view ! > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com Wed May 14 20:48:28 2014 From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji) Date: Wed, 14 May 2014 21:48:28 +0100 Subject: [rpd] Discussion about e-voting In-Reply-To: <49969D0C-72F0-49CE-9622-9F4F8E7B1C1B@delong.com> References: <2607AFE6-2BCE-47C3-8D94-6B469C7339A9@ghana.com> <9A2170D3-6890-4CF1-8EE0-BE0DD10DB371@afrinic.net> <49969D0C-72F0-49CE-9622-9F4F8E7B1C1B@delong.com> Message-ID: Hello Owen, On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 9:35 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 7:57 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > >> I would propose that sitting board members being present on NomCom or >> ECom is not a problem. > > > Maybe not but i suggest as liason role as much possible (more like an > observer role) > > > Not sure what you mean by this. To me, the NomCom?s job is done before the > ECom?s job begins. > If nomcom job is done before Ecom, the nomcom guideline will not put nomcom in supervision of Ecom's activities on election day.[1] NomCom?s job is to produce a viable slate of candidates and provide that to > the ECom so that they can begin the election process. The document output > from NomCom can easily be transmitted to ECom by AfriNIC staff. > > Nope, i think you missed the fact that nomcom coordinates/supervise election process to the point of announcing candidates that were voted for. > > Chairmanship also not a problem. >> > > This definitely is what i will not give a +1 on. However chairmanship to > board on nomcom could remain as an alternate backup plan for nomcom chair > (as per the current bylaw) nevertheless such should not happen with Ecom. > As a matter of fact i don't see why we need a chair for Ecom, since there > is already an election coordinator. However if we must, then it should not > be board member but someone within staff or non-board member (but AFRINIC > member in good standing) > > > Agreed? The eCom chair should be the Election Coordinator, that makes > sense to me. > Good to know ;) Thanks! 1. http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/elections/afrinic-nomcom > > Owen > > > >> However, in no case should the NomCom and Ecom overlap, > > > +1 > >> nor should there be any possibility for anyone who is a candidate in the >> relevant election to be a member of either committee. >> >> This is already covered in the bylaw and i don't think it has ever > happened before. > > Regards > >> Owen >> >> On May 14, 2014, at 11:49 AM, Adiel Akplogan wrote: >> >> > Dear Nii and all, >> > >> > I think some aspects need to be clarified. The decision of what is in >> the Election Guideline is taken by the Board (and has been published for >> comment before final ratification and use). The fact that Mark has these >> three functions comes from a recommendation of the guideline that if the >> NomCome fail to select a Chair among themselves within a certain period, >> the reps from the Board will be appointed (that is where the problem starts >> from). And in all fairness (as observer on the NomCom list), he (mark) has >> been reluctant right from the beginning to wear that hat until he was >> ?forced? in by the other NomCom members. Now the real problem here is to >> review that part of the guideline and prevent the NomCom to be chaired by a >> Board member. >> > >> > NomCom chair also chairing the Ecom: here again it is something that we >> have done last year (on my suggestion as there was no specific >> recommendation anywhere for that). The reason behind that is to balance the >> composition of the E-Com as per Article 10 of the Bylaws with someone from >> the community with the idea to increase transparency of E-com work (? >> without at the same time adding additional cost to the process if we had to >> have an additional new volunteer from the community who we have to pay >> travels for etc ?). In their report, the 2013 NomCom has requested the >> board to formalise that practice. that is what was done in the current >> guideline (and will be proposed as revision to bylaws as well). >> > >> > So I guess the concern is heard and the board is watching this and is >> open for suggestions so to improve the process >> > >> > Thank you all. >> > >> > - a. >> > >> > >> > On May 12, 2014, at 23:34 PM, Nii Narku Quaynor >> wrote: >> > >> >> Gee, I now understand why I never got an answer to a very simple >> question on who decides.... >> >> >> >> Sounds like a corporate governance challenge >> >> >> >> On May 12, 2014, at 19:18, Bope Domilongo Christian < >> christianbope at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >>> Speaking on my own capacity:) >> >>> >> >>> Following the discussion on rdp, I feel there is also a balance >> issue, whereby the one person wearing three hat (Nomcom chair, chair >> election committee, Board member) and am a bit confuse. For the sake of >> check and balance, as in happen in the normal election process, it will >> normal that the chair of election committee ought to be not a board member >> just as electoral commissioners are independent of parties. >> >>> >> >>> With best regards, >> >>> christian >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 12:54 AM, Kofi ansa akufo < >> kofi.ansa at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Mark >> >>> >> >>> Thanks for pointing out the voting procedure for individuals with >> multiple votes. >> >>> >> >>> What I am driving at is the integrity of the votes cast and how it >> fairly represents the diverse community. >> >>> >> >>> Member entities should be encouraged as much as possible to >> participate in the election process as well as being ptesent in meetings >> instead of encouraging proxies be it they understand "AFRINIC politics" or >> NOT to vote for multiple representatives. >> >>> >> >>> I believe the community can do better by exploring how to map >> entities eligible to vote to the electoral system to involve the diverse >> community. >> >>> >> >>> cheers >> >>> >> >>> Kofi. >> >>> >> >>> On May 12, 2014 7:55 PM, "Mark Elkins" wrote: >> >>> On Mon, 2014-05-12 at 18:42 +0400, Kofi ansa akufo wrote: >> >>>> Dear All >> >>>> >> >>>> 1. I am currently curious how individuals representing more than one >> >>>> registered and / or resource member currently proceeds to casting >> >>>> votes online. >> >>> >> >>> I have posted on this subject a few postings ago.... >> >>> I am perhaps a perfect example of this scenario. >> >>> >> >>>> Does the person login with the same nic-handle or different >> >>>> nic-handles to cast multiple votes respectively? >> >>> >> >>> The same NIC handle and Password to the same account. >> >>> >> >>> Once in, there is a drop-down box to allow the representative (me, in >> >>> this case) to 'switch' to which ever entity I need to represent or >> >>> manage. >> >>> This is a very convenient way of managing different entities. >> >>> >> >>>> If by nic-handle wouldn't it be easy for voters to be identified by >> >>>> the entities the represent (e.g. organisation ids) at least as a >> >>>> secondary check prior to login to vote. >> >>> >> >>> Generally, it is the entity that is the Member, not the person with >> the >> >>> NIC-Handle.. more correctly, it is the entity's voting representative >> >>> who can vote. There may be more than one person per entity who is >> >>> enabled to use that privilege, but there is only one vote per entity, >> >>> for example "Resource Member". >> >>> >> >>> >> >>>> I ask this because this will facilitate implementation of dispensing >> >>>> machine for paper ballot sheets for those not able to exercise >> >>>> e-voting based on logic and eliminate ending one voting option before >> >>>> the other as well as human errors. Obviously NOT in the coming 2014 >> >>>> elections but later. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>>> 2. Going forward IMHO I think we should discouraged multiple voting >> by >> >>>> an individual for different members since the probability of voting >> >>>> differently is low and this only goes to increase votes across one >> >>>> side only. A "polished form" of election rigging. I know some will >> >>>> argue one can still like gin with different credentials and vote one >> >>>> sided but then :) >> >>>> >> >>>> Could someone from the community enlighten me on this please. >> >>> >> >>> I'm a Director of multiple, independent companies each with their own >> >>> resources and each members of AFRINIC in their own right. My fellow >> >>> Directors may prefer me to do all the voting because I understand a >> fair >> >>> amount of the 'Politics' of AFRINIC. Are you suggesting I should not >> be >> >>> allowed? That will not make them happy. >> >>> >> >>> Board Members have a Vote. If they also represent a resource Member, >> are >> >>> you going to disenfranchise them that direct resource vote??? >> >>> >> >>> As you almost suggested, all I need to do then is sit down with >> various >> >>> collogues and have them login to my-afrinic and cast their vote >> >>> according to my suggestions. >> >>> >> >>> Your suggestion will achieve inconvenience. >> >>> >> >>> Simply creating extra NIC-Handles should not work as AFRINIC requires >> >>> the official Identity of everyone who wishes to use the e-voting >> >>> system. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> Posted on my own behalf - representing multiple AFRINIC resource >> >>> members. >> >>> >> >>>> Kofi >> >>> >> >>> -- >> >>> Mark James ELKINS - Posix Systems - (South) Africa >> >>> mje at posix.co.za Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 >> >>> For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: https://ftth.posix.co.za >> >>> >> >>> _______________________________________________ >> >>> rpd mailing list >> >>> rpd at afrinic.net >> >>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> _______________________________________________ >> >>> rpd mailing list >> >>> rpd at afrinic.net >> >>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> _______________________________________________ >> >>> rpd mailing list >> >>> rpd at afrinic.net >> >>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> rpd mailing list >> >> rpd at afrinic.net >> >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > rpd mailing list >> > rpd at afrinic.net >> > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >> >> _______________________________________________ >> rpd mailing list >> rpd at afrinic.net >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >> > > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > > *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: > http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535**alt > email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng > * > > The key to understanding is humility - my view ! > > > > -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng * The key to understanding is humility - my view ! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sergekbk at yahoo.fr Wed May 14 21:14:24 2014 From: sergekbk at yahoo.fr (Serge ILUNGA) Date: Wed, 14 May 2014 22:14:24 +0100 Subject: [rpd] Discussion about e-voting In-Reply-To: References: <1399910009.13446.145.camel@mje.posix.co.za> <650DBB00-330D-45D9-9B49-D16F9856E826@delong.com> <20140512220305.5308547.91184.12297@ng.lopworks.com> <152A2B6E-C7B2-4188-9E8C-34458B1DB642@delong.com> <20140512222044.5308547.99058.12302@ng.lopworks.com> <0A220B0B-00E2-42A9-87EA-DC10ECF76DEF@ghana.com> <20140513063946.5308547.84143.12314@ng.lopworks.com> <20140513130219.5312649.41191.12338@ng.lopworks.com> <0DF1D875-CB1C-4C1D-B1FC-612D016BEFED@delong.com> Message-ID: > Le 13 mai 2014 ? 18:52, Kofi ansa akufo a ?crit : > > There is in deed the need for restructuring and composition if our organisation is to remain relevant in the continents growth through enabling ICT promotion. > Why? The BOD act on behalf of the community by having a power of control over AfriNIC operations in achieving goals. > The election process should be then reviewed not to be just casting of votes relegated to decision taken by a few for many passive members but rather as means to kick the impulse in many members to be active to decide how the organisation is steered. > > This brings to mind decentralization of AFRINIC operations across the continents to get many members actively involved and sensitized and not just light up during meetings. What is the status of that discussion? > > I see countries like Nigeria, South Africa, Kenya with many members yet little or no operations of the RIR established there? > How? Is the election process good enough to make BOD members accountable to the community? Are community members aware of the fact that AfriNIC is managed through the BOd by the community? > Something for thought :) > > Kofi > Serge I. >> On May 13, 2014 7:38 PM, "Boubakar Barry" wrote: >> Interesting discussions here. >> >> I think that what we can learn from all the expressed views is that AfriNIC has to seriously look at the election process, starting from the composition of NomCom and ending with the counting of votes. >> >> Nobody in this world can claim having in place a _perfect_ system, but for our community, there is obviously room for improvement. >> >> And after improving what we have right now, we will for sure still have to improve again and again... >> >> Best, >> B. >> >> >> >>> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 3:17 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: >>> >>> On May 13, 2014, at 6:02 AM, ademola at ng.lopworks.com wrote: >>> >>> > Animal Farm is all animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others. That is not democratic. >>> >>> True, but it also has no relationship whatsoever to the voting we are talking about. Each member organization still has only one vote. >>> >>> > Abuse is quite easy. I lobby to represent so many members who really care less about what is happening on Afrinic. I end up with so many voting rights. I even go further to get a few more colleagues to do the same. Collectively we can block votes in our own personal interest. That is not even far fetched. >>> >>> I suppose that is possible, but I haven?t seen anything to indicate that it is actually happening or is likely to happen. Also, if this really is an issue, then wouldn?t others with competing interests have an equal ability to lobby for those same votes? Why would someone attempting to abuse the process have a greater advantage than one trying to prevent such abuse? >>> >>> > One voice should be one individual and one vote. >>> >>> Repeating this over and over again doesn?t make it any more rational than the firs time you said it. >>> >>> Owen >>> >>> > >>> > >>> > Regards, >>> > Ademola Osindero >>> > CEO/Consulting Director, >>> > Lopworks Limited >>> > >>> > www.lopworks.com >>> > Original Message >>> > From: Owen DeLong >>> > Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 1:54 PM >>> > To: ademola at ng.lopworks.com >>> > Cc: Andrew Alston; Nii Narku Quaynor; rpd at afrinic.net >>> > Subject: Re: [rpd] Discussion about e-voting >>> > >>> > >>> > On May 12, 2014, at 11:39 PM, ademola at ng.lopworks.com wrote: >>> > >>> >> Hi All, >>> >> >>> >> My point is this is easily prone to abuse and would lead to Animal Farm situation. >>> >> >>> > >>> > You are repeating yourself. Can you substantiate this in any way? What is the abuse you expect from this? >>> > >>> > What do you mean by ?Animal Farm? situation? I doubt that we will be chanting ?four legs good, two legs bad? at AfriNIC meetings any time soon. >>> > >>> >> On Andrew's example of board directorship, a Director is allowed to cast a vote "on the board of each company he or she is present". That is completely different from the director trying to cast a vote on a platform including many companies he or she represents. The later is the case of Afrinic. >>> > >>> > Do you think that other industry organizations prohibit people who are on the boards of multiple member organizations from voting for each and every organization they represent? I have never before encountered a situation where that is the case. If AfriNIC were to adopt such a policy, it would be quite unique in my experience. >>> > >>> > If this is such a source of abuse, then why is it not a problem in many other organizations with similar processes? >>> > >>> > Owen >>> > >>> >> >>> >> To be lenient, it is worth reviewing the limit on proxy votes as stated by Nii Quaynor. >>> >> >>> >> Regards, >>> >> Ademola Osindero >>> >> CEO/Consulting Director, >>> >> Lopworks Limited >>> >> >>> >> www.lopworks.com >>> >> Original Message >>> >> From: Andrew Alston >>> >> Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 7:22 AM >>> >> To: Nii Narku Quaynor; ademola at ng.lopworks.com >>> >> Cc: rpd at afrinic.net >>> >> Subject: Re: [rpd] Discussion about e-voting >>> >> >>> >> Form my perspective, its a completely different issue. >>> >> >>> >> People wearing different hats is part of life, and part of standard >>> >> business. Let me give you an example: >>> >> >>> >> An individual holds directorships on multiple boards (this is very common >>> >> in business, and I can point to several examples). >>> >> >>> >> That individual has the right to vote within the board structures of each >>> >> entity that he represents. Same thing. >>> >> >>> >> Or, to put this another way, when an individual votes at the AfriNIC >>> >> elections, he does not vote as himself, he votes as a member. If the >>> >> member chooses to designate him the right to vote, that is their right as >>> >> member. To restrict an individual from representing multiple >>> >> organisations would be equivalent to saying, if you?re a director of one >>> >> organisation, you cannot hold a directorship in another. If this were to >>> >> happen, it might be noted that this would potentially exclude a lot of >>> >> people from current and past boards who do hold directorships in other >>> >> organisations. >>> >> >>> >> As stated by Ademola, one voice, one vote. The only thing is, it is still >>> >> one voice one vote, where one voice = ONE MEMBER, the people actually >>> >> costing the votes are the members, NOT the individual who is merely the >>> >> instrument through which the members voice is heard. >>> >> >>> >> That?s my opinion anyway >>> >> >>> >> Andrew >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> On 5/13/14, 8:45 AM, "Nii Narku Quaynor" wrote: >>> >> >>> >>> Just curious. How different is this multi hat different from holding >>> >>> proxy? I recall Afrinic has a limit on proxy? >>> >>> >>> >>>> On May 13, 2014, at 0:20, ademola at ng.lopworks.com wrote: >>> >>>> >>> >>>> What I find rather absurd is one person having multiple votes. What >>> >>>> kind of election is that? It should be one voice one vote and that >>> >>>> should mean one individual one vote. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Regards, >>> >>>> Ademola Osindero >>> >>>> CEO/Consulting Director, >>> >>>> Lopworks Limited >>> >>>> >>> >>>> www.lopworks.com >>> >>>> Original Message >>> >>>> From: Owen DeLong >>> >>>> Sent: Monday, May 12, 2014 11:14 PM >>> >>>> To: ademola at ng.lopworks.com >>> >>>> Cc: mje at posix.co.za; rpd at afrinic.net >>> >>>> Subject: Re: [rpd] Discussion about e-voting >>> >>>> >>> >>>> I?m sorry, but I think that is absurd. All it accomplishes is to force >>> >>>> organizations to scramble trying to find additional individuals to cast >>> >>>> their votes. It serves absolutely no useful purpose whatsoever, IMHO. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Owen >>> >>>> >>> >>>>> On May 12, 2014, at 3:03 PM, ademola at ng.lopworks.com wrote: >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> One individual one vote, irrespective of how many member organizations >>> >>>>> you are affiliated to. Once an individual's identity is associated with >>> >>>>> a member, then the person will cast vote for only that member and no >>> >>>>> other member. >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> Regards, >>> >>>>> Ademola Osindero >>> >>>>> CEO/Consulting Director, >>> >>>>> Lopworks Limited >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> www.lopworks.com >>> >>>>> Original Message >>> >>>>> From: Owen DeLong >>> >>>>> Sent: Monday, May 12, 2014 10:58 PM >>> >>>>> To: mje at posix.co.za >>> >>>>> Cc: rpd at afrinic.net >>> >>>>> Subject: Re: Fwd: [rpd] Discussion about e-voting >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>>>> 2. Going forward IMHO I think we should discouraged multiple voting >>> >>>>>>> by >>> >>>>>>> an individual for different members since the probability of voting >>> >>>>>>> differently is low and this only goes to increase votes across one >>> >>>>>>> side only. A "polished form" of election rigging. I know some will >>> >>>>>>> argue one can still like gin with different credentials and vote one >>> >>>>>>> sided but then :) >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> Could someone from the community enlighten me on this please. >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> To echo what Mark said in slightly less confrontational language? >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> One member, one vote. Each member should be able to choose who casts >>> >>>>> the vote on behalf of that member. I see nothing wrong with members who >>> >>>>> wish to have the same person represent their interests doing so. It is >>> >>>>> not election rigging if 25 different member organizations all select >>> >>>>> the same person to cast votes on their behalf. Presumably each member >>> >>>>> organization is capable of choosing a voting representative who will >>> >>>>> vote in a manner consistent with their desires and interests. Likely if >>> >>>>> they were each forced to choose a different person in order to avoid >>> >>>>> being disenfranchised as you propose, you would simply see a larger >>> >>>>> group of voters who are potentially less informed and less motivated. I >>> >>>>> do not think that would be beneficial to AfriNIC, to the community, nor >>> >>>>> to the members. >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> It seems to me that this is not in any way equivalent to stuffing the >>> >>>>> ballot box or rigging the election. If those organizations all pick the >>> >>>>> same person to represent them, either they trust that person to share >>> >>>>> their ideals/needs/wants or they trust that person to vote as they >>> >>>>> instruct on their behalf. In either case, that person is legitimately >>> >>>>> exercising the vote designated by the member organization on behalf of >>> >>>>> each member organization. >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> Owen >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>> >>>>> rpd mailing list >>> >>>>> rpd at afrinic.net >>> >>>>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >>> >>>> >>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>> >>>> rpd mailing list >>> >>>> rpd at afrinic.net >>> >>>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> >>> rpd mailing list >>> >>> rpd at afrinic.net >>> >>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> DISCLAIMER: This email contains proprietary information some or all of which may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this email, please notify the author by replying to this email. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose, copy, print, or rely on this email. We cannot accept liability for any statements made which are clearly the sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of this company or one of its agents. >>> >> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >>> >> rpd mailing list >>> >> rpd at afrinic.net >>> >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> rpd mailing list >>> rpd at afrinic.net >>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> rpd mailing list >> rpd at afrinic.net >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kofi.ansa at gmail.com Wed May 14 23:19:56 2014 From: kofi.ansa at gmail.com (Kofi ansa akufo) Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 03:19:56 +0400 Subject: [rpd] Discussion about e-voting In-Reply-To: References: <1399910009.13446.145.camel@mje.posix.co.za> <650DBB00-330D-45D9-9B49-D16F9856E826@delong.com> <20140512220305.5308547.91184.12297@ng.lopworks.com> <152A2B6E-C7B2-4188-9E8C-34458B1DB642@delong.com> <20140512222044.5308547.99058.12302@ng.lopworks.com> <0A220B0B-00E2-42A9-87EA-DC10ECF76DEF@ghana.com> <20140513063946.5308547.84143.12314@ng.lopworks.com> <20140513130219.5312649.41191.12338@ng.lopworks.com> <0DF1D875-CB1C-4C1D-B1FC-612D016BEFED@delong.com> Message-ID: Merci Serge The point of getting many members to be aware and participate in election of board of directors (BoD) explicitly stated. Cheers On May 15, 2014 1:14 AM, "Serge ILUNGA" wrote: > > > Le 13 mai 2014 ? 18:52, Kofi ansa akufo a ?crit : > > There is in deed the need for restructuring and composition if our > organisation is to remain relevant in the continents growth through > enabling ICT promotion. > > Why? > The BOD act on behalf of the community by having a power of control over > AfriNIC operations in achieving goals. > > The election process should be then reviewed not to be just casting of > votes relegated to decision taken by a few for many passive members but > rather as means to kick the impulse in many members to be active to decide > how the organisation is steered. > > This brings to mind decentralization of AFRINIC operations across the > continents to get many members actively involved and sensitized and not > just light up during meetings. What is the status of that discussion? > > I see countries like Nigeria, South Africa, Kenya with many members yet > little or no operations of the RIR established there? > > How? > Is the election process good enough to make BOD members accountable to the > community? > Are community members aware of the fact that AfriNIC is managed through > the BOd by the community? > > Something for thought :) > > Kofi > > Serge I. > > On May 13, 2014 7:38 PM, "Boubakar Barry" wrote: > >> Interesting discussions here. >> >> I think that what we can learn from all the expressed views is that >> AfriNIC has to seriously look at the election process, starting from the >> composition of NomCom and ending with the counting of votes. >> >> Nobody in this world can claim having in place a _perfect_ system, but >> for our community, there is obviously room for improvement. >> >> And after improving what we have right now, we will for sure still have >> to improve again and again... >> >> Best, >> B. >> >> >> >> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 3:17 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: >> >>> >>> On May 13, 2014, at 6:02 AM, ademola at ng.lopworks.com wrote: >>> >>> > Animal Farm is all animals are equal but some animals are more equal >>> than others. That is not democratic. >>> >>> True, but it also has no relationship whatsoever to the voting we are >>> talking about. Each member organization still has only one vote. >>> >>> > Abuse is quite easy. I lobby to represent so many members who really >>> care less about what is happening on Afrinic. I end up with so many voting >>> rights. I even go further to get a few more colleagues to do the same. >>> Collectively we can block votes in our own personal interest. That is not >>> even far fetched. >>> >>> I suppose that is possible, but I haven?t seen anything to indicate that >>> it is actually happening or is likely to happen. Also, if this really is an >>> issue, then wouldn?t others with competing interests have an equal ability >>> to lobby for those same votes? Why would someone attempting to abuse the >>> process have a greater advantage than one trying to prevent such abuse? >>> >>> > One voice should be one individual and one vote. >>> >>> Repeating this over and over again doesn?t make it any more rational >>> than the firs time you said it. >>> >>> Owen >>> >>> > >>> > >>> > Regards, >>> > Ademola Osindero >>> > CEO/Consulting Director, >>> > Lopworks Limited >>> > >>> > www.lopworks.com >>> > Original Message >>> > From: Owen DeLong >>> > Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 1:54 PM >>> > To: ademola at ng.lopworks.com >>> > Cc: Andrew Alston; Nii Narku Quaynor; rpd at afrinic.net >>> > Subject: Re: [rpd] Discussion about e-voting >>> > >>> > >>> > On May 12, 2014, at 11:39 PM, ademola at ng.lopworks.com wrote: >>> > >>> >> Hi All, >>> >> >>> >> My point is this is easily prone to abuse and would lead to Animal >>> Farm situation. >>> >> >>> > >>> > You are repeating yourself. Can you substantiate this in any way? What >>> is the abuse you expect from this? >>> > >>> > What do you mean by ?Animal Farm? situation? I doubt that we will be >>> chanting ?four legs good, two legs bad? at AfriNIC meetings any time soon. >>> > >>> >> On Andrew's example of board directorship, a Director is allowed to >>> cast a vote "on the board of each company he or she is present". That is >>> completely different from the director trying to cast a vote on a platform >>> including many companies he or she represents. The later is the case of >>> Afrinic. >>> > >>> > Do you think that other industry organizations prohibit people who are >>> on the boards of multiple member organizations from voting for each and >>> every organization they represent? I have never before encountered a >>> situation where that is the case. If AfriNIC were to adopt such a policy, >>> it would be quite unique in my experience. >>> > >>> > If this is such a source of abuse, then why is it not a problem in >>> many other organizations with similar processes? >>> > >>> > Owen >>> > >>> >> >>> >> To be lenient, it is worth reviewing the limit on proxy votes as >>> stated by Nii Quaynor. >>> >> >>> >> Regards, >>> >> Ademola Osindero >>> >> CEO/Consulting Director, >>> >> Lopworks Limited >>> >> >>> >> www.lopworks.com >>> >> Original Message >>> >> From: Andrew Alston >>> >> Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 7:22 AM >>> >> To: Nii Narku Quaynor; ademola at ng.lopworks.com >>> >> Cc: rpd at afrinic.net >>> >> Subject: Re: [rpd] Discussion about e-voting >>> >> >>> >> Form my perspective, its a completely different issue. >>> >> >>> >> People wearing different hats is part of life, and part of standard >>> >> business. Let me give you an example: >>> >> >>> >> An individual holds directorships on multiple boards (this is very >>> common >>> >> in business, and I can point to several examples). >>> >> >>> >> That individual has the right to vote within the board structures of >>> each >>> >> entity that he represents. Same thing. >>> >> >>> >> Or, to put this another way, when an individual votes at the AfriNIC >>> >> elections, he does not vote as himself, he votes as a member. If the >>> >> member chooses to designate him the right to vote, that is their >>> right as >>> >> member. To restrict an individual from representing multiple >>> >> organisations would be equivalent to saying, if you?re a director of >>> one >>> >> organisation, you cannot hold a directorship in another. If this were >>> to >>> >> happen, it might be noted that this would potentially exclude a lot of >>> >> people from current and past boards who do hold directorships in other >>> >> organisations. >>> >> >>> >> As stated by Ademola, one voice, one vote. The only thing is, it is >>> still >>> >> one voice one vote, where one voice = ONE MEMBER, the people actually >>> >> costing the votes are the members, NOT the individual who is merely >>> the >>> >> instrument through which the members voice is heard. >>> >> >>> >> That?s my opinion anyway >>> >> >>> >> Andrew >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> On 5/13/14, 8:45 AM, "Nii Narku Quaynor" wrote: >>> >> >>> >>> Just curious. How different is this multi hat different from holding >>> >>> proxy? I recall Afrinic has a limit on proxy? >>> >>> >>> >>>> On May 13, 2014, at 0:20, ademola at ng.lopworks.com wrote: >>> >>>> >>> >>>> What I find rather absurd is one person having multiple votes. What >>> >>>> kind of election is that? It should be one voice one vote and that >>> >>>> should mean one individual one vote. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Regards, >>> >>>> Ademola Osindero >>> >>>> CEO/Consulting Director, >>> >>>> Lopworks Limited >>> >>>> >>> >>>> www.lopworks.com >>> >>>> Original Message >>> >>>> From: Owen DeLong >>> >>>> Sent: Monday, May 12, 2014 11:14 PM >>> >>>> To: ademola at ng.lopworks.com >>> >>>> Cc: mje at posix.co.za; rpd at afrinic.net >>> >>>> Subject: Re: [rpd] Discussion about e-voting >>> >>>> >>> >>>> I?m sorry, but I think that is absurd. All it accomplishes is to >>> force >>> >>>> organizations to scramble trying to find additional individuals to >>> cast >>> >>>> their votes. It serves absolutely no useful purpose whatsoever, >>> IMHO. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Owen >>> >>>> >>> >>>>> On May 12, 2014, at 3:03 PM, ademola at ng.lopworks.com wrote: >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> One individual one vote, irrespective of how many member >>> organizations >>> >>>>> you are affiliated to. Once an individual's identity is associated >>> with >>> >>>>> a member, then the person will cast vote for only that member and >>> no >>> >>>>> other member. >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> Regards, >>> >>>>> Ademola Osindero >>> >>>>> CEO/Consulting Director, >>> >>>>> Lopworks Limited >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> www.lopworks.com >>> >>>>> Original Message >>> >>>>> From: Owen DeLong >>> >>>>> Sent: Monday, May 12, 2014 10:58 PM >>> >>>>> To: mje at posix.co.za >>> >>>>> Cc: rpd at afrinic.net >>> >>>>> Subject: Re: Fwd: [rpd] Discussion about e-voting >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>>>> 2. Going forward IMHO I think we should discouraged multiple >>> voting >>> >>>>>>> by >>> >>>>>>> an individual for different members since the probability of >>> voting >>> >>>>>>> differently is low and this only goes to increase votes across >>> one >>> >>>>>>> side only. A "polished form" of election rigging. I know some >>> will >>> >>>>>>> argue one can still like gin with different credentials and vote >>> one >>> >>>>>>> sided but then :) >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> Could someone from the community enlighten me on this please. >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> To echo what Mark said in slightly less confrontational language? >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> One member, one vote. Each member should be able to choose who >>> casts >>> >>>>> the vote on behalf of that member. I see nothing wrong with >>> members who >>> >>>>> wish to have the same person represent their interests doing so. >>> It is >>> >>>>> not election rigging if 25 different member organizations all >>> select >>> >>>>> the same person to cast votes on their behalf. Presumably each >>> member >>> >>>>> organization is capable of choosing a voting representative who >>> will >>> >>>>> vote in a manner consistent with their desires and interests. >>> Likely if >>> >>>>> they were each forced to choose a different person in order to >>> avoid >>> >>>>> being disenfranchised as you propose, you would simply see a larger >>> >>>>> group of voters who are potentially less informed and less >>> motivated. I >>> >>>>> do not think that would be beneficial to AfriNIC, to the >>> community, nor >>> >>>>> to the members. >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> It seems to me that this is not in any way equivalent to stuffing >>> the >>> >>>>> ballot box or rigging the election. If those organizations all >>> pick the >>> >>>>> same person to represent them, either they trust that person to >>> share >>> >>>>> their ideals/needs/wants or they trust that person to vote as they >>> >>>>> instruct on their behalf. In either case, that person is >>> legitimately >>> >>>>> exercising the vote designated by the member organization on >>> behalf of >>> >>>>> each member organization. >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> Owen >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>> >>>>> rpd mailing list >>> >>>>> rpd at afrinic.net >>> >>>>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >>> >>>> >>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>> >>>> rpd mailing list >>> >>>> rpd at afrinic.net >>> >>>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> >>> rpd mailing list >>> >>> rpd at afrinic.net >>> >>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> DISCLAIMER: This email contains proprietary information some or all >>> of which may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. >>> If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this email, please >>> notify the author by replying to this email. If you are not the intended >>> recipient, you must not use, disclose, copy, print, or rely on this email. >>> We cannot accept liability for any statements made which are clearly the >>> sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of this company or one of its >>> agents. >>> >> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >>> >> rpd mailing list >>> >> rpd at afrinic.net >>> >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> rpd mailing list >>> rpd at afrinic.net >>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> rpd mailing list >> rpd at afrinic.net >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >> >> _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From adiel at afrinic.net Thu May 15 01:52:09 2014 From: adiel at afrinic.net (Adiel Akplogan) Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 05:52:09 +0400 Subject: [rpd] Fwd: [members-discuss] Discussion about e-voting References: <6B30FBF6-AA21-4AB5-BF94-45B49C503CC5@afrinic.net> Message-ID: Kofi, this may give you some answer to your questions. I?m currently at RIPE meeting and have been asking other RIRs what is the ratio of participation to their AGMM and election and it come out that they all have about 10% participation. So even if I agree a=that more is better, we are not doing that bad for where we are coming from. - a. Begin forwarded message: > From: Adiel Akplogan > Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Discussion about e-voting > Date: May 13, 2014 at 19:06:34 PM GMT+4 > To: "members-discuss at afrinic.net List" > > Hello Saul, > > On May 12, 2014, at 16:28 PM, Saul wrote: >> I think that it would be very useful for numerous reasons to get some >> statistics on voting last year (further back if possible). > >> Each category to be broken down into: total, paper, e-vote and proxy >> 1) total membership voting >> 2) country participation level > > For paper votes for years before 2013 we have to retrieve the information from our legal counsel as we handover everything to him after each election. We will try to get them. > > As for e-voting, last year was the first time and we had 29 online votes from 12 countries (see repartition attached). > > In 2013, we had in total 45 paper ballot votes (including just 2 by proxy). This make it to a total of 74 votes. > >> Be interesting to see how many the members are actually and actively >> involved. > > About 10% of member in good standing. While waiting for actual numbers, I can say that this ratio has consistently been the same over the past years (even without e-voting - then we had much more proxies). > >> 4. A lot of comments have also suggested moving to 100% e-voting. That >> will be the ideal approach indeed, but my experience of our region >>> suggest me to request for a bit of caution here. This has been debated >> lengthy within the board during the revision of the current bylaws. It >>> appear that our objective should be to give as much chance as possible to >> members to express their votes. It is not inimaginable in our region >to >> have someone unable to vote online (for many reasons I will not try to >> list here), if that ever happen, they must have the ability to roll >back >> to other means of vote. What come up as evidence however is that we should >> gradually evolve toward getting ride of vote by proxy >> >> Adiel, you mention that you don't want to go into the reasons for not >> being able to e-vote, I'd be interested to hear them, since I'd think that >> e-voting should be a goal of AFRNIC & as such AFRINIC should be working to >> remove those stumbling blocks. Maybe this should be another thread? > > Yes we can have a separate thread for that (I will even suggest that we organise a BoF on vote/e-voting in Djibouti if people are interested). > > Indeed our goal is to use only e-voting but at the same time we are just trying to do it gradually (Our region is very diverse and the level of online access is equally diverse). Most of the issues were on user/member side. Someone may not be able to have Internet connection in time (don?t ask me why ?), someone else may not want to provide his ID to get a BPKI certificate to be able to vote online , someone may just not want to use online tool (because he/she does not trust bits) to represent his choice ? (and it is will be his right) ? > > - a. > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: PastedGraphic-1.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 31312 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- > > _______________________________________________ > members-discuss mailing list > members-discuss at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/members-discuss -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 313 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From h.lu at anytimechinese.com Thu May 15 02:04:31 2014 From: h.lu at anytimechinese.com (Lu Heng) Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 04:04:31 +0200 Subject: [rpd] Fwd: [members-discuss] Discussion about e-voting In-Reply-To: References: <6B30FBF6-AA21-4AB5-BF94-45B49C503CC5@afrinic.net> Message-ID: Hi Just to share: I am at Ripe meeting as well, this year we have record breaking 1100 registered vote(how many actually voting we will see in few hours). But this is not normal. Just back few years ago while Ripe has over 7000 members, the voting member are barely over 300. So consider the amount of member Afrinic has, it in fact by ratio not that bad compare to other regions. I believe the problem here is not about how many people in fact are voting today, it more about getting more training course and out reach job done by Afrinic so make more active member in the community, consider the challenge we have in Afrinic today(as adiel mentioned that the accessibility of internet even varies by country, in which largely not a problem in ripe or other region), it more come done to infrastructure development of each country, that said, more out reach and cooperation with local institutes like university or government, especially more active commute between afrinic and its members, will improve the future participation in the community, but that's a long term job to be done. On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 3:52 AM, Adiel Akplogan wrote: > Kofi, this may give > > you some answer to your questions. I?m currently at RIPE meeting and have been asking other RIRs what is the ratio of participation to their AGMM and election and it come out that they all have about 10% participation. So even if I agree a=that more is better, we are not doing that bad for where we are coming from. > > - a. > > Begin forwarded message: > >> From: Adiel Akplogan >> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Discussion about e-voting >> Date: May 13, 2014 at 19:06:34 PM GMT+4 >> To: "members-discuss at afrinic.net List" >> >> Hello Saul, >> >> On May 12, 2014, at 16:28 PM, Saul wrote: >>> I think that it would be very useful for numerous reasons to get some >>> statistics on voting last year (further back if possible). >> >>> Each category to be broken down into: total, paper, e-vote and proxy >>> 1) total membership voting >>> 2) country participation level >> >> For paper votes for years before 2013 we have to retrieve the information from our legal counsel as we handover everything to him after each election. We will try to get them. >> >> As for e-voting, last year was the first time and we had 29 online votes from 12 countries (see repartition attached). >> >> In 2013, we had in total 45 paper ballot votes (including just 2 by proxy). This make it to a total of 74 votes. >> >>> Be interesting to see how many the members are actually and actively >>> involved. >> >> About 10% of member in good standing. While waiting for actual numbers, I can say that this ratio has consistently been the same over the past years (even without e-voting - then we had much more proxies). >> >>> 4. A lot of comments have also suggested moving to 100% e-voting. That >>> will be the ideal approach indeed, but my experience of our region >>>> suggest me to request for a bit of caution here. This has been debated >>> lengthy within the board during the revision of the current bylaws. It >>>> appear that our objective should be to give as much chance as possible to >>> members to express their votes. It is not inimaginable in our region >to >>> have someone unable to vote online (for many reasons I will not try to >>> list here), if that ever happen, they must have the ability to roll >back >>> to other means of vote. What come up as evidence however is that we should >>> gradually evolve toward getting ride of vote by proxy >>> >>> Adiel, you mention that you don't want to go into the reasons for not >>> being able to e-vote, I'd be interested to hear them, since I'd think that >>> e-voting should be a goal of AFRNIC & as such AFRINIC should be working to >>> remove those stumbling blocks. Maybe this should be another thread? >> >> Yes we can have a separate thread for that (I will even suggest that we organise a BoF on vote/e-voting in Djibouti if people are interested). >> >> Indeed our goal is to use only e-voting but at the same time we are just trying to do it gradually (Our region is very diverse and the level of online access is equally diverse). Most of the issues were on user/member side. Someone may not be able to have Internet connection in time (don?t ask me why ?), someone else may not want to provide his ID to get a BPKI certificate to be able to vote online , someone may just not want to use online tool (because he/she does not trust bits) to represent his choice ? (and it is will be his right) ? >> >> - a. >> > >> >> _______________________________________________ >> members-discuss mailing list >> members-discuss at afrinic.net >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/members-discuss > > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > -- -- Kind regards. Lu This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this message and including the text of the transmission received. From adiel at afrinic.net Thu May 15 02:05:14 2014 From: adiel at afrinic.net (Adiel Akplogan) Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 06:05:14 +0400 Subject: [rpd] Discussion about e-voting In-Reply-To: References: <2607AFE6-2BCE-47C3-8D94-6B469C7339A9@ghana.com> <9A2170D3-6890-4CF1-8EE0-BE0DD10DB371@afrinic.net> Message-ID: <7F4C376B-D71B-4753-8B61-5DA95644F96C@afrinic.net> On May 15, 2014, at 24:26 AM, Kofi ansa akufo wrote: > Hello Adiel and All > > Interesting discussion. > > Forgive me to play the devils advocate for a while - few questions below regarding the immediate past election for board members. > > 1. What was the total votes casts? > > 2. How many votes were cast as proxy votes? See my previous mail for the above. > 3. How many individuals voted more than once due to being associated to more than one member? 8 out of 45. Knowing that all board members (registered members) that are also valid contact of resource members get 2 votes. > 4. What was the total active members as at the time of opening voting? About 750 members. This data can be dynamically checked at: http://www.afrinic.net/en/about-us/our-members > 5. How many votes were cast through ballot paper at the election? 45. > 6. Do we have a minimum number of votes casted (%) relative to the number of active members to determine dismissal or approval of the election? That is not set anywhere. but for the past year we have been dealing with around 10% ratio. Which as I mentioned in my previous mail is relatively the same thing for all RIRs. So even though we are aiming at better, we are not an exception (with the ressou=rces we have). - a. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 313 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From kofi.ansa at gmail.com Thu May 15 05:54:05 2014 From: kofi.ansa at gmail.com (Kofi ansa akufo) Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 09:54:05 +0400 Subject: [rpd] Discussion about e-voting In-Reply-To: <7F4C376B-D71B-4753-8B61-5DA95644F96C@afrinic.net> References: <2607AFE6-2BCE-47C3-8D94-6B469C7339A9@ghana.com> <9A2170D3-6890-4CF1-8EE0-BE0DD10DB371@afrinic.net> <7F4C376B-D71B-4753-8B61-5DA95644F96C@afrinic.net> Message-ID: Hello All Thanks for the statistics and comparisons. Forgive me again to divert this discussion a bit. Come next year our RIR will be 10 years old. We have an advantage as the fifth and last RIR to observe and amend what are the challenges facing the other long established RIRs. IMHO as we strive to achieve more than the average 10% comparison in member turn out we should clearly review strategies for making impact on the continent. Should we reach out directly to the community or through existing specialized groups and institutions? Or a blend of the two? Which would have a faster and far reaching positive impact? Which method of reaching out is cost efficient? I draw typical examples below; 1. The core activity of AFRINIC is managing internet resources for the Region. What is seen now is more or less a passive approach to evaluation of prospective members for resources. AFRINIC staff makes it difficult to get resources YET when resources are granted there is little or no follow up processes to check if it is even being used in the region. A quick check in the whois database of AFRINIC indicates a /13 IPv4 that was issued last year which is not even used in the region. Lost of job creation opportunity on the continent. Solution: the very IP resources we seek to manage is evolving in a technology which is dissolving geographic barriers. AFRINIC should then be seen as a key partner for our region to ensure that infrastructures are established in our region to create jobs through standard policies which will continuously monitor the activities and link or tie prospective investors to the region rather than turn them off or frustrate them and later grant them huge chunks of resources to be used outside the region. 2. AFRINIC currently adopts "see the trees from the forest" approach with respect to training programs (e.g. IPv6 training). There are currently more than three active Research and Education Networks (REN), Association of African Universities (AAU) as well as African Network Operators Group (AfNOG) - specialized groups. What I see as a better and far reaching impact is to collaborate with these groups to tailor curriculum and draw standards. Follow up with program monitoring and audits. I believe this should NOT be a long term goal. IPv6 awareness and adoption will have being considerable high. 3. Again the RIR should be seen playing a regulatory role. Recent years has seen considerable internet exchange spring up each with their own operating guidelines for membership and peering. What AFRINIC should be doing is to collaborate with key stakeholders (governments, submarine cable providers, service providers through AfNOG) to draft various standards and architectutes to be adhered to. (for example encourage distributed / or linked national and regional exchanges. In short AFRINIC should be seen as a regulator and reach out to the community through existing specialized groups and institutions and not waste resources on operations with little impact on the continent. One will argue how does this approach impact AFRINIC members directly and increase meeting turnout and subsequent voting participation? Cheers Kofi On May 15, 2014 6:05 AM, "Adiel Akplogan" wrote: > > On May 15, 2014, at 24:26 AM, Kofi ansa akufo wrote: > > > Hello Adiel and All > > > > Interesting discussion. > > > > Forgive me to play the devils advocate for a while - few questions below > regarding the immediate past election for board members. > > > > 1. What was the total votes casts? > > > > 2. How many votes were cast as proxy votes? > > See my previous mail for the above. > > > 3. How many individuals voted more than once due to being associated to > more than one member? > > 8 out of 45. Knowing that all board members (registered members) that are > also valid contact of resource members get 2 votes. > > > 4. What was the total active members as at the time of opening voting? > > About 750 members. This data can be dynamically checked at: > http://www.afrinic.net/en/about-us/our-members > > > 5. How many votes were cast through ballot paper at the election? > > 45. > > > 6. Do we have a minimum number of votes casted (%) relative to the > number of active members to determine dismissal or approval of the election? > > That is not set anywhere. but for the past year we have been dealing with > around 10% ratio. Which as I mentioned in my previous mail is relatively > the same thing for all RIRs. So even though we are aiming at better, we are > not an exception (with the ressou=rces we have). > > - a. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com Thu May 15 06:32:10 2014 From: Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com (Andrew Alston) Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 07:32:10 +0100 Subject: [rpd] Discussion about e-voting In-Reply-To: References: <2607AFE6-2BCE-47C3-8D94-6B469C7339A9@ghana.com> <9A2170D3-6890-4CF1-8EE0-BE0DD10DB371@afrinic.net> <7F4C376B-D71B-4753-8B61-5DA95644F96C@afrinic.net> Message-ID: <7FF93785BD2D534EA45841A8AAA1D89B2EE07A83DD@liquid-exch.liquidtelecom.local> Hi Kofi, I?m very much in 2 minds about this. I have never believed that AfriNIC should act as the IP police, because what you are suggesting is one step from AfriNIC starting to tell you HOW to use your resources, and not just IF you are using them and where you are using them, and I would have significant issues with that. We?ve already seen concrete examples in the allocation process of this potentially happening, and I?ve been asked no less than 3 times by AfriNIC in previous applications why certain things needed public addressing rather than private addressing (which is in direct conflict with AfriNIC?s stated stance they do not support or promote NAT). I also refer to the ratio discussions that occurred in some depth in Zambia as an example where AfriNIC can get things horribly wrong on occasion, where there was a debate as to how many addresses are actually needed in a campus scenario where the campus is running heavy wifi deployments. I also need to refer back to what I said on the members list regarding AfriNIC and security of information and identification documents, in order for AfriNIC to act as a regulatory body, it would require the disclose to AfriNIC of potentially confidential information, and I have openly expressed concerns about this, since AfriNIC has given the community no indication of how information is stored and used. As was pointed out to AfriNIC a while back by one individual, the confidentiality clause present in the member services agreement is FAR from sufficient for the protection of commercially sensitive information, and AfriNIC seemed highly opposed to signing blanket NDA?s with all members. (Though there was some back tracking on that later, when we initially requested an NDA we were told no one else asked for it and it would be evaluated on a case by case basis and they may or may not do so, there was no ?ok, we will sign it because you asked for it?). I found this position rather strange considering that in other regions, NDA?s are signed on request. So, while I agree with you that there needs to be some policing to ensure our space isn?t running off the continent, I am far from convinced this is a role that AfriNIC is suited to, or indeed capable of taking on. Thanks Andrew From: rpd-bounces at afrinic.net [mailto:rpd-bounces at afrinic.net] On Behalf Of Kofi ansa akufo Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2014 8:54 AM To: Adiel Akplogan; rpd at afrinic.net Subject: Re: [rpd] Discussion about e-voting Hello All Thanks for the statistics and comparisons. Forgive me again to divert this discussion a bit. Come next year our RIR will be 10 years old. We have an advantage as the fifth and last RIR to observe and amend what are the challenges facing the other long established RIRs. IMHO as we strive to achieve more than the average 10% comparison in member turn out we should clearly review strategies for making impact on the continent. Should we reach out directly to the community or through existing specialized groups and institutions? Or a blend of the two? Which would have a faster and far reaching positive impact? Which method of reaching out is cost efficient? I draw typical examples below; 1. The core activity of AFRINIC is managing internet resources for the Region. What is seen now is more or less a passive approach to evaluation of prospective members for resources. AFRINIC staff makes it difficult to get resources YET when resources are granted there is little or no follow up processes to check if it is even being used in the region. A quick check in the whois database of AFRINIC indicates a /13 IPv4 that was issued last year which is not even used in the region. Lost of job creation opportunity on the continent. Solution: the very IP resources we seek to manage is evolving in a technology which is dissolving geographic barriers. AFRINIC should then be seen as a key partner for our region to ensure that infrastructures are established in our region to create jobs through standard policies which will continuously monitor the activities and link or tie prospective investors to the region rather than turn them off or frustrate them and later grant them huge chunks of resources to be used outside the region. 2. AFRINIC currently adopts "see the trees from the forest" approach with respect to training programs (e.g. IPv6 training). There are currently more than three active Research and Education Networks (REN), Association of African Universities (AAU) as well as African Network Operators Group (AfNOG) - specialized groups. What I see as a better and far reaching impact is to collaborate with these groups to tailor curriculum and draw standards. Follow up with program monitoring and audits. I believe this should NOT be a long term goal. IPv6 awareness and adoption will have being considerable high. 3. Again the RIR should be seen playing a regulatory role. Recent years has seen considerable internet exchange spring up each with their own operating guidelines for membership and peering. What AFRINIC should be doing is to collaborate with key stakeholders (governments, submarine cable providers, service providers through AfNOG) to draft various standards and architectutes to be adhered to. (for example encourage distributed / or linked national and regional exchanges. In short AFRINIC should be seen as a regulator and reach out to the community through existing specialized groups and institutions and not waste resources on operations with little impact on the continent. One will argue how does this approach impact AFRINIC members directly and increase meeting turnout and subsequent voting participation? Cheers Kofi On May 15, 2014 6:05 AM, "Adiel Akplogan" > wrote: On May 15, 2014, at 24:26 AM, Kofi ansa akufo > wrote: > Hello Adiel and All > > Interesting discussion. > > Forgive me to play the devils advocate for a while - few questions below regarding the immediate past election for board members. > > 1. What was the total votes casts? > > 2. How many votes were cast as proxy votes? See my previous mail for the above. > 3. How many individuals voted more than once due to being associated to more than one member? 8 out of 45. Knowing that all board members (registered members) that are also valid contact of resource members get 2 votes. > 4. What was the total active members as at the time of opening voting? About 750 members. This data can be dynamically checked at: http://www.afrinic.net/en/about-us/our-members > 5. How many votes were cast through ballot paper at the election? 45. > 6. Do we have a minimum number of votes casted (%) relative to the number of active members to determine dismissal or approval of the election? That is not set anywhere. but for the past year we have been dealing with around 10% ratio. Which as I mentioned in my previous mail is relatively the same thing for all RIRs. So even though we are aiming at better, we are not an exception (with the ressou=rces we have). - a. ________________________________ DISCLAIMER: This email contains proprietary information some or all of which may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this email, please notify the author by replying to this email. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose, copy, print, or rely on this email. We cannot accept liability for any statements made which are clearly the sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of this company or one of its agents. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gift at itibots.com Thu May 15 06:33:43 2014 From: gift at itibots.com (gift) Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 08:33:43 +0200 Subject: [rpd] Discussion about e-voting In-Reply-To: References: <2607AFE6-2BCE-47C3-8D94-6B469C7339A9@ghana.com> <9A2170D3-6890-4CF1-8EE0-BE0DD10DB371@afrinic.net> Message-ID: <53745FC7.2090807@itibots.com> On 14/05/2014 08:57 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > I would propose that sitting board members being present on NomCom or ECom is not a problem. Chairmanship also not a problem. I still think we should gravitate towards a separation of duties. Why should the board appoint Nomcom and sit in Nomcom? The CEO and staff are well equipped to play any advisory and administrative role for Nomcom. The CEO also links back to the Board and is in fact an ex officio board member. I would be comfortable with one of the Elders chairing Ecom than a board member. > However, in no case should the NomCom and Ecom overlap, nor should there be any possibility for anyone who is a candidate in the relevant election to be a member of either committee. It seems a refinement to policy is emerging; when should Nomcom's work end? May be just before elections when they hand over to Ecom. No role in voting, tallying of votes and announcing. > Owen > > On May 14, 2014, at 11:49 AM, Adiel Akplogan wrote: > >> Dear Nii and all, >> >> I think some aspects need to be clarified. The decision of what is in the Election Guideline is taken by the Board (and has been published for comment before final ratification and use). The fact that Mark has these three functions comes from a recommendation of the guideline that if the NomCome fail to select a Chair among themselves within a certain period, the reps from the Board will be appointed (that is where the problem starts from). And in all fairness (as observer on the NomCom list), he (mark) has been reluctant right from the beginning to wear that hat until he was ?forced? in by the other NomCom members. Now the real problem here is to review that part of the guideline and prevent the NomCom to be chaired by a Board member. >> >> NomCom chair also chairing the Ecom: here again it is something that we have done last year (on my suggestion as there was no specific recommendation anywhere for that). The reason behind that is to balance the composition of the E-Com as per Article 10 of the Bylaws with someone from the community with the idea to increase transparency of E-com work (? without at the same time adding additional cost to the process if we had to have an additional new volunteer from the community who we have to pay travels for etc ?). In their report, the 2013 NomCom has requested the board to formalise that practice. that is what was done in the current guideline (and will be proposed as revision to bylaws as well). >> >> So I guess the concern is heard and the board is watching this and is open for suggestions so to improve the process >> >> Thank you all. >> >> - a. >> >> >> On May 12, 2014, at 23:34 PM, Nii Narku Quaynor wrote: >> >>> Gee, I now understand why I never got an answer to a very simple question on who decides.... >>> >>> Sounds like a corporate governance challenge >>> >>> On May 12, 2014, at 19:18, Bope Domilongo Christian wrote: >>> >>>> Speaking on my own capacity:) >>>> >>>> Following the discussion on rdp, I feel there is also a balance issue, whereby the one person wearing three hat (Nomcom chair, chair election committee, Board member) and am a bit confuse. For the sake of check and balance, as in happen in the normal election process, it will normal that the chair of election committee ought to be not a board member just as electoral commissioners are independent of parties. >>>> >>>> With best regards, >>>> christian >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 12:54 AM, Kofi ansa akufo wrote: >>>> Mark >>>> >>>> Thanks for pointing out the voting procedure for individuals with multiple votes. >>>> >>>> What I am driving at is the integrity of the votes cast and how it fairly represents the diverse community. >>>> >>>> Member entities should be encouraged as much as possible to participate in the election process as well as being ptesent in meetings instead of encouraging proxies be it they understand "AFRINIC politics" or NOT to vote for multiple representatives. >>>> >>>> I believe the community can do better by exploring how to map entities eligible to vote to the electoral system to involve the diverse community. >>>> >>>> cheers >>>> >>>> Kofi. >>>> >>>> On May 12, 2014 7:55 PM, "Mark Elkins" wrote: >>>> On Mon, 2014-05-12 at 18:42 +0400, Kofi ansa akufo wrote: >>>>> Dear All >>>>> >>>>> 1. I am currently curious how individuals representing more than one >>>>> registered and / or resource member currently proceeds to casting >>>>> votes online. >>>> I have posted on this subject a few postings ago.... >>>> I am perhaps a perfect example of this scenario. >>>> >>>>> Does the person login with the same nic-handle or different >>>>> nic-handles to cast multiple votes respectively? >>>> The same NIC handle and Password to the same account. >>>> >>>> Once in, there is a drop-down box to allow the representative (me, in >>>> this case) to 'switch' to which ever entity I need to represent or >>>> manage. >>>> This is a very convenient way of managing different entities. >>>> >>>>> If by nic-handle wouldn't it be easy for voters to be identified by >>>>> the entities the represent (e.g. organisation ids) at least as a >>>>> secondary check prior to login to vote. >>>> Generally, it is the entity that is the Member, not the person with the >>>> NIC-Handle.. more correctly, it is the entity's voting representative >>>> who can vote. There may be more than one person per entity who is >>>> enabled to use that privilege, but there is only one vote per entity, >>>> for example "Resource Member". >>>> >>>> >>>>> I ask this because this will facilitate implementation of dispensing >>>>> machine for paper ballot sheets for those not able to exercise >>>>> e-voting based on logic and eliminate ending one voting option before >>>>> the other as well as human errors. Obviously NOT in the coming 2014 >>>>> elections but later. >>>> >>>>> 2. Going forward IMHO I think we should discouraged multiple voting by >>>>> an individual for different members since the probability of voting >>>>> differently is low and this only goes to increase votes across one >>>>> side only. A "polished form" of election rigging. I know some will >>>>> argue one can still like gin with different credentials and vote one >>>>> sided but then :) >>>>> >>>>> Could someone from the community enlighten me on this please. >>>> I'm a Director of multiple, independent companies each with their own >>>> resources and each members of AFRINIC in their own right. My fellow >>>> Directors may prefer me to do all the voting because I understand a fair >>>> amount of the 'Politics' of AFRINIC. Are you suggesting I should not be >>>> allowed? That will not make them happy. >>>> >>>> Board Members have a Vote. If they also represent a resource Member, are >>>> you going to disenfranchise them that direct resource vote??? >>>> >>>> As you almost suggested, all I need to do then is sit down with various >>>> collogues and have them login to my-afrinic and cast their vote >>>> according to my suggestions. >>>> >>>> Your suggestion will achieve inconvenience. >>>> >>>> Simply creating extra NIC-Handles should not work as AFRINIC requires >>>> the official Identity of everyone who wishes to use the e-voting >>>> system. >>>> >>>> >>>> Posted on my own behalf - representing multiple AFRINIC resource >>>> members. >>>> >>>>> Kofi >>>> -- >>>> Mark James ELKINS - Posix Systems - (South) Africa >>>> mje at posix.co.za Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 >>>> For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: https://ftth.posix.co.za >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> rpd mailing list >>>> rpd at afrinic.net >>>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> rpd mailing list >>>> rpd at afrinic.net >>>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> rpd mailing list >>>> rpd at afrinic.net >>>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >>> _______________________________________________ >>> rpd mailing list >>> rpd at afrinic.net >>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >> _______________________________________________ >> rpd mailing list >> rpd at afrinic.net >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > -- Gift Shava Financial Controller Information Technology Integrators www. itibots.com Office: +26739334779, Mobile: +26772115870 Fax: +2673170457 From kofi.ansa at gmail.com Thu May 15 09:47:51 2014 From: kofi.ansa at gmail.com (Kofi ansa akufo) Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 13:47:51 +0400 Subject: [rpd] Discussion about e-voting In-Reply-To: <7FF93785BD2D534EA45841A8AAA1D89B2EE07A83DD@liquid-exch.liquidtelecom.local> References: <2607AFE6-2BCE-47C3-8D94-6B469C7339A9@ghana.com> <9A2170D3-6890-4CF1-8EE0-BE0DD10DB371@afrinic.net> <7F4C376B-D71B-4753-8B61-5DA95644F96C@afrinic.net> <7FF93785BD2D534EA45841A8AAA1D89B2EE07A83DD@liquid-exch.liquidtelecom.local> Message-ID: Hi Andrew Find my response in line. On May 15, 2014 10:32 AM, "Andrew Alston" wrote: > > Hi Kofi, > > > > I?m very much in 2 minds about this. I have never believed that AfriNIC should act as the IP police, because what you are suggesting is one step from AfriNIC starting to tell you HOW to use your resources, and not just IF you are using them and where you are using them, and I would have significant issues with that. > Andrew as much as I agree there should be liberty as to how resources are used, AfriNIC was established with a vision and mission basically focused on the AFRICAN region. The "where you are using the resources?" cannot be overlooked. > > > We?ve already seen concrete examples in the allocation process of this potentially happening, and I?ve been asked no less than 3 times by AfriNIC in previous applications why certain things needed public addressing rather than private addressing (which is in direct conflict with AfriNIC?s stated stance they do not support or promote NAT). > I believe you got my post entirely wrong. I said AfriNIC should rather concentrate on developing policies and standards that seek to link prospective investors to local partners to establish PRESENCE in the region and follow up with such projects rather than frustrate them with details into their business. > > > I also refer to the ratio discussions that occurred in some depth in Zambia as an example where AfriNIC can get things horribly wrong on occasion, where there was a debate as to how many addresses are actually needed in a campus scenario where the campus is running heavy wifi deployments. > > > > I also need to refer back to what I said on the members list regarding AfriNIC and security of information and identification documents, in order for AfriNIC to act as a regulatory body, it would require the disclose to AfriNIC of potentially confidential information, and I have openly expressed concerns about this, since AfriNIC has given the community no indication of how information is stored and used. > > > > As was pointed out to AfriNIC a while back by one individual, the confidentiality clause present in the member services agreement is FAR from sufficient for the protection of commercially sensitive information, and AfriNIC seemed highly opposed to signing blanket NDA?s with all members. (Though there was some back tracking on that later, when we initially requested an NDA we were told no one else asked for it and it would be evaluated on a case by case basis and they may or may not do so, there was no ?ok, we will sign it because you asked for it?). I found this position rather strange considering that in other regions, NDA?s are signed on request. > > I have my own experience about the application process and NDAs and I agree with you. I have seen a member apply to get resources and approved, proceeded to sign registration service agreement (RSA) and paid initial membership setup fees ONLY to be told 90days have elapsed since the issuance of membership fees for 2014 invoice so application has EXPIRED therefore the applicant has to put in a new application and forfeit initial setup fees. Where as there is a binding RSA signed and the 90 days stipulation never defined not communicated to the applicant on the last day. Not even on the invoice nor even a reply to applicant for invoice update. > > So, while I agree with you that there needs to be some policing to ensure our space isn?t running off the continent, I am far from convinced this is a role that AfriNIC is suited to, or indeed capable of taking on. > > That is exactly what I intended to communicate. AfriNIC should focus on enabling technology on the continent by collaborating with the existing specialized groups and institutions to reach out to the community. I sited 3 AfriNIC operational activities that needs to be reviewed. Cheers. Kofi > > Thanks > > > > Andrew > > > > > > From: rpd-bounces at afrinic.net [mailto:rpd-bounces at afrinic.net] On Behalf Of Kofi ansa akufo > Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2014 8:54 AM > To: Adiel Akplogan; rpd at afrinic.net > > Subject: Re: [rpd] Discussion about e-voting > > > > Hello All > > Thanks for the statistics and comparisons. Forgive me again to divert this discussion a bit. Come next year our RIR will be 10 years old. > > We have an advantage as the fifth and last RIR to observe and amend what are the challenges facing the other long established RIRs. IMHO as we strive to achieve more than the average 10% comparison in member turn out we should clearly review strategies for making impact on the continent. > > Should we reach out directly to the community or through existing specialized groups and institutions? Or a blend of the two? > > Which would have a faster and far reaching positive impact? > > Which method of reaching out is cost efficient? > > I draw typical examples below; > > 1. The core activity of AFRINIC is managing internet resources for the Region. What is seen now is more or less a passive approach to evaluation of prospective members for resources. AFRINIC staff makes it difficult to get resources YET when resources are granted there is little or no follow up processes to check if it is even being used in the region. A quick check in the whois database of AFRINIC indicates a /13 IPv4 that was issued last year which is not even used in the region. Lost of job creation opportunity on the continent. > > Solution: the very IP resources we seek to manage is evolving in a technology which is dissolving geographic barriers. AFRINIC should then be seen as a key partner for our region to ensure that infrastructures are established in our region to create jobs through standard policies which will continuously monitor the activities and link or tie prospective investors to the region rather than turn them off or frustrate them and later grant them huge chunks of resources to be used outside the region. > > 2. AFRINIC currently adopts "see the trees from the forest" approach with respect to training programs (e.g. IPv6 training). There are currently more than three active Research and Education Networks (REN), Association of African Universities (AAU) as well as African Network Operators Group (AfNOG) - specialized groups. What I see as a better and far reaching impact is to collaborate with these groups to tailor curriculum and draw standards. Follow up with program monitoring and audits. I believe this should NOT be a long term goal. IPv6 awareness and adoption will have being considerable high. > > 3. Again the RIR should be seen playing a regulatory role. Recent years has seen considerable internet exchange spring up each with their own operating guidelines for membership and peering. What AFRINIC should be doing is to collaborate with key stakeholders (governments, submarine cable providers, service providers through AfNOG) to draft various standards and architectutes to be adhered to. (for example encourage distributed / or linked national and regional exchanges. > > In short AFRINIC should be seen as a regulator and reach out to the community through existing specialized groups and institutions and not waste resources on operations with little impact on the continent. > > One will argue how does this approach impact AFRINIC members directly and increase meeting turnout and subsequent voting participation? > > Cheers > > Kofi > > On May 15, 2014 6:05 AM, "Adiel Akplogan" wrote: >> >> >> On May 15, 2014, at 24:26 AM, Kofi ansa akufo wrote: >> >> > Hello Adiel and All >> > >> > Interesting discussion. >> > >> > Forgive me to play the devils advocate for a while - few questions below regarding the immediate past election for board members. >> > >> > 1. What was the total votes casts? >> > >> > 2. How many votes were cast as proxy votes? >> >> See my previous mail for the above. >> >> > 3. How many individuals voted more than once due to being associated to more than one member? >> >> 8 out of 45. Knowing that all board members (registered members) that are also valid contact of resource members get 2 votes. >> >> > 4. What was the total active members as at the time of opening voting? >> >> About 750 members. This data can be dynamically checked at: http://www.afrinic.net/en/about-us/our-members >> >> > 5. How many votes were cast through ballot paper at the election? >> >> 45. >> >> > 6. Do we have a minimum number of votes casted (%) relative to the number of active members to determine dismissal or approval of the election? >> >> That is not set anywhere. but for the past year we have been dealing with around 10% ratio. Which as I mentioned in my previous mail is relatively the same thing for all RIRs. So even though we are aiming at better, we are not an exception (with the ressou=rces we have). >> >> - a. > > > ________________________________ > DISCLAIMER: This email contains proprietary information some or all of which may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this email, please notify the author by replying to this email. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose, copy, print, or rely on this email. We cannot accept liability for any statements made which are clearly the sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of this company or one of its agents. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com Thu May 15 10:48:40 2014 From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji) Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 11:48:40 +0100 Subject: [rpd] Discussion about e-voting In-Reply-To: References: <2607AFE6-2BCE-47C3-8D94-6B469C7339A9@ghana.com> <9A2170D3-6890-4CF1-8EE0-BE0DD10DB371@afrinic.net> <7F4C376B-D71B-4753-8B61-5DA95644F96C@afrinic.net> Message-ID: Hello Kofi, Let me say a few personal words below On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 6:54 AM, Kofi ansa akufo wrote: > > > I draw typical examples below; > > 1. The core activity of AFRINIC is managing internet resources for the > Region. What is seen now is more or less a passive approach to evaluation > of prospective members for resources. AFRINIC staff makes it difficult to > get resources > Hmm...maybe we should say the community makes it difficult, considering that staff will only follow community developed policy to allocate resources. Nevertheless i am not even sure that difficult is the right word to use here. Perhaps if you have specific concerns of scenarios where you meet all the requirement and it still seem difficult to get the resource, then you could share with the community and we can go banging on the doors of staff with placard ;-) > YET when resources are granted there is little or no follow up processes > to check if it is even being used in the region. A quick check in the whois > database of AFRINIC indicates a /13 IPv4 that was issued last year which is > not even used in the region. Lost of job creation opportunity on the > continent. > +1 with this, and i so much agree with you that there needs to be a better way to retain major part of our IP within our region, not just retaining but also seeing it used and empowering people in this continent; Our resources needs to drive our continent development. We all should to remember that AFRINIC among all the RIRs has the least number of IANA assigned /8 V4. The fact that we have the least of IANA allocated /8 among all the RIR has also recently placed us on top of all other RIRs as the region with most available v4 addresses. However we are at this present status-quo not because we don't have the population to consume the resource but because either the population is not enabled to consume it OR does not want to. The latter is the immediate reason; if most mobile networks go native public v4 you can bet that IP addresses we have left will be exhausted. I will liken this situation with our mineral resources; Africa is blessed with mineral resources, however most of the resources are shipped out of the continent with its refined produce imported back into the continent. Something similar is already happening in the IP space in that the resources are shipped abroad and we get connected to our IP (outside the continent) at our own expense. Okay enough of trying to describe the situation we currently are. The most important question is what is the way forward. The way forward is for the community to look at the existing policies used by AFRINIC to issue resource with the aim of "tightening possible loose ends" towards ensuring that the IP resource benefits the region. There are areas of concern that were presented by staff during afrinic 18[1], i think that could be a good starting point. While there is another f2f around the corner, i encourage everyone to take up this challenge by looking at our existing policy and proposing an update or even an entirely new proposal. Some of this can be discussed at the upcoming f2f meeting > Solution: the very IP resources we seek to manage is evolving in a > technology which is dissolving geographic barriers. AFRINIC should then be > seen as a key partner for our region to ensure that infrastructures are > established in our region to create jobs through standard policies which > will continuously monitor the activities and link or tie prospective > investors to the region rather than turn them off or frustrate them and > later grant them huge chunks of resources to be used outside the region. > While one can definitely not determine/restrict how a member should use his/her IP resource, one could set certain requirements before granting the resource and those could be related to infrastructure presence, organisation activity history in Africa et all. All these can be reflected in a policy, i again call on the community to stand up to this challenge. The CEO has also recently indicated this concern in his statement [2] and calls for urgent attention of the community for v4 and v6 deployment in Africa. > 2. AFRINIC currently adopts "see the trees from the forest" approach with > respect to training programs (e.g. IPv6 training). There are currently more > than three active Research and Education Networks (REN), Association of > African Universities (AAU) as well as African Network Operators Group > (AfNOG) - specialized groups. What I see as a better and far reaching > impact is to collaborate with these groups to tailor curriculum and draw > standards. Follow up with program monitoring and audits. I believe this > should NOT be a long term goal. IPv6 awareness and adoption will have being > considerable high. > > 3. Again the RIR should be seen playing a regulatory role. Recent years > has seen considerable internet exchange spring up each with their own > operating guidelines for membership and peering. What AFRINIC should be > doing is to collaborate with key stakeholders (governments, submarine cable > providers, service providers through AfNOG) to draft various standards and > architectutes to be adhered to. (for example encourage distributed / or > linked national and regional exchanges. > I think there are efforts in the areas mentioned above, nevertheless i agree that more efforts needs to be put in place. However there is a saying that; "you can only take a horse to the river, you can't force it to drink water". There are quite many service provider that are aware of the need to go v6 and that also know the disadvantage of NATing (to be an incentive to deploy native v4 as much as possible) however they ain't doing that because they havn't see the demand. So for me i think we will experience a boost if we improve support of Africa content development/initiatives that are IP demanding (internet of things) which will change the demand of end users. > One will argue how does this approach impact AFRINIC members directly and > increase meeting turnout and subsequent voting participation? > It can either impact it positively or negatively depending on the rules and guideline we have provided. Afrinic will be 10 but its still relatively young and we need to start setting policies that will make it sustainable and more community driven. Thanks Kind regards 1. http://meeting.afrinic.net/afrinic-18/sites/default/files/Madhvipolicy-implementation-report.pdf 2. http://www.afrinic.net/en/library/news/1101-arin-nears-ipv4-depletion-afrinic-reaffirms-the-need-for-urgent-ipv6-deployment > Kofi > On May 15, 2014 6:05 AM, "Adiel Akplogan" wrote: > >> >> On May 15, 2014, at 24:26 AM, Kofi ansa akufo >> wrote: >> >> > Hello Adiel and All >> > >> > Interesting discussion. >> > >> > Forgive me to play the devils advocate for a while - few questions >> below regarding the immediate past election for board members. >> > >> > 1. What was the total votes casts? >> > >> > 2. How many votes were cast as proxy votes? >> >> See my previous mail for the above. >> >> > 3. How many individuals voted more than once due to being associated to >> more than one member? >> >> 8 out of 45. Knowing that all board members (registered members) that are >> also valid contact of resource members get 2 votes. >> >> > 4. What was the total active members as at the time of opening voting? >> >> About 750 members. This data can be dynamically checked at: >> http://www.afrinic.net/en/about-us/our-members >> >> > 5. How many votes were cast through ballot paper at the election? >> >> 45. >> >> > 6. Do we have a minimum number of votes casted (%) relative to the >> number of active members to determine dismissal or approval of the election? >> >> That is not set anywhere. but for the past year we have been dealing with >> around 10% ratio. Which as I mentioned in my previous mail is relatively >> the same thing for all RIRs. So even though we are aiming at better, we are >> not an exception (with the ressou=rces we have). >> >> - a. >> >> -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng * The key to understanding is humility - my view ! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com Thu May 15 10:51:12 2014 From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji) Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 11:51:12 +0100 Subject: [rpd] Call for nomination to AFRINIC PDWG Co-Chair is still OPEN but closing soon! Message-ID: We are seeking nominations for one Co-Chair of the Policy Development Working Group (PDWG) for a 2-year term (June 2014 ? June 2016). Co-Chairs of the PDWG are volunteers selected by the community per the current Policy Development Process (PDP) to carry out all administrative functions of the Policy Development Working Group (PDWG). Their responsibilities may include (but are not limited to) the following: 1. Chairing face-to-face policy meeting sessions and determining consensus. 2. Preparing post-meeting policy reports to share with the communityas appropriate. 3. Preparing pre-meeting reports (usually mailing list discussion summaries) in preparation for face-to-face meetings. 4. Advising the board about ratification of proposals that reached consensus. 5. Evaluating emergencies that may necessitate varying the normal policy development process. Nominated candidates must be from the AFRINIC community and cannot be AFRINIC staff. Candidates can be nominated by anyone, but excluding AFRINIC or other RIR staff, and must permanently reside in a country within the AFRINIC service region. To nominate yourself or a candidate of your choice, please send an email to the Nominations Committee (nomcom2014 at afrinic.net) with the following information: *a. Nominee Information:* - Full Name: - Organization name (or Affiliation): - Position: - E-mail address: - Postal/Physical address: - Phone number: - Country of residence: - Brief Bio with a highlight of how the Nominee intends to contribute to the PDWG in particular and the Region's Policy Development Process (PDP) in General (not more than 500 words): *b. Nominator:* - Full Name: - Organization: - E-mail address: - Motivation for nomination: If self-nominated, please indicate "self" in section (b) above. Please refer to the following for more information: - The PDWG Co-Chair election process - The Policy Development Process *Deadline for nominations is 20th May 2014 20:00 UTC.* http://www.afrinic.net/en/library/news -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng * The key to understanding is humility - my view ! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kofi.ansa at gmail.com Thu May 15 13:25:08 2014 From: kofi.ansa at gmail.com (Kofi ansa akufo) Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 17:25:08 +0400 Subject: [rpd] Discussion about e-voting In-Reply-To: References: <2607AFE6-2BCE-47C3-8D94-6B469C7339A9@ghana.com> <9A2170D3-6890-4CF1-8EE0-BE0DD10DB371@afrinic.net> <7F4C376B-D71B-4753-8B61-5DA95644F96C@afrinic.net> Message-ID: Hello Seun and All, Yes there are many specific cases I need the community to take a close look. Unfortunately as a former resource evaluation manager I am bound by NDA by AFRINIC. I site one specific case which applicant has brought to my attention which I need the community's support. Scenario: A prospective member applies to be a resourced member of AFRINIC. His application gets approved after COMPLYING with policy. AFRINIC billing department issues two invoices namely i.) Initial Setup Fees $4000 and ii.) Annual Membership Fees $12,800 as well as Registration Service Agreement (RSA). There are NO payment deadlines on both invoices neither does any staff member of AFRINIC communicate such to applicant. Nevertheless the applicant proceeds to sign the RSA which outlines a contractual agreement between AFRINIC and the applicant. Applicant further proceeds to make payment of initial setup fees of $4000 and request for annual membership fees to be paid in parts due to recent Forex transfer restrictions in country of operation. AFRINIC denies the request for payment in parts although they allow that in certain cases as stated on their website. The applicant request an invoice update due to elapsed time (2 months) and AFRINIC never responds to the request. AFRINIC staff respond to member on the 89th day of a so called "90 days" period in which application needs to be finalized. This 90 days is not published anywhere in policy, website or communicated to applicant during the application process. Nevertheless again the applicant responds that they are awaiting invoice update before payment. AFRINIC staff finally respond that the application has expired contrary to what is defined in the executed RSA and further tell applicant the initial setup fees of $4000 paid is non-refundable and that applicant needs to put in a new application. These are some of the kinds of frustration applicants face with certain staff members who refuse to stick to policies as well as contractual agreements. All that is needed in such a situation for AFRINIC team is to reissue an updated invoice and enquire if the has been any changes in the applicants IP resources requirement. If there has been any changes request applicant to update IP address plan but NOT to tell the applicant to resubmit a whole new application again when applicant was not notified of any deadlines during application. So is this specific case justified for fellow community members to rally behind and knock on the doors of the CEO and AFRINIC to ask why the consequence of inefficiency on the part of certain staff and procedures in AFRINIC should be borne by a member :) Cheers. On May 15, 2014 2:49 PM, "Seun Ojedeji" wrote: > Hello Kofi, > > Let me say a few personal words below > > On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 6:54 AM, Kofi ansa akufo wrote: > >> >> >> I draw typical examples below; >> >> 1. The core activity of AFRINIC is managing internet resources for the >> Region. What is seen now is more or less a passive approach to evaluation >> of prospective members for resources. AFRINIC staff makes it difficult to >> get resources >> > Hmm...maybe we should say the community makes it difficult, considering > that staff will only follow community developed policy to allocate > resources. Nevertheless i am not even sure that difficult is the right word > to use here. Perhaps if you have specific concerns of scenarios where you > meet all the requirement and it still seem difficult to get the resource, > then you could share with the community and we can go banging on the doors > of staff with placard ;-) > >> YET when resources are granted there is little or no follow up processes >> to check if it is even being used in the region. A quick check in the whois >> database of AFRINIC indicates a /13 IPv4 that was issued last year which is >> not even used in the region. Lost of job creation opportunity on the >> continent. >> > +1 with this, and i so much agree with you that there needs to be a better > way to retain major part of our IP within our region, not just retaining > but also seeing it used and empowering people in this continent; Our > resources needs to drive our continent development. We all should to > remember that AFRINIC among all the RIRs has the least number of IANA > assigned /8 V4. > > The fact that we have the least of IANA allocated /8 among all the RIR has > also recently placed us on top of all other RIRs as the region with most > available v4 addresses. However we are at this present status-quo not > because we don't have the population to consume the resource but because > either the population is not enabled to consume it OR does not want to. The > latter is the immediate reason; if most mobile networks go native public v4 > you can bet that IP addresses we have left will be exhausted. I will liken > this situation with our mineral resources; Africa is blessed with mineral > resources, however most of the resources are shipped out of the continent > with its refined produce imported back into the continent. Something > similar is already happening in the IP space in that the resources are > shipped abroad and we get connected to our IP (outside the continent) at > our own expense. > > Okay enough of trying to describe the situation we currently are. The most > important question is what is the way forward. > > The way forward is for the community to look at the existing policies used > by AFRINIC to issue resource with the aim of "tightening possible loose > ends" towards ensuring that the IP resource benefits the region. There are > areas of concern that were presented by staff during afrinic 18[1], i think > that could be a good starting point. While there is another f2f around the > corner, i encourage everyone to take up this challenge by looking at our > existing policy and proposing an update or even an entirely new proposal. > Some of this can be discussed at the upcoming f2f meeting > >> Solution: the very IP resources we seek to manage is evolving in a >> technology which is dissolving geographic barriers. AFRINIC should then be >> seen as a key partner for our region to ensure that infrastructures are >> established in our region to create jobs through standard policies which >> will continuously monitor the activities and link or tie prospective >> investors to the region rather than turn them off or frustrate them and >> later grant them huge chunks of resources to be used outside the region. >> > While one can definitely not determine/restrict how a member should use > his/her IP resource, one could set certain requirements before granting the > resource and those could be related to infrastructure presence, > organisation activity history in Africa et all. All these can be reflected > in a policy, i again call on the community to stand up to this challenge. > The CEO has also recently indicated this concern in his statement [2] and > calls for urgent attention of the community for v4 and v6 deployment in > Africa. > >> 2. AFRINIC currently adopts "see the trees from the forest" approach with >> respect to training programs (e.g. IPv6 training). There are currently more >> than three active Research and Education Networks (REN), Association of >> African Universities (AAU) as well as African Network Operators Group >> (AfNOG) - specialized groups. What I see as a better and far reaching >> impact is to collaborate with these groups to tailor curriculum and draw >> standards. Follow up with program monitoring and audits. I believe this >> should NOT be a long term goal. IPv6 awareness and adoption will have being >> considerable high. >> >> 3. Again the RIR should be seen playing a regulatory role. Recent years >> has seen considerable internet exchange spring up each with their own >> operating guidelines for membership and peering. What AFRINIC should be >> doing is to collaborate with key stakeholders (governments, submarine cable >> providers, service providers through AfNOG) to draft various standards and >> architectutes to be adhered to. (for example encourage distributed / or >> linked national and regional exchanges. >> > I think there are efforts in the areas mentioned above, nevertheless i > agree that more efforts needs to be put in place. However there is a saying > that; "you can only take a horse to the river, you can't force it to drink > water". There are quite many service provider that are aware of the need to > go v6 and that also know the disadvantage of NATing (to be an incentive to > deploy native v4 as much as possible) however they ain't doing that because > they havn't see the demand. So for me i think we will experience a boost if > we improve support of Africa content development/initiatives that are IP > demanding (internet of things) which will change the demand of end users. > > > >> One will argue how does this approach impact AFRINIC members directly and >> increase meeting turnout and subsequent voting participation? >> > It can either impact it positively or negatively depending on the rules > and guideline we have provided. Afrinic will be 10 but its still relatively > young and we need to start setting policies that will make it sustainable > and more community driven. > > Thanks > > Kind regards > 1. > http://meeting.afrinic.net/afrinic-18/sites/default/files/Madhvipolicy-implementation-report.pdf > 2. > http://www.afrinic.net/en/library/news/1101-arin-nears-ipv4-depletion-afrinic-reaffirms-the-need-for-urgent-ipv6-deployment > >> Kofi >> On May 15, 2014 6:05 AM, "Adiel Akplogan" wrote: >> >>> >>> On May 15, 2014, at 24:26 AM, Kofi ansa akufo >>> wrote: >>> >>> > Hello Adiel and All >>> > >>> > Interesting discussion. >>> > >>> > Forgive me to play the devils advocate for a while - few questions >>> below regarding the immediate past election for board members. >>> > >>> > 1. What was the total votes casts? >>> > >>> > 2. How many votes were cast as proxy votes? >>> >>> See my previous mail for the above. >>> >>> > 3. How many individuals voted more than once due to being associated >>> to more than one member? >>> >>> 8 out of 45. Knowing that all board members (registered members) that >>> are also valid contact of resource members get 2 votes. >>> >>> > 4. What was the total active members as at the time of opening voting? >>> >>> About 750 members. This data can be dynamically checked at: >>> http://www.afrinic.net/en/about-us/our-members >>> >>> > 5. How many votes were cast through ballot paper at the election? >>> >>> 45. >>> >>> > 6. Do we have a minimum number of votes casted (%) relative to the >>> number of active members to determine dismissal or approval of the election? >>> >>> That is not set anywhere. but for the past year we have been dealing >>> with around 10% ratio. Which as I mentioned in my previous mail is >>> relatively the same thing for all RIRs. So even though we are aiming at >>> better, we are not an exception (with the ressou=rces we have). >>> >>> - a. >>> >>> > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > > *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: > http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535**alt > email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng > * > > The key to understanding is humility - my view ! > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From adiel at afrinic.net Thu May 15 15:36:13 2014 From: adiel at afrinic.net (Adiel Akplogan) Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 19:36:13 +0400 Subject: [rpd] Discussion about e-voting In-Reply-To: References: <2607AFE6-2BCE-47C3-8D94-6B469C7339A9@ghana.com> <9A2170D3-6890-4CF1-8EE0-BE0DD10DB371@afrinic.net> <7F4C376B-D71B-4753-8B61-5DA95644F96C@afrinic.net> Message-ID: <76D7E24C-CA7D-4074-8035-457589A31D09@afrinic.net> Hello Kofi, Now, as I was expecting your engagement with this list to evolve into this very specific case that you have also alluded to on other lists before, I think the community deserve some further explanation of who you are and what all this is about. This specific case is also connected to a complain that has been field for investigation with local and international law enforcement for possible link to criminal activities. That is on the way and there are many details that we can not reveal here but in which you have been identified by the police as one suspect. On May 15, 2014, at 17:25 PM, Kofi ansa akufo wrote: > Yes there are many specific cases I need the community to take a close look. Unfortunately as a former resource evaluation manager I am bound by NDA by AFRINIC. > > I site one specific case which applicant has brought to my attention which I need the community's support. > > Scenario: A prospective member applies to be a resourced member of AFRINIC. His application gets approved after COMPLYING with policy. AFRINIC billing department issues two invoices namely i.) Initial Setup Fees $4000 and ii.) Annual Membership Fees $12,800 as well as Registration Service Agreement (RSA). There are NO payment deadlines on both invoices neither does any staff member of AFRINIC communicate such to applicant. You forgot to mention that it was YOU Kofi, as then staff of AFRINIC and IP Analyst who has evaluated this very specific application, and this, in an expedite way during the last days of your notice period. We later understood that you had a clear conflict of interest in this application as it doesn?t take long after you left the organisation that you start inquiring about the case and not long after be appointed by this same applicant as their consultant to represent them for the application. What do you think about that? We have carefully reviewed this specific case internally and noticed how that conflict of interest has played in the way you even handled the evaluation. > Nevertheless the applicant proceeds to sign the RSA which outlines a contractual agreement between AFRINIC and the applicant. Applicant further proceeds to make payment of initial setup fees of $4000 and request for annual membership fees to be paid in parts due to recent Forex transfer restrictions in country of operation. AFRINIC denies the request for payment in parts although they allow that in certain cases as stated on their website. As ex-IP analyst at AFRINIC you should better know the internal policy use to approve split membership fees payment (when it accepted and when it is not). Seems like your 12 months working at AFRINIC has not given you enough knowledge of our internal process as you seems to be claiming and selling it to all your new "customer(s)". > The applicant request an invoice update due to elapsed time (2 months) and AFRINIC never responds to the request. > > AFRINIC staff respond to member on the 89th day of a so called "90 days" period in which application needs to be finalized. This 90 days is not published anywhere in policy, website or communicated to applicant during the application process. Nevertheless again the applicant responds that they are awaiting invoice update before payment. > > AFRINIC staff finally respond that the application has expired contrary to what is defined in the executed RSA and further tell applicant the initial setup fees of $4000 paid is non-refundable and that applicant needs to put in a new application. Well we have thoroughly reviewed the whole process of this specific application and a communication will reach the applicant soon (as you are their appointed consultant you should see a copy). > These are some of the kinds of frustration applicants face with certain staff members who refuse to stick to policies as well as contractual agreements. You are completely misrepresenting the case and of course some members will be frustrated if instead of being honest and straight, they try to play the system and find themselves cornered by the Hostmaster team. And you as Ex-IP analyst trying to collude with such people who are trying to abuse the system is even worse and I think the community should be aware of such behaviour. This unfortunately explain why the team has became more and more demanding for each application. This unfortunately impact genuine applicants. But with people like you and alike around we will have no choice. > All that is needed in such a situation for AFRINIC team is to reissue an updated invoice and enquire if the has been any changes in the applicants IP resources requirement. If there has been any changes request applicant to update IP address plan but NOT to tell the applicant to resubmit a whole new application again when applicant was not notified of any deadlines during application. Too much confusion from your side about the process. Proof that you have not even learn anything while working here beside trying to understand how to play the system from inside. > So is this specific case justified for fellow community members to rally behind and knock on the doors of the CEO and AFRINIC to ask why the consequence of inefficiency on the part of certain staff and procedures in AFRINIC should be borne by a member :) That is a distraction tactic, diverting the attention of the community elsewhere so you and you allies get away with your maneuver? AFRINIC is an organisation that is based on honesty and you can not full a whole community. - a. > On May 15, 2014 2:49 PM, "Seun Ojedeji" wrote: > Hello Kofi, > > Let me say a few personal words below > > On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 6:54 AM, Kofi ansa akufo wrote: > > I draw typical examples below; > > 1. The core activity of AFRINIC is managing internet resources for the Region. What is seen now is more or less a passive approach to evaluation of prospective members for resources. AFRINIC staff makes it difficult to get resources > > Hmm...maybe we should say the community makes it difficult, considering that staff will only follow community developed policy to allocate resources. Nevertheless i am not even sure that difficult is the right word to use here. Perhaps if you have specific concerns of scenarios where you meet all the requirement and it still seem difficult to get the resource, then you could share with the community and we can go banging on the doors of staff with placard ;-) > YET when resources are granted there is little or no follow up processes to check if it is even being used in the region. A quick check in the whois database of AFRINIC indicates a /13 IPv4 that was issued last year which is not even used in the region. Lost of job creation opportunity on the continent. > > +1 with this, and i so much agree with you that there needs to be a better way to retain major part of our IP within our region, not just retaining but also seeing it used and empowering people in this continent; Our resources needs to drive our continent development. We all should to remember that AFRINIC among all the RIRs has the least number of IANA assigned /8 V4. > > The fact that we have the least of IANA allocated /8 among all the RIR has also recently placed us on top of all other RIRs as the region with most available v4 addresses. However we are at this present status-quo not because we don't have the population to consume the resource but because either the population is not enabled to consume it OR does not want to. The latter is the immediate reason; if most mobile networks go native public v4 you can bet that IP addresses we have left will be exhausted. I will liken this situation with our mineral resources; Africa is blessed with mineral resources, however most of the resources are shipped out of the continent with its refined produce imported back into the continent. Something similar is already happening in the IP space in that the resources are shipped abroad and we get connected to our IP (outside the continent) at our own expense. > > Okay enough of trying to describe the situation we currently are. The most important question is what is the way forward. > > The way forward is for the community to look at the existing policies used by AFRINIC to issue resource with the aim of "tightening possible loose ends" towards ensuring that the IP resource benefits the region. There are areas of concern that were presented by staff during afrinic 18[1], i think that could be a good starting point. While there is another f2f around the corner, i encourage everyone to take up this challenge by looking at our existing policy and proposing an update or even an entirely new proposal. Some of this can be discussed at the upcoming f2f meeting > Solution: the very IP resources we seek to manage is evolving in a technology which is dissolving geographic barriers. AFRINIC should then be seen as a key partner for our region to ensure that infrastructures are established in our region to create jobs through standard policies which will continuously monitor the activities and link or tie prospective investors to the region rather than turn them off or frustrate them and later grant them huge chunks of resources to be used outside the region. > > While one can definitely not determine/restrict how a member should use his/her IP resource, one could set certain requirements before granting the resource and those could be related to infrastructure presence, organisation activity history in Africa et all. All these can be reflected in a policy, i again call on the community to stand up to this challenge. The CEO has also recently indicated this concern in his statement [2] and calls for urgent attention of the community for v4 and v6 deployment in Africa. > 2. AFRINIC currently adopts "see the trees from the forest" approach with respect to training programs (e.g. IPv6 training). There are currently more than three active Research and Education Networks (REN), Association of African Universities (AAU) as well as African Network Operators Group (AfNOG) - specialized groups. What I see as a better and far reaching impact is to collaborate with these groups to tailor curriculum and draw standards. Follow up with program monitoring and audits. I believe this should NOT be a long term goal. IPv6 awareness and adoption will have being considerable high. > > 3. Again the RIR should be seen playing a regulatory role. Recent years has seen considerable internet exchange spring up each with their own operating guidelines for membership and peering. What AFRINIC should be doing is to collaborate with key stakeholders (governments, submarine cable providers, service providers through AfNOG) to draft various standards and architectutes to be adhered to. (for example encourage distributed / or linked national and regional exchanges. > > I think there are efforts in the areas mentioned above, nevertheless i agree that more efforts needs to be put in place. However there is a saying that; "you can only take a horse to the river, you can't force it to drink water". There are quite many service provider that are aware of the need to go v6 and that also know the disadvantage of NATing (to be an incentive to deploy native v4 as much as possible) however they ain't doing that because they havn't see the demand. So for me i think we will experience a boost if we improve support of Africa content development/initiatives that are IP demanding (internet of things) which will change the demand of end users. > > > One will argue how does this approach impact AFRINIC members directly and increase meeting turnout and subsequent voting participation? > > It can either impact it positively or negatively depending on the rules and guideline we have provided. Afrinic will be 10 but its still relatively young and we need to start setting policies that will make it sustainable and more community driven. > Thanks > > Kind regards > > 1. http://meeting.afrinic.net/afrinic-18/sites/default/files/Madhvipolicy-implementation-report.pdf > 2. http://www.afrinic.net/en/library/news/1101-arin-nears-ipv4-depletion-afrinic-reaffirms-the-need-for-urgent-ipv6-deployment > Kofi > > On May 15, 2014 6:05 AM, "Adiel Akplogan" wrote: > > On May 15, 2014, at 24:26 AM, Kofi ansa akufo wrote: > > > Hello Adiel and All > > > > Interesting discussion. > > > > Forgive me to play the devils advocate for a while - few questions below regarding the immediate past election for board members. > > > > 1. What was the total votes casts? > > > > 2. How many votes were cast as proxy votes? > > See my previous mail for the above. > > > 3. How many individuals voted more than once due to being associated to more than one member? > > 8 out of 45. Knowing that all board members (registered members) that are also valid contact of resource members get 2 votes. > > > 4. What was the total active members as at the time of opening voting? > > About 750 members. This data can be dynamically checked at: http://www.afrinic.net/en/about-us/our-members > > > 5. How many votes were cast through ballot paper at the election? > > 45. > > > 6. Do we have a minimum number of votes casted (%) relative to the number of active members to determine dismissal or approval of the election? > > That is not set anywhere. but for the past year we have been dealing with around 10% ratio. Which as I mentioned in my previous mail is relatively the same thing for all RIRs. So even though we are aiming at better, we are not an exception (with the ressou=rces we have). > > - a. > > > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Seun Ojedeji, > Federal University Oye-Ekiti > web: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng > Mobile: +2348035233535 > alt email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng > > The key to understanding is humility - my view ! > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 313 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com Thu May 15 15:46:41 2014 From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji) Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 16:46:41 +0100 Subject: [rpd] Discussion about e-voting In-Reply-To: References: <2607AFE6-2BCE-47C3-8D94-6B469C7339A9@ghana.com> <9A2170D3-6890-4CF1-8EE0-BE0DD10DB371@afrinic.net> <7F4C376B-D71B-4753-8B61-5DA95644F96C@afrinic.net> Message-ID: Hello Kofi, On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 2:25 PM, Kofi ansa akufo wrote: > > > > Scenario: A prospective member applies to be a resourced member of > AFRINIC. His application gets approved after COMPLYING with policy. AFRINIC > billing department issues two invoices namely i.) Initial Setup Fees $4000 > and ii.) Annual Membership Fees $12,800 as well as Registration Service > Agreement (RSA). > Just to be clear, do you mean 2 separate invoices were issued? Or that an invoice that has 2 category of charges was issued? (which should be the onetime setup fee and membership fee) > There are NO payment deadlines on both invoices neither does any staff > member of AFRINIC communicate such to applicant. > Again you say both invoices, it implies you were issued 2 separate invoices. Could you confirm this? As i think it will definitely determine how to address the situation. I also agree that there is usually no deadline stated on invoices, however there are guidelines on the RSA(and on payment schedule) and those will be applied depending on your nature of application in relation to the date stated on the invoice. Fortunately/unfortunately new membership timing on expiry procedure seem not to be clearly specific on the payment schedule. > Nevertheless the applicant proceeds to sign the RSA which outlines a > contractual agreement between AFRINIC and the applicant. Applicant further > proceeds to make payment of initial setup fees of $4000 and request for > annual membership fees to be paid in parts due to recent Forex transfer > restrictions in country of operation. AFRINIC denies the request for > payment in parts although they allow that in certain cases as stated on > their website. > Okay, again this still assumes that 2 separate invoices were issued right? > The applicant request an invoice update due to elapsed time (2 months) > and AFRINIC never responds to the request. > Just to be clear, what updated invoice is required here? since the understanding is that 2 invoices were initially issued. > AFRINIC staff respond to member on the 89th day of a so called "90 days" > period in which application needs to be finalized. This 90 days is not > published anywhere in policy, website or communicated to applicant during > the application process. Nevertheless again the applicant responds that > they are awaiting invoice update before payment. > At this point you refer to the applicant as member, does it mean that AFRINIC has confirmed payment of 4kUSD and that made the applicant now a member?(as i think that was setup fee and not membership) nevertheless what invoice update is the "applicant" expecting > AFRINIC staff finally respond that the application has expired contrary to > what is defined in the executed RSA and further tell applicant the initial > setup fees of $4000 paid is non-refundable and that applicant needs to put > in a new application. > Hmm...on the basis that there is no clear indication of new applicant payment deadline, i would expect that the 4k should be refunded. However on the basis that things may have changed in the organisation as per how resources are allocated, i would think its good judgement to start the application over again. Don't you think so? > These are some of the kinds of frustration applicants face with certain > staff members who refuse to stick to policies as well as contractual > agreements. > This is a peculiar case and i must say that its an unfortunate coincidence that fx rules of the country/organisation changed almost immediately before making payment. As i would have expected that the applicant was aware of the cost before signing the RSA. Actually as a point of practice, before i make any resource application, i do hint management on cost implication. Can we assume that the applicant was perhaps not prepared to make that payment in the first place? > > So is this specific case justified for fellow community members to rally > behind and knock on the doors of the CEO and AFRINIC to ask why the > consequence of inefficiency on the part of certain staff and procedures in > AFRINIC should be borne by a member :) > Depending on your response to my questions/concerns above Regards > Cheers. > On May 15, 2014 2:49 PM, "Seun Ojedeji" wrote: > >> Hello Kofi, >> >> Let me say a few personal words below >> >> On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 6:54 AM, Kofi ansa akufo wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> I draw typical examples below; >>> >>> 1. The core activity of AFRINIC is managing internet resources for the >>> Region. What is seen now is more or less a passive approach to evaluation >>> of prospective members for resources. AFRINIC staff makes it difficult to >>> get resources >>> >> Hmm...maybe we should say the community makes it difficult, considering >> that staff will only follow community developed policy to allocate >> resources. Nevertheless i am not even sure that difficult is the right word >> to use here. Perhaps if you have specific concerns of scenarios where you >> meet all the requirement and it still seem difficult to get the resource, >> then you could share with the community and we can go banging on the doors >> of staff with placard ;-) >> >>> YET when resources are granted there is little or no follow up processes >>> to check if it is even being used in the region. A quick check in the whois >>> database of AFRINIC indicates a /13 IPv4 that was issued last year which is >>> not even used in the region. Lost of job creation opportunity on the >>> continent. >>> >> +1 with this, and i so much agree with you that there needs to be a >> better way to retain major part of our IP within our region, not just >> retaining but also seeing it used and empowering people in this continent; >> Our resources needs to drive our continent development. We all should to >> remember that AFRINIC among all the RIRs has the least number of IANA >> assigned /8 V4. >> >> The fact that we have the least of IANA allocated /8 among all the RIR >> has also recently placed us on top of all other RIRs as the region with >> most available v4 addresses. However we are at this present status-quo not >> because we don't have the population to consume the resource but because >> either the population is not enabled to consume it OR does not want to. The >> latter is the immediate reason; if most mobile networks go native public v4 >> you can bet that IP addresses we have left will be exhausted. I will liken >> this situation with our mineral resources; Africa is blessed with mineral >> resources, however most of the resources are shipped out of the continent >> with its refined produce imported back into the continent. Something >> similar is already happening in the IP space in that the resources are >> shipped abroad and we get connected to our IP (outside the continent) at >> our own expense. >> >> Okay enough of trying to describe the situation we currently are. The >> most important question is what is the way forward. >> >> The way forward is for the community to look at the existing policies >> used by AFRINIC to issue resource with the aim of "tightening possible >> loose ends" towards ensuring that the IP resource benefits the region. >> There are areas of concern that were presented by staff during afrinic >> 18[1], i think that could be a good starting point. While there is another >> f2f around the corner, i encourage everyone to take up this challenge by >> looking at our existing policy and proposing an update or even an entirely >> new proposal. Some of this can be discussed at the upcoming f2f meeting >> >>> Solution: the very IP resources we seek to manage is evolving in a >>> technology which is dissolving geographic barriers. AFRINIC should then be >>> seen as a key partner for our region to ensure that infrastructures are >>> established in our region to create jobs through standard policies which >>> will continuously monitor the activities and link or tie prospective >>> investors to the region rather than turn them off or frustrate them and >>> later grant them huge chunks of resources to be used outside the region. >>> >> While one can definitely not determine/restrict how a member should use >> his/her IP resource, one could set certain requirements before granting the >> resource and those could be related to infrastructure presence, >> organisation activity history in Africa et all. All these can be reflected >> in a policy, i again call on the community to stand up to this challenge. >> The CEO has also recently indicated this concern in his statement [2] and >> calls for urgent attention of the community for v4 and v6 deployment in >> Africa. >> >>> 2. AFRINIC currently adopts "see the trees from the forest" approach >>> with respect to training programs (e.g. IPv6 training). There are currently >>> more than three active Research and Education Networks (REN), Association >>> of African Universities (AAU) as well as African Network Operators Group >>> (AfNOG) - specialized groups. What I see as a better and far reaching >>> impact is to collaborate with these groups to tailor curriculum and draw >>> standards. Follow up with program monitoring and audits. I believe this >>> should NOT be a long term goal. IPv6 awareness and adoption will have being >>> considerable high. >>> >>> 3. Again the RIR should be seen playing a regulatory role. Recent years >>> has seen considerable internet exchange spring up each with their own >>> operating guidelines for membership and peering. What AFRINIC should be >>> doing is to collaborate with key stakeholders (governments, submarine cable >>> providers, service providers through AfNOG) to draft various standards and >>> architectutes to be adhered to. (for example encourage distributed / or >>> linked national and regional exchanges. >>> >> I think there are efforts in the areas mentioned above, nevertheless i >> agree that more efforts needs to be put in place. However there is a saying >> that; "you can only take a horse to the river, you can't force it to drink >> water". There are quite many service provider that are aware of the need to >> go v6 and that also know the disadvantage of NATing (to be an incentive to >> deploy native v4 as much as possible) however they ain't doing that because >> they havn't see the demand. So for me i think we will experience a boost if >> we improve support of Africa content development/initiatives that are IP >> demanding (internet of things) which will change the demand of end users. >> >> >> >>> One will argue how does this approach impact AFRINIC members directly >>> and increase meeting turnout and subsequent voting participation? >>> >> It can either impact it positively or negatively depending on the rules >> and guideline we have provided. Afrinic will be 10 but its still relatively >> young and we need to start setting policies that will make it sustainable >> and more community driven. >> >> Thanks >> >> Kind regards >> 1. >> http://meeting.afrinic.net/afrinic-18/sites/default/files/Madhvipolicy-implementation-report.pdf >> 2. >> http://www.afrinic.net/en/library/news/1101-arin-nears-ipv4-depletion-afrinic-reaffirms-the-need-for-urgent-ipv6-deployment >> >>> Kofi >>> On May 15, 2014 6:05 AM, "Adiel Akplogan" wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> On May 15, 2014, at 24:26 AM, Kofi ansa akufo >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> > Hello Adiel and All >>>> > >>>> > Interesting discussion. >>>> > >>>> > Forgive me to play the devils advocate for a while - few questions >>>> below regarding the immediate past election for board members. >>>> > >>>> > 1. What was the total votes casts? >>>> > >>>> > 2. How many votes were cast as proxy votes? >>>> >>>> See my previous mail for the above. >>>> >>>> > 3. How many individuals voted more than once due to being associated >>>> to more than one member? >>>> >>>> 8 out of 45. Knowing that all board members (registered members) that >>>> are also valid contact of resource members get 2 votes. >>>> >>>> > 4. What was the total active members as at the time of opening voting? >>>> >>>> About 750 members. This data can be dynamically checked at: >>>> http://www.afrinic.net/en/about-us/our-members >>>> >>>> > 5. How many votes were cast through ballot paper at the election? >>>> >>>> 45. >>>> >>>> > 6. Do we have a minimum number of votes casted (%) relative to the >>>> number of active members to determine dismissal or approval of the election? >>>> >>>> That is not set anywhere. but for the past year we have been dealing >>>> with around 10% ratio. Which as I mentioned in my previous mail is >>>> relatively the same thing for all RIRs. So even though we are aiming at >>>> better, we are not an exception (with the ressou=rces we have). >>>> >>>> - a. >>>> >>>> >> >> >> -- >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> >> >> >> >> *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: >> http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535**alt >> email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng >> * >> >> The key to understanding is humility - my view ! >> >> >> -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng * The key to understanding is humility - my view ! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From adiel at afrinic.net Thu May 15 16:26:41 2014 From: adiel at afrinic.net (Adiel Akplogan) Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 20:26:41 +0400 Subject: [members-discuss] [rpd] Discussion about e-voting In-Reply-To: References: <2607AFE6-2BCE-47C3-8D94-6B469C7339A9@ghana.com> <9A2170D3-6890-4CF1-8EE0-BE0DD10DB371@afrinic.net> <7F4C376B-D71B-4753-8B61-5DA95644F96C@afrinic.net> Message-ID: <1AD24464-717D-4233-B6F2-2CF48424ADEE@afrinic.net> Hello Kofi, Now, as I was expecting your engagement with this list to evolve into this very specific case that you have also alluded to on other lists before, I think the community deserve some further explanation of who you are and what all this is about. This specific case is also connected to a complain that has been field for investigation with local and international law enforcement for possible link to criminal activities. That is on the way and there are many details that we can not reveal here but in which you have been identified by the police as one suspect. On May 15, 2014, at 17:25 PM, Kofi ansa akufo wrote: > Yes there are many specific cases I need the community to take a close look. Unfortunately as a former resource evaluation manager I am bound by NDA by AFRINIC. > > I site one specific case which applicant has brought to my attention which I need the community's support. > > Scenario: A prospective member applies to be a resourced member of AFRINIC. His application gets approved after COMPLYING with policy. AFRINIC billing department issues two invoices namely i.) Initial Setup Fees $4000 and ii.) Annual Membership Fees $12,800 as well as Registration Service Agreement (RSA). There are NO payment deadlines on both invoices neither does any staff member of AFRINIC communicate such to applicant. You forgot to mention that it was YOU Kofi, as then staff of AFRINIC and IP Analyst who have evaluated this very specific application, and this, in an expedited way during the last days of your notice period. We later understood that you had a clear conflict of interest in this application as it doesn?t take long after you left the organisation that you start inquiring about the case and not long after be appointed by this same applicant as their consultant to represent them for the application. What do you think about that? We have carefully reviewed this specific case internally and noticed how that conflict of interest has played in the way you even handled the evaluation. > Nevertheless the applicant proceeds to sign the RSA which outlines a contractual agreement between AFRINIC and the applicant. Applicant further proceeds to make payment of initial setup fees of $4000 and request for annual membership fees to be paid in parts due to recent Forex transfer restrictions in country of operation. AFRINIC denies the request for payment in parts although they allow that in certain cases as stated on their website. As ex-IP analyst at AFRINIC you should better know the internal policy used to approve split membership fees payment (when it is accepted and when it is not). Seems like your 12 months working at AFRINIC has not given you enough knowledge of our internal process as you seems to be claiming and selling it to all your new "customer(s)". > The applicant request an invoice update due to elapsed time (2 months) and AFRINIC never responds to the request. > > AFRINIC staff respond to member on the 89th day of a so called "90 days" period in which application needs to be finalized. This 90 days is not published anywhere in policy, website or communicated to applicant during the application process. Nevertheless again the applicant responds that they are awaiting invoice update before payment. > > AFRINIC staff finally respond that the application has expired contrary to what is defined in the executed RSA and further tell applicant the initial setup fees of $4000 paid is non-refundable and that applicant needs to put in a new application. Well we have thoroughly reviewed the whole process of this specific application and a communication will reach the applicant soon if not yet delivered (as you are their appointed consultant you should see a copy). > These are some of the kinds of frustration applicants face with certain staff members who refuse to stick to policies as well as contractual agreements. You are completely misrepresenting the case and of course some members will be frustrated if instead of being honest and straight, they try to play the system and find themselves cornered by the Hostmaster team. And you as Ex-IP analyst trying to collude with such people who are trying to abuse the system is even worse and I think the community should be aware of such behaviour. This unfortunately explains why the team has became more and more demanding for each application. This unfortunately impact genuine applicants. But with people like you and alike around we will have no choice. > All that is needed in such a situation for AFRINIC team is to reissue an updated invoice and enquire if the has been any changes in the applicants IP resources requirement. If there has been any changes request applicant to update IP address plan but NOT to tell the applicant to resubmit a whole new application again when applicant was not notified of any deadlines during application. Too much confusion from your side about the process. Proof that you have not even learnt anything while working here beside trying to understand how to play the system from inside. > So is this specific case justified for fellow community members to rally behind and knock on the doors of the CEO and AFRINIC to ask why the consequence of inefficiency on the part of certain staff and procedures in AFRINIC should be borne by a member :) That is a distraction tactic, diverting the attention of the community elsewhere so you and you allies get away with your maneuver? AFRINIC is an organisation that is based on honesty and you can not full a whole community. - a. > On May 15, 2014 2:49 PM, "Seun Ojedeji" wrote: > Hello Kofi, > > Let me say a few personal words below > > On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 6:54 AM, Kofi ansa akufo wrote: > > I draw typical examples below; > > 1. The core activity of AFRINIC is managing internet resources for the Region. What is seen now is more or less a passive approach to evaluation of prospective members for resources. AFRINIC staff makes it difficult to get resources > > Hmm...maybe we should say the community makes it difficult, considering that staff will only follow community developed policy to allocate resources. Nevertheless i am not even sure that difficult is the right word to use here. Perhaps if you have specific concerns of scenarios where you meet all the requirement and it still seem difficult to get the resource, then you could share with the community and we can go banging on the doors of staff with placard ;-) > YET when resources are granted there is little or no follow up processes to check if it is even being used in the region. A quick check in the whois database of AFRINIC indicates a /13 IPv4 that was issued last year which is not even used in the region. Lost of job creation opportunity on the continent. > > +1 with this, and i so much agree with you that there needs to be a better way to retain major part of our IP within our region, not just retaining but also seeing it used and empowering people in this continent; Our resources needs to drive our continent development. We all should to remember that AFRINIC among all the RIRs has the least number of IANA assigned /8 V4. > > The fact that we have the least of IANA allocated /8 among all the RIR has also recently placed us on top of all other RIRs as the region with most available v4 addresses. However we are at this present status-quo not because we don't have the population to consume the resource but because either the population is not enabled to consume it OR does not want to. The latter is the immediate reason; if most mobile networks go native public v4 you can bet that IP addresses we have left will be exhausted. I will liken this situation with our mineral resources; Africa is blessed with mineral resources, however most of the resources are shipped out of the continent with its refined produce imported back into the continent. Something similar is already happening in the IP space in that the resources are shipped abroad and we get connected to our IP (outside the continent) at our own expense. > > Okay enough of trying to describe the situation we currently are. The most important question is what is the way forward. > > The way forward is for the community to look at the existing policies used by AFRINIC to issue resource with the aim of "tightening possible loose ends" towards ensuring that the IP resource benefits the region. There are areas of concern that were presented by staff during afrinic 18[1], i think that could be a good starting point. While there is another f2f around the corner, i encourage everyone to take up this challenge by looking at our existing policy and proposing an update or even an entirely new proposal. Some of this can be discussed at the upcoming f2f meeting > Solution: the very IP resources we seek to manage is evolving in a technology which is dissolving geographic barriers. AFRINIC should then be seen as a key partner for our region to ensure that infrastructures are established in our region to create jobs through standard policies which will continuously monitor the activities and link or tie prospective investors to the region rather than turn them off or frustrate them and later grant them huge chunks of resources to be used outside the region. > > While one can definitely not determine/restrict how a member should use his/her IP resource, one could set certain requirements before granting the resource and those could be related to infrastructure presence, organisation activity history in Africa et all. All these can be reflected in a policy, i again call on the community to stand up to this challenge. The CEO has also recently indicated this concern in his statement [2] and calls for urgent attention of the community for v4 and v6 deployment in Africa. > 2. AFRINIC currently adopts "see the trees from the forest" approach with respect to training programs (e.g. IPv6 training). There are currently more than three active Research and Education Networks (REN), Association of African Universities (AAU) as well as African Network Operators Group (AfNOG) - specialized groups. What I see as a better and far reaching impact is to collaborate with these groups to tailor curriculum and draw standards. Follow up with program monitoring and audits. I believe this should NOT be a long term goal. IPv6 awareness and adoption will have being considerable high. > > 3. Again the RIR should be seen playing a regulatory role. Recent years has seen considerable internet exchange spring up each with their own operating guidelines for membership and peering. What AFRINIC should be doing is to collaborate with key stakeholders (governments, submarine cable providers, service providers through AfNOG) to draft various standards and architectutes to be adhered to. (for example encourage distributed / or linked national and regional exchanges. > > I think there are efforts in the areas mentioned above, nevertheless i agree that more efforts needs to be put in place. However there is a saying that; "you can only take a horse to the river, you can't force it to drink water". There are quite many service provider that are aware of the need to go v6 and that also know the disadvantage of NATing (to be an incentive to deploy native v4 as much as possible) however they ain't doing that because they havn't see the demand. So for me i think we will experience a boost if we improve support of Africa content development/initiatives that are IP demanding (internet of things) which will change the demand of end users. > > > One will argue how does this approach impact AFRINIC members directly and increase meeting turnout and subsequent voting participation? > > It can either impact it positively or negatively depending on the rules and guideline we have provided. Afrinic will be 10 but its still relatively young and we need to start setting policies that will make it sustainable and more community driven. > Thanks > > Kind regards > > 1. http://meeting.afrinic.net/afrinic-18/sites/default/files/Madhvipolicy-implementation-report.pdf > 2. http://www.afrinic.net/en/library/news/1101-arin-nears-ipv4-depletion-afrinic-reaffirms-the-need-for-urgent-ipv6-deployment > Kofi > > On May 15, 2014 6:05 AM, "Adiel Akplogan" wrote: > > On May 15, 2014, at 24:26 AM, Kofi ansa akufo wrote: > >> Hello Adiel and All >> >> Interesting discussion. >> >> Forgive me to play the devils advocate for a while - few questions below regarding the immediate past election for board members. >> >> 1. What was the total votes casts? >> >> 2. How many votes were cast as proxy votes? > > See my previous mail for the above. > >> 3. How many individuals voted more than once due to being associated to more than one member? > > 8 out of 45. Knowing that all board members (registered members) that are also valid contact of resource members get 2 votes. > >> 4. What was the total active members as at the time of opening voting? > > About 750 members. This data can be dynamically checked at: http://www.afrinic.net/en/about-us/our-members > >> 5. How many votes were cast through ballot paper at the election? > > 45. > >> 6. Do we have a minimum number of votes casted (%) relative to the number of active members to determine dismissal or approval of the election? > > That is not set anywhere. but for the past year we have been dealing with around 10% ratio. Which as I mentioned in my previous mail is relatively the same thing for all RIRs. So even though we are aiming at better, we are not an exception (with the ressou=rces we have). > > - a. > > > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Seun Ojedeji, > Federal University Oye-Ekiti > web: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng > Mobile: +2348035233535 > alt email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng > > The key to understanding is humility - my view ! > _______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/members-discuss -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 313 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From kofi.ansa at gmail.com Thu May 15 16:36:35 2014 From: kofi.ansa at gmail.com (Kofi ansa akufo) Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 20:36:35 +0400 Subject: [rpd] Discussion about e-voting In-Reply-To: References: <2607AFE6-2BCE-47C3-8D94-6B469C7339A9@ghana.com> <9A2170D3-6890-4CF1-8EE0-BE0DD10DB371@afrinic.net> <7F4C376B-D71B-4753-8B61-5DA95644F96C@afrinic.net> Message-ID: Hello Seun and All, Let me respond in line. On May 15, 2014 7:47 PM, "Seun Ojedeji" wrote: > > Hello Kofi, > > On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 2:25 PM, Kofi ansa akufo wrote: >> >> >> >> Scenario: A prospective member applies to be a resourced member of AFRINIC. His application gets approved after COMPLYING with policy. AFRINIC billing department issues two invoices namely i.) Initial Setup Fees $4000 and ii.) Annual Membership Fees $12,800 as well as Registration Service Agreement (RSA). > > Just to be clear, do you mean 2 separate invoices were issued? Or that an invoice that has 2 category of charges was issued? (which should be the onetime setup fee and membership fee) >> Yes one time setup fees and membership fees. One time setup fees were paid. >> There are NO payment deadlines on both invoices neither does any staff member of AFRINIC communicate such to applicant. > > Again you say both invoices, it implies you were issued 2 separate invoices. Could you confirm this? As i think it will definitely determine how to address the situation. I also agree that there is usually no deadline stated on invoices, however there are guidelines on the RSA(and on payment schedule) and those will be applied depending on your nature of application in relation to the date stated on the invoice. Fortunately/unfortunately new membership timing on expiry procedure seem not to be clearly specific on the payment schedule. >> >> Nevertheless the applicant proceeds to sign the RSA which outlines a contractual agreement between AFRINIC and the applicant. Applicant further proceeds to make payment of initial setup fees of $4000 and request for annual membership fees to be paid in parts due to recent Forex transfer restrictions in country of operation. AFRINIC denies the request for payment in parts although they allow that in certain cases as stated on their website. > > Okay, again this still assumes that 2 separate invoices were issued right? >> >> The applicant request an invoice update due to elapsed time (2 months) and AFRINIC never responds to the request. > > Just to be clear, what updated invoice is required here? since the understanding is that 2 invoices were initially issued. Applicant requested for membership fees invoice update since it was way past February and such invoices are issued quarterly. >> >> AFRINIC staff respond to member on the 89th day of a so called "90 days" period in which application needs to be finalized. This 90 days is not published anywhere in policy, website or communicated to applicant during the application process. Nevertheless again the applicant responds that they are awaiting invoice update before payment. > > At this point you refer to the applicant as member, does it mean that AFRINIC has confirmed payment of 4kUSD and that made the applicant now a member?(as i think that was setup fee and not membership) nevertheless what invoice update is the "applicant" expecting AFRINIC confirmed receipt of the the $4000 paid for the one time setup fees and RSA signed. >> >> AFRINIC staff finally respond that the application has expired contrary to what is defined in the executed RSA and further tell applicant the initial setup fees of $4000 paid is non-refundable and that applicant needs to put in a new application. > > Hmm...on the basis that there is no clear indication of new applicant payment deadline, i would expect that the 4k should be refunded. However on the basis that things may have changed in the organisation as per how resources are allocated, i would think its good judgement to start the application over again. Don't you think so? What I infer here as the CEO put it is to associate this member with another applicant in a legal tussle with AFRINIC. >> >> These are some of the kinds of frustration applicants face with certain staff members who refuse to stick to policies as well as contractual agreements. > > This is a peculiar case and i must say that its an unfortunate coincidence that fx rules of the country/organisation changed almost immediately before making payment. As i would have expected that the applicant was aware of the cost before signing the RSA. Actually as a point of practice, before i make any resource application, i do hint management on cost implication. Can we assume that the applicant was perhaps not prepared to make that payment in the first place? > >> >> So is this specific case justified for fellow community members to rally behind and knock on the doors of the CEO and AFRINIC to ask why the consequence of inefficiency on the part of certain staff and procedures in AFRINIC should be borne by a member :) > > Depending on your response to my questions/concerns above So there you go I hope I have answered your questions. Cheers Kofi > > Regards >> >> Cheers. >> >> On May 15, 2014 2:49 PM, "Seun Ojedeji" wrote: >>> >>> Hello Kofi, >>> >>> Let me say a few personal words below >>> >>> On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 6:54 AM, Kofi ansa akufo wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I draw typical examples below; >>>> >>>> 1. The core activity of AFRINIC is managing internet resources for the Region. What is seen now is more or less a passive approach to evaluation of prospective members for resources. AFRINIC staff makes it difficult to get resources >>> >>> Hmm...maybe we should say the community makes it difficult, considering that staff will only follow community developed policy to allocate resources. Nevertheless i am not even sure that difficult is the right word to use here. Perhaps if you have specific concerns of scenarios where you meet all the requirement and it still seem difficult to get the resource, then you could share with the community and we can go banging on the doors of staff with placard ;-) >>>> >>>> YET when resources are granted there is little or no follow up processes to check if it is even being used in the region. A quick check in the whois database of AFRINIC indicates a /13 IPv4 that was issued last year which is not even used in the region. Lost of job creation opportunity on the continent. >>> >>> +1 with this, and i so much agree with you that there needs to be a better way to retain major part of our IP within our region, not just retaining but also seeing it used and empowering people in this continent; Our resources needs to drive our continent development. We all should to remember that AFRINIC among all the RIRs has the least number of IANA assigned /8 V4. >>> >>> The fact that we have the least of IANA allocated /8 among all the RIR has also recently placed us on top of all other RIRs as the region with most available v4 addresses. However we are at this present status-quo not because we don't have the population to consume the resource but because either the population is not enabled to consume it OR does not want to. The latter is the immediate reason; if most mobile networks go native public v4 you can bet that IP addresses we have left will be exhausted. I will liken this situation with our mineral resources; Africa is blessed with mineral resources, however most of the resources are shipped out of the continent with its refined produce imported back into the continent. Something similar is already happening in the IP space in that the resources are shipped abroad and we get connected to our IP (outside the continent) at our own expense. >>> >>> Okay enough of trying to describe the situation we currently are. The most important question is what is the way forward. >>> >>> The way forward is for the community to look at the existing policies used by AFRINIC to issue resource with the aim of "tightening possible loose ends" towards ensuring that the IP resource benefits the region. There are areas of concern that were presented by staff during afrinic 18[1], i think that could be a good starting point. While there is another f2f around the corner, i encourage everyone to take up this challenge by looking at our existing policy and proposing an update or even an entirely new proposal. Some of this can be discussed at the upcoming f2f meeting >>>> >>>> Solution: the very IP resources we seek to manage is evolving in a technology which is dissolving geographic barriers. AFRINIC should then be seen as a key partner for our region to ensure that infrastructures are established in our region to create jobs through standard policies which will continuously monitor the activities and link or tie prospective investors to the region rather than turn them off or frustrate them and later grant them huge chunks of resources to be used outside the region. >>> >>> While one can definitely not determine/restrict how a member should use his/her IP resource, one could set certain requirements before granting the resource and those could be related to infrastructure presence, organisation activity history in Africa et all. All these can be reflected in a policy, i again call on the community to stand up to this challenge. The CEO has also recently indicated this concern in his statement [2] and calls for urgent attention of the community for v4 and v6 deployment in Africa. >>>> >>>> 2. AFRINIC currently adopts "see the trees from the forest" approach with respect to training programs (e.g. IPv6 training). There are currently more than three active Research and Education Networks (REN), Association of African Universities (AAU) as well as African Network Operators Group (AfNOG) - specialized groups. What I see as a better and far reaching impact is to collaborate with these groups to tailor curriculum and draw standards. Follow up with program monitoring and audits. I believe this should NOT be a long term goal. IPv6 awareness and adoption will have being considerable high. >>>> >>>> 3. Again the RIR should be seen playing a regulatory role. Recent years has seen considerable internet exchange spring up each with their own operating guidelines for membership and peering. What AFRINIC should be doing is to collaborate with key stakeholders (governments, submarine cable providers, service providers through AfNOG) to draft various standards and architectutes to be adhered to. (for example encourage distributed / or linked national and regional exchanges. >>> >>> I think there are efforts in the areas mentioned above, nevertheless i agree that more efforts needs to be put in place. However there is a saying that; "you can only take a horse to the river, you can't force it to drink water". There are quite many service provider that are aware of the need to go v6 and that also know the disadvantage of NATing (to be an incentive to deploy native v4 as much as possible) however they ain't doing that because they havn't see the demand. So for me i think we will experience a boost if we improve support of Africa content development/initiatives that are IP demanding (internet of things) which will change the demand of end users. >>> >>> >>>> >>>> One will argue how does this approach impact AFRINIC members directly and increase meeting turnout and subsequent voting participation? >>> >>> It can either impact it positively or negatively depending on the rules and guideline we have provided. Afrinic will be 10 but its still relatively young and we need to start setting policies that will make it sustainable and more community driven. >>> >>> Thanks >>> >>> Kind regards >>> >>> 1. http://meeting.afrinic.net/afrinic-18/sites/default/files/Madhvipolicy-implementation-report.pdf >>> 2. http://www.afrinic.net/en/library/news/1101-arin-nears-ipv4-depletion-afrinic-reaffirms-the-need-for-urgent-ipv6-deployment >>>> >>>> Kofi >>>> >>>> On May 15, 2014 6:05 AM, "Adiel Akplogan" wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On May 15, 2014, at 24:26 AM, Kofi ansa akufo wrote: >>>>> >>>>> > Hello Adiel and All >>>>> > >>>>> > Interesting discussion. >>>>> > >>>>> > Forgive me to play the devils advocate for a while - few questions below regarding the immediate past election for board members. >>>>> > >>>>> > 1. What was the total votes casts? >>>>> > >>>>> > 2. How many votes were cast as proxy votes? >>>>> >>>>> See my previous mail for the above. >>>>> >>>>> > 3. How many individuals voted more than once due to being associated to more than one member? >>>>> >>>>> 8 out of 45. Knowing that all board members (registered members) that are also valid contact of resource members get 2 votes. >>>>> >>>>> > 4. What was the total active members as at the time of opening voting? >>>>> >>>>> About 750 members. This data can be dynamically checked at: http://www.afrinic.net/en/about-us/our-members >>>>> >>>>> > 5. How many votes were cast through ballot paper at the election? >>>>> >>>>> 45. >>>>> >>>>> > 6. Do we have a minimum number of votes casted (%) relative to the number of active members to determine dismissal or approval of the election? >>>>> >>>>> That is not set anywhere. but for the past year we have been dealing with around 10% ratio. Which as I mentioned in my previous mail is relatively the same thing for all RIRs. So even though we are aiming at better, we are not an exception (with the ressou=rces we have). >>>>> >>>>> - a. >>>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> >>>> Seun Ojedeji, >>>> Federal University Oye-Ekiti >>>> web: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng >>>> Mobile: +2348035233535 >>>> alt email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng >>>> >>>>> The key to understanding is humility - my view ! >>> >>> > > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> Seun Ojedeji, >> Federal University Oye-Ekiti >> web: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng >> Mobile: +2348035233535 >> alt email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng >> >>> The key to understanding is humility - my view ! > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kofi.ansa at gmail.com Thu May 15 16:49:07 2014 From: kofi.ansa at gmail.com (Kofi ansa akufo) Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 20:49:07 +0400 Subject: [members-discuss] [rpd] Discussion about e-voting In-Reply-To: <1AD24464-717D-4233-B6F2-2CF48424ADEE@afrinic.net> References: <2607AFE6-2BCE-47C3-8D94-6B469C7339A9@ghana.com> <9A2170D3-6890-4CF1-8EE0-BE0DD10DB371@afrinic.net> <7F4C376B-D71B-4753-8B61-5DA95644F96C@afrinic.net> <1AD24464-717D-4233-B6F2-2CF48424ADEE@afrinic.net> Message-ID: Hello Adiel, Let me be a little personal here for the records. I believe I had a discussion in your office about my stance on the cases in question. Please let's be objective here and deal with the specific case I described and not personal attacks and suspicion. Cheers Kofi. On May 15, 2014 8:27 PM, "Adiel Akplogan" wrote: > Hello Kofi, > > Now, as I was expecting your engagement with this list to evolve into this > very specific case that you have also alluded to on other lists before, I > think the community deserve some further explanation of who you are and > what all this is about. This specific case is also connected to a complain > that has been field for investigation with local and international law > enforcement for possible link to criminal activities. That is on the way > and there are many details that we can not reveal here but in which you > have been identified by the police as one suspect. > > On May 15, 2014, at 17:25 PM, Kofi ansa akufo wrote: > > > Yes there are many specific cases I need the community to take a close > look. Unfortunately as a former resource evaluation manager I am bound by > NDA by AFRINIC. > > > > I site one specific case which applicant has brought to my attention > which I need the community's support. > > > > Scenario: A prospective member applies to be a resourced member of > AFRINIC. His application gets approved after COMPLYING with policy. AFRINIC > billing department issues two invoices namely i.) Initial Setup Fees $4000 > and ii.) Annual Membership Fees $12,800 as well as Registration Service > Agreement (RSA). There are NO payment deadlines on both invoices neither > does any staff member of AFRINIC communicate such to applicant. > > You forgot to mention that it was YOU Kofi, as then staff of AFRINIC and > IP Analyst who have evaluated this very specific application, and this, in > an expedited way during the last days of your notice period. We later > understood that you had a clear conflict of interest in this application as > it doesn?t take long after you left the organisation that you start > inquiring about the case and not long after be appointed by this same > applicant as their consultant to represent them for the application. What > do you think about that? > > We have carefully reviewed this specific case internally and noticed how > that conflict of interest has played in the way you even handled the > evaluation. > > > Nevertheless the applicant proceeds to sign the RSA which outlines a > contractual agreement between AFRINIC and the applicant. Applicant further > proceeds to make payment of initial setup fees of $4000 and request for > annual membership fees to be paid in parts due to recent Forex transfer > restrictions in country of operation. AFRINIC denies the request for > payment in parts although they allow that in certain cases as stated on > their website. > > As ex-IP analyst at AFRINIC you should better know the internal policy > used to approve split membership fees payment (when it is accepted and when > it is not). Seems like your 12 months working at AFRINIC has not given you > enough knowledge of our internal process as you seems to be claiming and > selling it to all your new "customer(s)". > > > The applicant request an invoice update due to elapsed time (2 months) > and AFRINIC never responds to the request. > > > > AFRINIC staff respond to member on the 89th day of a so called "90 days" > period in which application needs to be finalized. This 90 days is not > published anywhere in policy, website or communicated to applicant during > the application process. Nevertheless again the applicant responds that > they are awaiting invoice update before payment. > > > > AFRINIC staff finally respond that the application has expired contrary > to what is defined in the executed RSA and further tell applicant the > initial setup fees of $4000 paid is non-refundable and that applicant needs > to put in a new application. > > Well we have thoroughly reviewed the whole process of this specific > application and a communication will reach the applicant soon if not yet > delivered (as you are their appointed consultant you should see a copy). > > > These are some of the kinds of frustration applicants face with certain > staff members who refuse to stick to policies as well as contractual > agreements. > > You are completely misrepresenting the case and of course some members > will be frustrated if instead of being honest and straight, they try to > play the system and find themselves cornered by the Hostmaster team. And > you as Ex-IP analyst trying to collude with such people who are trying to > abuse the system is even worse and I think the community should be aware of > such behaviour. This unfortunately explains why the team has became more > and more demanding for each application. This unfortunately impact genuine > applicants. But with people like you and alike around we will have no > choice. > > > All that is needed in such a situation for AFRINIC team is to reissue an > updated invoice and enquire if the has been any changes in the applicants > IP resources requirement. If there has been any changes request applicant > to update IP address plan but NOT to tell the applicant to resubmit a whole > new application again when applicant was not notified of any deadlines > during application. > > Too much confusion from your side about the process. Proof that you have > not even learnt anything while working here beside trying to understand how > to play the system from inside. > > > So is this specific case justified for fellow community members to rally > behind and knock on the doors of the CEO and AFRINIC to ask why the > consequence of inefficiency on the part of certain staff and procedures in > AFRINIC should be borne by a member :) > > That is a distraction tactic, diverting the attention of the community > elsewhere so you and you allies get away with your maneuver? AFRINIC is an > organisation that is based on honesty and you can not full a whole > community. > > - a. > > > On May 15, 2014 2:49 PM, "Seun Ojedeji" wrote: > > Hello Kofi, > > > > Let me say a few personal words below > > > > On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 6:54 AM, Kofi ansa akufo > wrote: > > > > I draw typical examples below; > > > > 1. The core activity of AFRINIC is managing internet resources for the > Region. What is seen now is more or less a passive approach to evaluation > of prospective members for resources. AFRINIC staff makes it difficult to > get resources > > > > Hmm...maybe we should say the community makes it difficult, considering > that staff will only follow community developed policy to allocate > resources. Nevertheless i am not even sure that difficult is the right word > to use here. Perhaps if you have specific concerns of scenarios where you > meet all the requirement and it still seem difficult to get the resource, > then you could share with the community and we can go banging on the doors > of staff with placard ;-) > > YET when resources are granted there is little or no follow up processes > to check if it is even being used in the region. A quick check in the whois > database of AFRINIC indicates a /13 IPv4 that was issued last year which is > not even used in the region. Lost of job creation opportunity on the > continent. > > > > +1 with this, and i so much agree with you that there needs to be a > better way to retain major part of our IP within our region, not just > retaining but also seeing it used and empowering people in this continent; > Our resources needs to drive our continent development. We all should to > remember that AFRINIC among all the RIRs has the least number of IANA > assigned /8 V4. > > > > The fact that we have the least of IANA allocated /8 among all the RIR > has also recently placed us on top of all other RIRs as the region with > most available v4 addresses. However we are at this present status-quo not > because we don't have the population to consume the resource but because > either the population is not enabled to consume it OR does not want to. The > latter is the immediate reason; if most mobile networks go native public v4 > you can bet that IP addresses we have left will be exhausted. I will liken > this situation with our mineral resources; Africa is blessed with mineral > resources, however most of the resources are shipped out of the continent > with its refined produce imported back into the continent. Something > similar is already happening in the IP space in that the resources are > shipped abroad and we get connected to our IP (outside the continent) at > our own expense. > > > > Okay enough of trying to describe the situation we currently are. The > most important question is what is the way forward. > > > > The way forward is for the community to look at the existing policies > used by AFRINIC to issue resource with the aim of "tightening possible > loose ends" towards ensuring that the IP resource benefits the region. > There are areas of concern that were presented by staff during afrinic > 18[1], i think that could be a good starting point. While there is another > f2f around the corner, i encourage everyone to take up this challenge by > looking at our existing policy and proposing an update or even an entirely > new proposal. Some of this can be discussed at the upcoming f2f meeting > > Solution: the very IP resources we seek to manage is evolving in a > technology which is dissolving geographic barriers. AFRINIC should then be > seen as a key partner for our region to ensure that infrastructures are > established in our region to create jobs through standard policies which > will continuously monitor the activities and link or tie prospective > investors to the region rather than turn them off or frustrate them and > later grant them huge chunks of resources to be used outside the region. > > > > While one can definitely not determine/restrict how a member should use > his/her IP resource, one could set certain requirements before granting the > resource and those could be related to infrastructure presence, > organisation activity history in Africa et all. All these can be reflected > in a policy, i again call on the community to stand up to this challenge. > The CEO has also recently indicated this concern in his statement [2] and > calls for urgent attention of the community for v4 and v6 deployment in > Africa. > > 2. AFRINIC currently adopts "see the trees from the forest" approach > with respect to training programs (e.g. IPv6 training). There are currently > more than three active Research and Education Networks (REN), Association > of African Universities (AAU) as well as African Network Operators Group > (AfNOG) - specialized groups. What I see as a better and far reaching > impact is to collaborate with these groups to tailor curriculum and draw > standards. Follow up with program monitoring and audits. I believe this > should NOT be a long term goal. IPv6 awareness and adoption will have being > considerable high. > > > > 3. Again the RIR should be seen playing a regulatory role. Recent years > has seen considerable internet exchange spring up each with their own > operating guidelines for membership and peering. What AFRINIC should be > doing is to collaborate with key stakeholders (governments, submarine cable > providers, service providers through AfNOG) to draft various standards and > architectutes to be adhered to. (for example encourage distributed / or > linked national and regional exchanges. > > > > I think there are efforts in the areas mentioned above, nevertheless i > agree that more efforts needs to be put in place. However there is a saying > that; "you can only take a horse to the river, you can't force it to drink > water". There are quite many service provider that are aware of the need to > go v6 and that also know the disadvantage of NATing (to be an incentive to > deploy native v4 as much as possible) however they ain't doing that because > they havn't see the demand. So for me i think we will experience a boost if > we improve support of Africa content development/initiatives that are IP > demanding (internet of things) which will change the demand of end users. > > > > > > One will argue how does this approach impact AFRINIC members directly > and increase meeting turnout and subsequent voting participation? > > > > It can either impact it positively or negatively depending on the rules > and guideline we have provided. Afrinic will be 10 but its still relatively > young and we need to start setting policies that will make it sustainable > and more community driven. > > Thanks > > > > Kind regards > > > > 1. > http://meeting.afrinic.net/afrinic-18/sites/default/files/Madhvipolicy-implementation-report.pdf > > 2. > http://www.afrinic.net/en/library/news/1101-arin-nears-ipv4-depletion-afrinic-reaffirms-the-need-for-urgent-ipv6-deployment > > Kofi > > > > On May 15, 2014 6:05 AM, "Adiel Akplogan" wrote: > > > > On May 15, 2014, at 24:26 AM, Kofi ansa akufo > wrote: > > > >> Hello Adiel and All > >> > >> Interesting discussion. > >> > >> Forgive me to play the devils advocate for a while - few questions > below regarding the immediate past election for board members. > >> > >> 1. What was the total votes casts? > >> > >> 2. How many votes were cast as proxy votes? > > > > See my previous mail for the above. > > > >> 3. How many individuals voted more than once due to being associated to > more than one member? > > > > 8 out of 45. Knowing that all board members (registered members) that > are also valid contact of resource members get 2 votes. > > > >> 4. What was the total active members as at the time of opening voting? > > > > About 750 members. This data can be dynamically checked at: > http://www.afrinic.net/en/about-us/our-members > > > >> 5. How many votes were cast through ballot paper at the election? > > > > 45. > > > >> 6. Do we have a minimum number of votes casted (%) relative to the > number of active members to determine dismissal or approval of the election? > > > > That is not set anywhere. but for the past year we have been dealing > with around 10% ratio. Which as I mentioned in my previous mail is > relatively the same thing for all RIRs. So even though we are aiming at > better, we are not an exception (with the ressou=rces we have). > > > > - a. > > > > > > > > > > -- > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Seun Ojedeji, > > Federal University Oye-Ekiti > > web: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng > > Mobile: +2348035233535 > > alt email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng > > > > The key to understanding is humility - my view ! > > > > _______________________________________________ > members-discuss mailing list > members-discuss at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/members-discuss > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From owen at delong.com Thu May 15 16:49:31 2014 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 09:49:31 -0700 Subject: [rpd] Discussion about e-voting In-Reply-To: References: <2607AFE6-2BCE-47C3-8D94-6B469C7339A9@ghana.com> <9A2170D3-6890-4CF1-8EE0-BE0DD10DB371@afrinic.net> <7F4C376B-D71B-4753-8B61-5DA95644F96C@afrinic.net> Message-ID: <29DFA30B-DC47-41EF-9756-713AAC24453C@delong.com> On May 14, 2014, at 10:54 PM, Kofi ansa akufo wrote: > Hello All > > Thanks for the statistics and comparisons. Forgive me again to divert this discussion a bit. Come next year our RIR will be 10 years old. > > We have an advantage as the fifth and last RIR to observe and amend what are the challenges facing the other long established RIRs. IMHO as we strive to achieve more than the average 10% comparison in member turn out we should clearly review strategies for making impact on the continent. > I always find it interesting when members of an organization start talking about how to increase voter turnout without considering the reasons for low turnout. The number one reason for low voter turnout is complacency in most cases. Complacency is usually a result of satisfaction with the status quo. If people dislike what is happening, they are more likely to participate or vote. Don?t get me wrong, I?m all for looking for ways to encourage additional and more representative participation. I just think it is important to keep in perspective that for the most part, things are working fairly well. Participation is not unusually low compared to many other well functioning groups. > 1. The core activity of AFRINIC is managing internet resources for the Region. What is seen now is more or less a passive approach to evaluation of prospective members for resources. AFRINIC staff makes it difficult to get resources YET when resources are granted there is little or no follow up processes to check if it is even being used in the region. A quick check in the whois database of AFRINIC indicates a /13 IPv4 that was issued last year which is not even used in the region. Lost of job creation opportunity on the continent. > I'm not sure I buy that assertion. I don?t think AfriNIC staff makes it difficult to get resources. I think they evaluate resource requests according to the policies set by the AfriNIC community just as any other RIR. The AfriNIC community has, for various reasons, adopted a fairly stringent and restrictive set of policies. I can?t comment on the latter because I don?t know the specifics. If your claim is true, then it seems to me that the use violates AfriNIC policy and perhaps the resources in question should be reclaimed. > Solution: the very IP resources we seek to manage is evolving in a technology which is dissolving geographic barriers. AFRINIC should then be seen as a key partner for our region to ensure that infrastructures are established in our region to create jobs through standard policies which will continuously monitor the activities and link or tie prospective investors to the region rather than turn them off or frustrate them and later grant them huge chunks of resources to be used outside the region. > If you think AfriNIC policy needs to change, then you should submit a policy proposal to change it. Staff cannot do so. The system is intended to work based on a bottom-up process where policy changes are proposed by community members such as yourself. > 3. Again the RIR should be seen playing a regulatory role. Recent years has seen considerable internet exchange spring up each with their own operating guidelines for membership and peering. What AFRINIC should be doing is to collaborate with key stakeholders (governments, submarine cable providers, service providers through AfNOG) to draft various standards and architectutes to be adhered to. (for example encourage distributed / or linked national and regional exchanges. > I would think that an industry organization such as AfNOG, rather than an RIR would be a better place for such standards to be developed. > In short AFRINIC should be seen as a regulator and reach out to the community through existing specialized groups and institutions and not waste resources on operations with little impact on the continent. > > One will argue how does this approach impact AFRINIC members directly and increase meeting turnout and subsequent voting participation? > I'm relatively certain that if you turned AfriNIC into a regulator in the true sense of the word and made policies significantly more stringent, you would very likely increase the participation at least in the short term. I?m not sure that is the best mechanism for doing so. (See my above text about how satisfaction tends to breed complacency.) Owen -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From adiel at afrinic.net Thu May 15 17:07:48 2014 From: adiel at afrinic.net (Adiel Akplogan) Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 21:07:48 +0400 Subject: [members-discuss] [rpd] Discussion about e-voting In-Reply-To: References: <2607AFE6-2BCE-47C3-8D94-6B469C7339A9@ghana.com> <9A2170D3-6890-4CF1-8EE0-BE0DD10DB371@afrinic.net> <7F4C376B-D71B-4753-8B61-5DA95644F96C@afrinic.net> <1AD24464-717D-4233-B6F2-2CF48424ADEE@afrinic.net> Message-ID: <7F6591CD-0604-4B20-B79F-AB944DE706D4@afrinic.net> On May 15, 2014, at 20:49 PM, Kofi ansa akufo wrote: > Let me be a little personal here for the records. I believe I had a discussion in your office about my stance on the cases in question. Which was acknowledged, but that should be between you and the investigation process. Further to that this case we are talking about (while it has been mentioned in the other case) has been further been investigated separately where these issues were identified. As mentioned we can not expose the details of the case here. > Please let's be objective here and deal with the specific case I described and not personal attacks and suspicion. This specific case has been dealt with and as mentioned the out come is on the way to the applicant. I guess your are not expecting me our staff to publicly evaluate your case here? - a. > On May 15, 2014 8:27 PM, "Adiel Akplogan" wrote: > Hello Kofi, > > Now, as I was expecting your engagement with this list to evolve into this very specific case that you have also alluded to on other lists before, I think the community deserve some further explanation of who you are and what all this is about. This specific case is also connected to a complain that has been field for investigation with local and international law enforcement for possible link to criminal activities. That is on the way and there are many details that we can not reveal here but in which you have been identified by the police as one suspect. > > On May 15, 2014, at 17:25 PM, Kofi ansa akufo wrote: > > > Yes there are many specific cases I need the community to take a close look. Unfortunately as a former resource evaluation manager I am bound by NDA by AFRINIC. > > > > I site one specific case which applicant has brought to my attention which I need the community's support. > > > > Scenario: A prospective member applies to be a resourced member of AFRINIC. His application gets approved after COMPLYING with policy. AFRINIC billing department issues two invoices namely i.) Initial Setup Fees $4000 and ii.) Annual Membership Fees $12,800 as well as Registration Service Agreement (RSA). There are NO payment deadlines on both invoices neither does any staff member of AFRINIC communicate such to applicant. > > You forgot to mention that it was YOU Kofi, as then staff of AFRINIC and IP Analyst who have evaluated this very specific application, and this, in an expedited way during the last days of your notice period. We later understood that you had a clear conflict of interest in this application as it doesn?t take long after you left the organisation that you start inquiring about the case and not long after be appointed by this same applicant as their consultant to represent them for the application. What do you think about that? > > We have carefully reviewed this specific case internally and noticed how that conflict of interest has played in the way you even handled the evaluation. > > > Nevertheless the applicant proceeds to sign the RSA which outlines a contractual agreement between AFRINIC and the applicant. Applicant further proceeds to make payment of initial setup fees of $4000 and request for annual membership fees to be paid in parts due to recent Forex transfer restrictions in country of operation. AFRINIC denies the request for payment in parts although they allow that in certain cases as stated on their website. > > As ex-IP analyst at AFRINIC you should better know the internal policy used to approve split membership fees payment (when it is accepted and when it is not). Seems like your 12 months working at AFRINIC has not given you enough knowledge of our internal process as you seems to be claiming and selling it to all your new "customer(s)". > > > The applicant request an invoice update due to elapsed time (2 months) and AFRINIC never responds to the request. > > > > AFRINIC staff respond to member on the 89th day of a so called "90 days" period in which application needs to be finalized. This 90 days is not published anywhere in policy, website or communicated to applicant during the application process. Nevertheless again the applicant responds that they are awaiting invoice update before payment. > > > > AFRINIC staff finally respond that the application has expired contrary to what is defined in the executed RSA and further tell applicant the initial setup fees of $4000 paid is non-refundable and that applicant needs to put in a new application. > > Well we have thoroughly reviewed the whole process of this specific application and a communication will reach the applicant soon if not yet delivered (as you are their appointed consultant you should see a copy). > > > These are some of the kinds of frustration applicants face with certain staff members who refuse to stick to policies as well as contractual agreements. > > You are completely misrepresenting the case and of course some members will be frustrated if instead of being honest and straight, they try to play the system and find themselves cornered by the Hostmaster team. And you as Ex-IP analyst trying to collude with such people who are trying to abuse the system is even worse and I think the community should be aware of such behaviour. This unfortunately explains why the team has became more and more demanding for each application. This unfortunately impact genuine applicants. But with people like you and alike around we will have no choice. > > > All that is needed in such a situation for AFRINIC team is to reissue an updated invoice and enquire if the has been any changes in the applicants IP resources requirement. If there has been any changes request applicant to update IP address plan but NOT to tell the applicant to resubmit a whole new application again when applicant was not notified of any deadlines during application. > > Too much confusion from your side about the process. Proof that you have not even learnt anything while working here beside trying to understand how to play the system from inside. > > > So is this specific case justified for fellow community members to rally behind and knock on the doors of the CEO and AFRINIC to ask why the consequence of inefficiency on the part of certain staff and procedures in AFRINIC should be borne by a member :) > > That is a distraction tactic, diverting the attention of the community elsewhere so you and you allies get away with your maneuver? AFRINIC is an organisation that is based on honesty and you can not full a whole community. > > - a. > > > On May 15, 2014 2:49 PM, "Seun Ojedeji" wrote: > > Hello Kofi, > > > > Let me say a few personal words below > > > > On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 6:54 AM, Kofi ansa akufo wrote: > > > > I draw typical examples below; > > > > 1. The core activity of AFRINIC is managing internet resources for the Region. What is seen now is more or less a passive approach to evaluation of prospective members for resources. AFRINIC staff makes it difficult to get resources > > > > Hmm...maybe we should say the community makes it difficult, considering that staff will only follow community developed policy to allocate resources. Nevertheless i am not even sure that difficult is the right word to use here. Perhaps if you have specific concerns of scenarios where you meet all the requirement and it still seem difficult to get the resource, then you could share with the community and we can go banging on the doors of staff with placard ;-) > > YET when resources are granted there is little or no follow up processes to check if it is even being used in the region. A quick check in the whois database of AFRINIC indicates a /13 IPv4 that was issued last year which is not even used in the region. Lost of job creation opportunity on the continent. > > > > +1 with this, and i so much agree with you that there needs to be a better way to retain major part of our IP within our region, not just retaining but also seeing it used and empowering people in this continent; Our resources needs to drive our continent development. We all should to remember that AFRINIC among all the RIRs has the least number of IANA assigned /8 V4. > > > > The fact that we have the least of IANA allocated /8 among all the RIR has also recently placed us on top of all other RIRs as the region with most available v4 addresses. However we are at this present status-quo not because we don't have the population to consume the resource but because either the population is not enabled to consume it OR does not want to. The latter is the immediate reason; if most mobile networks go native public v4 you can bet that IP addresses we have left will be exhausted. I will liken this situation with our mineral resources; Africa is blessed with mineral resources, however most of the resources are shipped out of the continent with its refined produce imported back into the continent. Something similar is already happening in the IP space in that the resources are shipped abroad and we get connected to our IP (outside the continent) at our own expense. > > > > Okay enough of trying to describe the situation we currently are. The most important question is what is the way forward. > > > > The way forward is for the community to look at the existing policies used by AFRINIC to issue resource with the aim of "tightening possible loose ends" towards ensuring that the IP resource benefits the region. There are areas of concern that were presented by staff during afrinic 18[1], i think that could be a good starting point. While there is another f2f around the corner, i encourage everyone to take up this challenge by looking at our existing policy and proposing an update or even an entirely new proposal. Some of this can be discussed at the upcoming f2f meeting > > Solution: the very IP resources we seek to manage is evolving in a technology which is dissolving geographic barriers. AFRINIC should then be seen as a key partner for our region to ensure that infrastructures are established in our region to create jobs through standard policies which will continuously monitor the activities and link or tie prospective investors to the region rather than turn them off or frustrate them and later grant them huge chunks of resources to be used outside the region. > > > > While one can definitely not determine/restrict how a member should use his/her IP resource, one could set certain requirements before granting the resource and those could be related to infrastructure presence, organisation activity history in Africa et all. All these can be reflected in a policy, i again call on the community to stand up to this challenge. The CEO has also recently indicated this concern in his statement [2] and calls for urgent attention of the community for v4 and v6 deployment in Africa. > > 2. AFRINIC currently adopts "see the trees from the forest" approach with respect to training programs (e.g. IPv6 training). There are currently more than three active Research and Education Networks (REN), Association of African Universities (AAU) as well as African Network Operators Group (AfNOG) - specialized groups. What I see as a better and far reaching impact is to collaborate with these groups to tailor curriculum and draw standards. Follow up with program monitoring and audits. I believe this should NOT be a long term goal. IPv6 awareness and adoption will have being considerable high. > > > > 3. Again the RIR should be seen playing a regulatory role. Recent years has seen considerable internet exchange spring up each with their own operating guidelines for membership and peering. What AFRINIC should be doing is to collaborate with key stakeholders (governments, submarine cable providers, service providers through AfNOG) to draft various standards and architectutes to be adhered to. (for example encourage distributed / or linked national and regional exchanges. > > > > I think there are efforts in the areas mentioned above, nevertheless i agree that more efforts needs to be put in place. However there is a saying that; "you can only take a horse to the river, you can't force it to drink water". There are quite many service provider that are aware of the need to go v6 and that also know the disadvantage of NATing (to be an incentive to deploy native v4 as much as possible) however they ain't doing that because they havn't see the demand. So for me i think we will experience a boost if we improve support of Africa content development/initiatives that are IP demanding (internet of things) which will change the demand of end users. > > > > > > One will argue how does this approach impact AFRINIC members directly and increase meeting turnout and subsequent voting participation? > > > > It can either impact it positively or negatively depending on the rules and guideline we have provided. Afrinic will be 10 but its still relatively young and we need to start setting policies that will make it sustainable and more community driven. > > Thanks > > > > Kind regards > > > > 1. http://meeting.afrinic.net/afrinic-18/sites/default/files/Madhvipolicy-implementation-report.pdf > > 2. http://www.afrinic.net/en/library/news/1101-arin-nears-ipv4-depletion-afrinic-reaffirms-the-need-for-urgent-ipv6-deployment > > Kofi > > > > On May 15, 2014 6:05 AM, "Adiel Akplogan" wrote: > > > > On May 15, 2014, at 24:26 AM, Kofi ansa akufo wrote: > > > >> Hello Adiel and All > >> > >> Interesting discussion. > >> > >> Forgive me to play the devils advocate for a while - few questions below regarding the immediate past election for board members. > >> > >> 1. What was the total votes casts? > >> > >> 2. How many votes were cast as proxy votes? > > > > See my previous mail for the above. > > > >> 3. How many individuals voted more than once due to being associated to more than one member? > > > > 8 out of 45. Knowing that all board members (registered members) that are also valid contact of resource members get 2 votes. > > > >> 4. What was the total active members as at the time of opening voting? > > > > About 750 members. This data can be dynamically checked at: http://www.afrinic.net/en/about-us/our-members > > > >> 5. How many votes were cast through ballot paper at the election? > > > > 45. > > > >> 6. Do we have a minimum number of votes casted (%) relative to the number of active members to determine dismissal or approval of the election? > > > > That is not set anywhere. but for the past year we have been dealing with around 10% ratio. Which as I mentioned in my previous mail is relatively the same thing for all RIRs. So even though we are aiming at better, we are not an exception (with the ressou=rces we have). > > > > - a. > > > > > > > > > > -- > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Seun Ojedeji, > > Federal University Oye-Ekiti > > web: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng > > Mobile: +2348035233535 > > alt email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng > > > > The key to understanding is humility - my view ! > > > > _______________________________________________ > members-discuss mailing list > members-discuss at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/members-discuss -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 313 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From keshwarsingh.nadan at millenium.mu Thu May 15 17:26:09 2014 From: keshwarsingh.nadan at millenium.mu (Keshwarsingh Nadan) Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 17:26:09 +0000 Subject: [members-discuss] [rpd] Discussion about e-voting In-Reply-To: <7F6591CD-0604-4B20-B79F-AB944DE706D4@afrinic.net> References: <2607AFE6-2BCE-47C3-8D94-6B469C7339A9@ghana.com> <9A2170D3-6890-4CF1-8EE0-BE0DD10DB371@afrinic.net> <7F4C376B-D71B-4753-8B61-5DA95644F96C@afrinic.net> <1AD24464-717D-4233-B6F2-2CF48424ADEE@afrinic.net> <7F6591CD-0604-4B20-B79F-AB944DE706D4@afrinic.net> Message-ID: <8139A2D4BA5CE94C98E1A584DDEA67934AEE31@exchange1.prod.servihoo.net> > Which was acknowledged, but that should be between you and the investigation process. Further to that this case we are talking about (while it has been mentioned in the other case) has been further been investigated separately where these issues were identified. As mentioned we can not expose the details of the case here. Why not ? > This specific case has been dealt with and as mentioned the out come is on the way to the applicant. I guess your are not expecting me our staff to publicly evaluate your case here? Interesting.. Again why not evaluate the case over here Sir? Mine as well ? -- K From kofi.ansa at gmail.com Thu May 15 17:46:20 2014 From: kofi.ansa at gmail.com (Kofi ansa akufo) Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 21:46:20 +0400 Subject: [members-discuss] [rpd] Discussion about e-voting In-Reply-To: <1AD24464-717D-4233-B6F2-2CF48424ADEE@afrinic.net> References: <2607AFE6-2BCE-47C3-8D94-6B469C7339A9@ghana.com> <9A2170D3-6890-4CF1-8EE0-BE0DD10DB371@afrinic.net> <7F4C376B-D71B-4753-8B61-5DA95644F96C@afrinic.net> <1AD24464-717D-4233-B6F2-2CF48424ADEE@afrinic.net> Message-ID: Hello Adiel and All I finally got the CEO to let out the skeletons in the cupboard. Since the CEO has refused to be objective in addressing the case but rather launch a personal attack lets get the facts straight. First of all I resigned in December 2013 as a resource evaluation officer due to such behaviour among certain colleagues. I decided to take on this case in mid January 2014 because of how certain AFRINIC staff allow personal grudges and past experience with members to cloud their judgement with regards to the evaluation process. As a CEO I expected you to deal with this situation tactfully rather than resort to personal attacks. I have clear intentions and for the records urged the applicant to communicate to AFRINIC I will be handling this case. I would advise you to make statements based on facts. Could you mention in court which members I connived with as you state here? I still have my doubt how a member managed to finally secure /13 IPv4 when all alarms indicated the resource was going out of the region but I won't point specific fingers because I don't have substantial prove. Whilst we are at this I think the community needs to know what is going on in the member services department. Cheers Kofi On May 15, 2014 8:27 PM, "Adiel Akplogan" wrote: > Hello Kofi, > > Now, as I was expecting your engagement with this list to evolve into this > very specific case that you have also alluded to on other lists before, I > think the community deserve some further explanation of who you are and > what all this is about. This specific case is also connected to a complain > that has been field for investigation with local and international law > enforcement for possible link to criminal activities. That is on the way > and there are many details that we can not reveal here but in which you > have been identified by the police as one suspect. > > On May 15, 2014, at 17:25 PM, Kofi ansa akufo wrote: > > > Yes there are many specific cases I need the community to take a close > look. Unfortunately as a former resource evaluation manager I am bound by > NDA by AFRINIC. > > > > I site one specific case which applicant has brought to my attention > which I need the community's support. > > > > Scenario: A prospective member applies to be a resourced member of > AFRINIC. His application gets approved after COMPLYING with policy. AFRINIC > billing department issues two invoices namely i.) Initial Setup Fees $4000 > and ii.) Annual Membership Fees $12,800 as well as Registration Service > Agreement (RSA). There are NO payment deadlines on both invoices neither > does any staff member of AFRINIC communicate such to applicant. > > You forgot to mention that it was YOU Kofi, as then staff of AFRINIC and > IP Analyst who have evaluated this very specific application, and this, in > an expedited way during the last days of your notice period. We later > understood that you had a clear conflict of interest in this application as > it doesn?t take long after you left the organisation that you start > inquiring about the case and not long after be appointed by this same > applicant as their consultant to represent them for the application. What > do you think about that? > > We have carefully reviewed this specific case internally and noticed how > that conflict of interest has played in the way you even handled the > evaluation. > > > Nevertheless the applicant proceeds to sign the RSA which outlines a > contractual agreement between AFRINIC and the applicant. Applicant further > proceeds to make payment of initial setup fees of $4000 and request for > annual membership fees to be paid in parts due to recent Forex transfer > restrictions in country of operation. AFRINIC denies the request for > payment in parts although they allow that in certain cases as stated on > their website. > > As ex-IP analyst at AFRINIC you should better know the internal policy > used to approve split membership fees payment (when it is accepted and when > it is not). Seems like your 12 months working at AFRINIC has not given you > enough knowledge of our internal process as you seems to be claiming and > selling it to all your new "customer(s)". > > > The applicant request an invoice update due to elapsed time (2 months) > and AFRINIC never responds to the request. > > > > AFRINIC staff respond to member on the 89th day of a so called "90 days" > period in which application needs to be finalized. This 90 days is not > published anywhere in policy, website or communicated to applicant during > the application process. Nevertheless again the applicant responds that > they are awaiting invoice update before payment. > > > > AFRINIC staff finally respond that the application has expired contrary > to what is defined in the executed RSA and further tell applicant the > initial setup fees of $4000 paid is non-refundable and that applicant needs > to put in a new application. > > Well we have thoroughly reviewed the whole process of this specific > application and a communication will reach the applicant soon if not yet > delivered (as you are their appointed consultant you should see a copy). > > > These are some of the kinds of frustration applicants face with certain > staff members who refuse to stick to policies as well as contractual > agreements. > > You are completely misrepresenting the case and of course some members > will be frustrated if instead of being honest and straight, they try to > play the system and find themselves cornered by the Hostmaster team. And > you as Ex-IP analyst trying to collude with such people who are trying to > abuse the system is even worse and I think the community should be aware of > such behaviour. This unfortunately explains why the team has became more > and more demanding for each application. This unfortunately impact genuine > applicants. But with people like you and alike around we will have no > choice. > > > All that is needed in such a situation for AFRINIC team is to reissue an > updated invoice and enquire if the has been any changes in the applicants > IP resources requirement. If there has been any changes request applicant > to update IP address plan but NOT to tell the applicant to resubmit a whole > new application again when applicant was not notified of any deadlines > during application. > > Too much confusion from your side about the process. Proof that you have > not even learnt anything while working here beside trying to understand how > to play the system from inside. > > > So is this specific case justified for fellow community members to rally > behind and knock on the doors of the CEO and AFRINIC to ask why the > consequence of inefficiency on the part of certain staff and procedures in > AFRINIC should be borne by a member :) > > That is a distraction tactic, diverting the attention of the community > elsewhere so you and you allies get away with your maneuver? AFRINIC is an > organisation that is based on honesty and you can not full a whole > community. > > - a. > > > On May 15, 2014 2:49 PM, "Seun Ojedeji" wrote: > > Hello Kofi, > > > > Let me say a few personal words below > > > > On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 6:54 AM, Kofi ansa akufo > wrote: > > > > I draw typical examples below; > > > > 1. The core activity of AFRINIC is managing internet resources for the > Region. What is seen now is more or less a passive approach to evaluation > of prospective members for resources. AFRINIC staff makes it difficult to > get resources > > > > Hmm...maybe we should say the community makes it difficult, considering > that staff will only follow community developed policy to allocate > resources. Nevertheless i am not even sure that difficult is the right word > to use here. Perhaps if you have specific concerns of scenarios where you > meet all the requirement and it still seem difficult to get the resource, > then you could share with the community and we can go banging on the doors > of staff with placard ;-) > > YET when resources are granted there is little or no follow up processes > to check if it is even being used in the region. A quick check in the whois > database of AFRINIC indicates a /13 IPv4 that was issued last year which is > not even used in the region. Lost of job creation opportunity on the > continent. > > > > +1 with this, and i so much agree with you that there needs to be a > better way to retain major part of our IP within our region, not just > retaining but also seeing it used and empowering people in this continent; > Our resources needs to drive our continent development. We all should to > remember that AFRINIC among all the RIRs has the least number of IANA > assigned /8 V4. > > > > The fact that we have the least of IANA allocated /8 among all the RIR > has also recently placed us on top of all other RIRs as the region with > most available v4 addresses. However we are at this present status-quo not > because we don't have the population to consume the resource but because > either the population is not enabled to consume it OR does not want to. The > latter is the immediate reason; if most mobile networks go native public v4 > you can bet that IP addresses we have left will be exhausted. I will liken > this situation with our mineral resources; Africa is blessed with mineral > resources, however most of the resources are shipped out of the continent > with its refined produce imported back into the continent. Something > similar is already happening in the IP space in that the resources are > shipped abroad and we get connected to our IP (outside the continent) at > our own expense. > > > > Okay enough of trying to describe the situation we currently are. The > most important question is what is the way forward. > > > > The way forward is for the community to look at the existing policies > used by AFRINIC to issue resource with the aim of "tightening possible > loose ends" towards ensuring that the IP resource benefits the region. > There are areas of concern that were presented by staff during afrinic > 18[1], i think that could be a good starting point. While there is another > f2f around the corner, i encourage everyone to take up this challenge by > looking at our existing policy and proposing an update or even an entirely > new proposal. Some of this can be discussed at the upcoming f2f meeting > > Solution: the very IP resources we seek to manage is evolving in a > technology which is dissolving geographic barriers. AFRINIC should then be > seen as a key partner for our region to ensure that infrastructures are > established in our region to create jobs through standard policies which > will continuously monitor the activities and link or tie prospective > investors to the region rather than turn them off or frustrate them and > later grant them huge chunks of resources to be used outside the region. > > > > While one can definitely not determine/restrict how a member should use > his/her IP resource, one could set certain requirements before granting the > resource and those could be related to infrastructure presence, > organisation activity history in Africa et all. All these can be reflected > in a policy, i again call on the community to stand up to this challenge. > The CEO has also recently indicated this concern in his statement [2] and > calls for urgent attention of the community for v4 and v6 deployment in > Africa. > > 2. AFRINIC currently adopts "see the trees from the forest" approach > with respect to training programs (e.g. IPv6 training). There are currently > more than three active Research and Education Networks (REN), Association > of African Universities (AAU) as well as African Network Operators Group > (AfNOG) - specialized groups. What I see as a better and far reaching > impact is to collaborate with these groups to tailor curriculum and draw > standards. Follow up with program monitoring and audits. I believe this > should NOT be a long term goal. IPv6 awareness and adoption will have being > considerable high. > > > > 3. Again the RIR should be seen playing a regulatory role. Recent years > has seen considerable internet exchange spring up each with their own > operating guidelines for membership and peering. What AFRINIC should be > doing is to collaborate with key stakeholders (governments, submarine cable > providers, service providers through AfNOG) to draft various standards and > architectutes to be adhered to. (for example encourage distributed / or > linked national and regional exchanges. > > > > I think there are efforts in the areas mentioned above, nevertheless i > agree that more efforts needs to be put in place. However there is a saying > that; "you can only take a horse to the river, you can't force it to drink > water". There are quite many service provider that are aware of the need to > go v6 and that also know the disadvantage of NATing (to be an incentive to > deploy native v4 as much as possible) however they ain't doing that because > they havn't see the demand. So for me i think we will experience a boost if > we improve support of Africa content development/initiatives that are IP > demanding (internet of things) which will change the demand of end users. > > > > > > One will argue how does this approach impact AFRINIC members directly > and increase meeting turnout and subsequent voting participation? > > > > It can either impact it positively or negatively depending on the rules > and guideline we have provided. Afrinic will be 10 but its still relatively > young and we need to start setting policies that will make it sustainable > and more community driven. > > Thanks > > > > Kind regards > > > > 1. > http://meeting.afrinic.net/afrinic-18/sites/default/files/Madhvipolicy-implementation-report.pdf > > 2. > http://www.afrinic.net/en/library/news/1101-arin-nears-ipv4-depletion-afrinic-reaffirms-the-need-for-urgent-ipv6-deployment > > Kofi > > > > On May 15, 2014 6:05 AM, "Adiel Akplogan" wrote: > > > > On May 15, 2014, at 24:26 AM, Kofi ansa akufo > wrote: > > > >> Hello Adiel and All > >> > >> Interesting discussion. > >> > >> Forgive me to play the devils advocate for a while - few questions > below regarding the immediate past election for board members. > >> > >> 1. What was the total votes casts? > >> > >> 2. How many votes were cast as proxy votes? > > > > See my previous mail for the above. > > > >> 3. How many individuals voted more than once due to being associated to > more than one member? > > > > 8 out of 45. Knowing that all board members (registered members) that > are also valid contact of resource members get 2 votes. > > > >> 4. What was the total active members as at the time of opening voting? > > > > About 750 members. This data can be dynamically checked at: > http://www.afrinic.net/en/about-us/our-members > > > >> 5. How many votes were cast through ballot paper at the election? > > > > 45. > > > >> 6. Do we have a minimum number of votes casted (%) relative to the > number of active members to determine dismissal or approval of the election? > > > > That is not set anywhere. but for the past year we have been dealing > with around 10% ratio. Which as I mentioned in my previous mail is > relatively the same thing for all RIRs. So even though we are aiming at > better, we are not an exception (with the ressou=rces we have). > > > > - a. > > > > > > > > > > -- > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Seun Ojedeji, > > Federal University Oye-Ekiti > > web: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng > > Mobile: +2348035233535 > > alt email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng > > > > The key to understanding is humility - my view ! > > > > _______________________________________________ > members-discuss mailing list > members-discuss at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/members-discuss > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From owen at delong.com Thu May 15 18:30:01 2014 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 11:30:01 -0700 Subject: [members-discuss] [rpd] Discussion about e-voting In-Reply-To: <8139A2D4BA5CE94C98E1A584DDEA67934AEE31@exchange1.prod.servihoo.net> References: <2607AFE6-2BCE-47C3-8D94-6B469C7339A9@ghana.com> <9A2170D3-6890-4CF1-8EE0-BE0DD10DB371@afrinic.net> <7F4C376B-D71B-4753-8B61-5DA95644F96C@afrinic.net> <1AD24464-717D-4233-B6F2-2CF48424ADEE@afrinic.net> <7F6591CD-0604-4B20-B79F-AB944DE706D4@afrinic.net> <8139A2D4BA5CE94C98E1A584DDEA67934AEE31@exchange1.prod.servihoo.net> Message-ID: <99F0E988-B5C8-416B-A3E5-AA597E8A5258@delong.com> On May 15, 2014, at 10:26 AM, Keshwarsingh Nadan wrote: >> Which was acknowledged, but that should be between you and the investigation process. Further to that this case we are talking about (while it has been mentioned in the other case) has been further been investigated separately where these issues were identified. As mentioned we can not expose the details of the case here. > > Why not ? While I don?t presume to speak for Adiel or AfriNIC, I will say that I suspect the most likely reason is because even if Kofi does not respect issues of privacy or chooses to disclose information of an organization with which he has a relationship, an RIR cannot publicly disclose the confidential information of an applicant. > >> This specific case has been dealt with and as mentioned the out come is on the way to the applicant. I guess your are not expecting me our staff to publicly evaluate your case here? > > Interesting.. Again why not evaluate the case over here Sir? Mine as well ? see above Owen From kofi.ansa at gmail.com Thu May 15 18:53:36 2014 From: kofi.ansa at gmail.com (Kofi ansa akufo) Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 22:53:36 +0400 Subject: [members-discuss] [rpd] Discussion about e-voting In-Reply-To: <99F0E988-B5C8-416B-A3E5-AA597E8A5258@delong.com> References: <2607AFE6-2BCE-47C3-8D94-6B469C7339A9@ghana.com> <9A2170D3-6890-4CF1-8EE0-BE0DD10DB371@afrinic.net> <7F4C376B-D71B-4753-8B61-5DA95644F96C@afrinic.net> <1AD24464-717D-4233-B6F2-2CF48424ADEE@afrinic.net> <7F6591CD-0604-4B20-B79F-AB944DE706D4@afrinic.net> <8139A2D4BA5CE94C98E1A584DDEA67934AEE31@exchange1.prod.servihoo.net> <99F0E988-B5C8-416B-A3E5-AA597E8A5258@delong.com> Message-ID: Hello Owen Please take note that no applicants name or AFRINIC staff has been mentioned by me here and I did not expect the CEO to mention names here. You may not know the extent I have gone to protect members in the said case the CEO is referring to. Cheers. On May 15, 2014 10:35 PM, "Owen DeLong" wrote: > > > On May 15, 2014, at 10:26 AM, Keshwarsingh Nadan < keshwarsingh.nadan at millenium.mu> wrote: > > >> Which was acknowledged, but that should be between you and the investigation process. Further to that this case we are talking about (while it has been mentioned in the other case) has been further been investigated separately where these issues were identified. As mentioned we can not expose the details of the case here. > > > > Why not ? > > While I don?t presume to speak for Adiel or AfriNIC, I will say that I suspect the most likely reason is because even if Kofi does not respect issues of privacy or chooses to disclose information of an organization with which he has a relationship, an RIR cannot publicly disclose the confidential information of an applicant. > > > > >> This specific case has been dealt with and as mentioned the out come is on the way to the applicant. I guess your are not expecting me our staff to publicly evaluate your case here? > > > > Interesting.. Again why not evaluate the case over here Sir? Mine as well ? > > see above > > Owen > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From owen at delong.com Thu May 15 18:58:05 2014 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 11:58:05 -0700 Subject: [members-discuss] [rpd] Discussion about e-voting In-Reply-To: References: <2607AFE6-2BCE-47C3-8D94-6B469C7339A9@ghana.com> <9A2170D3-6890-4CF1-8EE0-BE0DD10DB371@afrinic.net> <7F4C376B-D71B-4753-8B61-5DA95644F96C@afrinic.net> <1AD24464-717D-4233-B6F2-2CF48424ADEE@afrinic.net> <7F6591CD-0604-4B20-B79F-AB944DE706D4@afrinic.net> <8139A2D4BA5CE94C98E1A584DDEA67934AEE31@exchange1.prod.servihoo.net> <99F0E988-B5C8-416B-A3E5-AA597E8A5258@delong.com> Message-ID: The names are not the only thing that is confidential. You have Adiel at a disadvantage in that he is unable to disclose ANY confidential information while you likely have greater freedom since you are (apparently) one of the parties to said confidential information that has the authority to choose to disclose it. Owen On May 15, 2014, at 11:53 AM, Kofi ansa akufo wrote: > Hello Owen > > Please take note that no applicants name or AFRINIC staff has been mentioned by me here and I did not expect the CEO to mention names here. > > You may not know the extent I have gone to protect members in the said case the CEO is referring to. > > Cheers. > > On May 15, 2014 10:35 PM, "Owen DeLong" wrote: > > > > > > On May 15, 2014, at 10:26 AM, Keshwarsingh Nadan wrote: > > > > >> Which was acknowledged, but that should be between you and the investigation process. Further to that this case we are talking about (while it has been mentioned in the other case) has been further been investigated separately where these issues were identified. As mentioned we can not expose the details of the case here. > > > > > > Why not ? > > > > While I don?t presume to speak for Adiel or AfriNIC, I will say that I suspect the most likely reason is because even if Kofi does not respect issues of privacy or chooses to disclose information of an organization with which he has a relationship, an RIR cannot publicly disclose the confidential information of an applicant. > > > > > > > >> This specific case has been dealt with and as mentioned the out come is on the way to the applicant. I guess your are not expecting me our staff to publicly evaluate your case here? > > > > > > Interesting.. Again why not evaluate the case over here Sir? Mine as well ? > > > > see above > > > > Owen > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mje at posix.co.za Thu May 15 19:08:35 2014 From: mje at posix.co.za (Mark Elkins) Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 21:08:35 +0200 Subject: [rpd] IPv4 policy on where space is used. In-Reply-To: References: <2607AFE6-2BCE-47C3-8D94-6B469C7339A9@ghana.com> <9A2170D3-6890-4CF1-8EE0-BE0DD10DB371@afrinic.net> <7F4C376B-D71B-4753-8B61-5DA95644F96C@afrinic.net> <1AD24464-717D-4233-B6F2-2CF48424ADEE@afrinic.net> Message-ID: <1400180915.7312.65.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> On Thu, 2014-05-15 at 21:46 +0400, Kofi ansa akufo wrote: > ....the resource was going out of the region.... As far as I am aware, the current requirement for getting address space is that you are a company properly established (all legal - as such) in Africa. There is currently no policy (except with the last /8) that states the resources you get have to be used in Africa.... This might be good.... (get rid of all the IPv4, start using IPv6) or Bad... (we are doing *what* with our resources???) Maybe some policy needs to be designed - how do people feel... -- Mark James ELKINS - Posix Systems - (South) Africa mje at posix.co.za Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: https://ftth.posix.co.za -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 5810 bytes Desc: not available URL: From keshwarsingh.nadan at millenium.mu Thu May 15 19:51:27 2014 From: keshwarsingh.nadan at millenium.mu (Keshwarsingh Nadan) Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 19:51:27 +0000 Subject: [members-discuss] [rpd] Discussion about e-voting In-Reply-To: <99F0E988-B5C8-416B-A3E5-AA597E8A5258@delong.com> References: <2607AFE6-2BCE-47C3-8D94-6B469C7339A9@ghana.com> <9A2170D3-6890-4CF1-8EE0-BE0DD10DB371@afrinic.net> <7F4C376B-D71B-4753-8B61-5DA95644F96C@afrinic.net> <1AD24464-717D-4233-B6F2-2CF48424ADEE@afrinic.net> <7F6591CD-0604-4B20-B79F-AB944DE706D4@afrinic.net> <8139A2D4BA5CE94C98E1A584DDEA67934AEE31@exchange1.prod.servihoo.net>, <99F0E988-B5C8-416B-A3E5-AA597E8A5258@delong.com> Message-ID: <8139A2D4BA5CE94C98E1A584DDEA67934B1681@exchange1.prod.servihoo.net> >While I don?t presume to speak for Adiel or AfriNIC, I will say that I suspect the most likely reason is because even if Kofi does not respect issues of privacy or chooses to disclose information of an organization with which he has a relationship, an RIR cannot publicly disclose the confidential information of an applicant. Interesting.. ICP-2 "Information collected by a RIR in the registration process must be kept in strict confidence, and used for registration purposes only. It must be transmitted only to another RIR or IANA upon request, but will not be transmitted to any other party unless explicitly agreed to in writing by the LIR/ISP served." Pay a close attention to "only", "but", "unless"... Back to your statement of; "an RIR cannot publicly disclose the confidential information of an applicant" (which is correct), my organisation is currently served by other RIRs (ARIN, LACNIC, RIPE) which so far have respected their engagement in terms of "information collected during registration process". On the other side, AfriNIC breached above on three occasions where registration staffs including Adiel overwhelmed a high octane excitement. "RIRs may establish their own local standards and policies for confidentiality, providing that the basic confidentiality provisions are maintained." A policy does exists, unfortunately basic confidentially provisions are not maintained by AfriNIC. -- K From kofi.ansa at gmail.com Thu May 15 20:01:13 2014 From: kofi.ansa at gmail.com (Kofi ansa akufo) Date: Fri, 16 May 2014 00:01:13 +0400 Subject: [members-discuss] [rpd] Discussion about e-voting In-Reply-To: References: <2607AFE6-2BCE-47C3-8D94-6B469C7339A9@ghana.com> <9A2170D3-6890-4CF1-8EE0-BE0DD10DB371@afrinic.net> <7F4C376B-D71B-4753-8B61-5DA95644F96C@afrinic.net> <1AD24464-717D-4233-B6F2-2CF48424ADEE@afrinic.net> <7F6591CD-0604-4B20-B79F-AB944DE706D4@afrinic.net> <8139A2D4BA5CE94C98E1A584DDEA67934AEE31@exchange1.prod.servihoo.net> <99F0E988-B5C8-416B-A3E5-AA597E8A5258@delong.com> Message-ID: Owen I understand your point. We all have the member community and AFRINIC as a body at heart. No private information has been disclosed. As Adiel himself said AFRINIC has communicated to applicant corrective measures to their initial decision. AFRINIC should not wait to be pressured before changing their stand when they are wrong in some of their decision. Cheers On May 15, 2014 10:59 PM, "Owen DeLong" wrote: > The names are not the only thing that is confidential. You have Adiel at a > disadvantage in that he is unable to disclose ANY confidential information > while you likely have greater freedom since you are (apparently) one of the > parties to said confidential information that has the authority to choose > to disclose it. > > Owen > > On May 15, 2014, at 11:53 AM, Kofi ansa akufo wrote: > > Hello Owen > > Please take note that no applicants name or AFRINIC staff has been > mentioned by me here and I did not expect the CEO to mention names here. > > You may not know the extent I have gone to protect members in the said > case the CEO is referring to. > > Cheers. > > On May 15, 2014 10:35 PM, "Owen DeLong" wrote: > > > > > > On May 15, 2014, at 10:26 AM, Keshwarsingh Nadan < > keshwarsingh.nadan at millenium.mu> wrote: > > > > >> Which was acknowledged, but that should be between you and the > investigation process. Further to that this case we are talking about > (while it has been mentioned in the other case) has been further been > investigated separately where these issues were identified. As mentioned we > can not expose the details of the case here. > > > > > > Why not ? > > > > While I don?t presume to speak for Adiel or AfriNIC, I will say that I > suspect the most likely reason is because even if Kofi does not respect > issues of privacy or chooses to disclose information of an organization > with which he has a relationship, an RIR cannot publicly disclose the > confidential information of an applicant. > > > > > > > >> This specific case has been dealt with and as mentioned the out come > is on the way to the applicant. I guess your are not expecting me our staff > to publicly evaluate your case here? > > > > > > Interesting.. Again why not evaluate the case over here Sir? Mine as > well ? > > > > see above > > > > Owen > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com Thu May 15 21:04:20 2014 From: Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com (Andrew Alston) Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 22:04:20 +0100 Subject: [rpd] Discussion about e-voting In-Reply-To: <76D7E24C-CA7D-4074-8035-457589A31D09@afrinic.net> References: <2607AFE6-2BCE-47C3-8D94-6B469C7339A9@ghana.com> <9A2170D3-6890-4CF1-8EE0-BE0DD10DB371@afrinic.net> <7F4C376B-D71B-4753-8B61-5DA95644F96C@afrinic.net> <76D7E24C-CA7D-4074-8035-457589A31D09@afrinic.net> Message-ID: Hi All, Let me start this email by saying I do not know the details of this case, nor do I know the individuals involved. That being said, this exchange of emails has raised some very interesting questions that I feel AfriNIC needs to answer. Let it be stated very clearly that I am not taking any sides here but the situation referred to in the previous emails does have impact on the entire African community, since there seems to be a large amount of space that has walked off the continent. So, here goes with the questions. 1.) I have been repeatedly informed that large allocations are checked and signed off by the board, based on what is said here, is AfriNIC admitting that the board failed in the checks which they have very plainly stated are done on large allocations 2.) Raised from an earlier point about AfriNIC requesting ID documents for certificates in order to electronically vote. Considering that (as stated in previous emails), AfriNIC does not require such documentation for any other transactions, and considering that AfriNIC has not given the community ANY information about the data storage and security, and in addition the fact that the certificates are issued to individuals, and the ID documents are issued to AfriNIC by individuals with absolutely no confidentiality agreements or NDA?s in place (effectively meaning that should the documents get leaked, there is absolutely no recourse against AfriNIC), this situation raises some VERY serious concerns. Irrespective of the facts or the rights and wrongs of this case, what AfriNIC is effectively saying here is, we had an individual that broke the rules, bypassed our checks and balances, hoodwinked the board that had to sign off the allocation and effectively committed a criminal offence. In the same breath, they are saying, give us documents which we will not state how we are storing, how we are going to use, and with no guarantees of confidentiality. On a continent with such rife identity fraud and identity theft? let me be blunt? this REALLY scares me! 3.) Considering that AfriNIC has in documented cases requested access to members equipment, and such requests have come from members of the IP evaluation team, and such access has in certain cases been granted (in one case I know of by someone who was not really authorised to grant such access), can AfriNIC comment on how many members have granted them access to their equipment, and what did AfriNIC do to safe guard any data pulled from that equipment. Irrespective of all the facts of the case at hand, right now, I can only say that the situation raises very serious questions about the checks and balances in place and the security mechanisms in place, and I really feel that the membership base should be demanding some very concrete answers and reassurances. Thanks Andrew On 5/15/14, 6:36 PM, "Adiel Akplogan" wrote: >Hello Kofi, > >Now, as I was expecting your engagement with this list to evolve into >this very specific case that you have also alluded to on other lists >before, I think the community deserve some further explanation of who you >are and what all this is about. This specific case is also connected to a >complain that has been field for investigation with local and >international law enforcement for possible link to criminal activities. >That is on the way and there are many details that we can not reveal here >but in which you have been identified by the police as one suspect. > >On May 15, 2014, at 17:25 PM, Kofi ansa akufo wrote: > >> Yes there are many specific cases I need the community to take a close >>look. Unfortunately as a former resource evaluation manager I am bound >>by NDA by AFRINIC. >> >> I site one specific case which applicant has brought to my attention >>which I need the community's support. >> >> Scenario: A prospective member applies to be a resourced member of >>AFRINIC. His application gets approved after COMPLYING with policy. >>AFRINIC billing department issues two invoices namely i.) Initial Setup >>Fees $4000 and ii.) Annual Membership Fees $12,800 as well as >>Registration Service Agreement (RSA). There are NO payment deadlines on >>both invoices neither does any staff member of AFRINIC communicate such >>to applicant. > >You forgot to mention that it was YOU Kofi, as then staff of AFRINIC and >IP Analyst who has evaluated this very specific application, and this, in >an expedite way during the last days of your notice period. We later >understood that you had a clear conflict of interest in this application >as it doesn?t take long after you left the organisation that you start >inquiring about the case and not long after be appointed by this same >applicant as their consultant to represent them for the application. What >do you think about that? > >We have carefully reviewed this specific case internally and noticed how >that conflict of interest has played in the way you even handled the >evaluation. > >> Nevertheless the applicant proceeds to sign the RSA which outlines a >>contractual agreement between AFRINIC and the applicant. Applicant >>further proceeds to make payment of initial setup fees of $4000 and >>request for annual membership fees to be paid in parts due to recent >>Forex transfer restrictions in country of operation. AFRINIC denies the >>request for payment in parts although they allow that in certain cases >>as stated on their website. > >As ex-IP analyst at AFRINIC you should better know the internal policy >use to approve split membership fees payment (when it accepted and when >it is not). Seems like your 12 months working at AFRINIC has not given >you enough knowledge of our internal process as you seems to be claiming >and selling it to all your new "customer(s)". > >> The applicant request an invoice update due to elapsed time (2 months) >>and AFRINIC never responds to the request. >> >> AFRINIC staff respond to member on the 89th day of a so called "90 >>days" period in which application needs to be finalized. This 90 days is >>not published anywhere in policy, website or communicated to applicant >>during the application process. Nevertheless again the applicant >>responds that they are awaiting invoice update before payment. >> >> AFRINIC staff finally respond that the application has expired contrary >>to what is defined in the executed RSA and further tell applicant the >>initial setup fees of $4000 paid is non-refundable and that applicant >>needs to put in a new application. > >Well we have thoroughly reviewed the whole process of this specific >application and a communication will reach the applicant soon (as you are >their appointed consultant you should see a copy). > >> These are some of the kinds of frustration applicants face with certain >>staff members who refuse to stick to policies as well as contractual >>agreements. > >You are completely misrepresenting the case and of course some members >will be frustrated if instead of being honest and straight, they try to >play the system and find themselves cornered by the Hostmaster team. And >you as Ex-IP analyst trying to collude with such people who are trying to >abuse the system is even worse and I think the community should be aware >of such behaviour. This unfortunately explain why the team has became >more and more demanding for each application. This unfortunately impact >genuine applicants. But with people like you and alike around we will >have no choice. > >> All that is needed in such a situation for AFRINIC team is to reissue >>an updated invoice and enquire if the has been any changes in the >>applicants IP resources requirement. If there has been any changes >>request applicant to update IP address plan but NOT to tell the >>applicant to resubmit a whole new application again when applicant was >>not notified of any deadlines during application. > >Too much confusion from your side about the process. Proof that you have >not even learn anything while working here beside trying to understand >how to play the system from inside. > >> So is this specific case justified for fellow community members to >>rally behind and knock on the doors of the CEO and AFRINIC to ask why >>the consequence of inefficiency on the part of certain staff and >>procedures in AFRINIC should be borne by a member :) > >That is a distraction tactic, diverting the attention of the community >elsewhere so you and you allies get away with your maneuver? AFRINIC is >an organisation that is based on honesty and you can not full a whole >community. > >- a. > >> On May 15, 2014 2:49 PM, "Seun Ojedeji" wrote: >> Hello Kofi, >> >> Let me say a few personal words below >> >> On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 6:54 AM, Kofi ansa akufo >>wrote: >> >> I draw typical examples below; >> >> 1. The core activity of AFRINIC is managing internet resources for the >>Region. What is seen now is more or less a passive approach to >>evaluation of prospective members for resources. AFRINIC staff makes it >>difficult to get resources >> >> Hmm...maybe we should say the community makes it difficult, considering >>that staff will only follow community developed policy to allocate >>resources. Nevertheless i am not even sure that difficult is the right >>word to use here. Perhaps if you have specific concerns of scenarios >>where you meet all the requirement and it still seem difficult to get >>the resource, then you could share with the community and we can go >>banging on the doors of staff with placard ;-) >> YET when resources are granted there is little or no follow up >>processes to check if it is even being used in the region. A quick check >>in the whois database of AFRINIC indicates a /13 IPv4 that was issued >>last year which is not even used in the region. Lost of job creation >>opportunity on the continent. >> >> +1 with this, and i so much agree with you that there needs to be a >>better way to retain major part of our IP within our region, not just >>retaining but also seeing it used and empowering people in this >>continent; Our resources needs to drive our continent development. We >>all should to remember that AFRINIC among all the RIRs has the least >>number of IANA assigned /8 V4. >> >> The fact that we have the least of IANA allocated /8 among all the RIR >>has also recently placed us on top of all other RIRs as the region with >>most available v4 addresses. However we are at this present status-quo >>not because we don't have the population to consume the resource but >>because either the population is not enabled to consume it OR does not >>want to. The latter is the immediate reason; if most mobile networks go >>native public v4 you can bet that IP addresses we have left will be >>exhausted. I will liken this situation with our mineral resources; >>Africa is blessed with mineral resources, however most of the resources >>are shipped out of the continent with its refined produce imported back >>into the continent. Something similar is already happening in the IP >>space in that the resources are shipped abroad and we get connected to >>our IP (outside the continent) at our own expense. >> >> Okay enough of trying to describe the situation we currently are. The >>most important question is what is the way forward. >> >> The way forward is for the community to look at the existing policies >>used by AFRINIC to issue resource with the aim of "tightening possible >>loose ends" towards ensuring that the IP resource benefits the region. >>There are areas of concern that were presented by staff during afrinic >>18[1], i think that could be a good starting point. While there is >>another f2f around the corner, i encourage everyone to take up this >>challenge by looking at our existing policy and proposing an update or >>even an entirely new proposal. Some of this can be discussed at the >>upcoming f2f meeting >> Solution: the very IP resources we seek to manage is evolving in a >>technology which is dissolving geographic barriers. AFRINIC should then >>be seen as a key partner for our region to ensure that infrastructures >>are established in our region to create jobs through standard policies >>which will continuously monitor the activities and link or tie >>prospective investors to the region rather than turn them off or >>frustrate them and later grant them huge chunks of resources to be used >>outside the region. >> >> While one can definitely not determine/restrict how a member should use >>his/her IP resource, one could set certain requirements before granting >>the resource and those could be related to infrastructure presence, >>organisation activity history in Africa et all. All these can be >>reflected in a policy, i again call on the community to stand up to this >>challenge. The CEO has also recently indicated this concern in his >>statement [2] and calls for urgent attention of the community for v4 and >>v6 deployment in Africa. >> 2. AFRINIC currently adopts "see the trees from the forest" approach >>with respect to training programs (e.g. IPv6 training). There are >>currently more than three active Research and Education Networks (REN), >>Association of African Universities (AAU) as well as African Network >>Operators Group (AfNOG) - specialized groups. What I see as a better and >>far reaching impact is to collaborate with these groups to tailor >>curriculum and draw standards. Follow up with program monitoring and >>audits. I believe this should NOT be a long term goal. IPv6 awareness >>and adoption will have being considerable high. >> >> 3. Again the RIR should be seen playing a regulatory role. Recent years >>has seen considerable internet exchange spring up each with their own >>operating guidelines for membership and peering. What AFRINIC should be >>doing is to collaborate with key stakeholders (governments, submarine >>cable providers, service providers through AfNOG) to draft various >>standards and architectutes to be adhered to. (for example encourage >>distributed / or linked national and regional exchanges. >> >> I think there are efforts in the areas mentioned above, nevertheless i >>agree that more efforts needs to be put in place. However there is a >>saying that; "you can only take a horse to the river, you can't force it >>to drink water". There are quite many service provider that are aware of >>the need to go v6 and that also know the disadvantage of NATing (to be >>an incentive to deploy native v4 as much as possible) however they ain't >>doing that because they havn't see the demand. So for me i think we will >>experience a boost if we improve support of Africa content >>development/initiatives that are IP demanding (internet of things) which >>will change the demand of end users. >> >> >> One will argue how does this approach impact AFRINIC members directly >>and increase meeting turnout and subsequent voting participation? >> >> It can either impact it positively or negatively depending on the rules >>and guideline we have provided. Afrinic will be 10 but its still >>relatively young and we need to start setting policies that will make it >>sustainable and more community driven. >> Thanks >> >> Kind regards >> >> 1. >>http://meeting.afrinic.net/afrinic-18/sites/default/files/Madhvipolicy-im >>plementation-report.pdf >> 2. >>http://www.afrinic.net/en/library/news/1101-arin-nears-ipv4-depletion-afr >>inic-reaffirms-the-need-for-urgent-ipv6-deployment >> Kofi >> >> On May 15, 2014 6:05 AM, "Adiel Akplogan" wrote: >> >> On May 15, 2014, at 24:26 AM, Kofi ansa akufo >>wrote: >> >> > Hello Adiel and All >> > >> > Interesting discussion. >> > >> > Forgive me to play the devils advocate for a while - few questions >>below regarding the immediate past election for board members. >> > >> > 1. What was the total votes casts? >> > >> > 2. How many votes were cast as proxy votes? >> >> See my previous mail for the above. >> >> > 3. How many individuals voted more than once due to being associated >>to more than one member? >> >> 8 out of 45. Knowing that all board members (registered members) that >>are also valid contact of resource members get 2 votes. >> >> > 4. What was the total active members as at the time of opening voting? >> >> About 750 members. This data can be dynamically checked at: >>http://www.afrinic.net/en/about-us/our-members >> >> > 5. How many votes were cast through ballot paper at the election? >> >> 45. >> >> > 6. Do we have a minimum number of votes casted (%) relative to the >>number of active members to determine dismissal or approval of the >>election? >> >> That is not set anywhere. but for the past year we have been dealing >>with around 10% ratio. Which as I mentioned in my previous mail is >>relatively the same thing for all RIRs. So even though we are aiming at >>better, we are not an exception (with the ressou=rces we have). >> >> - a. >> >> >> >> >> -- >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> Seun Ojedeji, >> Federal University Oye-Ekiti >> web: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng >> Mobile: +2348035233535 >> alt email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng >> >> The key to understanding is humility - my view ! >> > DISCLAIMER: This email contains proprietary information some or all of which may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this email, please notify the author by replying to this email. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose, copy, print, or rely on this email. We cannot accept liability for any statements made which are clearly the sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of this company or one of its agents. From kofi.ansa at gmail.com Fri May 16 03:52:43 2014 From: kofi.ansa at gmail.com (Kofi ansa akufo) Date: Fri, 16 May 2014 07:52:43 +0400 Subject: [rpd] Discussion about e-voting In-Reply-To: References: <2607AFE6-2BCE-47C3-8D94-6B469C7339A9@ghana.com> <9A2170D3-6890-4CF1-8EE0-BE0DD10DB371@afrinic.net> <7F4C376B-D71B-4753-8B61-5DA95644F96C@afrinic.net> <76D7E24C-CA7D-4074-8035-457589A31D09@afrinic.net> Message-ID: Hello Andrew and All I finally got the CEO to let out the skeletons in the cupboard. Since the CEO has refused to be objective in addressing the case but rather launch a personal attack lets get the facts straight. First of all I resigned in December 2013 as a resource evaluation officer due to such behaviour among certain colleagues. I did my best to round up evaluations I was handling. I decided to take on this case in mid January 2014 because of how certain AFRINIC staff allow personal grudges and past experience with members to cloud their judgement with regards to the evaluation process. I expected the CEO to deal with the discussion here tactfully rather than resort to personal attacks. I had clear intentions and for the records urged the applicant in this specific case to communicate to AFRINIC I will be handling this case. I will not stand and watch prospective applicants to be intimidated on the basis of unfound suspicion. I would advise the CEO to make statements based on facts. Can the CEO mention in a court of law which allies I connived with as he states here? This is a serious statement. I still have my doubt how a member managed to finally secure /13 IPv4 when all alarms indicated the resource was going out of the region but I won't point specific fingers because I don't have substantial prove. Unfortunately I cannot comment on confidentiality and security of information of members but I can assure the community I have gone through a lot to protect members when I found myself unnecessarily link to the cases the CEO refers here. I find myself in a situation where I am being intimidated and used as a cover up to lapses but i can't comment details here. Cheers Kofi On May 16, 2014 1:04 AM, "Andrew Alston" wrote: > Hi All, > > Let me start this email by saying I do not know the details of this case, > nor do I know the individuals involved. > > That being said, this exchange of emails has raised some very interesting > questions that I feel AfriNIC needs to answer. Let it be stated very > clearly that I am not taking any sides here but the situation referred to > in the previous emails does have impact on the entire African community, > since there seems to be a large amount of space that has walked off the > continent. So, here goes with the questions. > > 1.) I have been repeatedly informed that large allocations are checked and > signed off by the board, based on what is said here, is AfriNIC admitting > that the board failed in the checks which they have very plainly stated > are done on large allocations > > 2.) Raised from an earlier point about AfriNIC requesting ID documents for > certificates in order to electronically vote. Considering that (as stated > in previous emails), AfriNIC does not require such documentation for any > other transactions, and considering that AfriNIC has not given the > community ANY information about the data storage and security, and in > addition the fact that the certificates are issued to individuals, and the > ID documents are issued to AfriNIC by individuals with absolutely no > confidentiality agreements or NDA?s in place (effectively meaning that > should the documents get leaked, there is absolutely no recourse against > AfriNIC), this situation raises some VERY serious concerns. > > Irrespective of the facts or the rights and wrongs of this case, what > AfriNIC is effectively saying here is, we had an individual that broke the > rules, bypassed our checks and balances, hoodwinked the board that had to > sign off the allocation and effectively committed a criminal offence. In > the same breath, they are saying, give us documents which we will not > state how we are storing, how we are going to use, and with no guarantees > of confidentiality. On a continent with such rife identity fraud and > identity theft? let me be blunt? this REALLY scares me! > > 3.) Considering that AfriNIC has in documented cases requested access to > members equipment, and such requests have come from members of the IP > evaluation team, and such access has in certain cases been granted (in one > case I know of by someone who was not really authorised to grant such > access), can AfriNIC comment on how many members have granted them access > to their equipment, and what did AfriNIC do to safe guard any data pulled > from that equipment. > > Irrespective of all the facts of the case at hand, right now, I can only > say that the situation raises very serious questions about the checks and > balances in place and the security mechanisms in place, and I really feel > that the membership base should be demanding some very concrete answers > and reassurances. > > Thanks > > Andrew > > > On 5/15/14, 6:36 PM, "Adiel Akplogan" wrote: > > >Hello Kofi, > > > >Now, as I was expecting your engagement with this list to evolve into > >this very specific case that you have also alluded to on other lists > >before, I think the community deserve some further explanation of who you > >are and what all this is about. This specific case is also connected to a > >complain that has been field for investigation with local and > >international law enforcement for possible link to criminal activities. > >That is on the way and there are many details that we can not reveal here > >but in which you have been identified by the police as one suspect. > > > >On May 15, 2014, at 17:25 PM, Kofi ansa akufo > wrote: > > > >> Yes there are many specific cases I need the community to take a close > >>look. Unfortunately as a former resource evaluation manager I am bound > >>by NDA by AFRINIC. > >> > >> I site one specific case which applicant has brought to my attention > >>which I need the community's support. > >> > >> Scenario: A prospective member applies to be a resourced member of > >>AFRINIC. His application gets approved after COMPLYING with policy. > >>AFRINIC billing department issues two invoices namely i.) Initial Setup > >>Fees $4000 and ii.) Annual Membership Fees $12,800 as well as > >>Registration Service Agreement (RSA). There are NO payment deadlines on > >>both invoices neither does any staff member of AFRINIC communicate such > >>to applicant. > > > >You forgot to mention that it was YOU Kofi, as then staff of AFRINIC and > >IP Analyst who has evaluated this very specific application, and this, in > >an expedite way during the last days of your notice period. We later > >understood that you had a clear conflict of interest in this application > >as it doesn?t take long after you left the organisation that you start > >inquiring about the case and not long after be appointed by this same > >applicant as their consultant to represent them for the application. What > >do you think about that? > > > >We have carefully reviewed this specific case internally and noticed how > >that conflict of interest has played in the way you even handled the > >evaluation. > > > >> Nevertheless the applicant proceeds to sign the RSA which outlines a > >>contractual agreement between AFRINIC and the applicant. Applicant > >>further proceeds to make payment of initial setup fees of $4000 and > >>request for annual membership fees to be paid in parts due to recent > >>Forex transfer restrictions in country of operation. AFRINIC denies the > >>request for payment in parts although they allow that in certain cases > >>as stated on their website. > > > >As ex-IP analyst at AFRINIC you should better know the internal policy > >use to approve split membership fees payment (when it accepted and when > >it is not). Seems like your 12 months working at AFRINIC has not given > >you enough knowledge of our internal process as you seems to be claiming > >and selling it to all your new "customer(s)". > > > >> The applicant request an invoice update due to elapsed time (2 months) > >>and AFRINIC never responds to the request. > >> > >> AFRINIC staff respond to member on the 89th day of a so called "90 > >>days" period in which application needs to be finalized. This 90 days is > >>not published anywhere in policy, website or communicated to applicant > >>during the application process. Nevertheless again the applicant > >>responds that they are awaiting invoice update before payment. > >> > >> AFRINIC staff finally respond that the application has expired contrary > >>to what is defined in the executed RSA and further tell applicant the > >>initial setup fees of $4000 paid is non-refundable and that applicant > >>needs to put in a new application. > > > >Well we have thoroughly reviewed the whole process of this specific > >application and a communication will reach the applicant soon (as you are > >their appointed consultant you should see a copy). > > > >> These are some of the kinds of frustration applicants face with certain > >>staff members who refuse to stick to policies as well as contractual > >>agreements. > > > >You are completely misrepresenting the case and of course some members > >will be frustrated if instead of being honest and straight, they try to > >play the system and find themselves cornered by the Hostmaster team. And > >you as Ex-IP analyst trying to collude with such people who are trying to > >abuse the system is even worse and I think the community should be aware > >of such behaviour. This unfortunately explain why the team has became > >more and more demanding for each application. This unfortunately impact > >genuine applicants. But with people like you and alike around we will > >have no choice. > > > >> All that is needed in such a situation for AFRINIC team is to reissue > >>an updated invoice and enquire if the has been any changes in the > >>applicants IP resources requirement. If there has been any changes > >>request applicant to update IP address plan but NOT to tell the > >>applicant to resubmit a whole new application again when applicant was > >>not notified of any deadlines during application. > > > >Too much confusion from your side about the process. Proof that you have > >not even learn anything while working here beside trying to understand > >how to play the system from inside. > > > >> So is this specific case justified for fellow community members to > >>rally behind and knock on the doors of the CEO and AFRINIC to ask why > >>the consequence of inefficiency on the part of certain staff and > >>procedures in AFRINIC should be borne by a member :) > > > >That is a distraction tactic, diverting the attention of the community > >elsewhere so you and you allies get away with your maneuver? AFRINIC is > >an organisation that is based on honesty and you can not full a whole > >community. > > > >- a. > > > >> On May 15, 2014 2:49 PM, "Seun Ojedeji" wrote: > >> Hello Kofi, > >> > >> Let me say a few personal words below > >> > >> On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 6:54 AM, Kofi ansa akufo > >>wrote: > >> > >> I draw typical examples below; > >> > >> 1. The core activity of AFRINIC is managing internet resources for the > >>Region. What is seen now is more or less a passive approach to > >>evaluation of prospective members for resources. AFRINIC staff makes it > >>difficult to get resources > >> > >> Hmm...maybe we should say the community makes it difficult, considering > >>that staff will only follow community developed policy to allocate > >>resources. Nevertheless i am not even sure that difficult is the right > >>word to use here. Perhaps if you have specific concerns of scenarios > >>where you meet all the requirement and it still seem difficult to get > >>the resource, then you could share with the community and we can go > >>banging on the doors of staff with placard ;-) > >> YET when resources are granted there is little or no follow up > >>processes to check if it is even being used in the region. A quick check > >>in the whois database of AFRINIC indicates a /13 IPv4 that was issued > >>last year which is not even used in the region. Lost of job creation > >>opportunity on the continent. > >> > >> +1 with this, and i so much agree with you that there needs to be a > >>better way to retain major part of our IP within our region, not just > >>retaining but also seeing it used and empowering people in this > >>continent; Our resources needs to drive our continent development. We > >>all should to remember that AFRINIC among all the RIRs has the least > >>number of IANA assigned /8 V4. > >> > >> The fact that we have the least of IANA allocated /8 among all the RIR > >>has also recently placed us on top of all other RIRs as the region with > >>most available v4 addresses. However we are at this present status-quo > >>not because we don't have the population to consume the resource but > >>because either the population is not enabled to consume it OR does not > >>want to. The latter is the immediate reason; if most mobile networks go > >>native public v4 you can bet that IP addresses we have left will be > >>exhausted. I will liken this situation with our mineral resources; > >>Africa is blessed with mineral resources, however most of the resources > >>are shipped out of the continent with its refined produce imported back > >>into the continent. Something similar is already happening in the IP > >>space in that the resources are shipped abroad and we get connected to > >>our IP (outside the continent) at our own expense. > >> > >> Okay enough of trying to describe the situation we currently are. The > >>most important question is what is the way forward. > >> > >> The way forward is for the community to look at the existing policies > >>used by AFRINIC to issue resource with the aim of "tightening possible > >>loose ends" towards ensuring that the IP resource benefits the region. > >>There are areas of concern that were presented by staff during afrinic > >>18[1], i think that could be a good starting point. While there is > >>another f2f around the corner, i encourage everyone to take up this > >>challenge by looking at our existing policy and proposing an update or > >>even an entirely new proposal. Some of this can be discussed at the > >>upcoming f2f meeting > >> Solution: the very IP resources we seek to manage is evolving in a > >>technology which is dissolving geographic barriers. AFRINIC should then > >>be seen as a key partner for our region to ensure that infrastructures > >>are established in our region to create jobs through standard policies > >>which will continuously monitor the activities and link or tie > >>prospective investors to the region rather than turn them off or > >>frustrate them and later grant them huge chunks of resources to be used > >>outside the region. > >> > >> While one can definitely not determine/restrict how a member should use > >>his/her IP resource, one could set certain requirements before granting > >>the resource and those could be related to infrastructure presence, > >>organisation activity history in Africa et all. All these can be > >>reflected in a policy, i again call on the community to stand up to this > >>challenge. The CEO has also recently indicated this concern in his > >>statement [2] and calls for urgent attention of the community for v4 and > >>v6 deployment in Africa. > >> 2. AFRINIC currently adopts "see the trees from the forest" approach > >>with respect to training programs (e.g. IPv6 training). There are > >>currently more than three active Research and Education Networks (REN), > >>Association of African Universities (AAU) as well as African Network > >>Operators Group (AfNOG) - specialized groups. What I see as a better and > >>far reaching impact is to collaborate with these groups to tailor > >>curriculum and draw standards. Follow up with program monitoring and > >>audits. I believe this should NOT be a long term goal. IPv6 awareness > >>and adoption will have being considerable high. > >> > >> 3. Again the RIR should be seen playing a regulatory role. Recent years > >>has seen considerable internet exchange spring up each with their own > >>operating guidelines for membership and peering. What AFRINIC should be > >>doing is to collaborate with key stakeholders (governments, submarine > >>cable providers, service providers through AfNOG) to draft various > >>standards and architectutes to be adhered to. (for example encourage > >>distributed / or linked national and regional exchanges. > >> > >> I think there are efforts in the areas mentioned above, nevertheless i > >>agree that more efforts needs to be put in place. However there is a > >>saying that; "you can only take a horse to the river, you can't force it > >>to drink water". There are quite many service provider that are aware of > >>the need to go v6 and that also know the disadvantage of NATing (to be > >>an incentive to deploy native v4 as much as possible) however they ain't > >>doing that because they havn't see the demand. So for me i think we will > >>experience a boost if we improve support of Africa content > >>development/initiatives that are IP demanding (internet of things) which > >>will change the demand of end users. > >> > >> > >> One will argue how does this approach impact AFRINIC members directly > >>and increase meeting turnout and subsequent voting participation? > >> > >> It can either impact it positively or negatively depending on the rules > >>and guideline we have provided. Afrinic will be 10 but its still > >>relatively young and we need to start setting policies that will make it > >>sustainable and more community driven. > >> Thanks > >> > >> Kind regards > >> > >> 1. > >> > http://meeting.afrinic.net/afrinic-18/sites/default/files/Madhvipolicy-im > >>plementation-report.pdf > >> 2. > >> > http://www.afrinic.net/en/library/news/1101-arin-nears-ipv4-depletion-afr > >>inic-reaffirms-the-need-for-urgent-ipv6-deployment > >> Kofi > >> > >> On May 15, 2014 6:05 AM, "Adiel Akplogan" wrote: > >> > >> On May 15, 2014, at 24:26 AM, Kofi ansa akufo > >>wrote: > >> > >> > Hello Adiel and All > >> > > >> > Interesting discussion. > >> > > >> > Forgive me to play the devils advocate for a while - few questions > >>below regarding the immediate past election for board members. > >> > > >> > 1. What was the total votes casts? > >> > > >> > 2. How many votes were cast as proxy votes? > >> > >> See my previous mail for the above. > >> > >> > 3. How many individuals voted more than once due to being associated > >>to more than one member? > >> > >> 8 out of 45. Knowing that all board members (registered members) that > >>are also valid contact of resource members get 2 votes. > >> > >> > 4. What was the total active members as at the time of opening voting? > >> > >> About 750 members. This data can be dynamically checked at: > >>http://www.afrinic.net/en/about-us/our-members > >> > >> > 5. How many votes were cast through ballot paper at the election? > >> > >> 45. > >> > >> > 6. Do we have a minimum number of votes casted (%) relative to the > >>number of active members to determine dismissal or approval of the > >>election? > >> > >> That is not set anywhere. but for the past year we have been dealing > >>with around 10% ratio. Which as I mentioned in my previous mail is > >>relatively the same thing for all RIRs. So even though we are aiming at > >>better, we are not an exception (with the ressou=rces we have). > >> > >> - a. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >> Seun Ojedeji, > >> Federal University Oye-Ekiti > >> web: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng > >> Mobile: +2348035233535 > >> alt email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng > >> > >> The key to understanding is humility - my view ! > >> > > > > > DISCLAIMER: This email contains proprietary information some or all of > which may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. If > an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this email, please > notify the author by replying to this email. If you are not the intended > recipient, you must not use, disclose, copy, print, or rely on this email. > We cannot accept liability for any statements made which are clearly the > sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of this company or one of its > agents. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From saul at enetworks.co.za Fri May 16 14:57:18 2014 From: saul at enetworks.co.za (Saul) Date: Fri, 16 May 2014 16:57:18 +0200 (SAST) Subject: [rpd] IPv4 policy on where space is used. In-Reply-To: <1400180915.7312.65.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> References: <2607AFE6-2BCE-47C3-8D94-6B469C7339A9@ghana.com> <9A2170D3-6890-4CF1-8EE0-BE0DD10DB371@afrinic.net> <7F4C376B-D71B-4753-8B61-5DA95644F96C@afrinic.net> <1AD24464-717D-4233-B6F2-2CF48424ADEE@afrinic.net> <1400180915.7312.65.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> Message-ID: Personally I am in favour of keeping our resources regional. I think that we have all been offered large sums of money to get space and then sell it off the continent. But then its IP... does it really matter? -----Original Message----- From: rpd-bounces at afrinic.net [mailto:rpd-bounces at afrinic.net] On Behalf Of Mark Elkins Sent: 15 May 2014 09:09 PM To: rpd at afrinic.net Subject: [rpd] IPv4 policy on where space is used. On Thu, 2014-05-15 at 21:46 +0400, Kofi ansa akufo wrote: > ....the resource was going out of the region.... As far as I am aware, the current requirement for getting address space is that you are a company properly established (all legal - as such) in Africa. There is currently no policy (except with the last /8) that states the resources you get have to be used in Africa.... This might be good.... (get rid of all the IPv4, start using IPv6) or Bad... (we are doing *what* with our resources???) Maybe some policy needs to be designed - how do people feel... -- Mark James ELKINS - Posix Systems - (South) Africa mje at posix.co.za Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: https://ftth.posix.co.za From steve.wilcox at ixreach.com Fri May 16 15:11:43 2014 From: steve.wilcox at ixreach.com (Stephen Wilcox) Date: Fri, 16 May 2014 16:11:43 +0100 Subject: [rpd] IPv4 policy on where space is used. In-Reply-To: References: <2607AFE6-2BCE-47C3-8D94-6B469C7339A9@ghana.com> <9A2170D3-6890-4CF1-8EE0-BE0DD10DB371@afrinic.net> <7F4C376B-D71B-4753-8B61-5DA95644F96C@afrinic.net> <1AD24464-717D-4233-B6F2-2CF48424ADEE@afrinic.net> <1400180915.7312.65.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> Message-ID: Hi Saul, so a successful African company that wishes to expand outside Africa is forced to go to APNIC, RIPE, etc who are unable to assign space as they have ran out. Isn't this an issue with regionalising resources for global business? Regards Steve On 16 May 2014 15:57, Saul wrote: > Personally I am in favour of keeping our resources regional. I think that > we > have all been offered large sums of money to get space and then sell it off > the continent. > > But then its IP... does it really matter? > > -----Original Message----- > From: rpd-bounces at afrinic.net [mailto:rpd-bounces at afrinic.net] On Behalf > Of > Mark Elkins > Sent: 15 May 2014 09:09 PM > To: rpd at afrinic.net > Subject: [rpd] IPv4 policy on where space is used. > > On Thu, 2014-05-15 at 21:46 +0400, Kofi ansa akufo wrote: > > ....the resource was going out of the region.... > > > As far as I am aware, the current requirement for getting address space is > that you are a company properly established (all legal - as such) in > Africa. > There is currently no policy (except with the last /8) that states the > resources you get have to be used in Africa.... > > This might be good.... (get rid of all the IPv4, start using IPv6) or > Bad... > (we are doing *what* with our resources???) > > Maybe some policy needs to be designed - how do people feel... > > -- > Mark James ELKINS - Posix Systems - (South) Africa > mje at posix.co.za Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 > For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: https://ftth.posix.co.za > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com Fri May 16 15:13:25 2014 From: Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com (Andrew Alston) Date: Fri, 16 May 2014 16:13:25 +0100 Subject: [rpd] IPv4 policy on where space is used. Message-ID: Hrm, personally I have always opposed any form of legislation/policy as to where IPv4 can be utilised, and at this point my stance hasn?t really changed though I?m open to anyone who can convince me. The reasons I oppose such policy are as follows: A.) It?s impossible to enforce. If I have an AfriNIC ASN and AfriNIC IP space and I announce both from Europe, there is no realistic way to determine it without significant investigations and time and resources, and even if you do manage to prove I?m using it off continent, good luck with the long and lengthy battle to get that changed or reclaim the space. Policy that is virtually impossible to enforce doesn?t make sense in my book. B.) I still believe that the excess of IPv4 space that AfriNIC is holding hurts this continent and holds us back in terms of IPv6 deployment, and as I have stated at many meetings, I am in favour of us finding a way to (sensibly and with the space being properly used, where properly is open to interpretation of the reader), use as much of the space as possible to push us closer to the rest of the world in terms of running out and being pushed towards IPv6. C.) There are some incredibly large African conglomerates that have significant presence internationally who cannot get space anymore from ARIN and RIPE, by refusing to let them have space they can use in their international operations, you disadvantage African business D.) Referring to point (B), our excess of V4 space is resulting in Africa becoming a dumping ground for hardware that lacks proper V6 support, long term, that will hurt us. E.) As has already been demonstrated, when individuals from off continent decide they do wish to take the African IP space, they will find a way to do it (and previous cases discussed on this list refer), so not discounting point (A), I?d rather see our space used by African companies abroad, or alternatively ensure that we get something back for the resource which we are handing out, than let it be pillaged and stolen like the rest of Africa?s resources have been. So at this point, with these things in mind, while remaining proudly African and not wanting our resources to be pillaged and taken once again with no benefit to the African people, I would opposed such a policy unless convinced that the points above have been addressed. Thanks Andrew On 5/16/14, 5:57 PM, "Saul" wrote: >Personally I am in favour of keeping our resources regional. I think that >we >have all been offered large sums of money to get space and then sell it >off >the continent. > >But then its IP... does it really matter? > >-----Original Message----- >From: rpd-bounces at afrinic.net [mailto:rpd-bounces at afrinic.net] On Behalf >Of >Mark Elkins >Sent: 15 May 2014 09:09 PM >To: rpd at afrinic.net >Subject: [rpd] IPv4 policy on where space is used. > >On Thu, 2014-05-15 at 21:46 +0400, Kofi ansa akufo wrote: >> ....the resource was going out of the region.... > > >As far as I am aware, the current requirement for getting address space >is >that you are a company properly established (all legal - as such) in >Africa. >There is currently no policy (except with the last /8) that states the >resources you get have to be used in Africa.... > >This might be good.... (get rid of all the IPv4, start using IPv6) or >Bad... >(we are doing *what* with our resources???) > >Maybe some policy needs to be designed - how do people feel... > >-- >Mark James ELKINS - Posix Systems - (South) Africa >mje at posix.co.za Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 >For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: https://ftth.posix.co.za >_______________________________________________ >rpd mailing list >rpd at afrinic.net >https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd DISCLAIMER: This email contains proprietary information some or all of which may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this email, please notify the author by replying to this email. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose, copy, print, or rely on this email. We cannot accept liability for any statements made which are clearly the sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of this company or one of its agents. From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com Fri May 16 15:26:59 2014 From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji) Date: Fri, 16 May 2014 16:26:59 +0100 Subject: [rpd] IPv4 policy on where space is used. In-Reply-To: References: <2607AFE6-2BCE-47C3-8D94-6B469C7339A9@ghana.com> <9A2170D3-6890-4CF1-8EE0-BE0DD10DB371@afrinic.net> <7F4C376B-D71B-4753-8B61-5DA95644F96C@afrinic.net> <1AD24464-717D-4233-B6F2-2CF48424ADEE@afrinic.net> <1400180915.7312.65.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> Message-ID: sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 16 May 2014 16:16, "Stephen Wilcox" wrote: > > Hi Saul, > so a successful African company that wishes to expand outside Africa is forced to go to APNIC, RIPE, etc who are unable to assign space as they have ran out. Isn't this an issue with regionalising resources for global business? > Sure it's difficult to make such restriction and it's really not a path that will yield much success. However I believe it's possible to ensure those organisation are indeed well grounded African organisation before handing resources to them. Cheers! > Regards > Steve > > > > On 16 May 2014 15:57, Saul wrote: >> >> Personally I am in favour of keeping our resources regional. I think that we >> have all been offered large sums of money to get space and then sell it off >> the continent. >> >> But then its IP... does it really matter? >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: rpd-bounces at afrinic.net [mailto:rpd-bounces at afrinic.net] On Behalf Of >> Mark Elkins >> Sent: 15 May 2014 09:09 PM >> To: rpd at afrinic.net >> Subject: [rpd] IPv4 policy on where space is used. >> >> On Thu, 2014-05-15 at 21:46 +0400, Kofi ansa akufo wrote: >> > ....the resource was going out of the region.... >> >> >> As far as I am aware, the current requirement for getting address space is >> that you are a company properly established (all legal - as such) in Africa. >> There is currently no policy (except with the last /8) that states the >> resources you get have to be used in Africa.... >> >> This might be good.... (get rid of all the IPv4, start using IPv6) or Bad... >> (we are doing *what* with our resources???) >> >> Maybe some policy needs to be designed - how do people feel... >> >> -- >> Mark James ELKINS - Posix Systems - (South) Africa >> mje at posix.co.za Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 >> For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: https://ftth.posix.co.za >> _______________________________________________ >> rpd mailing list >> rpd at afrinic.net >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From quaynor at ghana.com Fri May 16 15:34:50 2014 From: quaynor at ghana.com (Nii Narku Quaynor) Date: Fri, 16 May 2014 15:34:50 +0000 Subject: [rpd] Discussion about e-voting In-Reply-To: References: <2607AFE6-2BCE-47C3-8D94-6B469C7339A9@ghana.com> <9A2170D3-6890-4CF1-8EE0-BE0DD10DB371@afrinic.net> <7F4C376B-D71B-4753-8B61-5DA95644F96C@afrinic.net> <76D7E24C-CA7D-4074-8035-457589A31D09@afrinic.net> Message-ID: <3EEBE627-AAD4-46D1-B553-9045BD0006AD@ghana.com> Hi, Andrew's concerns are relevant. After having read from CEO perhaps a word from Afrinic lawyer and Board would help However, with only few weeks to Djibouti we might focus on policy related matters to advantage Best regards Nii > On May 15, 2014, at 21:04, Andrew Alston wrote: > > Hi All, > > Let me start this email by saying I do not know the details of this case, > nor do I know the individuals involved. > > That being said, this exchange of emails has raised some very interesting > questions that I feel AfriNIC needs to answer. Let it be stated very > clearly that I am not taking any sides here but the situation referred to > in the previous emails does have impact on the entire African community, > since there seems to be a large amount of space that has walked off the > continent. So, here goes with the questions. > > 1.) I have been repeatedly informed that large allocations are checked and > signed off by the board, based on what is said here, is AfriNIC admitting > that the board failed in the checks which they have very plainly stated > are done on large allocations > > 2.) Raised from an earlier point about AfriNIC requesting ID documents for > certificates in order to electronically vote. Considering that (as stated > in previous emails), AfriNIC does not require such documentation for any > other transactions, and considering that AfriNIC has not given the > community ANY information about the data storage and security, and in > addition the fact that the certificates are issued to individuals, and the > ID documents are issued to AfriNIC by individuals with absolutely no > confidentiality agreements or NDA?s in place (effectively meaning that > should the documents get leaked, there is absolutely no recourse against > AfriNIC), this situation raises some VERY serious concerns. > > Irrespective of the facts or the rights and wrongs of this case, what > AfriNIC is effectively saying here is, we had an individual that broke the > rules, bypassed our checks and balances, hoodwinked the board that had to > sign off the allocation and effectively committed a criminal offence. In > the same breath, they are saying, give us documents which we will not > state how we are storing, how we are going to use, and with no guarantees > of confidentiality. On a continent with such rife identity fraud and > identity theft? let me be blunt? this REALLY scares me! > > 3.) Considering that AfriNIC has in documented cases requested access to > members equipment, and such requests have come from members of the IP > evaluation team, and such access has in certain cases been granted (in one > case I know of by someone who was not really authorised to grant such > access), can AfriNIC comment on how many members have granted them access > to their equipment, and what did AfriNIC do to safe guard any data pulled > from that equipment. > > Irrespective of all the facts of the case at hand, right now, I can only > say that the situation raises very serious questions about the checks and > balances in place and the security mechanisms in place, and I really feel > that the membership base should be demanding some very concrete answers > and reassurances. > > Thanks > > Andrew > > >> On 5/15/14, 6:36 PM, "Adiel Akplogan" wrote: >> >> Hello Kofi, >> >> Now, as I was expecting your engagement with this list to evolve into >> this very specific case that you have also alluded to on other lists >> before, I think the community deserve some further explanation of who you >> are and what all this is about. This specific case is also connected to a >> complain that has been field for investigation with local and >> international law enforcement for possible link to criminal activities. >> That is on the way and there are many details that we can not reveal here >> but in which you have been identified by the police as one suspect. >> >>> On May 15, 2014, at 17:25 PM, Kofi ansa akufo wrote: >>> >>> Yes there are many specific cases I need the community to take a close >>> look. Unfortunately as a former resource evaluation manager I am bound >>> by NDA by AFRINIC. >>> >>> I site one specific case which applicant has brought to my attention >>> which I need the community's support. >>> >>> Scenario: A prospective member applies to be a resourced member of >>> AFRINIC. His application gets approved after COMPLYING with policy. >>> AFRINIC billing department issues two invoices namely i.) Initial Setup >>> Fees $4000 and ii.) Annual Membership Fees $12,800 as well as >>> Registration Service Agreement (RSA). There are NO payment deadlines on >>> both invoices neither does any staff member of AFRINIC communicate such >>> to applicant. >> >> You forgot to mention that it was YOU Kofi, as then staff of AFRINIC and >> IP Analyst who has evaluated this very specific application, and this, in >> an expedite way during the last days of your notice period. We later >> understood that you had a clear conflict of interest in this application >> as it doesn?t take long after you left the organisation that you start >> inquiring about the case and not long after be appointed by this same >> applicant as their consultant to represent them for the application. What >> do you think about that? >> >> We have carefully reviewed this specific case internally and noticed how >> that conflict of interest has played in the way you even handled the >> evaluation. >> >>> Nevertheless the applicant proceeds to sign the RSA which outlines a >>> contractual agreement between AFRINIC and the applicant. Applicant >>> further proceeds to make payment of initial setup fees of $4000 and >>> request for annual membership fees to be paid in parts due to recent >>> Forex transfer restrictions in country of operation. AFRINIC denies the >>> request for payment in parts although they allow that in certain cases >>> as stated on their website. >> >> As ex-IP analyst at AFRINIC you should better know the internal policy >> use to approve split membership fees payment (when it accepted and when >> it is not). Seems like your 12 months working at AFRINIC has not given >> you enough knowledge of our internal process as you seems to be claiming >> and selling it to all your new "customer(s)". >> >>> The applicant request an invoice update due to elapsed time (2 months) >>> and AFRINIC never responds to the request. >>> >>> AFRINIC staff respond to member on the 89th day of a so called "90 >>> days" period in which application needs to be finalized. This 90 days is >>> not published anywhere in policy, website or communicated to applicant >>> during the application process. Nevertheless again the applicant >>> responds that they are awaiting invoice update before payment. >>> >>> AFRINIC staff finally respond that the application has expired contrary >>> to what is defined in the executed RSA and further tell applicant the >>> initial setup fees of $4000 paid is non-refundable and that applicant >>> needs to put in a new application. >> >> Well we have thoroughly reviewed the whole process of this specific >> application and a communication will reach the applicant soon (as you are >> their appointed consultant you should see a copy). >> >>> These are some of the kinds of frustration applicants face with certain >>> staff members who refuse to stick to policies as well as contractual >>> agreements. >> >> You are completely misrepresenting the case and of course some members >> will be frustrated if instead of being honest and straight, they try to >> play the system and find themselves cornered by the Hostmaster team. And >> you as Ex-IP analyst trying to collude with such people who are trying to >> abuse the system is even worse and I think the community should be aware >> of such behaviour. This unfortunately explain why the team has became >> more and more demanding for each application. This unfortunately impact >> genuine applicants. But with people like you and alike around we will >> have no choice. >> >>> All that is needed in such a situation for AFRINIC team is to reissue >>> an updated invoice and enquire if the has been any changes in the >>> applicants IP resources requirement. If there has been any changes >>> request applicant to update IP address plan but NOT to tell the >>> applicant to resubmit a whole new application again when applicant was >>> not notified of any deadlines during application. >> >> Too much confusion from your side about the process. Proof that you have >> not even learn anything while working here beside trying to understand >> how to play the system from inside. >> >>> So is this specific case justified for fellow community members to >>> rally behind and knock on the doors of the CEO and AFRINIC to ask why >>> the consequence of inefficiency on the part of certain staff and >>> procedures in AFRINIC should be borne by a member :) >> >> That is a distraction tactic, diverting the attention of the community >> elsewhere so you and you allies get away with your maneuver? AFRINIC is >> an organisation that is based on honesty and you can not full a whole >> community. >> >> - a. >> >>> On May 15, 2014 2:49 PM, "Seun Ojedeji" wrote: >>> Hello Kofi, >>> >>> Let me say a few personal words below >>> >>> On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 6:54 AM, Kofi ansa akufo >>> wrote: >>> >>> I draw typical examples below; >>> >>> 1. The core activity of AFRINIC is managing internet resources for the >>> Region. What is seen now is more or less a passive approach to >>> evaluation of prospective members for resources. AFRINIC staff makes it >>> difficult to get resources >>> >>> Hmm...maybe we should say the community makes it difficult, considering >>> that staff will only follow community developed policy to allocate >>> resources. Nevertheless i am not even sure that difficult is the right >>> word to use here. Perhaps if you have specific concerns of scenarios >>> where you meet all the requirement and it still seem difficult to get >>> the resource, then you could share with the community and we can go >>> banging on the doors of staff with placard ;-) >>> YET when resources are granted there is little or no follow up >>> processes to check if it is even being used in the region. A quick check >>> in the whois database of AFRINIC indicates a /13 IPv4 that was issued >>> last year which is not even used in the region. Lost of job creation >>> opportunity on the continent. >>> >>> +1 with this, and i so much agree with you that there needs to be a >>> better way to retain major part of our IP within our region, not just >>> retaining but also seeing it used and empowering people in this >>> continent; Our resources needs to drive our continent development. We >>> all should to remember that AFRINIC among all the RIRs has the least >>> number of IANA assigned /8 V4. >>> >>> The fact that we have the least of IANA allocated /8 among all the RIR >>> has also recently placed us on top of all other RIRs as the region with >>> most available v4 addresses. However we are at this present status-quo >>> not because we don't have the population to consume the resource but >>> because either the population is not enabled to consume it OR does not >>> want to. The latter is the immediate reason; if most mobile networks go >>> native public v4 you can bet that IP addresses we have left will be >>> exhausted. I will liken this situation with our mineral resources; >>> Africa is blessed with mineral resources, however most of the resources >>> are shipped out of the continent with its refined produce imported back >>> into the continent. Something similar is already happening in the IP >>> space in that the resources are shipped abroad and we get connected to >>> our IP (outside the continent) at our own expense. >>> >>> Okay enough of trying to describe the situation we currently are. The >>> most important question is what is the way forward. >>> >>> The way forward is for the community to look at the existing policies >>> used by AFRINIC to issue resource with the aim of "tightening possible >>> loose ends" towards ensuring that the IP resource benefits the region. >>> There are areas of concern that were presented by staff during afrinic >>> 18[1], i think that could be a good starting point. While there is >>> another f2f around the corner, i encourage everyone to take up this >>> challenge by looking at our existing policy and proposing an update or >>> even an entirely new proposal. Some of this can be discussed at the >>> upcoming f2f meeting >>> Solution: the very IP resources we seek to manage is evolving in a >>> technology which is dissolving geographic barriers. AFRINIC should then >>> be seen as a key partner for our region to ensure that infrastructures >>> are established in our region to create jobs through standard policies >>> which will continuously monitor the activities and link or tie >>> prospective investors to the region rather than turn them off or >>> frustrate them and later grant them huge chunks of resources to be used >>> outside the region. >>> >>> While one can definitely not determine/restrict how a member should use >>> his/her IP resource, one could set certain requirements before granting >>> the resource and those could be related to infrastructure presence, >>> organisation activity history in Africa et all. All these can be >>> reflected in a policy, i again call on the community to stand up to this >>> challenge. The CEO has also recently indicated this concern in his >>> statement [2] and calls for urgent attention of the community for v4 and >>> v6 deployment in Africa. >>> 2. AFRINIC currently adopts "see the trees from the forest" approach >>> with respect to training programs (e.g. IPv6 training). There are >>> currently more than three active Research and Education Networks (REN), >>> Association of African Universities (AAU) as well as African Network >>> Operators Group (AfNOG) - specialized groups. What I see as a better and >>> far reaching impact is to collaborate with these groups to tailor >>> curriculum and draw standards. Follow up with program monitoring and >>> audits. I believe this should NOT be a long term goal. IPv6 awareness >>> and adoption will have being considerable high. >>> >>> 3. Again the RIR should be seen playing a regulatory role. Recent years >>> has seen considerable internet exchange spring up each with their own >>> operating guidelines for membership and peering. What AFRINIC should be >>> doing is to collaborate with key stakeholders (governments, submarine >>> cable providers, service providers through AfNOG) to draft various >>> standards and architectutes to be adhered to. (for example encourage >>> distributed / or linked national and regional exchanges. >>> >>> I think there are efforts in the areas mentioned above, nevertheless i >>> agree that more efforts needs to be put in place. However there is a >>> saying that; "you can only take a horse to the river, you can't force it >>> to drink water". There are quite many service provider that are aware of >>> the need to go v6 and that also know the disadvantage of NATing (to be >>> an incentive to deploy native v4 as much as possible) however they ain't >>> doing that because they havn't see the demand. So for me i think we will >>> experience a boost if we improve support of Africa content >>> development/initiatives that are IP demanding (internet of things) which >>> will change the demand of end users. >>> >>> >>> One will argue how does this approach impact AFRINIC members directly >>> and increase meeting turnout and subsequent voting participation? >>> >>> It can either impact it positively or negatively depending on the rules >>> and guideline we have provided. Afrinic will be 10 but its still >>> relatively young and we need to start setting policies that will make it >>> sustainable and more community driven. >>> Thanks >>> >>> Kind regards >>> >>> 1. >>> http://meeting.afrinic.net/afrinic-18/sites/default/files/Madhvipolicy-im >>> plementation-report.pdf >>> 2. >>> http://www.afrinic.net/en/library/news/1101-arin-nears-ipv4-depletion-afr >>> inic-reaffirms-the-need-for-urgent-ipv6-deployment >>> Kofi >>> >>> On May 15, 2014 6:05 AM, "Adiel Akplogan" wrote: >>> >>> On May 15, 2014, at 24:26 AM, Kofi ansa akufo >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hello Adiel and All >>>> >>>> Interesting discussion. >>>> >>>> Forgive me to play the devils advocate for a while - few questions >>> below regarding the immediate past election for board members. >>>> >>>> 1. What was the total votes casts? >>>> >>>> 2. How many votes were cast as proxy votes? >>> >>> See my previous mail for the above. >>> >>>> 3. How many individuals voted more than once due to being associated >>> to more than one member? >>> >>> 8 out of 45. Knowing that all board members (registered members) that >>> are also valid contact of resource members get 2 votes. >>> >>>> 4. What was the total active members as at the time of opening voting? >>> >>> About 750 members. This data can be dynamically checked at: >>> http://www.afrinic.net/en/about-us/our-members >>> >>>> 5. How many votes were cast through ballot paper at the election? >>> >>> 45. >>> >>>> 6. Do we have a minimum number of votes casted (%) relative to the >>> number of active members to determine dismissal or approval of the >>> election? >>> >>> That is not set anywhere. but for the past year we have been dealing >>> with around 10% ratio. Which as I mentioned in my previous mail is >>> relatively the same thing for all RIRs. So even though we are aiming at >>> better, we are not an exception (with the ressou=rces we have). >>> >>> - a. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> Seun Ojedeji, >>> Federal University Oye-Ekiti >>> web: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng >>> Mobile: +2348035233535 >>> alt email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng >>> >>> The key to understanding is humility - my view ! > > > DISCLAIMER: This email contains proprietary information some or all of which may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this email, please notify the author by replying to this email. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose, copy, print, or rely on this email. We cannot accept liability for any statements made which are clearly the sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of this company or one of its agents. > From Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com Fri May 16 15:48:27 2014 From: Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com (Andrew Alston) Date: Fri, 16 May 2014 16:48:27 +0100 Subject: [rpd] Discussion about e-voting In-Reply-To: <3EEBE627-AAD4-46D1-B553-9045BD0006AD@ghana.com> References: <2607AFE6-2BCE-47C3-8D94-6B469C7339A9@ghana.com> <9A2170D3-6890-4CF1-8EE0-BE0DD10DB371@afrinic.net> <7F4C376B-D71B-4753-8B61-5DA95644F96C@afrinic.net> <76D7E24C-CA7D-4074-8035-457589A31D09@afrinic.net> <3EEBE627-AAD4-46D1-B553-9045BD0006AD@ghana.com> Message-ID: Hi Nii, I actually have to disagree with you here. I view these as critical issues that need to be addressed, and the only time this community gets to interact directly with the board and where the board can properly address these concerns is at the meetings, one of which is coming up. Further more, the identification document issue is preventing people from registering to electronically vote (I know several people who have point blank refused to register for e-voting over security concerns about those ID documents), and this has a direct impact on the elections coming up in Djibouti. As such, I believe that we need as members to hear directly from the CEO or the Board on these issues BEFORE Djibouti. Alternatively, if these issues cannot be addressed before/in Djibouti, and if there is insufficient time to deal with these issues now, perhaps it is time to see if there is sufficient member support to invoke clause 7.6 viii of the bylaws? Thanks Andrew On 5/16/14, 5:34 PM, "Nii Narku Quaynor" wrote: >Hi, > >Andrew's concerns are relevant. After having read from CEO perhaps a word >from Afrinic lawyer and Board would help > >However, with only few weeks to Djibouti we might focus on policy related >matters to advantage > >Best regards >Nii > >> On May 15, 2014, at 21:04, Andrew Alston >> wrote: >> >> Hi All, >> >> Let me start this email by saying I do not know the details of this >>case, >> nor do I know the individuals involved. >> >> That being said, this exchange of emails has raised some very >>interesting >> questions that I feel AfriNIC needs to answer. Let it be stated very >> clearly that I am not taking any sides here but the situation referred >>to >> in the previous emails does have impact on the entire African community, >> since there seems to be a large amount of space that has walked off the >> continent. So, here goes with the questions. >> >> 1.) I have been repeatedly informed that large allocations are checked >>and >> signed off by the board, based on what is said here, is AfriNIC >>admitting >> that the board failed in the checks which they have very plainly stated >> are done on large allocations >> >> 2.) Raised from an earlier point about AfriNIC requesting ID documents >>for >> certificates in order to electronically vote. Considering that (as >>stated >> in previous emails), AfriNIC does not require such documentation for any >> other transactions, and considering that AfriNIC has not given the >> community ANY information about the data storage and security, and in >> addition the fact that the certificates are issued to individuals, and >>the >> ID documents are issued to AfriNIC by individuals with absolutely no >> confidentiality agreements or NDA?s in place (effectively meaning that >> should the documents get leaked, there is absolutely no recourse against >> AfriNIC), this situation raises some VERY serious concerns. >> >> Irrespective of the facts or the rights and wrongs of this case, what >> AfriNIC is effectively saying here is, we had an individual that broke >>the >> rules, bypassed our checks and balances, hoodwinked the board that had >>to >> sign off the allocation and effectively committed a criminal offence. >>In >> the same breath, they are saying, give us documents which we will not >> state how we are storing, how we are going to use, and with no >>guarantees >> of confidentiality. On a continent with such rife identity fraud and >> identity theft? let me be blunt? this REALLY scares me! >> >> 3.) Considering that AfriNIC has in documented cases requested access to >> members equipment, and such requests have come from members of the IP >> evaluation team, and such access has in certain cases been granted (in >>one >> case I know of by someone who was not really authorised to grant such >> access), can AfriNIC comment on how many members have granted them >>access >> to their equipment, and what did AfriNIC do to safe guard any data >>pulled >> from that equipment. >> >> Irrespective of all the facts of the case at hand, right now, I can only >> say that the situation raises very serious questions about the checks >>and >> balances in place and the security mechanisms in place, and I really >>feel >> that the membership base should be demanding some very concrete answers >> and reassurances. >> >> Thanks >> >> Andrew >> >> >>> On 5/15/14, 6:36 PM, "Adiel Akplogan" wrote: >>> >>> Hello Kofi, >>> >>> Now, as I was expecting your engagement with this list to evolve into >>> this very specific case that you have also alluded to on other lists >>> before, I think the community deserve some further explanation of who >>>you >>> are and what all this is about. This specific case is also connected >>>to a >>> complain that has been field for investigation with local and >>> international law enforcement for possible link to criminal activities. >>> That is on the way and there are many details that we can not reveal >>>here >>> but in which you have been identified by the police as one suspect. >>> >>>> On May 15, 2014, at 17:25 PM, Kofi ansa akufo >>>>wrote: >>>> >>>> Yes there are many specific cases I need the community to take a close >>>> look. Unfortunately as a former resource evaluation manager I am bound >>>> by NDA by AFRINIC. >>>> >>>> I site one specific case which applicant has brought to my attention >>>> which I need the community's support. >>>> >>>> Scenario: A prospective member applies to be a resourced member of >>>> AFRINIC. His application gets approved after COMPLYING with policy. >>>> AFRINIC billing department issues two invoices namely i.) Initial >>>>Setup >>>> Fees $4000 and ii.) Annual Membership Fees $12,800 as well as >>>> Registration Service Agreement (RSA). There are NO payment deadlines >>>>on >>>> both invoices neither does any staff member of AFRINIC communicate >>>>such >>>> to applicant. >>> >>> You forgot to mention that it was YOU Kofi, as then staff of AFRINIC >>>and >>> IP Analyst who has evaluated this very specific application, and this, >>>in >>> an expedite way during the last days of your notice period. We later >>> understood that you had a clear conflict of interest in this >>>application >>> as it doesn?t take long after you left the organisation that you start >>> inquiring about the case and not long after be appointed by this same >>> applicant as their consultant to represent them for the application. >>>What >>> do you think about that? >>> >>> We have carefully reviewed this specific case internally and noticed >>>how >>> that conflict of interest has played in the way you even handled the >>> evaluation. >>> >>>> Nevertheless the applicant proceeds to sign the RSA which outlines a >>>> contractual agreement between AFRINIC and the applicant. Applicant >>>> further proceeds to make payment of initial setup fees of $4000 and >>>> request for annual membership fees to be paid in parts due to recent >>>> Forex transfer restrictions in country of operation. AFRINIC denies >>>>the >>>> request for payment in parts although they allow that in certain cases >>>> as stated on their website. >>> >>> As ex-IP analyst at AFRINIC you should better know the internal policy >>> use to approve split membership fees payment (when it accepted and when >>> it is not). Seems like your 12 months working at AFRINIC has not given >>> you enough knowledge of our internal process as you seems to be >>>claiming >>> and selling it to all your new "customer(s)". >>> >>>> The applicant request an invoice update due to elapsed time (2 months) >>>> and AFRINIC never responds to the request. >>>> >>>> AFRINIC staff respond to member on the 89th day of a so called "90 >>>> days" period in which application needs to be finalized. This 90 days >>>>is >>>> not published anywhere in policy, website or communicated to applicant >>>> during the application process. Nevertheless again the applicant >>>> responds that they are awaiting invoice update before payment. >>>> >>>> AFRINIC staff finally respond that the application has expired >>>>contrary >>>> to what is defined in the executed RSA and further tell applicant the >>>> initial setup fees of $4000 paid is non-refundable and that applicant >>>> needs to put in a new application. >>> >>> Well we have thoroughly reviewed the whole process of this specific >>> application and a communication will reach the applicant soon (as you >>>are >>> their appointed consultant you should see a copy). >>> >>>> These are some of the kinds of frustration applicants face with >>>>certain >>>> staff members who refuse to stick to policies as well as contractual >>>> agreements. >>> >>> You are completely misrepresenting the case and of course some members >>> will be frustrated if instead of being honest and straight, they try to >>> play the system and find themselves cornered by the Hostmaster team. >>>And >>> you as Ex-IP analyst trying to collude with such people who are trying >>>to >>> abuse the system is even worse and I think the community should be >>>aware >>> of such behaviour. This unfortunately explain why the team has became >>> more and more demanding for each application. This unfortunately impact >>> genuine applicants. But with people like you and alike around we will >>> have no choice. >>> >>>> All that is needed in such a situation for AFRINIC team is to reissue >>>> an updated invoice and enquire if the has been any changes in the >>>> applicants IP resources requirement. If there has been any changes >>>> request applicant to update IP address plan but NOT to tell the >>>> applicant to resubmit a whole new application again when applicant was >>>> not notified of any deadlines during application. >>> >>> Too much confusion from your side about the process. Proof that you >>>have >>> not even learn anything while working here beside trying to understand >>> how to play the system from inside. >>> >>>> So is this specific case justified for fellow community members to >>>> rally behind and knock on the doors of the CEO and AFRINIC to ask why >>>> the consequence of inefficiency on the part of certain staff and >>>> procedures in AFRINIC should be borne by a member :) >>> >>> That is a distraction tactic, diverting the attention of the community >>> elsewhere so you and you allies get away with your maneuver? AFRINIC is >>> an organisation that is based on honesty and you can not full a whole >>> community. >>> >>> - a. >>> >>>> On May 15, 2014 2:49 PM, "Seun Ojedeji" >>>>wrote: >>>> Hello Kofi, >>>> >>>> Let me say a few personal words below >>>> >>>> On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 6:54 AM, Kofi ansa akufo >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> I draw typical examples below; >>>> >>>> 1. The core activity of AFRINIC is managing internet resources for the >>>> Region. What is seen now is more or less a passive approach to >>>> evaluation of prospective members for resources. AFRINIC staff makes >>>>it >>>> difficult to get resources >>>> >>>> Hmm...maybe we should say the community makes it difficult, >>>>considering >>>> that staff will only follow community developed policy to allocate >>>> resources. Nevertheless i am not even sure that difficult is the right >>>> word to use here. Perhaps if you have specific concerns of scenarios >>>> where you meet all the requirement and it still seem difficult to get >>>> the resource, then you could share with the community and we can go >>>> banging on the doors of staff with placard ;-) >>>> YET when resources are granted there is little or no follow up >>>> processes to check if it is even being used in the region. A quick >>>>check >>>> in the whois database of AFRINIC indicates a /13 IPv4 that was issued >>>> last year which is not even used in the region. Lost of job creation >>>> opportunity on the continent. >>>> >>>> +1 with this, and i so much agree with you that there needs to be a >>>> better way to retain major part of our IP within our region, not just >>>> retaining but also seeing it used and empowering people in this >>>> continent; Our resources needs to drive our continent development. We >>>> all should to remember that AFRINIC among all the RIRs has the least >>>> number of IANA assigned /8 V4. >>>> >>>> The fact that we have the least of IANA allocated /8 among all the RIR >>>> has also recently placed us on top of all other RIRs as the region >>>>with >>>> most available v4 addresses. However we are at this present status-quo >>>> not because we don't have the population to consume the resource but >>>> because either the population is not enabled to consume it OR does not >>>> want to. The latter is the immediate reason; if most mobile networks >>>>go >>>> native public v4 you can bet that IP addresses we have left will be >>>> exhausted. I will liken this situation with our mineral resources; >>>> Africa is blessed with mineral resources, however most of the >>>>resources >>>> are shipped out of the continent with its refined produce imported >>>>back >>>> into the continent. Something similar is already happening in the IP >>>> space in that the resources are shipped abroad and we get connected to >>>> our IP (outside the continent) at our own expense. >>>> >>>> Okay enough of trying to describe the situation we currently are. The >>>> most important question is what is the way forward. >>>> >>>> The way forward is for the community to look at the existing policies >>>> used by AFRINIC to issue resource with the aim of "tightening possible >>>> loose ends" towards ensuring that the IP resource benefits the region. >>>> There are areas of concern that were presented by staff during afrinic >>>> 18[1], i think that could be a good starting point. While there is >>>> another f2f around the corner, i encourage everyone to take up this >>>> challenge by looking at our existing policy and proposing an update or >>>> even an entirely new proposal. Some of this can be discussed at the >>>> upcoming f2f meeting >>>> Solution: the very IP resources we seek to manage is evolving in a >>>> technology which is dissolving geographic barriers. AFRINIC should >>>>then >>>> be seen as a key partner for our region to ensure that infrastructures >>>> are established in our region to create jobs through standard policies >>>> which will continuously monitor the activities and link or tie >>>> prospective investors to the region rather than turn them off or >>>> frustrate them and later grant them huge chunks of resources to be >>>>used >>>> outside the region. >>>> >>>> While one can definitely not determine/restrict how a member should >>>>use >>>> his/her IP resource, one could set certain requirements before >>>>granting >>>> the resource and those could be related to infrastructure presence, >>>> organisation activity history in Africa et all. All these can be >>>> reflected in a policy, i again call on the community to stand up to >>>>this >>>> challenge. The CEO has also recently indicated this concern in his >>>> statement [2] and calls for urgent attention of the community for v4 >>>>and >>>> v6 deployment in Africa. >>>> 2. AFRINIC currently adopts "see the trees from the forest" approach >>>> with respect to training programs (e.g. IPv6 training). There are >>>> currently more than three active Research and Education Networks >>>>(REN), >>>> Association of African Universities (AAU) as well as African Network >>>> Operators Group (AfNOG) - specialized groups. What I see as a better >>>>and >>>> far reaching impact is to collaborate with these groups to tailor >>>> curriculum and draw standards. Follow up with program monitoring and >>>> audits. I believe this should NOT be a long term goal. IPv6 awareness >>>> and adoption will have being considerable high. >>>> >>>> 3. Again the RIR should be seen playing a regulatory role. Recent >>>>years >>>> has seen considerable internet exchange spring up each with their own >>>> operating guidelines for membership and peering. What AFRINIC should >>>>be >>>> doing is to collaborate with key stakeholders (governments, submarine >>>> cable providers, service providers through AfNOG) to draft various >>>> standards and architectutes to be adhered to. (for example encourage >>>> distributed / or linked national and regional exchanges. >>>> >>>> I think there are efforts in the areas mentioned above, nevertheless i >>>> agree that more efforts needs to be put in place. However there is a >>>> saying that; "you can only take a horse to the river, you can't force >>>>it >>>> to drink water". There are quite many service provider that are aware >>>>of >>>> the need to go v6 and that also know the disadvantage of NATing (to be >>>> an incentive to deploy native v4 as much as possible) however they >>>>ain't >>>> doing that because they havn't see the demand. So for me i think we >>>>will >>>> experience a boost if we improve support of Africa content >>>> development/initiatives that are IP demanding (internet of things) >>>>which >>>> will change the demand of end users. >>>> >>>> >>>> One will argue how does this approach impact AFRINIC members directly >>>> and increase meeting turnout and subsequent voting participation? >>>> >>>> It can either impact it positively or negatively depending on the >>>>rules >>>> and guideline we have provided. Afrinic will be 10 but its still >>>> relatively young and we need to start setting policies that will make >>>>it >>>> sustainable and more community driven. >>>> Thanks >>>> >>>> Kind regards >>>> >>>> 1. >>>> >>>>http://meeting.afrinic.net/afrinic-18/sites/default/files/Madhvipolicy- >>>>im >>>> plementation-report.pdf >>>> 2. >>>> >>>>http://www.afrinic.net/en/library/news/1101-arin-nears-ipv4-depletion-a >>>>fr >>>> inic-reaffirms-the-need-for-urgent-ipv6-deployment >>>> Kofi >>>> >>>> On May 15, 2014 6:05 AM, "Adiel Akplogan" wrote: >>>> >>>> On May 15, 2014, at 24:26 AM, Kofi ansa akufo >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hello Adiel and All >>>>> >>>>> Interesting discussion. >>>>> >>>>> Forgive me to play the devils advocate for a while - few questions >>>> below regarding the immediate past election for board members. >>>>> >>>>> 1. What was the total votes casts? >>>>> >>>>> 2. How many votes were cast as proxy votes? >>>> >>>> See my previous mail for the above. >>>> >>>>> 3. How many individuals voted more than once due to being associated >>>> to more than one member? >>>> >>>> 8 out of 45. Knowing that all board members (registered members) that >>>> are also valid contact of resource members get 2 votes. >>>> >>>>> 4. What was the total active members as at the time of opening >>>>>voting? >>>> >>>> About 750 members. This data can be dynamically checked at: >>>> http://www.afrinic.net/en/about-us/our-members >>>> >>>>> 5. How many votes were cast through ballot paper at the election? >>>> >>>> 45. >>>> >>>>> 6. Do we have a minimum number of votes casted (%) relative to the >>>> number of active members to determine dismissal or approval of the >>>> election? >>>> >>>> That is not set anywhere. but for the past year we have been dealing >>>> with around 10% ratio. Which as I mentioned in my previous mail is >>>> relatively the same thing for all RIRs. So even though we are aiming >>>>at >>>> better, we are not an exception (with the ressou=rces we have). >>>> >>>> - a. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>>----------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>- >>>> Seun Ojedeji, >>>> Federal University Oye-Ekiti >>>> web: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng >>>> Mobile: +2348035233535 >>>> alt email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng >>>> >>>> The key to understanding is humility - my view ! >> >> >> DISCLAIMER: This email contains proprietary information some or all of >>which may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. >>If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this email, >>please notify the author by replying to this email. If you are not the >>intended recipient, you must not use, disclose, copy, print, or rely on >>this email. We cannot accept liability for any statements made which >>are clearly the sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of this >>company or one of its agents. >> >_______________________________________________ >rpd mailing list >rpd at afrinic.net >https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd DISCLAIMER: This email contains proprietary information some or all of which may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this email, please notify the author by replying to this email. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose, copy, print, or rely on this email. We cannot accept liability for any statements made which are clearly the sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of this company or one of its agents. From mje at posix.co.za Fri May 16 15:48:52 2014 From: mje at posix.co.za (Mark Elkins) Date: Fri, 16 May 2014 17:48:52 +0200 Subject: [rpd] IPv4 policy on where space is used. In-Reply-To: References: <2607AFE6-2BCE-47C3-8D94-6B469C7339A9@ghana.com> <9A2170D3-6890-4CF1-8EE0-BE0DD10DB371@afrinic.net> <7F4C376B-D71B-4753-8B61-5DA95644F96C@afrinic.net> <1AD24464-717D-4233-B6F2-2CF48424ADEE@afrinic.net> <1400180915.7312.65.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> Message-ID: <1400255332.13446.570.camel@mje.posix.co.za> On Fri, 2014-05-16 at 16:26 +0100, Seun Ojedeji wrote: > sent from Google nexus 4 > kindly excuse brevity and typos. > On 16 May 2014 16:16, "Stephen Wilcox" > wrote: > > > > Hi Saul, > > so a successful African company that wishes to expand outside > Africa is forced to go to APNIC, RIPE, etc who are unable to assign > space as they have ran out. Isn't this an issue with regionalising > resources for global business? > > > Sure it's difficult to make such restriction and it's really not a > path that will yield much success. However I believe it's possible to > ensure those organisation are indeed well grounded African > organisation before handing resources to them. I believe this is one of the pains that AFRINIC Hostmasters are trying to deal with at the moment. So what if we said that at least 50% of all number resources had to be for equipment in Africa? Should be enough for a truly African ISP to use out of the area. I'm looking at somehow disallowing an "African" entity from using all the numbering resources out side of the Afrinic Region.... > > Cheers! > > Regards > > Steve > > > > > > > > On 16 May 2014 15:57, Saul wrote: > >> > >> Personally I am in favour of keeping our resources regional. I > think that we > >> have all been offered large sums of money to get space and then > sell it off > >> the continent. > >> > >> But then its IP... does it really matter? > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: rpd-bounces at afrinic.net [mailto:rpd-bounces at afrinic.net] On > Behalf Of > >> Mark Elkins > >> Sent: 15 May 2014 09:09 PM > >> To: rpd at afrinic.net > >> Subject: [rpd] IPv4 policy on where space is used. > >> > >> On Thu, 2014-05-15 at 21:46 +0400, Kofi ansa akufo wrote: > >> > ....the resource was going out of the region.... > >> > >> > >> As far as I am aware, the current requirement for getting address > space is > >> that you are a company properly established (all legal - as such) > in Africa. > >> There is currently no policy (except with the last /8) that states > the > >> resources you get have to be used in Africa.... > >> > >> This might be good.... (get rid of all the IPv4, start using IPv6) > or Bad... > >> (we are doing *what* with our resources???) > >> > >> Maybe some policy needs to be designed - how do people feel... > >> > >> -- > >> Mark James ELKINS - Posix Systems - (South) Africa > >> mje at posix.co.za Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 > >> For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: > https://ftth.posix.co.za > >> _______________________________________________ > >> rpd mailing list > >> rpd at afrinic.net > >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > rpd mailing list > > rpd at afrinic.net > > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > > > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd -- Mark James ELKINS - Posix Systems - (South) Africa mje at posix.co.za Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: https://ftth.posix.co.za -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 3832 bytes Desc: not available URL: From kofi.ansa at gmail.com Fri May 16 16:43:12 2014 From: kofi.ansa at gmail.com (Kofi ansa akufo) Date: Fri, 16 May 2014 20:43:12 +0400 Subject: [rpd] IPv4 policy on where space is used. In-Reply-To: <1400255332.13446.570.camel@mje.posix.co.za> References: <2607AFE6-2BCE-47C3-8D94-6B469C7339A9@ghana.com> <9A2170D3-6890-4CF1-8EE0-BE0DD10DB371@afrinic.net> <7F4C376B-D71B-4753-8B61-5DA95644F96C@afrinic.net> <1AD24464-717D-4233-B6F2-2CF48424ADEE@afrinic.net> <1400180915.7312.65.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> <1400255332.13446.570.camel@mje.posix.co.za> Message-ID: Hello All What we see now is new business models springing up such Data Centers with DR sites outside the continent. With services such as IaaS, PaaS, SaaS it becomes murky where IPs are used. Even worse is where to classify such businesses as LIR or End User as presented to the community in Lusaka. Should a business offering Software as a Service (SaaS) have all IPs assigned to their virtual platform be classified as End User IPs and pay less fees according to the fees schedule? Obviously the policies have to be reviewed. On May 16, 2014 7:56 PM, "Mark Elkins" wrote: > > On Fri, 2014-05-16 at 16:26 +0100, Seun Ojedeji wrote: > > sent from Google nexus 4 > > kindly excuse brevity and typos. > > On 16 May 2014 16:16, "Stephen Wilcox" > > wrote: > > > > > > Hi Saul, > > > so a successful African company that wishes to expand outside > > Africa is forced to go to APNIC, RIPE, etc who are unable to assign > > space as they have ran out. Isn't this an issue with regionalising > > resources for global business? > > > > > Sure it's difficult to make such restriction and it's really not a > > path that will yield much success. However I believe it's possible to > > ensure those organisation are indeed well grounded African > > organisation before handing resources to them. > > I believe this is one of the pains that AFRINIC Hostmasters are trying > to deal with at the moment. So what if we said that at least 50% of all > number resources had to be for equipment in Africa? > > Should be enough for a truly African ISP to use out of the area. > > I'm looking at somehow disallowing an "African" entity from using all > the numbering resources out side of the Afrinic Region.... > > > > > > > Cheers! > > > Regards > > > Steve > > > > > > > > > > > > On 16 May 2014 15:57, Saul wrote: > > >> > > >> Personally I am in favour of keeping our resources regional. I > > think that we > > >> have all been offered large sums of money to get space and then > > sell it off > > >> the continent. > > >> > > >> But then its IP... does it really matter? > > >> > > >> -----Original Message----- > > >> From: rpd-bounces at afrinic.net [mailto:rpd-bounces at afrinic.net] On > > Behalf Of > > >> Mark Elkins > > >> Sent: 15 May 2014 09:09 PM > > >> To: rpd at afrinic.net > > >> Subject: [rpd] IPv4 policy on where space is used. > > >> > > >> On Thu, 2014-05-15 at 21:46 +0400, Kofi ansa akufo wrote: > > >> > ....the resource was going out of the region.... > > >> > > >> > > >> As far as I am aware, the current requirement for getting address > > space is > > >> that you are a company properly established (all legal - as such) > > in Africa. > > >> There is currently no policy (except with the last /8) that states > > the > > >> resources you get have to be used in Africa.... > > >> > > >> This might be good.... (get rid of all the IPv4, start using IPv6) > > or Bad... > > >> (we are doing *what* with our resources???) > > >> > > >> Maybe some policy needs to be designed - how do people feel... > > >> > > >> -- > > >> Mark James ELKINS - Posix Systems - (South) Africa > > >> mje at posix.co.za Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 > > >> For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: > > https://ftth.posix.co.za > > >> _______________________________________________ > > >> rpd mailing list > > >> rpd at afrinic.net > > >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > rpd mailing list > > > rpd at afrinic.net > > > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > rpd mailing list > > rpd at afrinic.net > > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > -- > Mark James ELKINS - Posix Systems - (South) Africa > mje at posix.co.za Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 > For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: https://ftth.posix.co.za > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com Fri May 16 17:13:08 2014 From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji) Date: Fri, 16 May 2014 18:13:08 +0100 Subject: [rpd] IPv4 policy on where space is used. In-Reply-To: <1400255332.13446.570.camel@mje.posix.co.za> References: <2607AFE6-2BCE-47C3-8D94-6B469C7339A9@ghana.com> <9A2170D3-6890-4CF1-8EE0-BE0DD10DB371@afrinic.net> <7F4C376B-D71B-4753-8B61-5DA95644F96C@afrinic.net> <1AD24464-717D-4233-B6F2-2CF48424ADEE@afrinic.net> <1400180915.7312.65.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> <1400255332.13446.570.camel@mje.posix.co.za> Message-ID: sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 16 May 2014 16:56, "Mark Elkins" wrote: > > I believe this is one of the pains that AFRINIC Hostmasters are trying > to deal with at the moment. > Yeah and they can only try within the limits of the policy. > So what if we said that at least 50% of all > number resources had to be for equipment in Africa? > Hmmm... that's could be an option. Perhaps also be helpful to look at reviewing the requirements that makes an organisation African enough to be consider for resource. > Should be enough for a truly African ISP to use out of the area. > Yeah 50% is a fair deal, although the other puzzle could be how to verify this after resource assignment is done ;) hence the reason why further vetting of organisation establishment status and purpose may be needed. > I'm looking at somehow disallowing an "African" entity from using all > the numbering resources out side of the Afrinic Region.... > Yeah a possibility that I just alluded to above. So the purpose of that African company should be checked. Things like: - What type of service do they provide and are they really services that utilises IP resource on physical infrastructures (such check more applicable to those applying as cloud services organization) - Who are their existing clients - History of establishment - Does employed staff and organisation base reflect as being continental. - Possibly a biannual check of resource usage statistics (if it's not a tall order) Those tall checks above may not prevent IP export, but it could ensure some functional provider establishment in Africa. Hopefully we can see some policies proposals in that direction. Cheers! > > > > > > Cheers! > > > Regards > > > Steve > > > > > > > > > > > > On 16 May 2014 15:57, Saul wrote: > > >> > > >> Personally I am in favour of keeping our resources regional. I > > think that we > > >> have all been offered large sums of money to get space and then > > sell it off > > >> the continent. > > >> > > >> But then its IP... does it really matter? > > >> > > >> -----Original Message----- > > >> From: rpd-bounces at afrinic.net [mailto:rpd-bounces at afrinic.net] On > > Behalf Of > > >> Mark Elkins > > >> Sent: 15 May 2014 09:09 PM > > >> To: rpd at afrinic.net > > >> Subject: [rpd] IPv4 policy on where space is used. > > >> > > >> On Thu, 2014-05-15 at 21:46 +0400, Kofi ansa akufo wrote: > > >> > ....the resource was going out of the region.... > > >> > > >> > > >> As far as I am aware, the current requirement for getting address > > space is > > >> that you are a company properly established (all legal - as such) > > in Africa. > > >> There is currently no policy (except with the last /8) that states > > the > > >> resources you get have to be used in Africa.... > > >> > > >> This might be good.... (get rid of all the IPv4, start using IPv6) > > or Bad... > > >> (we are doing *what* with our resources???) > > >> > > >> Maybe some policy needs to be designed - how do people feel... > > >> > > >> -- > > >> Mark James ELKINS - Posix Systems - (South) Africa > > >> mje at posix.co.za Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 > > >> For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: > > https://ftth.posix.co.za > > >> _______________________________________________ > > >> rpd mailing list > > >> rpd at afrinic.net > > >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > rpd mailing list > > > rpd at afrinic.net > > > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > rpd mailing list > > rpd at afrinic.net > > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > -- > Mark James ELKINS - Posix Systems - (South) Africa > mje at posix.co.za Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 > For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: https://ftth.posix.co.za > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From steve.wilcox at ixreach.com Fri May 16 17:26:37 2014 From: steve.wilcox at ixreach.com (Stephen Wilcox) Date: Fri, 16 May 2014 18:26:37 +0100 Subject: [rpd] IPv4 policy on where space is used. In-Reply-To: References: <2607AFE6-2BCE-47C3-8D94-6B469C7339A9@ghana.com> <9A2170D3-6890-4CF1-8EE0-BE0DD10DB371@afrinic.net> <7F4C376B-D71B-4753-8B61-5DA95644F96C@afrinic.net> <1AD24464-717D-4233-B6F2-2CF48424ADEE@afrinic.net> <1400180915.7312.65.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> <1400255332.13446.570.camel@mje.posix.co.za> Message-ID: On 16 May 2014 18:13, Seun Ojedeji wrote: > sent from Google nexus 4 > kindly excuse brevity and typos. > On 16 May 2014 16:56, "Mark Elkins" wrote: > > > > I believe this is one of the pains that AFRINIC Hostmasters are trying > > to deal with at the moment. > > > Yeah and they can only try within the limits of the policy. > > > > So what if we said that at least 50% of all > > number resources had to be for equipment in Africa? > > > Hmmm... that's could be an option. Perhaps also be helpful to look at > reviewing the requirements that makes an organisation African enough to be > consider for resource. > > > Should be enough for a truly African ISP to use out of the area. > > > Yeah 50% is a fair deal, although the other puzzle could be how to verify > this after resource assignment is done ;) hence the reason why further > vetting of organisation establishment status and purpose may be needed. Just playing devil's advocate - but who will do this research and maintain it? What if an African multinational is acquired by a non-African company, does it have to free its resources? Or the other way around, a non-African company buying an African one can they suddenly request huge amounts of IP? > > I'm looking at somehow disallowing an "African" entity from using all > > the numbering resources out side of the Afrinic Region.... > > > Yeah a possibility that I just alluded to above. So the purpose of that > African company should be checked. Things like: > > - What type of service do they provide and are they really services that > utilises IP resource on physical infrastructures (such check more > applicable to those applying as cloud services organization) > - Who are their existing clients > - History of establishment > - Does employed staff and organisation base reflect as being continental. > - Possibly a biannual check of resource usage statistics (if it's not a > tall order) > A company complicated enough to need this level of investigation and due diligence might well be a large company with a team of lawyers questioning how they can release information that may be under NDA. Indeed, how much client and contract information is reasonable to disclose before it becomes a liability? I think the more complicated you make the rules, the more loopholes and corner cases you create, plus more bureaucracy and red tape. Simple rules will scale better.. Steve Those tall checks above may not prevent IP export, but it could ensure some > functional provider establishment in Africa. > > Hopefully we can see some policies proposals in that direction. > > Cheers! > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers! > > > > Regards > > > > Steve > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 16 May 2014 15:57, Saul wrote: > > > >> > > > >> Personally I am in favour of keeping our resources regional. I > > > think that we > > > >> have all been offered large sums of money to get space and then > > > sell it off > > > >> the continent. > > > >> > > > >> But then its IP... does it really matter? > > > >> > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > > >> From: rpd-bounces at afrinic.net [mailto:rpd-bounces at afrinic.net] On > > > Behalf Of > > > >> Mark Elkins > > > >> Sent: 15 May 2014 09:09 PM > > > >> To: rpd at afrinic.net > > > >> Subject: [rpd] IPv4 policy on where space is used. > > > >> > > > >> On Thu, 2014-05-15 at 21:46 +0400, Kofi ansa akufo wrote: > > > >> > ....the resource was going out of the region.... > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> As far as I am aware, the current requirement for getting address > > > space is > > > >> that you are a company properly established (all legal - as such) > > > in Africa. > > > >> There is currently no policy (except with the last /8) that states > > > the > > > >> resources you get have to be used in Africa.... > > > >> > > > >> This might be good.... (get rid of all the IPv4, start using IPv6) > > > or Bad... > > > >> (we are doing *what* with our resources???) > > > >> > > > >> Maybe some policy needs to be designed - how do people feel... > > > >> > > > >> -- > > > >> Mark James ELKINS - Posix Systems - (South) Africa > > > >> mje at posix.co.za Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 > > > >> For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: > > > https://ftth.posix.co.za > > > >> _______________________________________________ > > > >> rpd mailing list > > > >> rpd at afrinic.net > > > >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > rpd mailing list > > > > rpd at afrinic.net > > > > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > rpd mailing list > > > rpd at afrinic.net > > > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > > > -- > > Mark James ELKINS - Posix Systems - (South) Africa > > mje at posix.co.za Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 > > For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: https://ftth.posix.co.za > > > > _______________________________________________ > > rpd mailing list > > rpd at afrinic.net > > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > > > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Ben.Roberts at liquidtelecom.com Fri May 16 17:37:23 2014 From: Ben.Roberts at liquidtelecom.com (Ben Roberts) Date: Fri, 16 May 2014 18:37:23 +0100 Subject: [rpd] IPv4 policy on where space is used. In-Reply-To: References: <2607AFE6-2BCE-47C3-8D94-6B469C7339A9@ghana.com> <9A2170D3-6890-4CF1-8EE0-BE0DD10DB371@afrinic.net> <7F4C376B-D71B-4753-8B61-5DA95644F96C@afrinic.net> <1AD24464-717D-4233-B6F2-2CF48424ADEE@afrinic.net> <1400180915.7312.65.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> <1400255332.13446.570.camel@mje.posix.co.za> Message-ID: Speaking as an African multinational... We are headquartered in Mauritius and present with IP network in twelve countries in Africa and 2 in Europe. We are also RIPE members also and we pay a huge premium in LIR fees to Afrinic so I think I am entitled to use my IPs where I jolly well like and will oppose any policy proposal to restrict or prevent us from doing so! Cheers Ben Liquid Telecom Group Director of Network Strategy. Sent from my iPhone On 16 May 2014, at 18:29, "Stephen Wilcox" > wrote: On 16 May 2014 18:13, Seun Ojedeji > wrote: sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 16 May 2014 16:56, "Mark Elkins" > wrote: > > I believe this is one of the pains that AFRINIC Hostmasters are trying > to deal with at the moment. > Yeah and they can only try within the limits of the policy. > So what if we said that at least 50% of all > number resources had to be for equipment in Africa? > Hmmm... that's could be an option. Perhaps also be helpful to look at reviewing the requirements that makes an organisation African enough to be consider for resource. > Should be enough for a truly African ISP to use out of the area. > Yeah 50% is a fair deal, although the other puzzle could be how to verify this after resource assignment is done ;) hence the reason why further vetting of organisation establishment status and purpose may be needed. Just playing devil's advocate - but who will do this research and maintain it? What if an African multinational is acquired by a non-African company, does it have to free its resources? Or the other way around, a non-African company buying an African one can they suddenly request huge amounts of IP? > I'm looking at somehow disallowing an "African" entity from using all > the numbering resources out side of the Afrinic Region.... > Yeah a possibility that I just alluded to above. So the purpose of that African company should be checked. Things like: - What type of service do they provide and are they really services that utilises IP resource on physical infrastructures (such check more applicable to those applying as cloud services organization) - Who are their existing clients - History of establishment - Does employed staff and organisation base reflect as being continental. - Possibly a biannual check of resource usage statistics (if it's not a tall order) A company complicated enough to need this level of investigation and due diligence might well be a large company with a team of lawyers questioning how they can release information that may be under NDA. Indeed, how much client and contract information is reasonable to disclose before it becomes a liability? I think the more complicated you make the rules, the more loopholes and corner cases you create, plus more bureaucracy and red tape. Simple rules will scale better.. Steve Those tall checks above may not prevent IP export, but it could ensure some functional provider establishment in Africa. Hopefully we can see some policies proposals in that direction. Cheers! > > > > > > Cheers! > > > Regards > > > Steve > > > > > > > > > > > > On 16 May 2014 15:57, Saul > wrote: > > >> > > >> Personally I am in favour of keeping our resources regional. I > > think that we > > >> have all been offered large sums of money to get space and then > > sell it off > > >> the continent. > > >> > > >> But then its IP... does it really matter? > > >> > > >> -----Original Message----- > > >> From: rpd-bounces at afrinic.net [mailto:rpd-bounces at afrinic.net] On > > Behalf Of > > >> Mark Elkins > > >> Sent: 15 May 2014 09:09 PM > > >> To: rpd at afrinic.net > > >> Subject: [rpd] IPv4 policy on where space is used. > > >> > > >> On Thu, 2014-05-15 at 21:46 +0400, Kofi ansa akufo wrote: > > >> > ....the resource was going out of the region.... > > >> > > >> > > >> As far as I am aware, the current requirement for getting address > > space is > > >> that you are a company properly established (all legal - as such) > > in Africa. > > >> There is currently no policy (except with the last /8) that states > > the > > >> resources you get have to be used in Africa.... > > >> > > >> This might be good.... (get rid of all the IPv4, start using IPv6) > > or Bad... > > >> (we are doing *what* with our resources???) > > >> > > >> Maybe some policy needs to be designed - how do people feel... > > >> > > >> -- > > >> Mark James ELKINS - Posix Systems - (South) Africa > > >> mje at posix.co.za Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 > > >> For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: > > https://ftth.posix.co.za > > >> _______________________________________________ > > >> rpd mailing list > > >> rpd at afrinic.net > > >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > rpd mailing list > > > rpd at afrinic.net > > > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > rpd mailing list > > rpd at afrinic.net > > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > -- > Mark James ELKINS - Posix Systems - (South) Africa > mje at posix.co.za Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 > For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: https://ftth.posix.co.za > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > _______________________________________________ rpd mailing list rpd at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd ________________________________ DISCLAIMER: This email contains proprietary information some or all of which may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this email, please notify the author by replying to this email. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose, copy, print, or rely on this email. We cannot accept liability for any statements made which are clearly the sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of this company or one of its agents. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From keshwarsingh.nadan at millenium.mu Fri May 16 18:22:07 2014 From: keshwarsingh.nadan at millenium.mu (Keshwarsingh Nadan) Date: Fri, 16 May 2014 18:22:07 +0000 Subject: [rpd] Discussion about e-voting In-Reply-To: References: <2607AFE6-2BCE-47C3-8D94-6B469C7339A9@ghana.com> <9A2170D3-6890-4CF1-8EE0-BE0DD10DB371@afrinic.net> <7F4C376B-D71B-4753-8B61-5DA95644F96C@afrinic.net> <76D7E24C-CA7D-4074-8035-457589A31D09@afrinic.net> <3EEBE627-AAD4-46D1-B553-9045BD0006AD@ghana.com>, Message-ID: <8139A2D4BA5CE94C98E1A584DDEA67934B2039@exchange1.prod.servihoo.net> >Alternatively, if these issues cannot be addressed before/in Djibouti, and if there is insufficient time to deal with these issues now, perhaps it is time to see if there is sufficient member support to invoke clause 7.6 viii of the bylaws? You have my support anytime from 23 resource member organisations in good standing, not enough though. To sum up the 5%, support from other members is compulsory. The question is who really wants to invoke clause 7.6 (viii) of the bylaws? I do.. -- K From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com Fri May 16 18:22:13 2014 From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji) Date: Fri, 16 May 2014 19:22:13 +0100 Subject: [rpd] IPv4 policy on where space is used. In-Reply-To: References: <2607AFE6-2BCE-47C3-8D94-6B469C7339A9@ghana.com> <9A2170D3-6890-4CF1-8EE0-BE0DD10DB371@afrinic.net> <7F4C376B-D71B-4753-8B61-5DA95644F96C@afrinic.net> <1AD24464-717D-4233-B6F2-2CF48424ADEE@afrinic.net> <1400180915.7312.65.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> <1400255332.13446.570.camel@mje.posix.co.za> Message-ID: This particular one being a good example of a company that has roots in Africa. For me I don't think it's more about spending more energy in monitoring how you as a member use IP. It's more of reviewing applicants membership requirements. Cheers! sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 16 May 2014 18:37, "Ben Roberts" wrote: > Speaking as an African multinational... > > We are headquartered in Mauritius and present with IP network in twelve > countries in Africa and 2 in Europe. We are also RIPE members also and we > pay a huge premium in LIR fees to Afrinic so I think I am entitled to use > my IPs where I jolly well like and will oppose any policy proposal to > restrict or prevent us from doing so! > > Cheers > Ben > Liquid Telecom Group Director of Network Strategy. > > Sent from my iPhone > > On 16 May 2014, at 18:29, "Stephen Wilcox" > wrote: > > > > > On 16 May 2014 18:13, Seun Ojedeji wrote: > >> sent from Google nexus 4 >> kindly excuse brevity and typos. >> On 16 May 2014 16:56, "Mark Elkins" wrote: >> > >> > I believe this is one of the pains that AFRINIC Hostmasters are trying >> > to deal with at the moment. >> > >> Yeah and they can only try within the limits of the policy. >> >> > >> So what if we said that at least 50% of all >> > number resources had to be for equipment in Africa? >> > >> Hmmm... that's could be an option. Perhaps also be helpful to look at >> reviewing the requirements that makes an organisation African enough to be >> consider for resource. >> >> > Should be enough for a truly African ISP to use out of the area. >> > >> Yeah 50% is a fair deal, although the other puzzle could be how to >> verify this after resource assignment is done ;) hence the reason why >> further vetting of organisation establishment status and purpose may be >> needed. > > > Just playing devil's advocate - but who will do this research and > maintain it? What if an African multinational is acquired by a non-African > company, does it have to free its resources? Or the other way around, a > non-African company buying an African one can they suddenly request huge > amounts of IP? > > >> > I'm looking at somehow disallowing an "African" entity from using all >> > the numbering resources out side of the Afrinic Region.... >> > >> Yeah a possibility that I just alluded to above. So the purpose of that >> African company should be checked. Things like: >> >> - What type of service do they provide and are they really services that >> utilises IP resource on physical infrastructures (such check more >> applicable to those applying as cloud services organization) >> - Who are their existing clients >> - History of establishment >> - Does employed staff and organisation base reflect as being continental. >> - Possibly a biannual check of resource usage statistics (if it's not a >> tall order) >> > A company complicated enough to need this level of investigation and due > diligence might well be a large company with a team of lawyers questioning > how they can release information that may be under NDA. Indeed, how much > client and contract information is reasonable to disclose before it becomes > a liability? > > > I think the more complicated you make the rules, the more loopholes and > corner cases you create, plus more bureaucracy and red tape. Simple rules > will scale better.. > > Steve > > Those tall checks above may not prevent IP export, but it could ensure >> some functional provider establishment in Africa. >> >> Hopefully we can see some policies proposals in that direction. >> >> Cheers! >> >> > >> > >> > > >> > > Cheers! >> > > > Regards >> > > > Steve >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > On 16 May 2014 15:57, Saul wrote: >> > > >> >> > > >> Personally I am in favour of keeping our resources regional. I >> > > think that we >> > > >> have all been offered large sums of money to get space and then >> > > sell it off >> > > >> the continent. >> > > >> >> > > >> But then its IP... does it really matter? >> > > >> >> > > >> -----Original Message----- >> > > >> From: rpd-bounces at afrinic.net [mailto:rpd-bounces at afrinic.net] On >> > > Behalf Of >> > > >> Mark Elkins >> > > >> Sent: 15 May 2014 09:09 PM >> > > >> To: rpd at afrinic.net >> > > >> Subject: [rpd] IPv4 policy on where space is used. >> > > >> >> > > >> On Thu, 2014-05-15 at 21:46 +0400, Kofi ansa akufo wrote: >> > > >> > ....the resource was going out of the region.... >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> As far as I am aware, the current requirement for getting address >> > > space is >> > > >> that you are a company properly established (all legal - as such) >> > > in Africa. >> > > >> There is currently no policy (except with the last /8) that states >> > > the >> > > >> resources you get have to be used in Africa.... >> > > >> >> > > >> This might be good.... (get rid of all the IPv4, start using IPv6) >> > > or Bad... >> > > >> (we are doing *what* with our resources???) >> > > >> >> > > >> Maybe some policy needs to be designed - how do people feel... >> > > >> >> > > >> -- >> > > >> Mark James ELKINS - Posix Systems - (South) Africa >> > > >> mje at posix.co.za Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 >> > > >> For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: >> > > https://ftth.posix.co.za >> > > >> _______________________________________________ >> > > >> rpd mailing list >> > > >> rpd at afrinic.net >> > > >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > _______________________________________________ >> > > > rpd mailing list >> > > > rpd at afrinic.net >> > > > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > _______________________________________________ >> > > rpd mailing list >> > > rpd at afrinic.net >> > > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >> > >> > -- >> > Mark James ELKINS - Posix Systems - (South) Africa >> > mje at posix.co.za Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 >> > For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: https://ftth.posix.co.za >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > rpd mailing list >> > rpd at afrinic.net >> > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >> > >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> rpd mailing list >> rpd at afrinic.net >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >> >> > > > > > > ------------------------------ > DISCLAIMER: This email contains proprietary information some or all of > which may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. If > an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this email, please > notify the author by replying to this email. If you are not the intended > recipient, you must not use, disclose, copy, print, or rely on this email. > We cannot accept liability for any statements made which are clearly the > sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of this company or one of its > agents. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From keshwarsingh.nadan at millenium.mu Fri May 16 18:36:25 2014 From: keshwarsingh.nadan at millenium.mu (Keshwarsingh Nadan) Date: Fri, 16 May 2014 18:36:25 +0000 Subject: [rpd] IPv4 policy on where space is used. In-Reply-To: References: <2607AFE6-2BCE-47C3-8D94-6B469C7339A9@ghana.com> <9A2170D3-6890-4CF1-8EE0-BE0DD10DB371@afrinic.net> <7F4C376B-D71B-4753-8B61-5DA95644F96C@afrinic.net> <1AD24464-717D-4233-B6F2-2CF48424ADEE@afrinic.net> <1400180915.7312.65.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> , Message-ID: <8139A2D4BA5CE94C98E1A584DDEA67934B285D@exchange1.prod.servihoo.net> >Sure it's difficult to make such restriction and it's really not a path that will yield much success. However I believe it's possible to ensure those organisation are indeed well grounded African organisation before handing resources to them. This is pure discrimination on race. Wether one is a well grounded or startup "African", "Mauritian", etc.., all of them should be treated equally. -- K From quaynor at ghana.com Fri May 16 18:51:56 2014 From: quaynor at ghana.com (Nii Narku Quaynor) Date: Fri, 16 May 2014 18:51:56 +0000 Subject: [rpd] Discussion about e-voting In-Reply-To: References: <2607AFE6-2BCE-47C3-8D94-6B469C7339A9@ghana.com> <9A2170D3-6890-4CF1-8EE0-BE0DD10DB371@afrinic.net> <7F4C376B-D71B-4753-8B61-5DA95644F96C@afrinic.net> <76D7E24C-CA7D-4074-8035-457589A31D09@afrinic.net> <3EEBE627-AAD4-46D1-B553-9045BD0006AD@ghana.com> Message-ID: <8641AD4A-A68D-4D9C-ACE7-ABE161AE13B3@ghana.com> Andrew, Huh, what exactly did you disagree with? I wanted us to hear from board and you want same;-) I also thought hearing from legal would help. I never said CEO should not say anymore Perhaps we should not be disagreeing Nii > On May 16, 2014, at 15:48, Andrew Alston wrote: > > Hi Nii, > > I actually have to disagree with you here. I view these as critical > issues that need to be addressed, and the only time this community gets to > interact directly with the board and where the board can properly address > these concerns is at the meetings, one of which is coming up. Further > more, the identification document issue is preventing people from > registering to electronically vote (I know several people who have point > blank refused to register for e-voting over security concerns about those > ID documents), and this has a direct impact on the elections coming up in > Djibouti. > > As such, I believe that we need as members to hear directly from the CEO > or the Board on these issues BEFORE Djibouti. > > Alternatively, if these issues cannot be addressed before/in Djibouti, and > if there is insufficient time to deal with these issues now, perhaps it is > time to see if there is sufficient member support to invoke clause 7.6 > viii of the bylaws? > > Thanks > > Andrew > > >> On 5/16/14, 5:34 PM, "Nii Narku Quaynor" wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> Andrew's concerns are relevant. After having read from CEO perhaps a word >> from Afrinic lawyer and Board would help >> >> However, with only few weeks to Djibouti we might focus on policy related >> matters to advantage >> >> Best regards >> Nii >> >>> On May 15, 2014, at 21:04, Andrew Alston >>> wrote: >>> >>> Hi All, >>> >>> Let me start this email by saying I do not know the details of this >>> case, >>> nor do I know the individuals involved. >>> >>> That being said, this exchange of emails has raised some very >>> interesting >>> questions that I feel AfriNIC needs to answer. Let it be stated very >>> clearly that I am not taking any sides here but the situation referred >>> to >>> in the previous emails does have impact on the entire African community, >>> since there seems to be a large amount of space that has walked off the >>> continent. So, here goes with the questions. >>> >>> 1.) I have been repeatedly informed that large allocations are checked >>> and >>> signed off by the board, based on what is said here, is AfriNIC >>> admitting >>> that the board failed in the checks which they have very plainly stated >>> are done on large allocations >>> >>> 2.) Raised from an earlier point about AfriNIC requesting ID documents >>> for >>> certificates in order to electronically vote. Considering that (as >>> stated >>> in previous emails), AfriNIC does not require such documentation for any >>> other transactions, and considering that AfriNIC has not given the >>> community ANY information about the data storage and security, and in >>> addition the fact that the certificates are issued to individuals, and >>> the >>> ID documents are issued to AfriNIC by individuals with absolutely no >>> confidentiality agreements or NDA?s in place (effectively meaning that >>> should the documents get leaked, there is absolutely no recourse against >>> AfriNIC), this situation raises some VERY serious concerns. >>> >>> Irrespective of the facts or the rights and wrongs of this case, what >>> AfriNIC is effectively saying here is, we had an individual that broke >>> the >>> rules, bypassed our checks and balances, hoodwinked the board that had >>> to >>> sign off the allocation and effectively committed a criminal offence. >>> In >>> the same breath, they are saying, give us documents which we will not >>> state how we are storing, how we are going to use, and with no >>> guarantees >>> of confidentiality. On a continent with such rife identity fraud and >>> identity theft? let me be blunt? this REALLY scares me! >>> >>> 3.) Considering that AfriNIC has in documented cases requested access to >>> members equipment, and such requests have come from members of the IP >>> evaluation team, and such access has in certain cases been granted (in >>> one >>> case I know of by someone who was not really authorised to grant such >>> access), can AfriNIC comment on how many members have granted them >>> access >>> to their equipment, and what did AfriNIC do to safe guard any data >>> pulled >>> from that equipment. >>> >>> Irrespective of all the facts of the case at hand, right now, I can only >>> say that the situation raises very serious questions about the checks >>> and >>> balances in place and the security mechanisms in place, and I really >>> feel >>> that the membership base should be demanding some very concrete answers >>> and reassurances. >>> >>> Thanks >>> >>> Andrew >>> >>> >>>> On 5/15/14, 6:36 PM, "Adiel Akplogan" wrote: >>>> >>>> Hello Kofi, >>>> >>>> Now, as I was expecting your engagement with this list to evolve into >>>> this very specific case that you have also alluded to on other lists >>>> before, I think the community deserve some further explanation of who >>>> you >>>> are and what all this is about. This specific case is also connected >>>> to a >>>> complain that has been field for investigation with local and >>>> international law enforcement for possible link to criminal activities. >>>> That is on the way and there are many details that we can not reveal >>>> here >>>> but in which you have been identified by the police as one suspect. >>>> >>>>> On May 15, 2014, at 17:25 PM, Kofi ansa akufo >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Yes there are many specific cases I need the community to take a close >>>>> look. Unfortunately as a former resource evaluation manager I am bound >>>>> by NDA by AFRINIC. >>>>> >>>>> I site one specific case which applicant has brought to my attention >>>>> which I need the community's support. >>>>> >>>>> Scenario: A prospective member applies to be a resourced member of >>>>> AFRINIC. His application gets approved after COMPLYING with policy. >>>>> AFRINIC billing department issues two invoices namely i.) Initial >>>>> Setup >>>>> Fees $4000 and ii.) Annual Membership Fees $12,800 as well as >>>>> Registration Service Agreement (RSA). There are NO payment deadlines >>>>> on >>>>> both invoices neither does any staff member of AFRINIC communicate >>>>> such >>>>> to applicant. >>>> >>>> You forgot to mention that it was YOU Kofi, as then staff of AFRINIC >>>> and >>>> IP Analyst who has evaluated this very specific application, and this, >>>> in >>>> an expedite way during the last days of your notice period. We later >>>> understood that you had a clear conflict of interest in this >>>> application >>>> as it doesn?t take long after you left the organisation that you start >>>> inquiring about the case and not long after be appointed by this same >>>> applicant as their consultant to represent them for the application. >>>> What >>>> do you think about that? >>>> >>>> We have carefully reviewed this specific case internally and noticed >>>> how >>>> that conflict of interest has played in the way you even handled the >>>> evaluation. >>>> >>>>> Nevertheless the applicant proceeds to sign the RSA which outlines a >>>>> contractual agreement between AFRINIC and the applicant. Applicant >>>>> further proceeds to make payment of initial setup fees of $4000 and >>>>> request for annual membership fees to be paid in parts due to recent >>>>> Forex transfer restrictions in country of operation. AFRINIC denies >>>>> the >>>>> request for payment in parts although they allow that in certain cases >>>>> as stated on their website. >>>> >>>> As ex-IP analyst at AFRINIC you should better know the internal policy >>>> use to approve split membership fees payment (when it accepted and when >>>> it is not). Seems like your 12 months working at AFRINIC has not given >>>> you enough knowledge of our internal process as you seems to be >>>> claiming >>>> and selling it to all your new "customer(s)". >>>> >>>>> The applicant request an invoice update due to elapsed time (2 months) >>>>> and AFRINIC never responds to the request. >>>>> >>>>> AFRINIC staff respond to member on the 89th day of a so called "90 >>>>> days" period in which application needs to be finalized. This 90 days >>>>> is >>>>> not published anywhere in policy, website or communicated to applicant >>>>> during the application process. Nevertheless again the applicant >>>>> responds that they are awaiting invoice update before payment. >>>>> >>>>> AFRINIC staff finally respond that the application has expired >>>>> contrary >>>>> to what is defined in the executed RSA and further tell applicant the >>>>> initial setup fees of $4000 paid is non-refundable and that applicant >>>>> needs to put in a new application. >>>> >>>> Well we have thoroughly reviewed the whole process of this specific >>>> application and a communication will reach the applicant soon (as you >>>> are >>>> their appointed consultant you should see a copy). >>>> >>>>> These are some of the kinds of frustration applicants face with >>>>> certain >>>>> staff members who refuse to stick to policies as well as contractual >>>>> agreements. >>>> >>>> You are completely misrepresenting the case and of course some members >>>> will be frustrated if instead of being honest and straight, they try to >>>> play the system and find themselves cornered by the Hostmaster team. >>>> And >>>> you as Ex-IP analyst trying to collude with such people who are trying >>>> to >>>> abuse the system is even worse and I think the community should be >>>> aware >>>> of such behaviour. This unfortunately explain why the team has became >>>> more and more demanding for each application. This unfortunately impact >>>> genuine applicants. But with people like you and alike around we will >>>> have no choice. >>>> >>>>> All that is needed in such a situation for AFRINIC team is to reissue >>>>> an updated invoice and enquire if the has been any changes in the >>>>> applicants IP resources requirement. If there has been any changes >>>>> request applicant to update IP address plan but NOT to tell the >>>>> applicant to resubmit a whole new application again when applicant was >>>>> not notified of any deadlines during application. >>>> >>>> Too much confusion from your side about the process. Proof that you >>>> have >>>> not even learn anything while working here beside trying to understand >>>> how to play the system from inside. >>>> >>>>> So is this specific case justified for fellow community members to >>>>> rally behind and knock on the doors of the CEO and AFRINIC to ask why >>>>> the consequence of inefficiency on the part of certain staff and >>>>> procedures in AFRINIC should be borne by a member :) >>>> >>>> That is a distraction tactic, diverting the attention of the community >>>> elsewhere so you and you allies get away with your maneuver? AFRINIC is >>>> an organisation that is based on honesty and you can not full a whole >>>> community. >>>> >>>> - a. >>>> >>>>> On May 15, 2014 2:49 PM, "Seun Ojedeji" >>>>> wrote: >>>>> Hello Kofi, >>>>> >>>>> Let me say a few personal words below >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 6:54 AM, Kofi ansa akufo >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I draw typical examples below; >>>>> >>>>> 1. The core activity of AFRINIC is managing internet resources for the >>>>> Region. What is seen now is more or less a passive approach to >>>>> evaluation of prospective members for resources. AFRINIC staff makes >>>>> it >>>>> difficult to get resources >>>>> >>>>> Hmm...maybe we should say the community makes it difficult, >>>>> considering >>>>> that staff will only follow community developed policy to allocate >>>>> resources. Nevertheless i am not even sure that difficult is the right >>>>> word to use here. Perhaps if you have specific concerns of scenarios >>>>> where you meet all the requirement and it still seem difficult to get >>>>> the resource, then you could share with the community and we can go >>>>> banging on the doors of staff with placard ;-) >>>>> YET when resources are granted there is little or no follow up >>>>> processes to chec From Ben.Roberts at liquidtelecom.com Fri May 16 18:54:25 2014 From: Ben.Roberts at liquidtelecom.com (Ben Roberts) Date: Fri, 16 May 2014 19:54:25 +0100 Subject: [rpd] IPv4 policy on where space is used. In-Reply-To: References: <2607AFE6-2BCE-47C3-8D94-6B469C7339A9@ghana.com> <9A2170D3-6890-4CF1-8EE0-BE0DD10DB371@afrinic.net> <7F4C376B-D71B-4753-8B61-5DA95644F96C@afrinic.net> <1AD24464-717D-4233-B6F2-2CF48424ADEE@afrinic.net> <1400180915.7312.65.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> <1400255332.13446.570.camel@mje.posix.co.za> Message-ID: <49DD319E-A9C6-4421-945B-42643CBB44B6@liquidtelecom.com> Thanks Seun. But it's not even about monitoring. As an African company leading the way in African Internet development we are expanding outwards. I will be opening network points in UAE and possibly Singapore this year expanding to Asia. Of course I should be allowed to use our resources there. Everyone seems to be worrying about Non African Internet companies encroaching in to use African IP resources. Just remember there are large African Internet companies moving outwards. We are one of those and I can think of others in the same category as well as groups of MNOs from Africa that are way bigger. Cheers Ben. Sent from my iPhone On 16 May 2014, at 19:22, "Seun Ojedeji" > wrote: This particular one being a good example of a company that has roots in Africa. For me I don't think it's more about spending more energy in monitoring how you as a member use IP. It's more of reviewing applicants membership requirements. Cheers! sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 16 May 2014 18:37, "Ben Roberts" > wrote: Speaking as an African multinational... We are headquartered in Mauritius and present with IP network in twelve countries in Africa and 2 in Europe. We are also RIPE members also and we pay a huge premium in LIR fees to Afrinic so I think I am entitled to use my IPs where I jolly well like and will oppose any policy proposal to restrict or prevent us from doing so! Cheers Ben Liquid Telecom Group Director of Network Strategy. Sent from my iPhone On 16 May 2014, at 18:29, "Stephen Wilcox" > wrote: On 16 May 2014 18:13, Seun Ojedeji > wrote: sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 16 May 2014 16:56, "Mark Elkins" > wrote: > > I believe this is one of the pains that AFRINIC Hostmasters are trying > to deal with at the moment. > Yeah and they can only try within the limits of the policy. > So what if we said that at least 50% of all > number resources had to be for equipment in Africa? > Hmmm... that's could be an option. Perhaps also be helpful to look at reviewing the requirements that makes an organisation African enough to be consider for resource. > Should be enough for a truly African ISP to use out of the area. > Yeah 50% is a fair deal, although the other puzzle could be how to verify this after resource assignment is done ;) hence the reason why further vetting of organisation establishment status and purpose may be needed. Just playing devil's advocate - but who will do this research and maintain it? What if an African multinational is acquired by a non-African company, does it have to free its resources? Or the other way around, a non-African company buying an African one can they suddenly request huge amounts of IP? > I'm looking at somehow disallowing an "African" entity from using all > the numbering resources out side of the Afrinic Region.... > Yeah a possibility that I just alluded to above. So the purpose of that African company should be checked. Things like: - What type of service do they provide and are they really services that utilises IP resource on physical infrastructures (such check more applicable to those applying as cloud services organization) - Who are their existing clients - History of establishment - Does employed staff and organisation base reflect as being continental. - Possibly a biannual check of resource usage statistics (if it's not a tall order) A company complicated enough to need this level of investigation and due diligence might well be a large company with a team of lawyers questioning how they can release information that may be under NDA. Indeed, how much client and contract information is reasonable to disclose before it becomes a liability? I think the more complicated you make the rules, the more loopholes and corner cases you create, plus more bureaucracy and red tape. Simple rules will scale better.. Steve Those tall checks above may not prevent IP export, but it could ensure some functional provider establishment in Africa. Hopefully we can see some policies proposals in that direction. Cheers! > > > > > > Cheers! > > > Regards > > > Steve > > > > > > > > > > > > On 16 May 2014 15:57, Saul > wrote: > > >> > > >> Personally I am in favour of keeping our resources regional. I > > think that we > > >> have all been offered large sums of money to get space and then > > sell it off > > >> the continent. > > >> > > >> But then its IP... does it really matter? > > >> > > >> -----Original Message----- > > >> From: rpd-bounces at afrinic.net [mailto:rpd-bounces at afrinic.net] On > > Behalf Of > > >> Mark Elkins > > >> Sent: 15 May 2014 09:09 PM > > >> To: rpd at afrinic.net > > >> Subject: [rpd] IPv4 policy on where space is used. > > >> > > >> On Thu, 2014-05-15 at 21:46 +0400, Kofi ansa akufo wrote: > > >> > ....the resource was going out of the region.... > > >> > > >> > > >> As far as I am aware, the current requirement for getting address > > space is > > >> that you are a company properly established (all legal - as such) > > in Africa. > > >> There is currently no policy (except with the last /8) that states > > the > > >> resources you get have to be used in Africa.... > > >> > > >> This might be good.... (get rid of all the IPv4, start using IPv6) > > or Bad... > > >> (we are doing *what* with our resources???) > > >> > > >> Maybe some policy needs to be designed - how do people feel... > > >> > > >> -- > > >> Mark James ELKINS - Posix Systems - (South) Africa > > >> mje at posix.co.za Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 > > >> For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: > > https://ftth.posix.co.za > > >> _______________________________________________ > > >> rpd mailing list > > >> rpd at afrinic.net > > >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > rpd mailing list > > > rpd at afrinic.net > > > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > rpd mailing list > > rpd at afrinic.net > > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > -- > Mark James ELKINS - Posix Systems - (South) Africa > mje at posix.co.za Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 > For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: https://ftth.posix.co.za > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > _______________________________________________ rpd mailing list rpd at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd ________________________________ DISCLAIMER: This email contains proprietary information some or all of which may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this email, please notify the author by replying to this email. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose, copy, print, or rely on this email. We cannot accept liability for any statements made which are clearly the sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of this company or one of its agents. ________________________________ DISCLAIMER: This email contains proprietary information some or all of which may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this email, please notify the author by replying to this email. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose, copy, print, or rely on this email. We cannot accept liability for any statements made which are clearly the sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of this company or one of its agents. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com Fri May 16 18:57:25 2014 From: Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com (Andrew Alston) Date: Fri, 16 May 2014 19:57:25 +0100 Subject: [rpd] Discussion about e-voting Message-ID: Hi Nii, Perhaps I misread you, but where I was disagreeing was the fact that the focus should be merely on policy issues, when I think at this point the corporate governance issues are just as, if not more, critical. Particularly since Afrinic's instance on certain things is actually decreasing the numbers of potential active voting members in the forthcoming election. Thanks Andrew Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone. -------- Original message -------- From: Nii Narku Quaynor Date:16/05/2014 21:52 (GMT+03:00) To: Andrew Alston Cc: Andrew Alston , AfriNIC Discuss , rpd Subject: Re: [rpd] Discussion about e-voting Andrew, Huh, what exactly did you disagree with? I wanted us to hear from board and you want same;-) I also thought hearing from legal would help. I never said CEO should not say anymore Perhaps we should not be disagreeing Nii > On May 16, 2014, at 15:48, Andrew Alston wrote: > > Hi Nii, > > I actually have to disagree with you here. I view these as critical > issues that need to be addressed, and the only time this community gets to > interact directly with the board and where the board can properly address > these concerns is at the meetings, one of which is coming up. Further > more, the identification document issue is preventing people from > registering to electronically vote (I know several people who have point > blank refused to register for e-voting over security concerns about those > ID documents), and this has a direct impact on the elections coming up in > Djibouti. > > As such, I believe that we need as members to hear directly from the CEO > or the Board on these issues BEFORE Djibouti. > > Alternatively, if these issues cannot be addressed before/in Djibouti, and > if there is insufficient time to deal with these issues now, perhaps it is > time to see if there is sufficient member support to invoke clause 7.6 > viii of the bylaws? > > Thanks > > Andrew > > >> On 5/16/14, 5:34 PM, "Nii Narku Quaynor" wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> Andrew's concerns are relevant. After having read from CEO perhaps a word >> from Afrinic lawyer and Board would help >> >> However, with only few weeks to Djibouti we might focus on policy related >> matters to advantage >> >> Best regards >> Nii >> >>> On May 15, 2014, at 21:04, Andrew Alston >>> wrote: >>> >>> Hi All, >>> >>> Let me start this email by saying I do not know the details of this >>> case, >>> nor do I know the individuals involved. >>> >>> That being said, this exchange of emails has raised some very >>> interesting >>> questions that I feel AfriNIC needs to answer. Let it be stated very >>> clearly that I am not taking any sides here but the situation referred >>> to >>> in the previous emails does have impact on the entire African community, >>> since there seems to be a large amount of space that has walked off the >>> continent. So, here goes with the questions. >>> >>> 1.) I have been repeatedly informed that large allocations are checked >>> and >>> signed off by the board, based on what is said here, is AfriNIC >>> admitting >>> that the board failed in the checks which they have very plainly stated >>> are done on large allocations >>> >>> 2.) Raised from an earlier point about AfriNIC requesting ID documents >>> for >>> certificates in order to electronically vote. Considering that (as >>> stated >>> in previous emails), AfriNIC does not require such documentation for any >>> other transactions, and considering that AfriNIC has not given the >>> community ANY information about the data storage and security, and in >>> addition the fact that the certificates are issued to individuals, and >>> the >>> ID documents are issued to AfriNIC by individuals with absolutely no >>> confidentiality agreements or NDA?s in place (effectively meaning that >>> should the documents get leaked, there is absolutely no recourse against >>> AfriNIC), this situation raises some VERY serious concerns. >>> >>> Irrespective of the facts or the rights and wrongs of this case, what >>> AfriNIC is effectively saying here is, we had an individual that broke >>> the >>> rules, bypassed our checks and balances, hoodwinked the board that had >>> to >>> sign off the allocation and effectively committed a criminal offence. >>> In >>> the same breath, they are saying, give us documents which we will not >>> state how we are storing, how we are going to use, and with no >>> guarantees >>> of confidentiality. On a continent with such rife identity fraud and >>> identity theft? let me be blunt? this REALLY scares me! >>> >>> 3.) Considering that AfriNIC has in documented cases requested access to >>> members equipment, and such requests have come from members of the IP >>> evaluation team, and such access has in certain cases been granted (in >>> one >>> case I know of by someone who was not really authorised to grant such >>> access), can AfriNIC comment on how many members have granted them >>> access >>> to their equipment, and what did AfriNIC do to safe guard any data >>> pulled >>> from that equipment. >>> >>> Irrespective of all the facts of the case at hand, right now, I can only >>> say that the situation raises very serious questions about the checks >>> and >>> balances in place and the security mechanisms in place, and I really >>> feel >>> that the membership base should be demanding some very concrete answers >>> and reassurances. >>> >>> Thanks >>> >>> Andrew >>> >>> >>>> On 5/15/14, 6:36 PM, "Adiel Akplogan" wrote: >>>> >>>> Hello Kofi, >>>> >>>> Now, as I was expecting your engagement with this list to evolve into >>>> this very specific case that you have also alluded to on other lists >>>> before, I think the community deserve some further explanation of who >>>> you >>>> are and what all this is about. This specific case is also connected >>>> to a >>>> complain that has been field for investigation with local and >>>> international law enforcement for possible link to criminal activities. >>>> That is on the way and there are many details that we can not reveal >>>> here >>>> but in which you have been identified by the police as one suspect. >>>> >>>>> On May 15, 2014, at 17:25 PM, Kofi ansa akufo >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Yes there are many specific cases I need the community to take a close >>>>> look. Unfortunately as a former resource evaluation manager I am bound >>>>> by NDA by AFRINIC. >>>>> >>>>> I site one specific case which applicant has brought to my attention >>>>> which I need the community's support. >>>>> >>>>> Scenario: A prospective member applies to be a resourced member of >>>>> AFRINIC. His application gets approved after COMPLYING with policy. >>>>> AFRINIC billing department issues two invoices namely i.) Initial >>>>> Setup >>>>> Fees $4000 and ii.) Annual Membership Fees $12,800 as well as >>>>> Registration Service Agreement (RSA). There are NO payment deadlines >>>>> on >>>>> both invoices neither does any staff member of AFRINIC communicate >>>>> such >>>>> to applicant. >>>> >>>> You forgot to mention that it was YOU Kofi, as then staff of AFRINIC >>>> and >>>> IP Analyst who has evaluated this very specific application, and this, >>>> in >>>> an expedite way during the last days of your notice period. We later >>>> understood that you had a clear conflict of interest in this >>>> application >>>> as it doesn?t take long after you left the organisation that you start >>>> inquiring about the case and not long after be appointed by this same >>>> applicant as their consultant to represent them for the application. >>>> What >>>> do you think about that? >>>> >>>> We have carefully reviewed this specific case internally and noticed >>>> how >>>> that conflict of interest has played in the way you even handled the >>>> evaluation. >>>> >>>>> Nevertheless the applicant proceeds to sign the RSA which outlines a >>>>> contractual agreement between AFRINIC and the applicant. Applicant >>>>> further proceeds to make payment of initial setup fees of $4000 and >>>>> request for annual membership fees to be paid in parts due to recent >>>>> Forex transfer restrictions in country of operation. AFRINIC denies >>>>> the >>>>> request for payment in parts although they allow that in certain cases >>>>> as stated on their website. >>>> >>>> As ex-IP analyst at AFRINIC you should better know the internal policy >>>> use to approve split membership fees payment (when it accepted and when >>>> it is not). Seems like your 12 months working at AFRINIC has not given >>>> you enough knowledge of our internal process as you seems to be >>>> claiming >>>> and selling it to all your new "customer(s)". >>>> >>>>> The applicant request an invoice update due to elapsed time (2 months) >>>>> and AFRINIC never responds to the request. >>>>> >>>>> AFRINIC staff respond to member on the 89th day of a so called "90 >>>>> days" period in which application needs to be finalized. This 90 days >>>>> is >>>>> not published anywhere in policy, website or communicated to applicant >>>>> during the application process. Nevertheless again the applicant >>>>> responds that they are awaiting invoice update before payment. >>>>> >>>>> AFRINIC staff finally respond that the application has expired >>>>> contrary >>>>> to what is defined in the executed RSA and further tell applicant the >>>>> initial setup fees of $4000 paid is non-refundable and that applicant >>>>> needs to put in a new application. >>>> >>>> Well we have thoroughly reviewed the whole process of this specific >>>> application and a communication will reach the applicant soon (as you >>>> are >>>> their appointed consultant you should see a copy). >>>> >>>>> These are some of the kinds of frustration applicants face with >>>>> certain >>>>> staff members who refuse to stick to policies as well as contractual >>>>> agreements. >>>> >>>> You are completely misrepresenting the case and of course some members >>>> will be frustrated if instead of being honest and straight, they try to >>>> play the system and find themselves cornered by the Hostmaster team. >>>> And >>>> you as Ex-IP analyst trying to collude with such people who are trying >>>> to >>>> abuse the system is even worse and I think the community should be >>>> aware >>>> of such behaviour. This unfortunately explain why the team has became >>>> more and more demanding for each application. This unfortunately impact >>>> genuine applicants. But with people like you and alike around we will >>>> have no choice. >>>> >>>>> All that is needed in such a situation for AFRINIC team is to reissue >>>>> an updated invoice and enquire if the has been any changes in the >>>>> applicants IP resources requirement. If there has been any changes >>>>> request applicant to update IP address plan but NOT to tell the >>>>> applicant to resubmit a whole new application again when applicant was >>>>> not notified of any deadlines during application. >>>> >>>> Too much confusion from your side about the process. Proof that you >>>> have >>>> not even learn anything while working here beside trying to understand >>>> how to play the system from inside. >>>> >>>>> So is this specific case justified for fellow community members to >>>>> rally behind and knock on the doors of the CEO and AFRINIC to ask why >>>>> the consequence of inefficiency on the part of certain staff and >>>>> procedures in AFRINIC should be borne by a member :) >>>> >>>> That is a distraction tactic, diverting the attention of the community >>>> elsewhere so you and you allies get away with your maneuver? AFRINIC is >>>> an organisation that is based on honesty and you can not full a whole >>>> community. >>>> >>>> - a. >>>> >>>>> On May 15, 2014 2:49 PM, "Seun Ojedeji" >>>>> wrote: >>>>> Hello Kofi, >>>>> >>>>> Let me say a few personal words below >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 6:54 AM, Kofi ansa akufo >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I draw typical examples below; >>>>> >>>>> 1. The core activity of AFRINIC is managing internet resources for the >>>>> Region. What is seen now is more or less a passive approach to >>>>> evaluation of prospective members for resources. AFRINIC staff makes >>>>> it >>>>> difficult to get resources >>>>> >>>>> Hmm...maybe we should say the community makes it difficult, >>>>> considering >>>>> that staff will only follow community developed policy to allocate >>>>> resources. Nevertheless i am not even sure that difficult is the right >>>>> word to use here. Perhaps if you have specific concerns of scenarios >>>>> where you meet all the requirement and it still seem difficult to get >>>>> the resource, then you could share with the community and we can go >>>>> banging on the doors of staff with placard ;-) >>>>> YET when resources are granted there is little or no follow up >>>>> processes to chec ________________________________ DISCLAIMER: This email contains proprietary information some or all of which may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this email, please notify the author by replying to this email. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose, copy, print, or rely on this email. We cannot accept liability for any statements made which are clearly the sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of this company or one of its agents. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From keshwarsingh.nadan at millenium.mu Fri May 16 18:58:37 2014 From: keshwarsingh.nadan at millenium.mu (Keshwarsingh Nadan) Date: Fri, 16 May 2014 18:58:37 +0000 Subject: [rpd] IPv4 policy on where space is used. In-Reply-To: References: <2607AFE6-2BCE-47C3-8D94-6B469C7339A9@ghana.com> <9A2170D3-6890-4CF1-8EE0-BE0DD10DB371@afrinic.net> <7F4C376B-D71B-4753-8B61-5DA95644F96C@afrinic.net> <1AD24464-717D-4233-B6F2-2CF48424ADEE@afrinic.net> <1400180915.7312.65.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> <1400255332.13446.570.camel@mje.posix.co.za>, Message-ID: <8139A2D4BA5CE94C98E1A584DDEA67934B2873@exchange1.prod.servihoo.net> >Hmmm... that's could be an option. Perhaps also be helpful to look at reviewing the requirements that makes an organisation African enough to be consider for resource. Discrimination >Yeah a possibility that I just alluded to above. So the purpose of that African company should be checked. Things like: - What type of service do they provide and are they really services that utilises IP resource on physical infrastructures (such check more applicable to those applying as cloud services organisation) Physical or cloud, as long as the justifications are reasonable and valid in their nature, those should be accepted. >- Who are their existing clients Breach of confidentiality agreement (if any) between the serving LIR and its clients. Possible only if AfriNIC is willing to execute a three party NDA. >- History of establishment Discrimination >- Does employed staff and organisation base reflect as being continental. Discrimination >- Possibly a biannual check of resource usage statistics (if it's not a tall order) Possible, but risky. -- K From carlosm3011 at gmail.com Fri May 16 19:05:42 2014 From: carlosm3011 at gmail.com (Carlos M. Martinez) Date: Fri, 16 May 2014 16:05:42 -0300 Subject: [rpd] IPv4 policy on where space is used. In-Reply-To: <49DD319E-A9C6-4421-945B-42643CBB44B6@liquidtelecom.com> References: <2607AFE6-2BCE-47C3-8D94-6B469C7339A9@ghana.com> <1AD24464-717D-4233-B6F2-2CF48424ADEE@afrinic.net> <1400180915.7312.65.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> <1400255332.13446.570.camel@mje.posix.co.za> <49DD319E-A9C6-4421-945B-42643CBB44B6@liquidtelecom.com> Message-ID: <53766186.6010206@gmail.com> As an historical side note: when I was part of the community and not LACNIC staff I always opposed policies trying to limit where our resources were to be used. My argument at the time was that it would severely limit the ability of Latin American companies to sucesfully compete in other regions. If one of our region's giants (Telmex comes to mind, but there are several others) wants to open a facility like a big Datacenter or NAP in, let's say, Asia, why should a policy limit its ability to use its resources there? Whether this applies to Africa or not, I don't know, but I felt my past experience & feelings on the topic could be interesting to you. warm regards, ~Carlos On 5/16/14, 3:54 PM, Ben Roberts wrote: > Thanks Seun. > > But it's not even about monitoring. As an African company leading the > way in African Internet development we are expanding outwards. I will be > opening network points in UAE and possibly Singapore this year expanding > to Asia. Of course I should be allowed to use our resources there. > > Everyone seems to be worrying about Non African Internet companies > encroaching in to use African IP resources. Just remember there are > large African Internet companies moving outwards. We are one of those > and I can think of others in the same category as well as groups of MNOs > from Africa that are way bigger. > > Cheers > Ben. > > Sent from my iPhone > > On 16 May 2014, at 19:22, "Seun Ojedeji" > wrote: > >> This particular one being a good example of a company that has roots >> in Africa. For me I don't think it's more about spending more energy >> in monitoring how you as a member use IP. It's more of reviewing >> applicants membership requirements. >> >> Cheers! >> sent from Google nexus 4 >> kindly excuse brevity and typos. >> >> On 16 May 2014 18:37, "Ben Roberts" > > wrote: >> >> Speaking as an African multinational... >> >> We are headquartered in Mauritius and present with IP network in >> twelve countries in Africa and 2 in Europe. We are also RIPE >> members also and we pay a huge premium in LIR fees to Afrinic so I >> think I am entitled to use my IPs where I jolly well like and will >> oppose any policy proposal to restrict or prevent us from doing so! >> >> Cheers >> Ben >> Liquid Telecom Group Director of Network Strategy. >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On 16 May 2014, at 18:29, "Stephen Wilcox" >> > wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 16 May 2014 18:13, Seun Ojedeji >> > wrote: >>> >>> sent from Google nexus 4 >>> kindly excuse brevity and typos. >>> On 16 May 2014 16:56, "Mark Elkins" >> > wrote: >>> > >>> > I believe this is one of the pains that AFRINIC Hostmasters >>> are trying >>> > to deal with at the moment. >>> > >>> Yeah and they can only try within the limits of the policy. >>> >>> > >>> So what if we said that at least 50% of all >>> > number resources had to be for equipment in Africa? >>> > >>> Hmmm... that's could be an option. Perhaps also be helpful to >>> look at reviewing the requirements that makes an organisation >>> African enough to be consider for resource. >>> >>> > Should be enough for a truly African ISP to use out of the >>> area. >>> > >>> Yeah 50% is a fair deal, although the other puzzle could be >>> how to verify this after resource assignment is done ;) hence >>> the reason why further vetting of organisation establishment >>> status and purpose may be needed. >>> >>> >>> Just playing devil's advocate - but who will do this research and >>> maintain it? What if an African multinational is acquired by a >>> non-African company, does it have to free its resources? Or the >>> other way around, a non-African company buying an African one can >>> they suddenly request huge amounts of IP? >>> >>> >>> > I'm looking at somehow disallowing an "African" entity from >>> using all >>> > the numbering resources out side of the Afrinic Region.... >>> > >>> Yeah a possibility that I just alluded to above. So the >>> purpose of that African company should be checked. Things like: >>> >>> - What type of service do they provide and are they really >>> services that utilises IP resource on physical >>> infrastructures (such check more applicable to those applying >>> as cloud services organization) >>> - Who are their existing clients >>> - History of establishment >>> - Does employed staff and organisation base reflect as being >>> continental. >>> - Possibly a biannual check of resource usage statistics (if >>> it's not a tall order) >>> >>> A company complicated enough to need this level of investigation >>> and due diligence might well be a large company with a team of >>> lawyers questioning how they can release information that may be >>> under NDA. Indeed, how much client and contract information is >>> reasonable to disclose before it becomes a liability? >>> >>> >>> I think the more complicated you make the rules, the more >>> loopholes and corner cases you create, plus more bureaucracy and >>> red tape. Simple rules will scale better.. >>> >>> Steve >>> >>> Those tall checks above may not prevent IP export, but it >>> could ensure some functional provider establishment in Africa. >>> >>> Hopefully we can see some policies proposals in that direction. >>> >>> Cheers! >>> >>> >>> > >>> > >>> > > >>> > > Cheers! >>> > > > Regards >>> > > > Steve >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > On 16 May 2014 15:57, Saul >> > wrote: >>> > > >> >>> > > >> Personally I am in favour of keeping our resources >>> regional. I >>> > > think that we >>> > > >> have all been offered large sums of money to get space >>> and then >>> > > sell it off >>> > > >> the continent. >>> > > >> >>> > > >> But then its IP... does it really matter? >>> > > >> >>> > > >> -----Original Message----- >>> > > >> From: rpd-bounces at afrinic.net >>> >>> [mailto:rpd-bounces at afrinic.net >>> ] On >>> > > Behalf Of >>> > > >> Mark Elkins >>> > > >> Sent: 15 May 2014 09:09 PM >>> > > >> To: rpd at afrinic.net >>> > > >> Subject: [rpd] IPv4 policy on where space is used. >>> > > >> >>> > > >> On Thu, 2014-05-15 at 21:46 +0400, Kofi ansa akufo wrote: >>> > > >> > ....the resource was going out of the region.... >>> > > >> >>> > > >> >>> > > >> As far as I am aware, the current requirement for >>> getting address >>> > > space is >>> > > >> that you are a company properly established (all legal >>> - as such) >>> > > in Africa. >>> > > >> There is currently no policy (except with the last /8) >>> that states >>> > > the >>> > > >> resources you get have to be used in Africa.... >>> > > >> >>> > > >> This might be good.... (get rid of all the IPv4, start >>> using IPv6) >>> > > or Bad... >>> > > >> (we are doing *what* with our resources???) >>> > > >> >>> > > >> Maybe some policy needs to be designed - how do people >>> feel... >>> > > >> >>> > > >> -- >>> > > >> Mark James ELKINS - Posix Systems - (South) Africa >>> > > >> mje at posix.co.za Tel: >>> +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 >>> >>> > > >> For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: >>> > > https://ftth.posix.co.za >>> > > >> _______________________________________________ >>> > > >> rpd mailing list >>> > > >> rpd at afrinic.net >>> > > >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > _______________________________________________ >>> > > > rpd mailing list >>> > > > rpd at afrinic.net >>> > > > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >>> > > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > _______________________________________________ >>> > > rpd mailing list >>> > > rpd at afrinic.net >>> > > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >>> > >>> > -- >>> > Mark James ELKINS - Posix Systems - (South) Africa >>> > mje at posix.co.za Tel: >>> +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 >>> >>> > For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: >>> https://ftth.posix.co.za >>> > >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > rpd mailing list >>> > rpd at afrinic.net >>> > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >>> > >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> rpd mailing list >>> rpd at afrinic.net >>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> DISCLAIMER: This email contains proprietary information some or >> all of which may be legally privileged. It is for the intended >> recipient only. If an addressing or transmission error has >> misdirected this email, please notify the author by replying to >> this email. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not >> use, disclose, copy, print, or rely on this email. We cannot >> accept liability for any statements made which are clearly the >> sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of this company or >> one of its agents. >> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > DISCLAIMER: This email contains proprietary information some or all of > which may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. > If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this email, > please notify the author by replying to this email. If you are not the > intended recipient, you must not use, disclose, copy, print, or rely on > this email. We cannot accept liability for any statements made which are > clearly the sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of this > company or one of its agents. > > > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com Fri May 16 20:07:11 2014 From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji) Date: Fri, 16 May 2014 21:07:11 +0100 Subject: [rpd] IPv4 policy on where space is used. In-Reply-To: <49DD319E-A9C6-4421-945B-42643CBB44B6@liquidtelecom.com> References: <2607AFE6-2BCE-47C3-8D94-6B469C7339A9@ghana.com> <9A2170D3-6890-4CF1-8EE0-BE0DD10DB371@afrinic.net> <7F4C376B-D71B-4753-8B61-5DA95644F96C@afrinic.net> <1AD24464-717D-4233-B6F2-2CF48424ADEE@afrinic.net> <1400180915.7312.65.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> <1400255332.13446.570.camel@mje.posix.co.za> <49DD319E-A9C6-4421-945B-42643CBB44B6@liquidtelecom.com> Message-ID: Hello Ben, On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 7:54 PM, Ben Roberts wrote: > Thanks Seun. > > But it's not even about monitoring. > Yeah i am also with you on this. > As an African company leading the way in African Internet development we > are expanding outwards. I will be opening network points in UAE and > possibly Singapore this year expanding to Asia. Of course I should be > allowed to use our resources there. > +1 and we are proud of you ;) This could be why we should ensure that you are encouraged while also making sure that as you spread your tentacles you don't forget home ;) Inview of this wouldn't you think it will be a good thing to motivate you with a 50% local and 50% abroad on resource? If not, what percentage would you think is fair enough. > > Everyone seems to be worrying about Non African Internet companies > encroaching in to use African IP resources. Just remember there are large > African Internet companies moving outwards. We are one of those and I can > think of others in the same category as well as groups of MNOs from Africa > that are way bigger. > Just that considering the recent exhaustions in other region, Africa seem to have become the cake on the table with all regions grabbing their cutleries to have their share of it ;). So don't you think it will be good to make those IP resource available to companies like you (that has base in Africa) so that even when you go abroad you will still have IP to use (considering that v4 addresses is almost exhausted in that region)? One of the usual question is to burn v4 to make way for v6; should we burn to external or burn within? Remember that Afrinic has the least of /8s among all the RIRs. Kind Regards > > Cheers > Ben. > > Sent from my iPhone > > On 16 May 2014, at 19:22, "Seun Ojedeji" wrote: > > This particular one being a good example of a company that has roots in > Africa. For me I don't think it's more about spending more energy in > monitoring how you as a member use IP. It's more of reviewing applicants > membership requirements. > > Cheers! > sent from Google nexus 4 > kindly excuse brevity and typos. > On 16 May 2014 18:37, "Ben Roberts" wrote: > >> Speaking as an African multinational... >> >> We are headquartered in Mauritius and present with IP network in >> twelve countries in Africa and 2 in Europe. We are also RIPE members also >> and we pay a huge premium in LIR fees to Afrinic so I think I am entitled >> to use my IPs where I jolly well like and will oppose any policy proposal >> to restrict or prevent us from doing so! >> >> Cheers >> Ben >> Liquid Telecom Group Director of Network Strategy. >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On 16 May 2014, at 18:29, "Stephen Wilcox" >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> On 16 May 2014 18:13, Seun Ojedeji wrote: >> >>> sent from Google nexus 4 >>> kindly excuse brevity and typos. >>> On 16 May 2014 16:56, "Mark Elkins" wrote: >>> > >>> > I believe this is one of the pains that AFRINIC Hostmasters are trying >>> > to deal with at the moment. >>> > >>> Yeah and they can only try within the limits of the policy. >>> >>> > >>> So what if we said that at least 50% of all >>> > number resources had to be for equipment in Africa? >>> > >>> Hmmm... that's could be an option. Perhaps also be helpful to look at >>> reviewing the requirements that makes an organisation African enough to be >>> consider for resource. >>> >>> > Should be enough for a truly African ISP to use out of the area. >>> > >>> Yeah 50% is a fair deal, although the other puzzle could be how to >>> verify this after resource assignment is done ;) hence the reason why >>> further vetting of organisation establishment status and purpose may be >>> needed. >> >> >> Just playing devil's advocate - but who will do this research and >> maintain it? What if an African multinational is acquired by a non-African >> company, does it have to free its resources? Or the other way around, a >> non-African company buying an African one can they suddenly request huge >> amounts of IP? >> >> >>> > I'm looking at somehow disallowing an "African" entity from using all >>> > the numbering resources out side of the Afrinic Region.... >>> > >>> Yeah a possibility that I just alluded to above. So the purpose of that >>> African company should be checked. Things like: >>> >>> - What type of service do they provide and are they really services that >>> utilises IP resource on physical infrastructures (such check more >>> applicable to those applying as cloud services organization) >>> - Who are their existing clients >>> - History of establishment >>> - Does employed staff and organisation base reflect as being >>> continental. >>> - Possibly a biannual check of resource usage statistics (if it's not a >>> tall order) >>> >> A company complicated enough to need this level of investigation and due >> diligence might well be a large company with a team of lawyers questioning >> how they can release information that may be under NDA. Indeed, how much >> client and contract information is reasonable to disclose before it becomes >> a liability? >> >> >> I think the more complicated you make the rules, the more loopholes and >> corner cases you create, plus more bureaucracy and red tape. Simple rules >> will scale better.. >> >> Steve >> >> Those tall checks above may not prevent IP export, but it could ensure >>> some functional provider establishment in Africa. >>> >>> Hopefully we can see some policies proposals in that direction. >>> >>> Cheers! >>> >>> > >>> > >>> > > >>> > > Cheers! >>> > > > Regards >>> > > > Steve >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > On 16 May 2014 15:57, Saul wrote: >>> > > >> >>> > > >> Personally I am in favour of keeping our resources regional. I >>> > > think that we >>> > > >> have all been offered large sums of money to get space and then >>> > > sell it off >>> > > >> the continent. >>> > > >> >>> > > >> But then its IP... does it really matter? >>> > > >> >>> > > >> -----Original Message----- >>> > > >> From: rpd-bounces at afrinic.net [mailto:rpd-bounces at afrinic.net] On >>> > > Behalf Of >>> > > >> Mark Elkins >>> > > >> Sent: 15 May 2014 09:09 PM >>> > > >> To: rpd at afrinic.net >>> > > >> Subject: [rpd] IPv4 policy on where space is used. >>> > > >> >>> > > >> On Thu, 2014-05-15 at 21:46 +0400, Kofi ansa akufo wrote: >>> > > >> > ....the resource was going out of the region.... >>> > > >> >>> > > >> >>> > > >> As far as I am aware, the current requirement for getting address >>> > > space is >>> > > >> that you are a company properly established (all legal - as such) >>> > > in Africa. >>> > > >> There is currently no policy (except with the last /8) that states >>> > > the >>> > > >> resources you get have to be used in Africa.... >>> > > >> >>> > > >> This might be good.... (get rid of all the IPv4, start using IPv6) >>> > > or Bad... >>> > > >> (we are doing *what* with our resources???) >>> > > >> >>> > > >> Maybe some policy needs to be designed - how do people feel... >>> > > >> >>> > > >> -- >>> > > >> Mark James ELKINS - Posix Systems - (South) Africa >>> > > >> mje at posix.co.za Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 >>> > > >> For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: >>> > > https://ftth.posix.co.za >>> > > >> _______________________________________________ >>> > > >> rpd mailing list >>> > > >> rpd at afrinic.net >>> > > >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > _______________________________________________ >>> > > > rpd mailing list >>> > > > rpd at afrinic.net >>> > > > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >>> > > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > _______________________________________________ >>> > > rpd mailing list >>> > > rpd at afrinic.net >>> > > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >>> > >>> > -- >>> > Mark James ELKINS - Posix Systems - (South) Africa >>> > mje at posix.co.za Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 >>> > For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: https://ftth.posix.co.za >>> > >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > rpd mailing list >>> > rpd at afrinic.net >>> > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >>> > >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> rpd mailing list >>> rpd at afrinic.net >>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> DISCLAIMER: This email contains proprietary information some or all of >> which may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. If >> an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this email, please >> notify the author by replying to this email. If you are not the intended >> recipient, you must not use, disclose, copy, print, or rely on this email. >> We cannot accept liability for any statements made which are clearly the >> sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of this company or one of its >> agents. >> >> > ------------------------------ > DISCLAIMER: This email contains proprietary information some or all of > which may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. If > an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this email, please > notify the author by replying to this email. If you are not the intended > recipient, you must not use, disclose, copy, print, or rely on this email. > We cannot accept liability for any statements made which are clearly the > sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of this company or one of its > agents. > > -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng * The key to understanding is humility - my view ! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Ben.Roberts at liquidtelecom.com Fri May 16 22:14:01 2014 From: Ben.Roberts at liquidtelecom.com (Ben Roberts) Date: Fri, 16 May 2014 23:14:01 +0100 Subject: [rpd] IPv4 policy on where space is used. In-Reply-To: References: <2607AFE6-2BCE-47C3-8D94-6B469C7339A9@ghana.com> <9A2170D3-6890-4CF1-8EE0-BE0DD10DB371@afrinic.net> <7F4C376B-D71B-4753-8B61-5DA95644F96C@afrinic.net> <1AD24464-717D-4233-B6F2-2CF48424ADEE@afrinic.net> <1400180915.7312.65.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> <1400255332.13446.570.camel@mje.posix.co.za> <49DD319E-A9C6-4421-945B-42643CBB44B6@liquidtelecom.com> Message-ID: <75D9E933-C703-4003-9CEB-4198A079A527@liquidtelecom.com> Good question here ' should we burn to external or burn within? ' Personally I think that we need to use from within. Not burn in a wasteful way, but try to use quickly. Every reason we can do that since in Africa we are connecting citizens to the Internet for the first time faster than any other place. But I know of MNOs with millions of 3G subscribers with all private IPs for users and just one NAT public address on their GGSN. No reason at all to go to such lengths. If we don't use them them someone else will use them, whether that be a redistribution forced upon us by ICANN or companies suddenly opening African entities to grab IP resources. My concern is... That certain people within this AFRINIC community are thinking of how Africa can cling onto these numbers to profit from this dwindling resource by selling to the highest desperate bidder and making a fast buck. Another good reason to push the IPv4 exhaustion agenda since most of us don't want to see this. Cheers Ben Sent from my iPhone > On 16 May 2014, at 21:07, "Seun Ojedeji" wrote: > > should we burn to external or burn within? DISCLAIMER: This email contains proprietary information some or all of which may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this email, please notify the author by replying to this email. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose, copy, print, or rely on this email. We cannot accept liability for any statements made which are clearly the sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of this company or one of its agents. From geier at geier.ne.tz Sat May 17 07:27:47 2014 From: geier at geier.ne.tz (Frank Habicht) Date: Sat, 17 May 2014 10:27:47 +0300 Subject: [rpd] IPv4 policy on where space is used. In-Reply-To: <1400180915.7312.65.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> References: <2607AFE6-2BCE-47C3-8D94-6B469C7339A9@ghana.com> <9A2170D3-6890-4CF1-8EE0-BE0DD10DB371@afrinic.net> <7F4C376B-D71B-4753-8B61-5DA95644F96C@afrinic.net> <1AD24464-717D-4233-B6F2-2CF48424ADEE@afrinic.net> <1400180915.7312.65.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> Message-ID: <53770F73.5090506@geier.ne.tz> Hi, On 5/15/2014 10:08 PM, Mark Elkins wrote: > Maybe some policy needs to be designed - how do people feel... the deck chairs will be wet before we know how to arrange them (the policy is through). (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/rearrange_the_deck_chairs_on_the_Titanic) Frank From saul at enetworks.co.za Sat May 17 08:10:24 2014 From: saul at enetworks.co.za (Saul) Date: Sat, 17 May 2014 10:10:24 +0200 (SAST) Subject: [rpd] IPv4 policy on where space is used. In-Reply-To: References: <2607AFE6-2BCE-47C3-8D94-6B469C7339A9@ghana.com> <9A2170D3-6890-4CF1-8EE0-BE0DD10DB371@afrinic.net> <7F4C376B-D71B-4753-8B61-5DA95644F96C@afrinic.net> <1AD24464-717D-4233-B6F2-2CF48424ADEE@afrinic.net> <1400180915.7312.65.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> Message-ID: <3448cda5.00001abc.000001b4@SAUL-PC.eNetworks.local> Hi Stephen, As many have already said, if you are an African company use your resources wherever in the universe ? I am fine with that. I am referring to the following scenario: Company X is a member of Afrinic and gets resources. Copmany Y from India pays $10000000000 for this space, not a member of AFINIC and has no legitimate business in AFRICA. So this takes care of companies being acquired ? they?re still going to have a presence in AFRICA and I think that there is a policy to transfer resources to other RIRs if the purchasing company wished to do that. I haven?t read this policy, so don?t know the implications. My 2c From: Stephen Wilcox [mailto:steve.wilcox at ixreach.com] Sent: 16 May 2014 05:12 PM To: Saul Cc: mje at posix.co.za; rpd at afrinic.net List Subject: Re: [rpd] IPv4 policy on where space is used. Hi Saul, so a successful African company that wishes to expand outside Africa is forced to go to APNIC, RIPE, etc who are unable to assign space as they have ran out. Isn't this an issue with regionalising resources for global business? Regards Steve On 16 May 2014 15:57, Saul > wrote: Personally I am in favour of keeping our resources regional. I think that we have all been offered large sums of money to get space and then sell it off the continent. But then its IP... does it really matter? -----Original Message----- From: rpd-bounces at afrinic.net [mailto:rpd-bounces at afrinic.net ] On Behalf Of Mark Elkins Sent: 15 May 2014 09:09 PM To: rpd at afrinic.net Subject: [rpd] IPv4 policy on where space is used. On Thu, 2014-05-15 at 21:46 +0400, Kofi ansa akufo wrote: > ....the resource was going out of the region.... As far as I am aware, the current requirement for getting address space is that you are a company properly established (all legal - as such) in Africa. There is currently no policy (except with the last /8) that states the resources you get have to be used in Africa.... This might be good.... (get rid of all the IPv4, start using IPv6) or Bad... (we are doing *what* with our resources???) Maybe some policy needs to be designed - how do people feel... -- Mark James ELKINS - Posix Systems - (South) Africa mje at posix.co.za Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: https://ftth.posix.co.za _______________________________________________ rpd mailing list rpd at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From geier at geier.ne.tz Sat May 17 09:43:40 2014 From: geier at geier.ne.tz (Frank Habicht) Date: Sat, 17 May 2014 12:43:40 +0300 Subject: [rpd] AFRINIC Board Elections - 2014: Call for Nominations In-Reply-To: <1399473298.12025.113.camel@dhcp15.posix.co.za> References: <72B07AC2-F4C2-4A95-B9BA-E71E6DFB20BA@afrinic.net> <1395406604.7293.245.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> <1395426016.7373.31.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> <1399473298.12025.113.camel@dhcp15.posix.co.za> Message-ID: <53772F4C.1060107@geier.ne.tz> On 5/7/2014 5:34 PM, Mark Elkins wrote: > Dear Colleagues, > > Consequent to the call for nominations and subsequent evaluation of > nominees by the Nominations Committee (NomCom), we are pleased to > announce the following final slate of candidates for the following > seats on the AFRINIC Board: .... > > Full candidate information has been published at: > > https://internetsummitafrica.org/en/ais14/bod-election Hello all, it happend that I just wanted to have a look at the candidates. at the above URI I get "Error 404!" in very big letters (opera browser, if that matters) within myafrinic under "Welcome to AFRINIC's Election Centre" "Information on the current/forthcoming elections can be found here." the "here" leads to a page explaining BOD and elections *in general*. nothing there about the current election. And searching the Afrinic site it seems at the afrinic site there's nothing about the specific current election at all - only at AIS website. Is that correct? Yep, going through menu I got something there: https://internetsummitafrica.org/en/communit/bod-election but when going to read about the individuals, service went down :-( [frank at fisi ~]$ telnet www.internetsummitafrica.org 80 Trying 2001:42d0:0:408::172... Connected to www.internetsummitafrica.org. Escape character is '^]'. get /en/ HTTP/1.1 host: www.internetsummitafrica.org Connection closed by foreign host. [frank at fisi ~]$ Regards, Frank From mje at posix.co.za Sat May 17 11:19:52 2014 From: mje at posix.co.za (Mark Elkins) Date: Sat, 17 May 2014 13:19:52 +0200 Subject: [rpd] AFRINIC Board Elections - 2014: Call for Nominations In-Reply-To: <53772F4C.1060107@geier.ne.tz> References: <72B07AC2-F4C2-4A95-B9BA-E71E6DFB20BA@afrinic.net> <1395406604.7293.245.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> <1395426016.7373.31.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> <1399473298.12025.113.camel@dhcp15.posix.co.za> <53772F4C.1060107@geier.ne.tz> Message-ID: <1400325592.27713.10.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> https://internetsummitafrica.org/en/communit/bod-election works for me. On the start page of https://internetsummitafrica.org/en/ - you can mouse-over on "Community", the AFRINIC BOD election is the third drop-down label. Please don't blame me - I'm the messenger - not the Web Designer. On Sat, 2014-05-17 at 12:43 +0300, Frank Habicht wrote: > On 5/7/2014 5:34 PM, Mark Elkins wrote: > > Dear Colleagues, > > > > Consequent to the call for nominations and subsequent evaluation of > > nominees by the Nominations Committee (NomCom), > we are pleased to > > announce the following final slate of candidates for the following > > seats on the AFRINIC Board: > .... > > > > Full candidate information has been published at: > > > > https://internetsummitafrica.org/en/ais14/bod-election > > Hello all, > > it happend that I just wanted to have a look at the candidates. > at the above URI I get "Error 404!" in very big letters > (opera browser, if that matters) > > within myafrinic under > "Welcome to AFRINIC's Election Centre" > "Information on the current/forthcoming elections can be found here." > > the "here" leads to a page explaining BOD and elections *in general*. > nothing there about the current election. > And searching the Afrinic site it seems at the afrinic site there's nothing > about the specific current election at all - only at AIS website. > Is that correct? > > Yep, going through menu I got something there: > https://internetsummitafrica.org/en/communit/bod-election > > but when going to read about the individuals, service went down :-( > > [frank at fisi ~]$ telnet www.internetsummitafrica.org 80 > Trying 2001:42d0:0:408::172... > Connected to www.internetsummitafrica.org. > Escape character is '^]'. > get /en/ HTTP/1.1 > host: www.internetsummitafrica.org > > Connection closed by foreign host. > [frank at fisi ~]$ > > > Regards, > Frank > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd -- Mark James ELKINS - Posix Systems - (South) Africa mje at posix.co.za Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: https://ftth.posix.co.za -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 5810 bytes Desc: not available URL: From apb at cequrux.com Sun May 18 07:07:35 2014 From: apb at cequrux.com (Alan Barrett) Date: Sun, 18 May 2014 09:07:35 +0200 Subject: [rpd] IPv4 policy on where space is used. In-Reply-To: <8139A2D4BA5CE94C98E1A584DDEA67934B285D@exchange1.prod.servihoo.net> References: <1AD24464-717D-4233-B6F2-2CF48424ADEE@afrinic.net> <1400180915.7312.65.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> <8139A2D4BA5CE94C98E1A584DDEA67934B285D@exchange1.prod.servihoo.net> Message-ID: <20140518070734.GA22555@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> On Fri, 16 May 2014, Keshwarsingh Nadan wrote: >> Sure it's difficult to make such restriction and it's really >> not a path that will yield much success. However I believe it's >> possible to ensure those organisation are indeed well grounded >> African organisation before handing resources to them. > > This is pure discrimination on race. Did you imagine that "African" referred to a racial group? It doesn't. As should have been obvious from the context, "African" refers to a geographic region. > Wether one is a well grounded or startup "African", "Mauritian", > etc.., all of them should be treated equally. Policies and official documents should probably refer to "the Afrinic service region" instead of "Africa", to make it clear that Mauritius and other islands are included. I don't think that people discussing things in a mailing list will remember to do that, so if you read "African" please understand "in the Afrinic service region". --apb (Alan Barrett) From quaynor at ghana.com Sun May 18 10:27:43 2014 From: quaynor at ghana.com (Nii Narku Quaynor) Date: Sun, 18 May 2014 10:27:43 +0000 Subject: [rpd] IPv4 policy on where space is used. In-Reply-To: <20140518070734.GA22555@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> References: <1AD24464-717D-4233-B6F2-2CF48424ADEE@afrinic.net> <1400180915.7312.65.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> <8139A2D4BA5CE94C98E1A584DDEA67934B285D@exchange1.prod.servihoo.net> <20140518070734.GA22555@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> Message-ID: <356BFD83-BB88-4222-9D4B-D513F1630047@ghana.com> +1 > On May 18, 2014, at 7:07, Alan Barrett wrote: > > On Fri, 16 May 2014, Keshwarsingh Nadan wrote: >>> Sure it's difficult to make such restriction and it's really not a path that will yield much success. However I believe it's possible to ensure those organisation are indeed well grounded African organisation before handing resources to them. >> >> This is pure discrimination on race. > > Did you imagine that "African" referred to a racial group? It doesn't. As should have been obvious from the context, "African" refers to a geographic region. > >> Wether one is a well grounded or startup "African", "Mauritian", etc.., all of them should be treated equally. > > Policies and official documents should probably refer to "the Afrinic service region" instead of "Africa", to make it clear that Mauritius and other islands are included. I don't think that people discussing things in a mailing list will remember to do that, so if you read "African" please understand "in the Afrinic service region". > > --apb (Alan Barrett) > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd From boubakarbarry at gmail.com Sun May 18 10:57:05 2014 From: boubakarbarry at gmail.com (Boubakar Barry) Date: Sun, 18 May 2014 10:57:05 +0000 Subject: [rpd] IPv4 policy on where space is used. In-Reply-To: <356BFD83-BB88-4222-9D4B-D513F1630047@ghana.com> References: <1AD24464-717D-4233-B6F2-2CF48424ADEE@afrinic.net> <1400180915.7312.65.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> <8139A2D4BA5CE94C98E1A584DDEA67934B285D@exchange1.prod.servihoo.net> <20140518070734.GA22555@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> <356BFD83-BB88-4222-9D4B-D513F1630047@ghana.com> Message-ID: I think we should be very careful when posting on this list and resist to using certain terms because of instant emotions, whatever their triggers might be. I don't remember having ever heard in the various discussions in our community any reference to race or other discriminatory terms. Let's all take a (deep) breath. B. On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 10:27 AM, Nii Narku Quaynor wrote: > +1 > > > On May 18, 2014, at 7:07, Alan Barrett wrote: > > > > On Fri, 16 May 2014, Keshwarsingh Nadan wrote: > >>> Sure it's difficult to make such restriction and it's really not a > path that will yield much success. However I believe it's possible to > ensure those organisation are indeed well grounded African organisation > before handing resources to them. > >> > >> This is pure discrimination on race. > > > > Did you imagine that "African" referred to a racial group? It doesn't. > As should have been obvious from the context, "African" refers to a > geographic region. > > > >> Wether one is a well grounded or startup "African", "Mauritian", etc.., > all of them should be treated equally. > > > > Policies and official documents should probably refer to "the Afrinic > service region" instead of "Africa", to make it clear that Mauritius and > other islands are included. I don't think that people discussing things in > a mailing list will remember to do that, so if you read "African" please > understand "in the Afrinic service region". > > > > --apb (Alan Barrett) > > _______________________________________________ > > rpd mailing list > > rpd at afrinic.net > > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com Sun May 18 11:49:40 2014 From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji) Date: Sun, 18 May 2014 12:49:40 +0100 Subject: [rpd] IPv4 policy on where space is used. In-Reply-To: <20140518070734.GA22555@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> References: <1AD24464-717D-4233-B6F2-2CF48424ADEE@afrinic.net> <1400180915.7312.65.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> <8139A2D4BA5CE94C98E1A584DDEA67934B285D@exchange1.prod.servihoo.net> <20140518070734.GA22555@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> Message-ID: +1 to Alan's clarification; when we say Africa in this context, its usually referring to AFRINIC service region. @Keshwarsingh i hope by this understanding some of the discrimination flags can be marked "resolved" Thanks Regards On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 8:07 AM, Alan Barrett wrote: > On Fri, 16 May 2014, Keshwarsingh Nadan wrote: > >> Sure it's difficult to make such restriction and it's really not a path >>> that will yield much success. However I believe it's possible to ensure >>> those organisation are indeed well grounded African organisation before >>> handing resources to them. >>> >> >> This is pure discrimination on race. >> > > Did you imagine that "African" referred to a racial group? It doesn't. > As should have been obvious from the context, "African" refers to a > geographic region. > > > Wether one is a well grounded or startup "African", "Mauritian", etc.., >> all of them should be treated equally. >> > > Policies and official documents should probably refer to "the Afrinic > service region" instead of "Africa", to make it clear that Mauritius and > other islands are included. I don't think that people discussing things in > a mailing list will remember to do that, so if you read "African" please > understand "in the Afrinic service region". > > --apb (Alan Barrett) > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng * The key to understanding is humility - my view ! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com Sun May 18 11:54:29 2014 From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji) Date: Sun, 18 May 2014 12:54:29 +0100 Subject: [rpd] New proposal - "AfriNIC Whois Database Update Process" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-001-DRAFT-01) Message-ID: Dear members, We have received a new policy - "AfriNIC Whois Database Update Process" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-001-DRAFT-01) While this may not be on the agenda of the next public policy meeting, we encourage the community to discuss this on the list and at the upcoming face to face meeting. Public url to the "draft" policy will soon be made available. However the content is pasted below for comments and discussion from the PDWG/community. ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Draft Policy name: AfriNIC Whois Database Update Process Unique identifier: AFPUB-2014-GEN-001-DRAFT-01 Status: New Submission Date 15 MAY 2014 Author:Jean Robert Hountomey 1.Summary of the Problem Being Addressed by this Policy Proposal The African network infrastructure is growing with changes and extensions. This growth has brought changes in telecommunication and Internet infrastructure. With the emergence of new operators, mergers and acquisitions, the dynamism brought by the penetration of Internet technology has required organizational changes with job rotation. The need for accurate whois data has been in the news for years all over the world. Inaccurate data is still present in the AfriNIC whois database because changes have occurred in organizations (point of contact, contact information etc.) and object owners have not updated their records. The result is a ?No response? from ?whois? contacts listed in the AfriNIC Database. The goal of the proposal is setting a process towards ensuring that AfriNIC whois database is updated. A previous policy (AFPUB-2012-GEN-001-DRAFT-02 : AfriNIC Whois Database Clean-up ) was withdrawn by the Author after AfriNIC advised that there was already an internal process to handle the cleanup of whois data and do general contact update. However it has been noticed that objects in AfriNIC database are not accurate. 2. Summary of How this Proposal Addresses the Problem This proposal asks AfriNIC to maintain accuracy through a periodical database clean up. Furthermore, at least once a year or at the renewal of resources, AFRINIC staff should conduct a whois database information validation. 3. The Proposal AfriNIC members are committed through the RSA to maintain their data and keep it accurate. AfriNIC will then maintain accuracy of whois information through periodical database clean up or update. AfriNIC will periodically ask object owners in the Whois Database to actively check and update the accuracy of data in AfriNIC whois database. 3.1 Cleanup 3.1.1 - General Database Cleanup: At the ratification of this policy, AfriNIC staff will conduct a first cleanup by asking all POC present except those who received their objects in less than a year to confirm their POC information. We leave to AfriNIC staff the discretion to use any communication tool they find useful for this action. 3.1.2 - Annual Clean up: After the first cleanup, AfriNIC will conduct a cleanup once a year. We leave to AfriNIC's staff to define the period. 3.1.3 - At the request of additional resources or services, AfriNIC staff will ask the organization to update its records. 3.2. If a change is requested by another policy. In case another AfriNIC policy made mandatory a change or introduce another object, the object owner is required to make this update. 3.2 Steps 3.2.1 - AfriNIC staff will ask members to confirm accuracy of their records in the Whois database in a month?s timeframe when contacted by email. 3.2.2 - After one month, AfriNIC Staff will use any communication tools at their discretion to contact those who have not answered or those whose email has bounced back. 3.2.3 - After another month of unresponsive response, the record will be marked invalid. 3.2.4 - AfriNIC may publish publicly a report about number resources with invalid POC. 3.2.5 - One year after the first contact initiation, if the data is still not accurate and the organization has failed to respond to the call to resolve the data inconsistency, AfriNIC may claim the number resources back. 4. Situation within other RIRs - ARIN conducts an annual POC (point of contact) validation process: https://www.arin.net/resources/services/poc_validation.html - At APNIC, there was a similar policy proposed that did not reach consensus and was withdrawn by the author. http://www.apnic.net/__data/assets/file/0006/22857/prop-084-v002.txt - RIPE NCC http://www.ripe.net/data-tools/support/clean-up-of-unreferenced-data - LACNIC obligates the resources holders contractually throught their RSA and reviews whois data when resources are requested and updates accordingly *History* - 02 Oct. 2012 - AFPUB-2012-GEN-001-DRAFT-02 was withdrawn by the Author. *Previous Versions * None Kind Regards, Seun Ojedeji, Emile Milandou PDWG Co-Chairs -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com Sun May 18 12:15:29 2014 From: Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com (Andrew Alston) Date: Sun, 18 May 2014 13:15:29 +0100 Subject: [rpd] New proposal - "AfriNIC Whois Database Update Process" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-001-DRAFT-01) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I for one have no real objection to this policy, however I?d like to see it expanded more to provide more detail on the annual cleanup process. How is it proposed that this is done or is this entirely at the AfriNIC?s staff discretion? I?d also like to see the policy expanded to put timelines on the cleanups that AfriNIC will conduct so that we aren?t in a constant state of cleanup. The reality is that at the moment, getting AfriNIC to update records can take a LONG LONG time. I point to the fact that I am still waiting for AfriNIC to complete work related to resource transfers (which really is nothing more than database updates), and it has been exactly 2 months and 1 day since that request was filed. If it takes this long to complete basic resource transfers for 5 organisations, how long is it going to take to complete an ?annual cleanup? of over 750 members? Hence, I feel that where work is required on AfriNIC?s side, I?d like to see them held to specific timelines by policy. If indeed point 3.1.1 is covered by the timelines in 3.2, then the over points are moot. I?d also like to see a change in 3.2.4 from ?may publish? to ?will publish?. I think if we?re going to down the road of publishing things like this, it should not be haphazard, and making it optional will result in exactly that. Thanks Andrew From: Seun Ojedeji > Date: Sunday, May 18, 2014 at 1:54 PM To: rpd > Subject: [rpd] New proposal - "AfriNIC Whois Database Update Process" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-001-DRAFT-01) Dear members, We have received a new policy - "AfriNIC Whois Database Update Process" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-001-DRAFT-01) While this may not be on the agenda of the next public policy meeting, we encourage the community to discuss this on the list and at the upcoming face to face meeting. Public url to the "draft" policy will soon be made available. However the content is pasted below for comments and discussion from the PDWG/community. ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Draft Policy name: AfriNIC Whois Database Update Process Unique identifier: AFPUB-2014-GEN-001-DRAFT-01 Status: New Submission Date 15 MAY 2014 Author:Jean Robert Hountomey 1.Summary of the Problem Being Addressed by this Policy Proposal The African network infrastructure is growing with changes and extensions. This growth has brought changes in telecommunication and Internet infrastructure. With the emergence of new operators, mergers and acquisitions, the dynamism brought by the penetration of Internet technology has required organizational changes with job rotation. The need for accurate whois data has been in the news for years all over the world. Inaccurate data is still present in the AfriNIC whois database because changes have occurred in organizations (point of contact, contact information etc.) and object owners have not updated their records. The result is a ?No response? from ?whois? contacts listed in the AfriNIC Database. The goal of the proposal is setting a process towards ensuring that AfriNIC whois database is updated. A previous policy (AFPUB-2012-GEN-001-DRAFT-02 : AfriNIC Whois Database Clean-up ) was withdrawn by the Author after AfriNIC advised that there was already an internal process to handle the cleanup of whois data and do general contact update. However it has been noticed that objects in AfriNIC database are not accurate. 2. Summary of How this Proposal Addresses the Problem This proposal asks AfriNIC to maintain accuracy through a periodical database clean up. Furthermore, at least once a year or at the renewal of resources, AFRINIC staff should conduct a whois database information validation. 3. The Proposal AfriNIC members are committed through the RSA to maintain their data and keep it accurate. AfriNIC will then maintain accuracy of whois information through periodical database clean up or update. AfriNIC will periodically ask object owners in the Whois Database to actively check and update the accuracy of data in AfriNIC whois database. 3.1 Cleanup 3.1.1 - General Database Cleanup: At the ratification of this policy, AfriNIC staff will conduct a first cleanup by asking all POC present except those who received their objects in less than a year to confirm their POC information. We leave to AfriNIC staff the discretion to use any communication tool they find useful for this action. 3.1.2 - Annual Clean up: After the first cleanup, AfriNIC will conduct a cleanup once a year. We leave to AfriNIC's staff to define the period. 3.1.3 - At the request of additional resources or services, AfriNIC staff will ask the organization to update its records. 3.2. If a change is requested by another policy. In case another AfriNIC policy made mandatory a change or introduce another object, the object owner is required to make this update. 3.2 Steps 3.2.1 - AfriNIC staff will ask members to confirm accuracy of their records in the Whois database in a month?s timeframe when contacted by email. 3.2.2 - After one month, AfriNIC Staff will use any communication tools at their discretion to contact those who have not answered or those whose email has bounced back. 3.2.3 - After another month of unresponsive response, the record will be marked invalid. 3.2.4 - AfriNIC may publish publicly a report about number resources with invalid POC. 3.2.5 - One year after the first contact initiation, if the data is still not accurate and the organization has failed to respond to the call to resolve the data inconsistency, AfriNIC may claim the number resources back. 4. Situation within other RIRs - ARIN conducts an annual POC (point of contact) validation process: https://www.arin.net/resources/services/poc_validation.html - At APNIC, there was a similar policy proposed that did not reach consensus and was withdrawn by the author. http://www.apnic.net/__data/assets/file/0006/22857/prop-084-v002.txt - RIPE NCC http://www.ripe.net/data-tools/support/clean-up-of-unreferenced-data - LACNIC obligates the resources holders contractually throught their RSA and reviews whois data when resources are requested and updates accordingly History * 02 Oct. 2012 - AFPUB-2012-GEN-001-DRAFT-02 was withdrawn by the Author. Previous Versions None Kind Regards, Seun Ojedeji, Emile Milandou PDWG Co-Chairs ________________________________ DISCLAIMER: This email contains proprietary information some or all of which may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this email, please notify the author by replying to this email. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose, copy, print, or rely on this email. We cannot accept liability for any statements made which are clearly the sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of this company or one of its agents. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kofi.ansa at gmail.com Sun May 18 14:29:39 2014 From: kofi.ansa at gmail.com (Kofi ansa akufo) Date: Sun, 18 May 2014 18:29:39 +0400 Subject: [rpd] New proposal - "AfriNIC Whois Database Update Process" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-001-DRAFT-01) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hello Seun and All 1. What are some of the specific challenges facing AfriNIC that this policy seeks to address other than the general problem of outdated POC NOT responding to correspondences? Is it challenges to communication of annual membership fees renewal invoices? Is it challenges of no response to ABUSE request information? I believe the current specifics should be stated to see how best the policy can be discussed / debated to tackle the issues. 2. I will like to see "may" in all the clauses changed to "shall" or "will" to leave no room for ambiguity or misinterpretation. In other words to be explicit as to action to be taken. 3. I believe policies when ratified are guidelines we all agree to. Let us not leave anything to AfriNIC or staff of AfriNIC be it "at their discretion" or "internal process" where these may become subjective to flaws and personal interpretation or double standards. What are the current methods of communication used to reach members? E-mail? Phone call? SMS? Snail mail? Perhaps a policy in this direction to be referenced by all other communication processes. Again I site an example of a "90 day application expiry" as a so called "internal process" which is contrary to what is defined in RSA and staff of AfriNIC fail to communicate to applicant. This the applicant had to threaten with legal address before changes to decision was made recently. Let's endeavour to make standard Policies (thorough) that will leave little decisions disguised as "AfriNIC staff discretion" or "internal process" that can make interpretation of the policies biased. Cheers Kofi On May 18, 2014 3:57 PM, "Seun Ojedeji" wrote: > Dear members, > > We have received a new policy - "AfriNIC Whois Database Update Process" > (AFPUB-2014-GEN-001-DRAFT-01) > > While this may not be on the agenda of the next public policy meeting, we > encourage the community to discuss this on the list and at the upcoming > face to face meeting. Public url to the "draft" policy will soon be made > available. However the content is pasted below for comments and discussion > from the PDWG/community. > > > ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ > > Draft Policy name: AfriNIC Whois Database Update Process > Unique identifier: AFPUB-2014-GEN-001-DRAFT-01 > Status: New > Submission Date 15 MAY 2014 > Author:Jean Robert Hountomey > > 1.Summary of the Problem Being Addressed by this Policy Proposal > > The African network infrastructure is growing with changes and extensions. > This growth has brought changes in telecommunication and Internet > infrastructure. With the emergence of new operators, mergers and > acquisitions, the dynamism brought by the penetration of Internet > technology has required organizational changes with job rotation. The need > for accurate whois data has been in the news for years all over the world. > > Inaccurate data is still present in the AfriNIC whois database because > changes have occurred in organizations (point of contact, contact > information etc.) and object owners have not updated their records. The > result is a ?No response? from ?whois? contacts listed in the AfriNIC > Database. > > The goal of the proposal is setting a process towards ensuring that > AfriNIC whois database is updated. A previous policy > (AFPUB-2012-GEN-001-DRAFT-02 : AfriNIC Whois Database Clean-up ) was > withdrawn by the Author after AfriNIC advised that there was already an > internal process to handle the cleanup of whois data and do general contact > update. However it has been noticed that objects in AfriNIC database are > not accurate. > > 2. Summary of How this Proposal Addresses the Problem > > This proposal asks AfriNIC to maintain accuracy through a periodical > database clean up. Furthermore, at least > once a year or at the renewal of resources, AFRINIC staff should conduct a > whois database information validation. > > 3. The Proposal > > AfriNIC members are committed through the RSA to maintain their data and > keep it accurate. AfriNIC will then > maintain accuracy of whois information through periodical database clean > up or update. AfriNIC will periodically ask object > owners in the Whois Database to actively check and update the accuracy of > data in AfriNIC whois database. > > 3.1 Cleanup > > 3.1.1 - General Database Cleanup: At the ratification of this policy, > AfriNIC staff will conduct a first cleanup by asking all POC present except > those who received their objects in less than a year to confirm their POC > information. We leave to AfriNIC staff the discretion to use any > communication tool they find useful for this action. > > 3.1.2 - Annual Clean up: After the first cleanup, AfriNIC will conduct a > cleanup once a year. We leave to AfriNIC's staff to define the period. > > 3.1.3 - At the request of additional resources or services, AfriNIC staff > will ask the organization to update its records. > > 3.2. If a change is requested by another policy. > > In case another AfriNIC policy made mandatory a change or introduce > another object, the object owner is required to make this update. > > 3.2 Steps > > 3.2.1 - AfriNIC staff will ask members to confirm accuracy of their > records in the Whois database in a month?s > timeframe when contacted by email. > > 3.2.2 - After one month, AfriNIC Staff will use any communication tools > at their discretion to contact > those who have not answered or those whose email has bounced back. > > 3.2.3 - After another month of unresponsive response, the record will be > marked invalid. > > 3.2.4 - AfriNIC may publish publicly a report about number resources with > invalid POC. > > 3.2.5 - One year after the first contact initiation, if the data is still > not accurate and the organization has failed to respond to the call to > resolve the data inconsistency, AfriNIC may claim the number resources back. > > 4. Situation within other RIRs > > - ARIN conducts an annual POC (point of contact) validation process: > https://www.arin.net/resources/services/poc_validation.html > - At APNIC, there was a similar policy proposed that did not reach > consensus and was withdrawn by the author. > http://www.apnic.net/__data/assets/file/0006/22857/prop-084-v002.txt > - RIPE NCC > http://www.ripe.net/data-tools/support/clean-up-of-unreferenced-data > - LACNIC obligates the resources holders contractually throught their RSA > and reviews whois data when resources are requested and updates accordingly > > *History* > > - 02 Oct. 2012 - AFPUB-2012-GEN-001-DRAFT-02 was withdrawn by the > Author. > > *Previous Versions * > None > > Kind Regards, > > Seun Ojedeji, Emile Milandou > PDWG Co-Chairs > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com Sun May 18 14:44:19 2014 From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji) Date: Sun, 18 May 2014 15:44:19 +0100 Subject: [rpd] New proposal - "AfriNIC Whois Database Update Process" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-001-DRAFT-01) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hello Kofi and all, Kindly take note that my featuring on this particular thread is as the PDWG Co-Chair and by such i may not be able to directly respond to your comments(unless its directly related to PDP processes). However, I presume the author of this policy has received all the comments/question and will soon directly respond to them. Author:Jean Robert Hountomey jrhountomey at gmail.com Thanks Seun Ojedeji PDWG Co-Chair On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 3:29 PM, Kofi ansa akufo wrote: > Hello Seun and All > > 1. What are some of the specific challenges facing AfriNIC that this > policy seeks to address other than the general problem of outdated POC NOT > responding to correspondences? > > Is it challenges to communication of annual membership fees renewal > invoices? > > Is it challenges of no response to ABUSE request information? > > I believe the current specifics should be stated to see how best the > policy can be discussed / debated to tackle the issues. > > 2. I will like to see "may" in all the clauses changed to "shall" or > "will" to leave no room for ambiguity or misinterpretation. In other words > to be explicit as to action to be taken. > > 3. I believe policies when ratified are guidelines we all agree to. Let us > not leave anything to AfriNIC or staff of AfriNIC be it "at their > discretion" or "internal process" where these may become subjective to > flaws and personal interpretation or double standards. What are the current > methods of communication used to reach members? E-mail? Phone call? SMS? > Snail mail? Perhaps a policy in this direction to be referenced by all > other communication processes. > > Again I site an example of a "90 day application expiry" as a so called > "internal process" which is contrary to what is defined in RSA and staff of > AfriNIC fail to communicate to applicant. This the applicant had to > threaten with legal address before changes to decision was made recently. > > Let's endeavour to make standard Policies (thorough) that will leave > little decisions disguised as "AfriNIC staff discretion" or "internal > process" that can make interpretation of the policies biased. > > Cheers > > Kofi > On May 18, 2014 3:57 PM, "Seun Ojedeji" wrote: > >> Dear members, >> >> We have received a new policy - "AfriNIC Whois Database Update Process" >> (AFPUB-2014-GEN-001-DRAFT-01) >> >> While this may not be on the agenda of the next public policy meeting, we >> encourage the community to discuss this on the list and at the upcoming >> face to face meeting. Public url to the "draft" policy will soon be made >> available. However the content is pasted below for comments and discussion >> from the PDWG/community. >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ >> >> Draft Policy name: AfriNIC Whois Database Update Process >> Unique identifier: AFPUB-2014-GEN-001-DRAFT-01 >> Status: New >> Submission Date 15 MAY 2014 >> Author:Jean Robert Hountomey >> >> 1.Summary of the Problem Being Addressed by this Policy Proposal >> >> The African network infrastructure is growing with changes and >> extensions. This growth has brought changes in telecommunication and >> Internet infrastructure. With the emergence of new operators, mergers and >> acquisitions, the dynamism brought by the penetration of Internet >> technology has required organizational changes with job rotation. The need >> for accurate whois data has been in the news for years all over the world. >> >> Inaccurate data is still present in the AfriNIC whois database because >> changes have occurred in organizations (point of contact, contact >> information etc.) and object owners have not updated their records. The >> result is a ?No response? from ?whois? contacts listed in the AfriNIC >> Database. >> >> The goal of the proposal is setting a process towards ensuring that >> AfriNIC whois database is updated. A previous policy >> (AFPUB-2012-GEN-001-DRAFT-02 : AfriNIC Whois Database Clean-up ) was >> withdrawn by the Author after AfriNIC advised that there was already an >> internal process to handle the cleanup of whois data and do general contact >> update. However it has been noticed that objects in AfriNIC database are >> not accurate. >> >> 2. Summary of How this Proposal Addresses the Problem >> >> This proposal asks AfriNIC to maintain accuracy through a periodical >> database clean up. Furthermore, at least >> once a year or at the renewal of resources, AFRINIC staff should conduct >> a whois database information validation. >> >> 3. The Proposal >> >> AfriNIC members are committed through the RSA to maintain their data and >> keep it accurate. AfriNIC will then >> maintain accuracy of whois information through periodical database clean >> up or update. AfriNIC will periodically ask object >> owners in the Whois Database to actively check and update the accuracy of >> data in AfriNIC whois database. >> >> 3.1 Cleanup >> >> 3.1.1 - General Database Cleanup: At the ratification of this policy, >> AfriNIC staff will conduct a first cleanup by asking all POC present except >> those who received their objects in less than a year to confirm their POC >> information. We leave to AfriNIC staff the discretion to use any >> communication tool they find useful for this action. >> >> 3.1.2 - Annual Clean up: After the first cleanup, AfriNIC will conduct a >> cleanup once a year. We leave to AfriNIC's staff to define the period. >> >> 3.1.3 - At the request of additional resources or services, AfriNIC staff >> will ask the organization to update its records. >> >> 3.2. If a change is requested by another policy. >> >> In case another AfriNIC policy made mandatory a change or introduce >> another object, the object owner is required to make this update. >> >> 3.2 Steps >> >> 3.2.1 - AfriNIC staff will ask members to confirm accuracy of their >> records in the Whois database in a month?s >> timeframe when contacted by email. >> >> 3.2.2 - After one month, AfriNIC Staff will use any communication tools >> at their discretion to contact >> those who have not answered or those whose email has bounced back. >> >> 3.2.3 - After another month of unresponsive response, the record will be >> marked invalid. >> >> 3.2.4 - AfriNIC may publish publicly a report about number resources >> with invalid POC. >> >> 3.2.5 - One year after the first contact initiation, if the data is >> still not accurate and the organization has failed to respond to the call >> to resolve the data inconsistency, AfriNIC may >> claim the number resources back. >> >> 4. Situation within other RIRs >> >> - ARIN conducts an annual POC (point of contact) validation process: >> https://www.arin.net/resources/services/poc_validation.html >> - At APNIC, there was a similar policy proposed that did not reach >> consensus and was withdrawn by the author. >> http://www.apnic.net/__data/assets/file/0006/22857/prop-084-v002.txt >> - RIPE NCC >> http://www.ripe.net/data-tools/support/clean-up-of-unreferenced-data >> - LACNIC obligates the resources holders contractually throught their RSA >> and reviews whois data when resources are requested and updates accordingly >> >> *History* >> >> - 02 Oct. 2012 - AFPUB-2012-GEN-001-DRAFT-02 was withdrawn by the >> Author. >> >> *Previous Versions * >> None >> >> Kind Regards, >> >> Seun Ojedeji, Emile Milandou >> PDWG Co-Chairs >> >> _______________________________________________ >> rpd mailing list >> rpd at afrinic.net >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >> >> -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng * The key to understanding is humility - my view ! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From owen at delong.com Sun May 18 18:33:35 2014 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Sun, 18 May 2014 11:33:35 -0700 Subject: [rpd] IPv4 policy on where space is used. In-Reply-To: <53766186.6010206@gmail.com> References: <2607AFE6-2BCE-47C3-8D94-6B469C7339A9@ghana.com> <1AD24464-717D-4233-B6F2-2CF48424ADEE@afrinic.net> <1400180915.7312.65.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> <1400255332.13446.570.camel@mje.posix.co.za> <49DD319E-A9C6-4421-945B-42643CBB44B6@liquidtelecom.com! > <53766186.6010206@gmail.com> Message-ID: At this point, it is time to recognize that IPv4 has been on life support for more than 20 years. It?s days are seriously numbered and almost no matter what, AfriNIC is likely to have an IPv4 free pool far longer than having one will be particularly important. They are clearly going to be the last RIR to run out of IPv4 addresses, if they even do run out. I?d much rather see effort spent on deploying IPv6 than rearranging the deck chairs into neater rows on IPv4. Owen On May 16, 2014, at 12:05 PM, Carlos M. Martinez wrote: > As an historical side note: when I was part of the community and not > LACNIC staff I always opposed policies trying to limit where our > resources were to be used. > > My argument at the time was that it would severely limit the ability of > Latin American companies to sucesfully compete in other regions. If one > of our region's giants (Telmex comes to mind, but there are several > others) wants to open a facility like a big Datacenter or NAP in, let's > say, Asia, why should a policy limit its ability to use its resources > there? > > Whether this applies to Africa or not, I don't know, but I felt my past > experience & feelings on the topic could be interesting to you. > > warm regards, > > ~Carlos > > On 5/16/14, 3:54 PM, Ben Roberts wrote: >> Thanks Seun. >> >> But it's not even about monitoring. As an African company leading the >> way in African Internet development we are expanding outwards. I will be >> opening network points in UAE and possibly Singapore this year expanding >> to Asia. Of course I should be allowed to use our resources there. >> >> Everyone seems to be worrying about Non African Internet companies >> encroaching in to use African IP resources. Just remember there are >> large African Internet companies moving outwards. We are one of those >> and I can think of others in the same category as well as groups of MNOs >> from Africa that are way bigger. >> >> Cheers >> Ben. >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On 16 May 2014, at 19:22, "Seun Ojedeji" > > wrote: >> >>> This particular one being a good example of a company that has roots >>> in Africa. For me I don't think it's more about spending more energy >>> in monitoring how you as a member use IP. It's more of reviewing >>> applicants membership requirements. >>> >>> Cheers! >>> sent from Google nexus 4 >>> kindly excuse brevity and typos. >>> >>> On 16 May 2014 18:37, "Ben Roberts" >> > wrote: >>> >>> Speaking as an African multinational... >>> >>> We are headquartered in Mauritius and present with IP network in >>> twelve countries in Africa and 2 in Europe. We are also RIPE >>> members also and we pay a huge premium in LIR fees to Afrinic so I >>> think I am entitled to use my IPs where I jolly well like and will >>> oppose any policy proposal to restrict or prevent us from doing so! >>> >>> Cheers >>> Ben >>> Liquid Telecom Group Director of Network Strategy. >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>> On 16 May 2014, at 18:29, "Stephen Wilcox" >>> > wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 16 May 2014 18:13, Seun Ojedeji >>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> sent from Google nexus 4 >>>> kindly excuse brevity and typos. >>>> On 16 May 2014 16:56, "Mark Elkins" >>> > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I believe this is one of the pains that AFRINIC Hostmasters >>>> are trying >>>>> to deal with at the moment. >>>>> >>>> Yeah and they can only try within the limits of the policy. >>>> >>>>> >>>> So what if we said that at least 50% of all >>>>> number resources had to be for equipment in Africa? >>>>> >>>> Hmmm... that's could be an option. Perhaps also be helpful to >>>> look at reviewing the requirements that makes an organisation >>>> African enough to be consider for resource. >>>> >>>>> Should be enough for a truly African ISP to use out of the >>>> area. >>>>> >>>> Yeah 50% is a fair deal, although the other puzzle could be >>>> how to verify this after resource assignment is done ;) hence >>>> the reason why further vetting of organisation establishment >>>> status and purpose may be needed. >>>> >>>> >>>> Just playing devil's advocate - but who will do this research and >>>> maintain it? What if an African multinational is acquired by a >>>> non-African company, does it have to free its resources? Or the >>>> other way around, a non-African company buying an African one can >>>> they suddenly request huge amounts of IP? >>>> >>>> >>>>> I'm looking at somehow disallowing an "African" entity from >>>> using all >>>>> the numbering resources out side of the Afrinic Region.... >>>>> >>>> Yeah a possibility that I just alluded to above. So the >>>> purpose of that African company should be checked. Things like: >>>> >>>> - What type of service do they provide and are they really >>>> services that utilises IP resource on physical >>>> infrastructures (such check more applicable to those applying >>>> as cloud services organization) >>>> - Who are their existing clients >>>> - History of establishment >>>> - Does employed staff and organisation base reflect as being >>>> continental. >>>> - Possibly a biannual check of resource usage statistics (if >>>> it's not a tall order) >>>> >>>> A company complicated enough to need this level of investigation >>>> and due diligence might well be a large company with a team of >>>> lawyers questioning how they can release information that may be >>>> under NDA. Indeed, how much client and contract information is >>>> reasonable to disclose before it becomes a liability? >>>> >>>> >>>> I think the more complicated you make the rules, the more >>>> loopholes and corner cases you create, plus more bureaucracy and >>>> red tape. Simple rules will scale better.. >>>> >>>> Steve >>>> >>>> Those tall checks above may not prevent IP export, but it >>>> could ensure some functional provider establishment in Africa. >>>> >>>> Hopefully we can see some policies proposals in that direction. >>>> >>>> Cheers! >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Cheers! >>>>>>> Regards >>>>>>> Steve >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 16 May 2014 15:57, Saul >>> > wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Personally I am in favour of keeping our resources >>>> regional. I >>>>>> think that we >>>>>>>> have all been offered large sums of money to get space >>>> and then >>>>>> sell it off >>>>>>>> the continent. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> But then its IP... does it really matter? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>> From: rpd-bounces at afrinic.net >>>> >>>> [mailto:rpd-bounces at afrinic.net >>>> ] On >>>>>> Behalf Of >>>>>>>> Mark Elkins >>>>>>>> Sent: 15 May 2014 09:09 PM >>>>>>>> To: rpd at afrinic.net >>>>>>>> Subject: [rpd] IPv4 policy on where space is used. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Thu, 2014-05-15 at 21:46 +0400, Kofi ansa akufo wrote: >>>>>>>>> ....the resource was going out of the region.... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> As far as I am aware, the current requirement for >>>> getting address >>>>>> space is >>>>>>>> that you are a company properly established (all legal >>>> - as such) >>>>>> in Africa. >>>>>>>> There is currently no policy (except with the last /8) >>>> that states >>>>>> the >>>>>>>> resources you get have to be used in Africa.... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This might be good.... (get rid of all the IPv4, start >>>> using IPv6) >>>>>> or Bad... >>>>>>>> (we are doing *what* with our resources???) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Maybe some policy needs to be designed - how do people >>>> feel... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> Mark James ELKINS - Posix Systems - (South) Africa >>>>>>>> mje at posix.co.za Tel: >>>> +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 >>>> >>>>>>>> For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: >>>>>> https://ftth.posix.co.za >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> rpd mailing list >>>>>>>> rpd at afrinic.net >>>>>>>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> rpd mailing list >>>>>>> rpd at afrinic.net >>>>>>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> rpd mailing list >>>>>> rpd at afrinic.net >>>>>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Mark James ELKINS - Posix Systems - (South) Africa >>>>> mje at posix.co.za Tel: >>>> +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 >>>> >>>>> For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: >>>> https://ftth.posix.co.za >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> rpd mailing list >>>>> rpd at afrinic.net >>>>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> rpd mailing list >>>> rpd at afrinic.net >>>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> DISCLAIMER: This email contains proprietary information some or >>> all of which may be legally privileged. It is for the intended >>> recipient only. If an addressing or transmission error has >>> misdirected this email, please notify the author by replying to >>> this email. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not >>> use, disclose, copy, print, or rely on this email. We cannot >>> accept liability for any statements made which are clearly the >>> sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of this company or >>> one of its agents. >>> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> DISCLAIMER: This email contains proprietary information some or all of >> which may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. >> If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this email, >> please notify the author by replying to this email. If you are not the >> intended recipient, you must not use, disclose, copy, print, or rely on >> this email. We cannot accept liability for any statements made which are >> clearly the sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of this >> company or one of its agents. >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> rpd mailing list >> rpd at afrinic.net >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >> > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd From owen at delong.com Sun May 18 19:00:00 2014 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Sun, 18 May 2014 12:00:00 -0700 Subject: [rpd] IPv4 policy on where space is used. In-Reply-To: References: <2607AFE6-2BCE-47C3-8D94-6B469C7339A9@ghana.com> <9A2170D3-6890-4CF1-8EE0-BE0DD10DB371@afrinic.net> <7F4C376B-D71B-4753-8B61-5DA95644F96C@afrinic.net> <1AD24464-717D-4233-B6F2-2CF48424ADEE@afrinic.net> <1400180915.7312.65.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> <1400255332.13446.570.camel@mje.posix.co.za> <49DD319E-A9C6-4421-945B-42643CBB44B6@liquidtelecom.com> Message-ID: > Just that considering the recent exhaustions in other region, Africa seem to have become the cake on the table with all regions grabbing their cutleries to have their share of it ;). So don't you think it will be good to make those IP resource available to companies like you (that has base in Africa) so that even when you go abroad you will still have IP to use (considering that v4 addresses is almost exhausted in that region)? > It?s a fine idea. However, the question is whether it can be practically and meaningfully achieved without collateral damage which exceeds the benefit. > One of the usual question is to burn v4 to make way for v6; should we burn to external or burn within? Remember that Afrinic has the least of /8s among all the RIRs. I think I am as big a proponent of IPv6 deployment as anyone on this list. The last 5 years of my life have been dedicated to trying to get IPv6 deployed faster, wider, and stronger. IPv6 will happen at this point whether v4 burns or not. Anyone waiting for v4 to run out as an excuse to deploy IPv6 is ignoring reality. That whole part of the discussion should be treated as a red herring. The real questions are: 1. Is the effort required to develop IPv4 policy going to yield sufficient benefit to justify that effort or is it better spent on deploying IPv6? 2. Can a policy be developed which provides for company?s like Ben?s without opening the flood gates for $OUTSIDE_MEGACORP to simply buy or build a corporation headquartered in Africa which is ?expanding? into $OUTSIDE_MEGACORP?s actual home territories? My opinion is that we discussed, debated, fought over, and otherwise pretty well beat this dead horse several years ago and came to the existing policy for the last /8. At the time, I felt that was good policy and I still do. However, I think putting further effort into rearranging it again is probably fruitless and would much rather see that effort spent on getting Africa running IPv6. AfriNIC has the unique opportunity in the world in that we have the largest greenfield for internet deployment left. This means that we are in the unique position to leapfrog IPv4 policy and become an IPv6 leader if we choose. Apologies to anyone who takes offense at my use of the term ?we? here. I recognize that I am not an African and that as such, my role here is somewhat limited. In the end, however, we are all citizens of the internet and together, we have the opportunity to build a functional IPv6-based global internet with addressing for all. That is the focus I would like to see going forward. Owen > > Kind Regards > > Cheers > Ben. > > Sent from my iPhone > > On 16 May 2014, at 19:22, "Seun Ojedeji" wrote: > >> This particular one being a good example of a company that has roots in Africa. For me I don't think it's more about spending more energy in monitoring how you as a member use IP. It's more of reviewing applicants membership requirements. >> >> Cheers! >> sent from Google nexus 4 >> kindly excuse brevity and typos. >> >> On 16 May 2014 18:37, "Ben Roberts" wrote: >> Speaking as an African multinational... >> >> We are headquartered in Mauritius and present with IP network in twelve countries in Africa and 2 in Europe. We are also RIPE members also and we pay a huge premium in LIR fees to Afrinic so I think I am entitled to use my IPs where I jolly well like and will oppose any policy proposal to restrict or prevent us from doing so! >> >> Cheers >> Ben >> Liquid Telecom Group Director of Network Strategy. >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On 16 May 2014, at 18:29, "Stephen Wilcox" wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 16 May 2014 18:13, Seun Ojedeji wrote: >>> >>> sent from Google nexus 4 >>> kindly excuse brevity and typos. >>> On 16 May 2014 16:56, "Mark Elkins" wrote: >>> > >>> > I believe this is one of the pains that AFRINIC Hostmasters are trying >>> > to deal with at the moment. >>> > >>> Yeah and they can only try within the limits of the policy. >>> >>> >>> > >>> So what if we said that at least 50% of all >>> > number resources had to be for equipment in Africa? >>> > >>> Hmmm... that's could be an option. Perhaps also be helpful to look at reviewing the requirements that makes an organisation African enough to be consider for resource. >>> >>> >>> > Should be enough for a truly African ISP to use out of the area. >>> > >>> Yeah 50% is a fair deal, although the other puzzle could be how to verify this after resource assignment is done ;) hence the reason why further vetting of organisation establishment status and purpose may be needed. >>> >>> Just playing devil's advocate - but who will do this research and maintain it? What if an African multinational is acquired by a non-African company, does it have to free its resources? Or the other way around, a non-African company buying an African one can they suddenly request huge amounts of IP? >>> >>> >>> >>> > I'm looking at somehow disallowing an "African" entity from using all >>> > the numbering resources out side of the Afrinic Region.... >>> > >>> Yeah a possibility that I just alluded to above. So the purpose of that African company should be checked. Things like: >>> >>> - What type of service do they provide and are they really services that utilises IP resource on physical infrastructures (such check more applicable to those applying as cloud services organization) >>> - Who are their existing clients >>> - History of establishment >>> - Does employed staff and organisation base reflect as being continental. >>> - Possibly a biannual check of resource usage statistics (if it's not a tall order) >>> >>> A company complicated enough to need this level of investigation and due diligence might well be a large company with a team of lawyers questioning how they can release information that may be under NDA. Indeed, how much client and contract information is reasonable to disclose before it becomes a liability? >>> >>> >>> I think the more complicated you make the rules, the more loopholes and corner cases you create, plus more bureaucracy and red tape. Simple rules will scale better.. >>> >>> Steve >>> >>> Those tall checks above may not prevent IP export, but it could ensure some functional provider establishment in Africa. >>> >>> Hopefully we can see some policies proposals in that direction. >>> >>> Cheers! >>> >>> >>> > >>> > >>> > > >>> > > Cheers! >>> > > > Regards >>> > > > Steve >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > On 16 May 2014 15:57, Saul wrote: >>> > > >> >>> > > >> Personally I am in favour of keeping our resources regional. I >>> > > think that we >>> > > >> have all been offered large sums of money to get space and then >>> > > sell it off >>> > > >> the continent. >>> > > >> >>> > > >> But then its IP... does it really matter? >>> > > >> >>> > > >> -----Original Message----- >>> > > >> From: rpd-bounces at afrinic.net [mailto:rpd-bounces at afrinic.net] On >>> > > Behalf Of >>> > > >> Mark Elkins >>> > > >> Sent: 15 May 2014 09:09 PM >>> > > >> To: rpd at afrinic.net >>> > > >> Subject: [rpd] IPv4 policy on where space is used. >>> > > >> >>> > > >> On Thu, 2014-05-15 at 21:46 +0400, Kofi ansa akufo wrote: >>> > > >> > ....the resource was going out of the region.... >>> > > >> >>> > > >> >>> > > >> As far as I am aware, the current requirement for getting address >>> > > space is >>> > > >> that you are a company properly established (all legal - as such) >>> > > in Africa. >>> > > >> There is currently no policy (except with the last /8) that states >>> > > the >>> > > >> resources you get have to be used in Africa.... >>> > > >> >>> > > >> This might be good.... (get rid of all the IPv4, start using IPv6) >>> > > or Bad... >>> > > >> (we are doing *what* with our resources???) >>> > > >> >>> > > >> Maybe some policy needs to be designed - how do people feel... >>> > > >> >>> > > >> -- >>> > > >> Mark James ELKINS - Posix Systems - (South) Africa >>> > > >> mje at posix.co.za Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 >>> > > >> For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: >>> > > https://ftth.posix.co.za >>> > > >> _______________________________________________ >>> > > >> rpd mailing list >>> > > >> rpd at afrinic.net >>> > > >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > _______________________________________________ >>> > > > rpd mailing list >>> > > > rpd at afrinic.net >>> > > > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >>> > > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > _______________________________________________ >>> > > rpd mailing list >>> > > rpd at afrinic.net >>> > > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >>> > >>> > -- >>> > Mark James ELKINS - Posix Systems - (South) Africa >>> > mje at posix.co.za Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 >>> > For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: https://ftth.posix.co.za >>> > >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > rpd mailing list >>> > rpd at afrinic.net >>> > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >>> > >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> rpd mailing list >>> rpd at afrinic.net >>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> DISCLAIMER: This email contains proprietary information some or all of which may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this email, please notify the author by replying to this email. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose, copy, print, or rely on this email. We cannot accept liability for any statements made which are clearly the sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of this company or one of its agents. >> > > DISCLAIMER: This email contains proprietary information some or all of which may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this email, please notify the author by replying to this email. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose, copy, print, or rely on this email. We cannot accept liability for any statements made which are clearly the sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of this company or one of its agents. > > > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Seun Ojedeji, > Federal University Oye-Ekiti > web: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng > Mobile: +2348035233535 > alt email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng > > The key to understanding is humility - my view ! > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jrhountomey at gmail.com Mon May 19 04:24:54 2014 From: jrhountomey at gmail.com (Jean Robert Hountomey) Date: Sun, 18 May 2014 23:24:54 -0500 Subject: [rpd] New proposal - "AfriNIC Whois Database Update Process" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-001-DRAFT-01) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <53798796.2060702@gmail.com> Kofi and Al, Thank you for taking your time and adding your comments on this policy. > 1. What are some of the specific challenges facing AfriNIC that this policy seeks to address other than > the general problem of outdated POC NOT responding to correspondences? > Is it challenges to communication of annual membership fees renewal invoices? RH. I am not aware of any issue related to communication of annual membership fees renewal invoices. I leave this to AfriNIC's operations. Everyone who has tried to contact a resource owner in the AfriNIC Service Region for different reason will tell you how difficult it is. As far as I am concerned, less than 1/4 is successful. We ended up using "best effort" talking to friends and trusted contacts to have access to the right person. FYI this issue has been reported since May 2007 at the AfriNIC-6 meeting in Abuja, mentioned in June 2008 by the Afrispam Working group and reported at different meetings. We would like to give AfriNIC the mandate to act on this issue and to hold someone accountable. > 2. I will like to see "may" in all the clauses changed to "shall" or "will" to leave no room for ambiguity or misinterpretation. > In other words to be explicit as to action to be taken. RH. May, Shall, Will is indeed a challenge. Understood. Pending more comment from the community in order to update. Note: Andrew has also made a point for .2.4 from "may publish" to "will publish" >3. I believe policies when ratified are guidelines we all agree to. Let us not leave anything to AfriNIC or staff of AfriNIC be it "at their > discretion" or "internal process" where these may become subjective to flaws and personal interpretation or double standards. > What are the current methods of communication used to reach members? E-mail? Phone call? SMS? Snail mail? Perhaps a policy in this > direction to be referenced by all other communication processes. RH. Thank you for this good point. There a few reasons for opening the room to AfriNIC Staff to use any methods of communication: a. With the portal myAfriNIC we guess (but I am not AfriNIC Staff) that it will be easier to write a script that reminds users at login the need to update their information. Questions raised: *** are all the members using effectively myAfriNIC ? *** how often a member connect to myAfriNIC in a year time frame ? *** are the current contacts in myAfriNIC accurate ? (How many are accurate ?). b. if we ask AfriNIC to use email knowing there are inaccurate information. What are the chances to reach people ? c. if we ask AfriNIC to use phone calls, for trying unsuccessfully to call few people to remove issues in their network, I am not sure if this will work better and also it involves costs. d. Which methods of communication should we choose as efficient ? e. If we make it inflexible, could AfriNIC use a combination of methods and/or other methods like 1:1 interaction with members present at different meetings as an example ? We understand that a policy like this one, impacts business operations and requires resources alignment. We don't have the numbers to make mandatory any suggestions about the communication methods. Also we believe that AfriNIC's staff know their business and we ask them to find innovative ways to engage members. In addition we may not want while trying to be too perfect to open the door for further justification that the policy was not applicable because the communication methods were not efficient. I trust AfriNIC's staff, BOD and Elders (the Group of 6) for choosing the best communication methods and actions if this policy is accepted. AfriNIC holds two meetings a year (May/June and Last week of October), it is our understanding that the community will be updated at least twice a year on this matter. > Let's endeavour to make standard Policies (thorough) that will leave little decisions disguised as "AfriNIC staff discretion" or "internal > process" that can make interpretation of the policies biased. RH. Agreed. Let's not be too rigid when it comes to business operations. Let's also be flexible and leave the room opened to trust and innovation and avoid going back to the starting box because we would have been too restrictive. AfriNIC is a young ORG learning from its mistakes. Best Regards. Jean Robert. On 5/18/14, 9:29 AM, Kofi ansa akufo wrote: > > Hello Seun and All > > 1. What are some of the specific challenges facing AfriNIC that this > policy seeks to address other than the general problem of outdated POC > NOT responding to correspondences? > > Is it challenges to communication of annual membership fees renewal > invoices? > > Is it challenges of no response to ABUSE request information? > > I believe the current specifics should be stated to see how best the > policy can be discussed / debated to tackle the issues. > > 2. I will like to see "may" in all the clauses changed to "shall" or > "will" to leave no room for ambiguity or misinterpretation. In other > words to be explicit as to action to be taken. > > 3. I believe policies when ratified are guidelines we all agree to. > Let us not leave anything to AfriNIC or staff of AfriNIC be it "at > their discretion" or "internal process" where these may become > subjective to flaws and personal interpretation or double standards. > What are the current methods of communication used to reach members? > E-mail? Phone call? SMS? Snail mail? Perhaps a policy in this > direction to be referenced by all other communication processes. > > Again I site an example of a "90 day application expiry" as a so > called "internal process" which is contrary to what is defined in RSA > and staff of AfriNIC fail to communicate to applicant. This the > applicant had to threaten with legal address before changes to > decision was made recently. > > Let's endeavour to make standard Policies (thorough) that will leave > little decisions disguised as "AfriNIC staff discretion" or "internal > process" that can make interpretation of the policies biased. > > Cheers > > Kofi > > On May 18, 2014 3:57 PM, "Seun Ojedeji" > wrote: > > Dear members, > > We have received a new policy - "AfriNIC Whois Database Update > Process" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-001-DRAFT-01) > > While this may not be on the agenda of the next public policy > meeting, we encourage the community to discuss this on the list > and at the upcoming face to face meeting. Public url to the > "draft" policy will soon be made available. However the content is > pasted below for comments and discussion from the PDWG/community. > > ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ > > Draft Policy name: AfriNIC Whois Database Update Process > Unique identifier: AFPUB-2014-GEN-001-DRAFT-01 > Status: New > Submission Date 15 MAY 2014 > Author:Jean Robert Hountomey > > > 1.Summary of the Problem Being Addressed by this Policy Proposal > > The African network infrastructure is growing with changes and > extensions. This growth has brought changes in telecommunication > and Internet infrastructure. With the emergence of new operators, > mergers and acquisitions, the dynamism brought by the penetration > of Internet technology has required organizational changes with > job rotation. The need for accurate whois data has been in the > news for years all over the world. > > Inaccurate data is still present in the AfriNIC whois database > because changes have occurred in organizations (point of contact, > contact information etc.) and object owners have not updated their > records. The result is a "No response" from "whois" contacts > listed in the AfriNIC Database. > > The goal of the proposal is setting a process towards ensuring > that AfriNIC whois database is updated. A previous policy > (AFPUB-2012-GEN-001-DRAFT-02 : AfriNIC Whois Database Clean-up ) > was withdrawn by the Author after AfriNIC advised that there was > already an internal process to handle the cleanup of whois data > and do general contact update. However it has been noticed that > objects in AfriNIC database are not accurate. > > 2. Summary of How this Proposal Addresses the Problem > > This proposal asks AfriNIC to maintain accuracy through a > periodical database clean up. Furthermore, at least > once a year or at the renewal of resources, AFRINIC staff should > conduct a whois database information validation. > > 3. The Proposal > > AfriNIC members are committed through the RSA to maintain their > data and keep it accurate. AfriNIC will then > maintain accuracy of whois information through periodical database > clean up or update. AfriNIC will periodically ask object > owners in the Whois Database to actively check and update the > accuracy of data in AfriNIC whois database. > > 3.1 Cleanup > > 3.1.1 - General Database Cleanup: At the ratification of this > policy, AfriNIC staff will conduct a first cleanup by asking all > POC present except those who received their objects in less than a > year to confirm their POC information. We leave to AfriNIC staff > the discretion to use any communication tool they find useful for > this action. > > 3.1.2 - Annual Clean up: After the first cleanup, AfriNIC will > conduct a cleanup once a year. We leave to AfriNIC's staff to > define the period. > > 3.1.3 - At the request of additional resources or services, > AfriNIC staff will ask the organization to update its records. > > 3.2. If a change is requested by another policy. > > In case another AfriNIC policy made mandatory a change or > introduce another object, the object owner is required to make > this update. > > 3.2 Steps > > 3.2.1 - AfriNIC staff will ask members to confirm accuracy of > their records in the Whois database in a month's > timeframe when contacted by email. > > 3.2.2 - After one month, AfriNIC Staff will use any communication > tools at their discretion to contact > those who have not answered or those whose email has bounced back. > > 3.2.3 - After another month of unresponsive response, the record > will be marked invalid. > > 3.2.4 - AfriNIC may publish publicly a report about number > resources with invalid POC. > > 3.2.5 - One year after the first contact initiation, if the data > is still not accurate and the organization has failed to respond > to the call to resolve the data inconsistency, AfriNIC may > claim the number resources back. > > 4. Situation within other RIRs > > - ARIN conducts an annual POC (point of contact) validation process: > https://www.arin.net/resources/services/poc_validation.html > - At APNIC, there was a similar policy proposed that did not reach > consensus and was withdrawn by the author. > http://www.apnic.net/__data/assets/file/0006/22857/prop-084-v002.txt > - RIPE NCC > http://www.ripe.net/data-tools/support/clean-up-of-unreferenced-data > - LACNIC obligates the resources holders contractually throught > their RSA and reviews whois data when resources are requested and > updates accordingly > > *History* > > * 02 Oct. 2012 - AFPUB-2012-GEN-001-DRAFT-02 was withdrawn by > the Author. > > *Previous Versions * > > None > > Kind Regards, > > Seun Ojedeji, Emile Milandou > PDWG Co-Chairs > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com Mon May 19 04:47:13 2014 From: Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com (Andrew Alston) Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 05:47:13 +0100 Subject: [rpd] New proposal - "AfriNIC Whois Database Update Process" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-001-DRAFT-01) In-Reply-To: <53798796.2060702@gmail.com> References: <53798796.2060702@gmail.com> Message-ID: In addition we may not want while trying to be too perfect to open the door for further justification that the policy was not applicable because the communication methods were not efficient. I trust AfriNIC?s staff, BOD and Elders (the Group of 6) for choosing the best communication methods and actions if this policy is accepted. AfriNIC holds two meetings a year (May/June and Last week of October), it is our understanding that the community will be updated at least twice a year on this matter. Just a minor point which I feel I have to raise for the avoidance of future doubt. The Elders have no constitutional powers to make decisions of any form. They are a non-executive advisory body as per section 16 of the bylaws. Regards Andrew ________________________________ DISCLAIMER: This email contains proprietary information some or all of which may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this email, please notify the author by replying to this email. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose, copy, print, or rely on this email. We cannot accept liability for any statements made which are clearly the sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of this company or one of its agents. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From geier at geier.ne.tz Mon May 19 05:30:31 2014 From: geier at geier.ne.tz (Frank Habicht) Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 08:30:31 +0300 Subject: [rpd] AFRINIC Board Elections - 2014: Call for Nominations In-Reply-To: <1400325592.27713.10.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> References: <72B07AC2-F4C2-4A95-B9BA-E71E6DFB20BA@afrinic.net> <1395406604.7293.245.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> <1395426016.7373.31.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> <1399473298.12025.113.camel@dhcp15.posix.co.za> <53772F4C.1060107@geier.ne.tz> <1400325592.27713.10.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> Message-ID: <537996F7.9090901@geier.ne.tz> On 5/17/2014 2:19 PM, Mark Elkins wrote: > https://internetsummitafrica.org/en/communit/bod-election works for > me. now works for me too. > Please don't blame me - I'm the messenger - not the Web Designer. I know. and think never blamed you. Frank From quaynor at ghana.com Mon May 19 07:49:15 2014 From: quaynor at ghana.com (Nii Narku Quaynor) Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 07:49:15 +0000 Subject: [rpd] New proposal - "AfriNIC Whois Database Update Process" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-001-DRAFT-01) In-Reply-To: References: <53798796.2060702@gmail.com> Message-ID: Andrew, Do the staff have any constitutional powers to make decisions of any form? Thus singling out the elders makes a statement? Nii > On May 19, 2014, at 4:47, Andrew Alston wrote: > > In addition we may not want while trying to be too perfect to open the door for further justification that the policy was not applicable because the communication methods were not efficient. I trust AfriNIC?s staff, BOD and Elders (the Group of 6) for choosing the best communication methods and actions if this policy is accepted. AfriNIC holds two meetings a year (May/June and Last week of October), it is our understanding that the community will be updated at least twice a year on this matter. > > Just a minor point which I feel I have to raise for the avoidance of future doubt. The Elders have no constitutional powers to make decisions of any form. They are a non-executive advisory body as per section 16 of the bylaws.. > > Regards > > Andrew > > > > DISCLAIMER: This email contains proprietary information some or all of which may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this email, please notify the author by replying to this email. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose, copy, print, or rely on this email. We cannot accept liability for any statements made which are clearly the sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of this company or one of its agents. > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com Mon May 19 07:52:23 2014 From: Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com (Andrew Alston) Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 08:52:23 +0100 Subject: [rpd] New proposal - "AfriNIC Whois Database Update Process" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-001-DRAFT-01) In-Reply-To: References: <53798796.2060702@gmail.com> Message-ID: <7FF93785BD2D534EA45841A8AAA1D89B2EE07A8769@liquid-exch.liquidtelecom.local> Actually Nii, Yes, the staff have the right to make decisions as delegated by the management. For example: If I apply for IP space, providing the IP space is smaller than a /14 I believe, this is approved by the resource evaluator. If it is /14 or larger (I think), it has to have board approval. So yes, there is a level of decision making within the staff. I believe the IP team also has the ability to choose if they contact a member via email or whatever as well, so long as it goes into the ticket (though I could be wrong here). I only singled out the elders because it is a perception that I have run into several times, that the elders have decision making powers, and that is not the case. Thanks Andrew From: Nii Narku Quaynor [mailto:quaynor at ghana.com] Sent: Monday, May 19, 2014 10:49 AM To: Andrew Alston Cc: Jean Robert Hountomey; rpd at afrinic.net Subject: Re: [rpd] New proposal - "AfriNIC Whois Database Update Process" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-001-DRAFT-01) Andrew, Do the staff have any constitutional powers to make decisions of any form? Thus singling out the elders makes a statement? Nii On May 19, 2014, at 4:47, Andrew Alston > wrote: In addition we may not want while trying to be too perfect to open the door for further justification that the policy was not applicable because the communication methods were not efficient. I trust AfriNIC?s staff, BOD and Elders (the Group of 6) for choosing the best communication methods and actions if this policy is accepted. AfriNIC holds two meetings a year (May/June and Last week of October), it is our understanding that the community will be updated at least twice a year on this matter. Just a minor point which I feel I have to raise for the avoidance of future doubt. The Elders have no constitutional powers to make decisions of any form. They are a non-executive advisory body as per section 16 of the bylaws. Regards Andrew ________________________________ DISCLAIMER: This email contains proprietary information some or all of which may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this email, please notify the author by replying to this email. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose, copy, print, or rely on this email. We cannot accept liability for any statements made which are clearly the sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of this company or one of its agents. _______________________________________________ rpd mailing list rpd at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd ________________________________ DISCLAIMER: This email contains proprietary information some or all of which may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this email, please notify the author by replying to this email. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose, copy, print, or rely on this email. We cannot accept liability for any statements made which are clearly the sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of this company or one of its agents. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From quaynor at ghana.com Mon May 19 08:01:21 2014 From: quaynor at ghana.com (Nii Narku Quaynor) Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 08:01:21 +0000 Subject: [rpd] New proposal - "AfriNIC Whois Database Update Process" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-001-DRAFT-01) In-Reply-To: <7FF93785BD2D534EA45841A8AAA1D89B2EE07A8769@liquid-exch.liquidtelecom.local> References: <53798796.2060702@gmail.com> <7FF93785BD2D534EA45841A8AAA1D89B2EE07A8769@liquid-exch.liquidtelecom.local> Message-ID: Really unnecessary... > On May 19, 2014, at 7:52, Andrew Alston wrote: > > Actually Nii, > > Yes, the staff have the right to make decisions as delegated by the management. For example: > > If I apply for IP space, providing the IP space is smaller than a /14 I believe, this is approved by the resource evaluator. > > If it is /14 or larger (I think), it has to have board approval. > > So yes, there is a level of decision making within the staff. > > I believe the IP team also has the ability to choose if they contact a member via email or whatever as well, so long as it goes into the ticket (though I could be wrong here). I only singled out the elders because it is a perception that I have run into several times, that the elders have decision making powers, and that is not the case. > > Thanks > > Andrew > > > From: Nii Narku Quaynor [mailto:quaynor at ghana.com] > Sent: Monday, May 19, 2014 10:49 AM > To: Andrew Alston > Cc: Jean Robert Hountomey; rpd at afrinic.net > Subject: Re: [rpd] New proposal - "AfriNIC Whois Database Update Process" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-001-DRAFT-01) > > Andrew, > Do the staff have any constitutional powers to make decisions of any form? Thus singling out the elders makes a statement? > Nii > > On May 19, 2014, at 4:47, Andrew Alston wrote: > > In addition we may not want while trying to be too perfect to open the door for further justification that the policy was not applicable because the communication methods were not efficient. I trust AfriNIC?s staff, BOD and Elders (the Group of 6) for choosing the best communication methods and actions if this policy is accepted. AfriNIC holds two meetings a year (May/June and Last week of October), it is our understanding that the community will be updated at least twice a year on this matter. > > Just a minor point which I feel I have to raise for the avoidance of future doubt. The Elders have no constitutional powers to make decisions of any form. They are a non-executive advisory body as per section 16 of the bylaws.. > > Regards > > Andrew > > > > DISCLAIMER: This email contains proprietary information some or all of which may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this email, please notify the author by replying to this email. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose, copy, print, or rely on this email. We cannot accept liability for any statements made which are clearly the sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of this company or one of its agents. > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > DISCLAIMER: This email contains proprietary information some or all of which may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this email, please notify the author by replying to this email. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose, copy, print, or rely on this email. We cannot accept liability for any statements made which are clearly the sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of this company or one of its agents. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jrhountomey at gmail.com Mon May 19 11:53:57 2014 From: jrhountomey at gmail.com (Jean Robert Hountomey) Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 06:53:57 -0500 Subject: [rpd] New proposal - "AfriNIC Whois Database Update Process" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-001-DRAFT-01) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5379F0D5.8080707@gmail.com> Andrew and Al, Thank you for your comments. >If it takes this long to complete basic resource transfers for 5 organisations, how long is it going to take to complete an ?annual > cleanup? of over 750 members? >Hence, I feel that where work is required on AfriNIC?s side, I?d like to see them held to specific timelines by policy. If indeed point > 3.1.1 is covered by the timelines in 3.2, then the over points are moot. Understood. If we want to be a little bit more restrictive will this wording works 3.2. Change requested by another policy. In case another AfriNIC policy makes mandatory a change or introduces another object, the object owner is required to make this update. 3.3. Steps and timeline. 3.3.1 - Contact Initiation. AfriNIC staff will ask members by email to confirm the accuracy of their records in the Whois database within thirty (30) days. Fifteen (15) days after the first contact initiation, AfriNIC Staff will send a reminder email to members with no response and notify them that they will enter in "Grace Period" in the next 15 days if there is no response. For contacts whose email has bounced back for "Non Delivery", AfriNIC Staff will start using right away additional methods of communication to reach the organizations. 3.3.2 - Grace Period. Thirty one (31) days after the first contact initiation starts the Grace Period. The Grace period lasts thirty (30) days. During the Grace Period, AfriNIC Staff will use any communication tools at their discretion to reach point of contacts, members, organizations who have not confirmed the accuracy of their records. AfriNIC will continue its efforts to reach those whose email has bounced back. 3.3.3 - Record is marked invalid and the community notified. At the end of the Grace Period (61 days after the first contact initiation), AfriNIC will publish the next day the Resources and the Object Owners on a publicly available website and mark the record INVALID. 3.3.4. Conditions to withdraw an invalid record from the publicly available website. An invalid Resource Record that has not expired can be withdrawn at anytime from the publicly available website after Object Owners (new or old) address written notification to AfriNIC that they have updated the database and AfriNIC has confirmed within fifteen (15) days after being contacted that the newly available information is accurate. After fifty (15) days of non confirmation, AfriNIC must notify Object Owners of the reasons for non sending the notification. 3.3.5 - Expiration One year after the first contact initiation, if the data is still not accurate and the organization has failed to respond to the requests to resolve the data inconsistency, AfriNIC will mark the Resource EXPIRED and claim the number resources back. The resource will go back to AfriNIC's pool. If the Organization contacts AfriNIC after the expiration, a new application with associated fees will be required and there is no garantee that the Organization will keep the same pool. 3.3.6. - No Refund. This current policy gives a year to an Organization to update its information in the AfriNIC Database before expiration. In case a record reaches an expiration status and is returned to AfriNIC's pool, the organization cannot claim a refund for any portion of unused fund. 3.3.7. - Hours and timezone. AfriNIC's headquarters' timezone is the reference. A day ends at 23:59 at AfriNIC's headquarters timezone. Thanks. Best Regards Jean Robert From Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com Mon May 19 12:19:45 2014 From: Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com (Andrew Alston) Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 13:19:45 +0100 Subject: [rpd] New proposal - "AfriNIC Whois Database Update Process" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-001-DRAFT-01) In-Reply-To: <5379F0D5.8080707@gmail.com> References: <5379F0D5.8080707@gmail.com> Message-ID: <7FF93785BD2D534EA45841A8AAA1D89B2EE07A8875@liquid-exch.liquidtelecom.local> Hi Jean Robert, A coupla of points: > Fifteen (15) days after the first contact initiation, AfriNIC Staff will send a reminder email to members with no response and notify them that they will enter in "Grace Period" in > the next 15 days if there is no response. > For contacts whose email has bounced back for "Non Delivery", AfriNIC Staff will start using right away additional methods of communication to reach the organizations. Can this be modified to read: Fifteen (15) days after the first contact initiation, AfriNIC staff will send a reminder email to members who have not responded, notifying them that they will enter a "Grace Period" within 15 days, should a response still not be forthcoming. For contacts whose email has bounced back for "Non Delivery", AfriNIC Staff will immediately begin attempting to reach organizations via alternative means of communication. > 3.3.3 - Record is marked invalid and the community notified. > At the end of the Grace Period (61 days after the first contact initiation), AfriNIC will publish the next day the Resources and the Object Owners on a publicly available website and > mark the record INVALID. Can this be modified to read: 3.3.3 - Record is marked invalid and the community notified. At the end of the Grace Period (61 days after the first contact initiation), AfriNIC will publish, within 24 hours, the list of non-responsive contacts and the objects associated with them. The associated objects will be marked INVALID. > 3.3.4. Conditions to withdraw an invalid record from the publicly available website. > An invalid Resource Record that has not expired can be withdrawn at anytime from the publicly available website after Object Owners (new or > old) address written notification to AfriNIC that they have updated the database and AfriNIC has confirmed within fifteen (15) days after being contacted that the newly > available information is accurate. After fifty (15) days of non confirmation, AfriNIC must notify Object Owners of the reasons for non sending the notification. Can this be modified to read: An invalid resource record that has not expired can be withdrawn from the publically available website after the object owners (new or old) address written notification to AfriNIC confirming that the records have been updated. AfriNIC shall acknowledge the object owner notification within 72 hours of receipt, and the withdrawl of the object from the publically available website should occur within 72 hours of such acknowledgement. (A note about this: Firstly, there is no practical way for AfriNIC to confirm that the new information is actually accurate, so that point is moot, unless we are talking about AfriNIC emailing the new contact addresses and seeing that there is a response, in which case the wording needs to state that this is the method of verification. Secondly, there is no reason to require 15 days to acknowledge an update. Also, saying it can be removed at any time is far to non-specific, that allows AfriNIC to acknowledge the update and never get around to updating the page) > 3.3.5 - Expiration > One year after the first contact initiation, if the data is still not accurate and the organization has failed to respond to the requests to resolve the data inconsistency, AfriNIC > will mark the Resource EXPIRED and claim the number resources back. The resource will go back to AfriNIC's pool. If the Organization contacts AfriNIC after the expiration, a new > application with associated fees will be required and there is no garantee that the Organization will keep the same pool. Typo on the word guarantee that needs to be fixed. Also a note, once the resource has been reclaimed, I'd like to see something in here saying that the record will be removed from the page the moment that reclamation is done (since the space is no longer assigned to anyone, there is no point in keeping it on the page). > 3.3.6. - No Refund. > This current policy gives a year to an Organization to update its information in the AfriNIC Database before expiration. In case a record reaches an expiration status and is returned > to AfriNIC's pool, the organization cannot claim a refund for any portion of unused fund. No issues with this section. > 3.3.7. - Hours and timezone. > AfriNIC's headquarters' timezone is the reference. A day ends at 23:59 at AfriNIC's headquarters timezone. Can this be modified to say: 3.3.7 Hours and timezone. For the purposes of this policy time periods specified are literal and not based on working days. Where time frames are specified in days, a day is deemed to have begun at 00:01 after the communication is received/sent. The time frame expires at 23:59 on the corresponding days. Times are based on the timezone relevant to the registered address of AfriNIC. Note: Some of these changes are purely cosmetic (most of them), but I also feel this ties it down a bit better. Thoughts? Andrew DISCLAIMER: This email contains proprietary information some or all of which may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this email, please notify the author by replying to this email. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose, copy, print, or rely on this email. We cannot accept liability for any statements made which are clearly the sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of this company or one of its agents. From ademola at ng.lopworks.com Mon May 19 12:35:26 2014 From: ademola at ng.lopworks.com (ademola at ng.lopworks.com) Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 13:35:26 +0100 Subject: [rpd] New proposal - "AfriNIC Whois Database Update Process" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-001-DRAFT-01) In-Reply-To: <5379F0D5.8080707@gmail.com> References: <5379F0D5.8080707@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20140519123526.5308551.4776.12600@ng.lopworks.com> P Regards, Ademola Osindero CEO/Consulting Director, Lopworks Limited www.lopworks.com ? Original Message ? From: Jean Robert Hountomey Sent: Monday, May 19, 2014 12:56 PM To: rpd at afrinic.net Subject: Re: [rpd] New proposal - "AfriNIC Whois Database Update Process" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-001-DRAFT-01) Andrew and Al, Thank you for your comments. >If it takes this long to complete basic resource transfers for 5 organisations, how long is it going to take to complete an ?annual > cleanup? of over 750 members? >Hence, I feel that where work is required on AfriNIC?s side, I?d like to see them held to specific timelines by policy. If indeed point > 3.1.1 is covered by the timelines in 3.2, then the over points are moot. Understood. If we want to be a little bit more restrictive will this wording works 3.2. Change requested by another policy. In case another AfriNIC policy makes mandatory a change or introduces another object, the object owner is required to make this update. 3.3. Steps and timeline. 3.3.1 - Contact Initiation. AfriNIC staff will ask members by email to confirm the accuracy of their records in the Whois database within thirty (30) days. Fifteen (15) days after the first contact initiation, AfriNIC Staff will send a reminder email to members with no response and notify them that they will enter in "Grace Period" in the next 15 days if there is no response. For contacts whose email has bounced back for "Non Delivery", AfriNIC Staff will start using right away additional methods of communication to reach the organizations. 3.3.2 - Grace Period. Thirty one (31) days after the first contact initiation starts the Grace Period. The Grace period lasts thirty (30) days. During the Grace Period, AfriNIC Staff will use any communication tools at their discretion to reach point of contacts, members, organizations who have not confirmed the accuracy of their records. AfriNIC will continue its efforts to reach those whose email has bounced back. 3.3.3 - Record is marked invalid and the community notified. At the end of the Grace Period (61 days after the first contact initiation), AfriNIC will publish the next day the Resources and the Object Owners on a publicly available website and mark the record INVALID. 3.3.4. Conditions to withdraw an invalid record from the publicly available website. An invalid Resource Record that has not expired can be withdrawn at anytime from the publicly available website after Object Owners (new or old) address written notification to AfriNIC that they have updated the database and AfriNIC has confirmed within fifteen (15) days after being contacted that the newly available information is accurate. After fifty (15) days of non confirmation, AfriNIC must notify Object Owners of the reasons for non sending the notification. 3.3.5 - Expiration One year after the first contact initiation, if the data is still not accurate and the organization has failed to respond to the requests to resolve the data inconsistency, AfriNIC will mark the Resource EXPIRED and claim the number resources back. The resource will go back to AfriNIC's pool. If the Organization contacts AfriNIC after the expiration, a new application with associated fees will be required and there is no garantee that the Organization will keep the same pool. 3.3.6. - No Refund. This current policy gives a year to an Organization to update its information in the AfriNIC Database before expiration. In case a record reaches an expiration status and is returned to AfriNIC's pool, the organization cannot claim a refund for any portion of unused fund. 3.3.7. - Hours and timezone. AfriNIC's headquarters' timezone is the reference. A day ends at 23:59 at AfriNIC's headquarters timezone. Thanks. Best Regards Jean Robert _______________________________________________ rpd mailing list rpd at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd From kofi.ansa at gmail.com Mon May 19 13:09:18 2014 From: kofi.ansa at gmail.com (Kofi ansa akufo) Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 17:09:18 +0400 Subject: [rpd] New proposal - "AfriNIC Whois Database Update Process" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-001-DRAFT-01) In-Reply-To: <5379F0D5.8080707@gmail.com> References: <5379F0D5.8080707@gmail.com> Message-ID: This looks better :) My issue although may be trivial is clause 3.3.7 AfriNIC headquarters is in a timezone (+4hrs GMT) quite different from almost all the AfriNIC service region. An issue noticed currently when contacting members. Cheers On May 19, 2014 3:55 PM, "Jean Robert Hountomey" wrote: > Andrew and Al, > > Thank you for your comments. > > >If it takes this long to complete basic resource transfers for 5 > organisations, how long is it going to take to complete an ?annual > > cleanup? of over 750 members? > >Hence, I feel that where work is required on AfriNIC?s side, I?d like to > see them held to specific timelines by policy. If indeed point > > 3.1.1 is covered by the timelines in 3.2, then the over points are moot. > > Understood. If we want to be a little bit more restrictive will this > wording works > > 3.2. Change requested by another policy. > > In case another AfriNIC policy makes mandatory a change or introduces > another object, the object owner is required to make this update. > > 3.3. Steps and timeline. > > 3.3.1 - Contact Initiation. > > AfriNIC staff will ask members by email to confirm the accuracy of their > records in the Whois database within thirty (30) days. > > Fifteen (15) days after the first contact initiation, AfriNIC Staff will > send a reminder email to members with no response and notify them that they > will enter in "Grace Period" in the next 15 days if there is no response. > > For contacts whose email has bounced back for "Non Delivery", AfriNIC > Staff will start using right away additional methods of communication to > reach the organizations. > > 3.3.2 - Grace Period. > > Thirty one (31) days after the first contact initiation starts the Grace > Period. The Grace period lasts thirty (30) days. > > During the Grace Period, AfriNIC Staff will use any communication tools at > their discretion to reach point of contacts, members, organizations who > have not confirmed the accuracy of their records. AfriNIC will continue its > efforts to reach those whose email has bounced back. > > 3.3.3 - Record is marked invalid and the community notified. > > At the end of the Grace Period (61 days after the first contact > initiation), AfriNIC will publish the next day the Resources and the Object > Owners on a publicly available website and mark the record INVALID. > > 3.3.4. Conditions to withdraw an invalid record from the publicly > available website. > > An invalid Resource Record that has not expired can be withdrawn at > anytime from the publicly available website after Object Owners (new or > old) address written notification to AfriNIC that they have updated the > database and AfriNIC has confirmed within fifteen (15) days after being > contacted that the newly available information is accurate. After fifty > (15) days of non confirmation, AfriNIC must notify Object Owners of the > reasons for non sending the notification. > > 3.3.5 - Expiration > > One year after the first contact initiation, if the data is still not > accurate and the organization has failed to respond to the requests to > resolve the data inconsistency, AfriNIC will mark the Resource EXPIRED and > claim the number resources back. The resource will > go back to AfriNIC's pool. If the Organization contacts AfriNIC after the > expiration, a new application with associated fees will be required and > there is no garantee that the Organization will keep the same pool. > > 3.3.6. - No Refund. > > This current policy gives a year to an Organization to update its > information in the AfriNIC Database before expiration. In case a record > reaches an expiration status and is returned to AfriNIC's pool, the > organization cannot claim a refund for any portion of unused fund. > > 3.3.7. - Hours and timezone. > > AfriNIC's headquarters' timezone is the reference. A day ends at 23:59 at > AfriNIC's headquarters timezone. > > > Thanks. > > Best Regards > > Jean Robert > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jrhountomey at gmail.com Tue May 20 04:42:03 2014 From: jrhountomey at gmail.com (Jean Robert Hountomey) Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 23:42:03 -0500 Subject: [rpd] New proposal - "AfriNIC Whois Database Update Process" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-001-DRAFT-01) In-Reply-To: <7FF93785BD2D534EA45841A8AAA1D89B2EE07A8875@liquid-exch.liquidtelecom.local> References: <5379F0D5.8080707@gmail.com> <7FF93785BD2D534EA45841A8AAA1D89B2EE07A8875@liquid-exch.liquidtelecom.local> Message-ID: <537ADD1B.40002@gmail.com> Hi Andrew, thank you so much for this great co-editor (smile) polishing. Many thanks. Will review, and update. Best. Jean Robert On 5/19/14, 7:19 AM, Andrew Alston wrote: > Hi Jean Robert, > > A coupla of points: > >> Fifteen (15) days after the first contact initiation, AfriNIC Staff will send a reminder email to members with no response and notify them that they will enter in "Grace Period" in >> the next 15 days if there is no response. >> For contacts whose email has bounced back for "Non Delivery", AfriNIC Staff will start using right away additional methods of communication to reach the organizations. > Can this be modified to read: > > Fifteen (15) days after the first contact initiation, AfriNIC staff will send a reminder email to members who have not responded, notifying them that they will enter a "Grace Period" within 15 days, should a response still not be forthcoming. > > For contacts whose email has bounced back for "Non Delivery", AfriNIC Staff will immediately begin attempting to reach organizations via alternative means of communication. > > >> 3.3.3 - Record is marked invalid and the community notified. >> At the end of the Grace Period (61 days after the first contact initiation), AfriNIC will publish the next day the Resources and the Object Owners on a publicly available website and > mark the record INVALID. > Can this be modified to read: > > 3.3.3 - Record is marked invalid and the community notified. > > At the end of the Grace Period (61 days after the first contact initiation), AfriNIC will publish, within 24 hours, the list of non-responsive contacts and the objects associated with them. The associated objects will be marked INVALID. > >> 3.3.4. Conditions to withdraw an invalid record from the publicly available website. >> An invalid Resource Record that has not expired can be withdrawn at anytime from the publicly available website after Object Owners (new or >> old) address written notification to AfriNIC that they have updated the database and AfriNIC has confirmed within fifteen (15) days after being contacted that the newly >> available information is accurate. After fifty (15) days of non confirmation, AfriNIC must notify Object Owners of the reasons for non sending the notification. > Can this be modified to read: > > An invalid resource record that has not expired can be withdrawn from the publically available website after the object owners (new or old) address written notification to AfriNIC confirming that the records have been updated. AfriNIC shall acknowledge the object owner notification within 72 hours of receipt, and the withdrawl of the object from the publically available website should occur within 72 hours of such acknowledgement. > > (A note about this: Firstly, there is no practical way for AfriNIC to confirm that the new information is actually accurate, so that point is moot, unless we are talking about AfriNIC emailing the new contact addresses and seeing that there is a response, in which case the wording needs to state that this is the method of verification. Secondly, there is no reason to require 15 days to acknowledge an update. Also, saying it can be removed at any time is far to non-specific, that allows AfriNIC to acknowledge the update and never get around to updating the page) > > >> 3.3.5 - Expiration >> One year after the first contact initiation, if the data is still not accurate and the organization has failed to respond to the requests to resolve the data inconsistency, AfriNIC >> will mark the Resource EXPIRED and claim the number resources back. The resource will go back to AfriNIC's pool. If the Organization contacts AfriNIC after the expiration, a new >> application with associated fees will be required and there is no garantee that the Organization will keep the same pool. > Typo on the word guarantee that needs to be fixed. Also a note, once the resource has been reclaimed, I'd like to see something in here saying that the record will be removed from the page the moment that reclamation is done (since the space is no longer assigned to anyone, there is no point in keeping it on the page). > >> 3.3.6. - No Refund. >> This current policy gives a year to an Organization to update its information in the AfriNIC Database before expiration. In case a record reaches an expiration status and is returned >> to AfriNIC's pool, the organization cannot claim a refund for any portion of unused fund. > No issues with this section. > >> 3.3.7. - Hours and timezone. >> AfriNIC's headquarters' timezone is the reference. A day ends at 23:59 at AfriNIC's headquarters timezone. > Can this be modified to say: > > 3.3.7 Hours and timezone. > > For the purposes of this policy time periods specified are literal and not based on working days. > Where time frames are specified in days, a day is deemed to have begun at 00:01 after the communication is received/sent. The time frame expires at 23:59 on the corresponding days. Times are based on the timezone relevant to the registered address of AfriNIC. > > Note: Some of these changes are purely cosmetic (most of them), but I also feel this ties it down a bit better. > > Thoughts? > > Andrew > > > DISCLAIMER: This email contains proprietary information some or all of which may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this email, please notify the author by replying to this email. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose, copy, print, or rely on this email. We cannot accept liability for any statements made which are clearly the sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of this company or one of its agents. > From omo at datasphir.com Tue May 20 08:48:05 2014 From: omo at datasphir.com (Omo Oaiya) Date: Tue, 20 May 2014 09:48:05 +0100 Subject: [rpd] Re: [AfrICANN-discuss] AFRINIC Board Elections - 2014: Call for Nominations In-Reply-To: References: <72B07AC2-F4C2-4A95-B9BA-E71E6DFB20BA@afrinic.net> <1395406604.7293.245.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> <1395426016.7373.31.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> <1399571485.8679.21.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> Message-ID: Dear Neriah, There are still issues with the Afrinic site. It is up and down and frequently unavailable. I have had several complaints from colleagues whom have tried to comment on https://internetsummitafrica.org/en/communit/bod-election Please resolve asap. Many thanks Omo Oaiya On 13 May 2014 08:45, Neriah Sossou wrote: > Hello all, > > There was indeed a glitch with the display of all candidates CVs online > which has now been addressed. > The only exception remains Mr. Antoine Joseph Junior Tonye for whom we > have unfortunately not received neither a picture nor the CV. > Our sincere apologies for that oversight. > __________ > > Neriah Sossou > Head IT & Engineering, AFRINIC Ltd. > t: +230 403 51 00 | f: +230 466 6758 | tt: @afrinic | w: www.afrinic.netfacebook.com/afrinic | flickr.com/afrinic | youtube.com/afrinicmedia > ___________________________ > > Join us at AIS14 / AFRINIC20 in Djibouti, 25 May - 6 June 2014. > > > > > On May 13, 2014, at 7:41 AM, Bope Domilongo Christian wrote: > > Hi Mark, > > Nearly one week after revealing the final slate of candidates for BOD > election, there is AIS 2014 website logistic problem because some of CVs > and candidates pictures are not yet online and the E-voting will start > shortly, which could have an impact or may even biased the fairness of the > process. > > With best regards, > Christian Bope > > > On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 1:51 AM, Mark Elkins wrote: > >> Dear Colleagues, >> >> We are seeking nominations for 1 Co-Chair of the Policy Development >> Working Group (PDWG) for a 2-year term (June 2014 - June 2016). >> >> Co-Chairs of the PDWG are volunteers selected by the community per >> the current Policy Development Process (PDP) to carry out all >> administrative functions of the Policy Development Working Group >> (PDWG). Their responsibilities may include (but are not limited to) >> the following: >> >> 1. Chairing face-to-face policy meeting sessions and determining >> consensus. >> >> 2. Preparing post-meeting policy reports to share with the community >> as appropriate. >> >> 3. Preparing pre-meeting reports (usually mailing list discussion >> summaries) in preparation for face-to-face meetings. >> >> 4. Advising the board about ratification of proposals that reached >> consensus. >> >> 5. Evaluating emergencies that may necessitate varying the normal >> policy development process. >> >> Nominated candidates must be from the AFRINIC community and cannot >> be AFRINIC staff. Candidates can be nominated by anyone, but >> excluding AFRINIC or other RIR staff, and must permanently reside in >> a country within the AFRINIC service region. >> >> To nominate yourself or a candidate of your choice, please send an >> email to the Nominations Committee (nomcom2014 at afrinic.net) with the >> following information: >> >> a. Information of the Nominee: >> * Full Name: >> * Organization name (or Affiliation): >> * Position: >> * E-mail address: >> * Postal/Physical address: >> * Phone number: >> * Country of residence: >> * Brief Bio with a highlight of how the Nominee intends to >> contribute to the PDWG in particular and the Region's Policy >> Development Process (PDP) in General (not more than 500 words): >> >> b. Information about the Nominator: >> >> * Full Name: >> * Organization: >> * E-mail address: >> * Motivation for nomination: >> >> If self-nominated, please indicate "self" in section (b) above. >> >> Please refer to the following for more information: >> >> * The PDWG Co-Chair election process: >> http://www.afrinic.net/elections/process/ep_pdwg.htm for more >> information. >> >> >> * The Policy Development Process: >> >> http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/251-policy-development-process-in-the-afrinic-service-region-afpub-2010-gen-005 >> >> >> >> The Deadline for nominations is Wednesday 14th May 2014 20:00 UTC. >> >> >> >> -- >> Mark J Elkins - AFRINIC 2014 Nominations Committee Chair >> mje at posix.co.za - nomcom2014 (at) afrinic.net >> Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> AfrICANN mailing list >> AfrICANN at afrinic.net >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/africann >> >> > _______________________________________________ > AfrICANN mailing list > AfrICANN at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/africann > > > > _______________________________________________ > AfrICANN mailing list > AfrICANN at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/africann > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sm+afrinic at elandsys.com Tue May 20 09:14:08 2014 From: sm+afrinic at elandsys.com (S Moonesamy) Date: Tue, 20 May 2014 02:14:08 -0700 Subject: [rpd] Re: [AfrICANN-discuss] AFRINIC Board Elections - 2014: Call for Nominations In-Reply-To: References: <72B07AC2-F4C2-4A95-B9BA-E71E6DFB20BA@afrinic.net> <1395406604.7293.245.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> <1395426016.7373.31.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> <1399571485.8679.21.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> Message-ID: <6.2.5.6.2.20140520020849.0c1507b8@resistor.net> Hello, At 01:48 20-05-2014, Omo Oaiya wrote: >There are still issues with the Afrinic site. It is up and down and >frequently unavailable. I have had several complaints from >colleagues whom have tried to comment on >https://internetsummitafrica.org/en/communit/bod-election My web browser shows a "connection to the server was reset" error when I try to access the above URL. Regards, S. Moonesamy From neriah at afrinic.net Tue May 20 09:42:41 2014 From: neriah at afrinic.net (Neriah Sossou) Date: Tue, 20 May 2014 13:42:41 +0400 Subject: [rpd] Re: [AfrICANN-discuss] AFRINIC Board Elections - 2014: Call for Nominations In-Reply-To: References: <72B07AC2-F4C2-4A95-B9BA-E71E6DFB20BA@afrinic.net> <1395406604.7293.245.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> <1395426016.7373.31.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> <1399571485.8679.21.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> Message-ID: <77AC0CFE-A98D-4FB1-B317-8692D5C354CE@afrinic.net> Hello Omo, Sorry about that. An issue with apache that was addressed immediately. Thanks Neriah On May 20, 2014, at 12:48 PM, Omo Oaiya wrote: > Dear Neriah, > > There are still issues with the Afrinic site. It is up and down and frequently unavailable. I have had several complaints from colleagues whom have tried to comment on https://internetsummitafrica.org/en/communit/bod-election > > Please resolve asap. > > Many thanks > > Omo Oaiya > > On 13 May 2014 08:45, Neriah Sossou wrote: > Hello all, > > There was indeed a glitch with the display of all candidates CVs online which has now been addressed. > The only exception remains Mr. Antoine Joseph Junior Tonye for whom we have unfortunately not received neither a picture nor the CV. > Our sincere apologies for that oversight. > __________ > Neriah Sossou > Head IT & Engineering, AFRINIC Ltd. > t: +230 403 51 00 | f: +230 466 6758 | tt: @afrinic | w: www.afrinic.net > facebook.com/afrinic | flickr.com/afrinic | youtube.com/afrinicmedia > ___________________________ > Join us at AIS14 / AFRINIC20 in Djibouti, 25 May - 6 June 2014. > > > > > On May 13, 2014, at 7:41 AM, Bope Domilongo Christian wrote: > >> Hi Mark, >> >> Nearly one week after revealing the final slate of candidates for BOD election, there is AIS 2014 website logistic problem because some of CVs and candidates pictures are not yet online and the E-voting will start shortly, which could have an impact or may even biased the fairness of the process. >> >> With best regards, >> Christian Bope >> >> >> On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 1:51 AM, Mark Elkins wrote: >> Dear Colleagues, >> >> We are seeking nominations for 1 Co-Chair of the Policy Development >> Working Group (PDWG) for a 2-year term (June 2014 ? June 2016). >> >> Co-Chairs of the PDWG are volunteers selected by the community per >> the current Policy Development Process (PDP) to carry out all >> administrative functions of the Policy Development Working Group >> (PDWG). Their responsibilities may include (but are not limited to) >> the following: >> >> 1. Chairing face-to-face policy meeting sessions and determining >> consensus. >> >> 2. Preparing post-meeting policy reports to share with the community >> as appropriate. >> >> 3. Preparing pre-meeting reports (usually mailing list discussion >> summaries) in preparation for face-to-face meetings. >> >> 4. Advising the board about ratification of proposals that reached >> consensus. >> >> 5. Evaluating emergencies that may necessitate varying the normal >> policy development process. >> >> Nominated candidates must be from the AFRINIC community and cannot >> be AFRINIC staff. Candidates can be nominated by anyone, but >> excluding AFRINIC or other RIR staff, and must permanently reside in >> a country within the AFRINIC service region. >> >> To nominate yourself or a candidate of your choice, please send an >> email to the Nominations Committee (nomcom2014 at afrinic.net) with the >> following information: >> >> a. Information of the Nominee: >> ? Full Name: >> ? Organization name (or Affiliation): >> ? Position: >> ? E-mail address: >> ? Postal/Physical address: >> ? Phone number: >> ? Country of residence: >> ? Brief Bio with a highlight of how the Nominee intends to >> contribute to the PDWG in particular and the Region's Policy >> Development Process (PDP) in General (not more than 500 words): >> >> b. Information about the Nominator: >> >> ? Full Name: >> ? Organization: >> ? E-mail address: >> ? Motivation for nomination: >> >> If self-nominated, please indicate "self" in section (b) above. >> >> Please refer to the following for more information: >> >> ? The PDWG Co-Chair election process: >> http://www.afrinic.net/elections/process/ep_pdwg.htm for more >> information. >> >> >> ? The Policy Development Process: >> http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/251-policy-development-process-in-the-afrinic-service-region-afpub-2010-gen-005 >> >> >> >> The Deadline for nominations is Wednesday 14th May 2014 20:00 UTC. >> >> >> >> -- >> Mark J Elkins - AFRINIC 2014 Nominations Committee Chair >> mje at posix.co.za - nomcom2014 (at) afrinic.net >> Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> AfrICANN mailing list >> AfrICANN at afrinic.net >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/africann >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> AfrICANN mailing list >> AfrICANN at afrinic.net >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/africann > > > _______________________________________________ > AfrICANN mailing list > AfrICANN at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/africann > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 495 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From jrhountomey at gmail.com Tue May 20 11:35:39 2014 From: jrhountomey at gmail.com (Jean Robert Hountomey) Date: Tue, 20 May 2014 06:35:39 -0500 Subject: [rpd] New proposal - "AfriNIC Whois Database Update Process" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-001-DRAFT-01) In-Reply-To: <537ADD1B.40002@gmail.com> References: <5379F0D5.8080707@gmail.com> <7FF93785BD2D534EA45841A8AAA1D89B2EE07A8875@liquid-exch.liquidtelecom.local> <537ADD1B.40002@gmail.com> Message-ID: <537B3E0B.7070400@gmail.com> Andrew and Al, Thanks again for your comments. Please find attached the updated version before I put it in the right format per PDP requirement. Many Thanks. Summary of the Problem Being Addressed by this Policy Proposal The African network infrastructure is growing with changes and extensions. This growth has brought changes in telecommunication and Internet infrastructures. With the emergence of new operators, mergers and acquisitions, the dynamism brought by the penetration of Internet technology has required organizational changes with job rotation. The need for accurate whois data has been in the news for years all over the world. Inaccurate data is still present in the AfriNIC whois database because changes have occurred in organizations (point of contact, contact information etc.) and object owners have not updated their records. The result is a ?No response? from ?whois? contacts listed in the AfriNIC Database. The goal of the proposal is setting a process towards ensuring that AfriNIC whois database is updated. A previous policy (AFPUB-2012-GEN-001-DRAFT-02 : AfriNIC Whois Database Clean-up ) was withdrawn by the Author after AfriNIC advised that there was already an internal process to handle the cleanup of whois data and do general contact update. However it has been noticed that objects in AfriNIC database are not accurate. 2. Summary of How this Proposal Addresses the Problem This proposal asks AfriNIC to maintain accuracy through a periodical database clean up. Furthermore, at least once a year or at the renewal of resources, AFRINIC staff must conduct a whois database information validation. 3. The Proposal AfriNIC members are committed through the RSA to maintain their data and keep it accurate. AfriNIC must then maintain accuracy of whois information through periodical database clean up and update. Object Owners in the Whois Database are required at least once a year to actively check and update the accuracy of their data in AfriNIC whois database. 3.1 Cleanup 3.1.1 - General Database Cleanup: At the ratification of this policy, AfriNIC staff will conduct a first cleanup by asking all members and their Point of Contacts except those who have received their objects in less than a year to confirm their POC information. 3.1.2 - Annual Clean up. After the first cleanup, AfriNIC must conduct a cleanup once a year. 3.1.3 - At the request of additional resources or services, an organization must update its records. 3.2. Change requested by another policy. In case another AfriNIC policy makes mandatory a change or introduces another object, the object owner is required to make this update. 3.3. Steps and timeline. 3.3.1 - Contact Initiation. AfriNIC staff will ask members by email to confirm the accuracy of their records in the Whois database within thirty (30) days. Fifteen (15) days after the first contact initiation, AfriNIC staff will send a reminder email to members who have not responded, notifying them that they will enter a "Grace Period" within 15 days, should a response still not be forthcoming. For contacts whose email has bounced back for "Non Delivery", AfriNIC Staff will immediately begin attempting to reach organizations via alternative means of communication. 3.3.2 - Grace Period. Thirty one (31) days after the first contact initiation starts the Grace Period. The Grace period lasts thirty (30) days. During the Grace Period, AfriNIC Staff will use any communication tools at their discretion to reach point of contacts, members, organizations who have not confirmed the accuracy of their records. AfriNIC will continue its efforts to reach those whose email has bounced back. 3.3.3 - Record is marked invalid and the community notified. At the end of the Grace Period (61 days after the first contact initiation), AfriNIC will publish, within 24 hours, the list of non-responsive contacts and the objects associated with them. The associated objects will be marked INVALID. 3.3.4. Conditions to withdraw an invalid record from the publicly available website. An invalid resource record that has not expired can be withdrawn from the publicly available website after the object owners (new or old) address written notification to AfriNIC confirming that the records have been updated. AfriNIC shall acknowledge the object owner notification within 72 hours of receipt, and the withdrawal of the object from the publicly available website should occur within 72 hours of such acknowledgement. 3.3.5 - Expiration One year after the first contact initiation, if the data is still not accurate and the organization has failed to respond to the requests to resolve the data inconsistency, AfriNIC will mark the Resource EXPIRED and claim the number resources back. The resource will go back to AfriNIC's pool. If the Organization contacts AfriNIC after the expiration, a new application with associated fees will be required and there is no guarantee that the Organization will keep the same pool. Once the resource is reclaimed, it will be removed from the publicly available website. 3.3.6. - No Refund. This current policy gives a year to an Organization to update its information in the AfriNIC Database before expiration. In case a record reaches an expiration status and is returned to AfriNIC's pool, the organization cannot claim a refund for any portion of unused fund. 3.3.7. - Hours and timezone. For the purposes of this policy time periods specified are literal and not based on working days. Where time frames are specified in days, a day is deemed to have begun at 00:01 after the communication is received/sent. The time frame expires at 23:59 on the corresponding days.Times are based on the timezone relevant to the registered address of AfriNIC. Thanks to Andrew for co-editing and the Community. Jean Robert From apb at cequrux.com Tue May 20 11:53:28 2014 From: apb at cequrux.com (Alan Barrett) Date: Tue, 20 May 2014 13:53:28 +0200 Subject: [rpd] New proposal - "AfriNIC Whois Database Update Process" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-001-DRAFT-01) In-Reply-To: <537B3E0B.7070400@gmail.com> References: <5379F0D5.8080707@gmail.com> <7FF93785BD2D534EA45841A8AAA1D89B2EE07A8875@liquid-exch.liquidtelecom.local> <537ADD1B.40002@gmail.com> <537B3E0B.7070400@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20140520115327.GB1554@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> On Tue, 20 May 2014, Jean Robert Hountomey wrote: > The goal of the proposal is setting a process towards ensuring > that AfriNIC whois database is updated. A previous policy > (AFPUB-2012-GEN-001-DRAFT-02 : AfriNIC Whois Database Clean-up ) > was withdrawn by the Author after AfriNIC advised that there was > already an internal process to handle the cleanup of whois data > and do general contact update. However it has been noticed that > objects in AfriNIC database are not accurate. Last time we discussed this, in 2012, the community thought that Whois cleanup should be a staff project, not a policy issue, and the Afrinic staff said that they were busy trying to clean up the database. It would be nice to know what progress has been made since then. --apb (Alan Barrett) From Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com Tue May 20 11:56:50 2014 From: Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com (Andrew Alston) Date: Tue, 20 May 2014 12:56:50 +0100 Subject: [rpd] New proposal - "AfriNIC Whois Database Update Process" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-001-DRAFT-01) In-Reply-To: <537B3E0B.7070400@gmail.com> References: <5379F0D5.8080707@gmail.com> <7FF93785BD2D534EA45841A8AAA1D89B2EE07A8875@liquid-exch.liquidtelecom.local> <537ADD1B.40002@gmail.com> <537B3E0B.7070400@gmail.com> Message-ID: <7FF93785BD2D534EA45841A8AAA1D89B2EE093087B@liquid-exch.liquidtelecom.local> Looks good to me now :) Thanks! Andrew -----Original Message----- From: Jean Robert Hountomey [mailto:jrhountomey at gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2014 2:36 PM To: Andrew Alston; rpd at afrinic.net Subject: Re: [rpd] New proposal - "AfriNIC Whois Database Update Process" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-001-DRAFT-01) Andrew and Al, Thanks again for your comments. Please find attached the updated version before I put it in the right format per PDP requirement. Many Thanks. Summary of the Problem Being Addressed by this Policy Proposal The African network infrastructure is growing with changes and extensions. This growth has brought changes in telecommunication and Internet infrastructures. With the emergence of new operators, mergers and acquisitions, the dynamism brought by the penetration of Internet technology has required organizational changes with job rotation. The need for accurate whois data has been in the news for years all over the world. Inaccurate data is still present in the AfriNIC whois database because changes have occurred in organizations (point of contact, contact information etc.) and object owners have not updated their records. The result is a "No response" from "whois" contacts listed in the AfriNIC Database. The goal of the proposal is setting a process towards ensuring that AfriNIC whois database is updated. A previous policy (AFPUB-2012-GEN-001-DRAFT-02 : AfriNIC Whois Database Clean-up ) was withdrawn by the Author after AfriNIC advised that there was already an internal process to handle the cleanup of whois data and do general contact update. However it has been noticed that objects in AfriNIC database are not accurate. 2. Summary of How this Proposal Addresses the Problem This proposal asks AfriNIC to maintain accuracy through a periodical database clean up. Furthermore, at least once a year or at the renewal of resources, AFRINIC staff must conduct a whois database information validation. 3. The Proposal AfriNIC members are committed through the RSA to maintain their data and keep it accurate. AfriNIC must then maintain accuracy of whois information through periodical database clean up and update. Object Owners in the Whois Database are required at least once a year to actively check and update the accuracy of their data in AfriNIC whois database. 3.1 Cleanup 3.1.1 - General Database Cleanup: At the ratification of this policy, AfriNIC staff will conduct a first cleanup by asking all members and their Point of Contacts except those who have received their objects in less than a year to confirm their POC information. 3.1.2 - Annual Clean up. After the first cleanup, AfriNIC must conduct a cleanup once a year. 3.1.3 - At the request of additional resources or services, an organization must update its records. 3.2. Change requested by another policy. In case another AfriNIC policy makes mandatory a change or introduces another object, the object owner is required to make this update. 3.3. Steps and timeline. 3.3.1 - Contact Initiation. AfriNIC staff will ask members by email to confirm the accuracy of their records in the Whois database within thirty (30) days. Fifteen (15) days after the first contact initiation, AfriNIC staff will send a reminder email to members who have not responded, notifying them that they will enter a "Grace Period" within 15 days, should a response still not be forthcoming. For contacts whose email has bounced back for "Non Delivery", AfriNIC Staff will immediately begin attempting to reach organizations via alternative means of communication. 3.3.2 - Grace Period. Thirty one (31) days after the first contact initiation starts the Grace Period. The Grace period lasts thirty (30) days. During the Grace Period, AfriNIC Staff will use any communication tools at their discretion to reach point of contacts, members, organizations who have not confirmed the accuracy of their records. AfriNIC will continue its efforts to reach those whose email has bounced back. 3.3.3 - Record is marked invalid and the community notified. At the end of the Grace Period (61 days after the first contact initiation), AfriNIC will publish, within 24 hours, the list of non-responsive contacts and the objects associated with them. The associated objects will be marked INVALID. 3.3.4. Conditions to withdraw an invalid record from the publicly available website. An invalid resource record that has not expired can be withdrawn from the publicly available website after the object owners (new or old) address written notification to AfriNIC confirming that the records have been updated. AfriNIC shall acknowledge the object owner notification within 72 hours of receipt, and the withdrawal of the object from the publicly available website should occur within 72 hours of such acknowledgement. 3.3.5 - Expiration One year after the first contact initiation, if the data is still not accurate and the organization has failed to respond to the requests to resolve the data inconsistency, AfriNIC will mark the Resource EXPIRED and claim the number resources back. The resource will go back to AfriNIC's pool. If the Organization contacts AfriNIC after the expiration, a new application with associated fees will be required and there is no guarantee that the Organization will keep the same pool. Once the resource is reclaimed, it will be removed from the publicly available website. 3.3.6. - No Refund. This current policy gives a year to an Organization to update its information in the AfriNIC Database before expiration. In case a record reaches an expiration status and is returned to AfriNIC's pool, the organization cannot claim a refund for any portion of unused fund. 3.3.7. - Hours and timezone. For the purposes of this policy time periods specified are literal and not based on working days. Where time frames are specified in days, a day is deemed to have begun at 00:01 after the communication is received/sent. The time frame expires at 23:59 on the corresponding days.Times are based on the timezone relevant to the registered address of AfriNIC. Thanks to Andrew for co-editing and the Community. Jean Robert DISCLAIMER: This email contains proprietary information some or all of which may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this email, please notify the author by replying to this email. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose, copy, print, or rely on this email. We cannot accept liability for any statements made which are clearly the sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of this company or one of its agents. From Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com Tue May 20 12:31:15 2014 From: Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com (Andrew Alston) Date: Tue, 20 May 2014 13:31:15 +0100 Subject: [rpd] New proposal - "AfriNIC Whois Database Update Process" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-001-DRAFT-01) In-Reply-To: <20140520115327.GB1554@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> References: <5379F0D5.8080707@gmail.com> <7FF93785BD2D534EA45841A8AAA1D89B2EE07A8875@liquid-exch.liquidtelecom.local> <537ADD1B.40002@gmail.com> <537B3E0B.7070400@gmail.com> <20140520115327.GB1554@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> Message-ID: <7FF93785BD2D534EA45841A8AAA1D89B2EE0930893@liquid-exch.liquidtelecom.local> Agreed it would be nice to know the progress, at the same time I do feel personally that there are policy issues at stake here. Specifically I would like time frames tied down in policy, because as you say, they promised a cleanup in 2012, it's now 2014, and we're still waiting for a status update. Andrew -----Original Message----- From: rpd-bounces at afrinic.net [mailto:rpd-bounces at afrinic.net] On Behalf Of Alan Barrett Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2014 2:53 PM To: rpd at afrinic.net Subject: Re: [rpd] New proposal - "AfriNIC Whois Database Update Process" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-001-DRAFT-01) On Tue, 20 May 2014, Jean Robert Hountomey wrote: > The goal of the proposal is setting a process towards ensuring that > AfriNIC whois database is updated. A previous policy > (AFPUB-2012-GEN-001-DRAFT-02 : AfriNIC Whois Database Clean-up ) was > withdrawn by the Author after AfriNIC advised that there was already > an internal process to handle the cleanup of whois data and do general > contact update. However it has been noticed that objects in AfriNIC > database are not accurate. Last time we discussed this, in 2012, the community thought that Whois cleanup should be a staff project, not a policy issue, and the Afrinic staff said that they were busy trying to clean up the database. It would be nice to know what progress has been made since then. --apb (Alan Barrett) _______________________________________________ rpd mailing list rpd at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd DISCLAIMER: This email contains proprietary information some or all of which may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this email, please notify the author by replying to this email. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose, copy, print, or rely on this email. We cannot accept liability for any statements made which are clearly the sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of this company or one of its agents. From ernest at afrinic.net Wed May 21 06:27:09 2014 From: ernest at afrinic.net (Ernest) Date: Wed, 21 May 2014 09:27:09 +0300 Subject: [rpd] Fwd: [afnog] IANA IPv4 Recovered Address Space registry updated In-Reply-To: <5648A8908CCB564EBF46E2BC904A75B1A3BF67D529@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> References: <5648A8908CCB564EBF46E2BC904A75B1A3BF67D529@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> Message-ID: <537C473D.3020504@afrinic.net> FYI -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [afnog] IANA IPv4 Recovered Address Space registry updated Date: Tue, 20 May 2014 07:30:20 -0700 From: Leo Vegoda To: Leo Vegoda Hi, ICANN has updated the IANA IPv4 Recovered Address Space registry after LACNIC notified it that it has less than a total of a /9 in its inventory of IPv4 address space. This triggered the activation the Recovered IPv4 pool, which was created in the Global Policy for Post Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation Mechanisms by the IANA. The address space selection is made using software that tries to allocate blocks based on the RIR managing the DNS for that /8. The software, along with a worked example, is published at: https://github.com/icann/ The list of allocations can be found at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-recovered-address-space/ipv4-recovered-address-space.xhtml#ipv4-recovered-address-space-2 Kind regards, Leo Vegoda From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com Wed May 21 07:27:51 2014 From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji) Date: Wed, 21 May 2014 08:27:51 +0100 Subject: [rpd] Fwd: [afnog] IANA IPv4 Recovered Address Space registry updated In-Reply-To: <5648A8908CCB564EBF46E2BC904A75B1A3BF67D529@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> References: <5648A8908CCB564EBF46E2BC904A75B1A3BF67D529@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> Message-ID: Fyi sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Leo Vegoda" Date: 20 May 2014 17:38 Subject: [afnog] IANA IPv4 Recovered Address Space registry updated To: "Leo Vegoda" Cc: Hi, ICANN has updated the IANA IPv4 Recovered Address Space registry after LACNIC notified it that it has less than a total of a /9 in its inventory of IPv4 address space. This triggered the activation the Recovered IPv4 pool, which was created in the Global Policy for Post Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation Mechanisms by the IANA. The address space selection is made using software that tries to allocate blocks based on the RIR managing the DNS for that /8. The software, along with a worked example, is published at: https://github.com/icann/ The list of allocations can be found at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-recovered-address-space/ipv4-recovered-address-space.xhtml#ipv4-recovered-address-space-2 Kind regards, Leo Vegoda _______________________________________________ afnog mailing list http://afnog.org/mailman/listinfo/afnog -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5495 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mje at posix.co.za Sun May 25 16:30:54 2014 From: mje at posix.co.za (Mark Elkins) Date: Sun, 25 May 2014 18:30:54 +0200 Subject: [rpd] Candidate Slate - Policy Development Working Group Co-Chair, 2014 - 2016 Message-ID: <1401035454.10663.168.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> After evaluation of all received nominations, we are pleased to announce the final slate of candidates for the position of "Co-Chair, Policy Development Working Group (PDWG)", published at: https://internetsummitafrica.org/en/communit/afrinic-pdwg-nominees We invite the community to post their comments directly at the candidates' profiles on the URL above. The public comment period ends on 01 June 2014. Election will be on the afternoon of 05 June 2014 during the policy session at AFRINIC20 in Djibouti. Adam Nelson has resigned from NomCom. He is presenting himself as a candidate for the PDWG co-chair. At time of writing, his details still have to be added to the above website. He volunteered to be a PDWG candidate after the evaluation criteria was settled and before the PDWG nomination deadline. His resignation from NomCom is to ensure there is no conflict of interest. For any comments, please contact the Nominations Committee at nomcom2014 (at) afrinic dot net -- Mark J Elkins - AFRINIC 2014 Nominations Committee Chair mje at posix.co.za - nomcom2014 (at) afrinic.net Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 5810 bytes Desc: not available URL: From ernest at afrinic.net Mon May 26 06:08:08 2014 From: ernest at afrinic.net (Ernest) Date: Mon, 26 May 2014 08:08:08 +0200 Subject: [rpd] New proposal - "AfriNIC Whois Database Update Process" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-001-DRAFT-01) In-Reply-To: <20140520115327.GB1554@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> References: <5379F0D5.8080707@gmail.com> <7FF93785BD2D534EA45841A8AAA1D89B2EE07A8875@liquid-exch.liquidtelecom.local> <537ADD1B.40002@gmail.com> <537B3E0B.7070400@gmail.com> <20140520115327.GB1554@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> Message-ID: <5382DA48.9050505@afrinic.net> Alan Barrett wrote thus on 5/20/14, 1:53 PM: > On Tue, 20 May 2014, Jean Robert Hountomey wrote: >> The goal of the proposal is setting a process towards ensuring >> that AfriNIC whois database is updated. A previous policy >> (AFPUB-2012-GEN-001-DRAFT-02 : AfriNIC Whois Database Clean-up ) >> was withdrawn by the Author after AfriNIC advised that there was >> already an internal process to handle the cleanup of whois data >> and do general contact update. However it has been noticed that >> objects in AfriNIC database are not accurate. > > Last time we discussed this, in 2012, the community thought that > Whois cleanup should be a staff project, not a policy issue, and the > Afrinic staff said that they were busy trying to clean up the database. > > It would be nice to know what progress has been made since then. Work on this activity started in April 2013 covering all AFRINIC members (LIR and End-Users) registered up to December 2012. It is important to note members registered from January 2013 had their whois contact information already updated. The activity was split into 3 phases: ? Phase 1: Records verification: (100% completed by May 2013). ? Phase 2: Initial contact: (100% completed by May 2013) ? Phase 3: Updating records and following up. We are now at phase 3 (as of April 2014) where 74% of the members contacted (694 out of 935) have been manually updated after 12 months of follow-up). We are still in active contact with the remaining 241 out of 935 to get formal confirmation about the accuracy of their whois (contact) data. In total as at end of April 2014, 79% of our current members portfolio are yet to confirm accuracy of their contact information in AFRINIC Database against 21% whose confirmations are still pending. We recall that during the AFRINIC-18 meeting in Lusaka in June 2013, a policy proposal requiring members to keep their whois contact information up-to-date was discussed, during which we recommended to the author and the community that there is already an initiative internally on the same matter, and that perhaps the proposal is not needed unless that initiative is not successful. Consequently, the author withdrew that proposal. Questions from the floor at AFRINIC 19 on the advancement of the update process were answered with a situational update. Considering the time and effort being used by our Member Services Liaison to work with members on this project, we have come to the conclusion that the internal initiative has not recorded the success we were hoping for, and recommended that the PDWG Chairs ask the author of the previously withdrawn ?AFRINIC WHOIS Database Clean-up? proposal to re-introduce it to the community such that members are compelled through policy to keep their whois contact information accurate and up-to-date. regards, ernest. From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com Mon May 26 20:55:05 2014 From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji) Date: Mon, 26 May 2014 23:55:05 +0300 Subject: [rpd] Agenda for Policy Development Process meeting at AIS 2014 (AFRINIC-20) Message-ID: Dear Community members *,* *PDWG Agenda for AFRINIC-20* The AFRINIC-20 meeting will be held during the Africa Internet Summit (AIS) 2014 in Djibouti from 4th to 6th June 2014. Within the multi-day meeting, the following sessions have been reserved for policy discussions. *Meeting Date: 05 June 2014* - 11:00 - 12:30 - 14:00 - 15:30 - 16:00 - 17:30 *DETAILED AGENDA* The following topics will be covered during the time allocated to the PDWG, subject to change. *1100 - 1230:* - Welcome - Introduction to the Policy Development Process - Status of all policy proposals in the AFRINIC region - Summary of recent mailing list discussions - Summary of policies under discussion in other regions *1400 - 1530:* - The Academic IPv4 Allocation Proposal (AFPUB-2013-GEN-001-DRAFT-03) - The AFRINIC Whois Database Update Process (AFPUB-2014-GEN-001-DRAFT-01) - Resource Policy Manual Status Report - Policy Implementation Report *1600 - 1730:* - Discussion on proposed modifications and enhancements to the PDP. - Election of the PDWG Co-Chair (2014 - 2016) - Open Microphone - Closing *USEFUL REFERENCES*: AFPUB-2013-GEN-001-DRAFT-03: url: http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposals/842-academic-ipv4-allocation--afpub-2013-gen-001-draft-03--last-call short url: http://goo.gl/c0Gzof AFPUB-2014-GEN-001-DRAFT-01 url: http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposals/1109-afrinic-whois-database-update-process short url: http://goo.gl/snrso9 *FURTHER INFORMATION* For more information, please see: The entire event: http://internetsummitafrica.org/en/component/k2/item/137-afrinic-programme A summary agenda for the entire event: http://www.internetsummitafrica.org/en/program/agenda The Policy Development Process, including links to policies under discussion: http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development> Seun Ojedeji and Emile Milandou, AFRINIC PDWG co-chairs -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mainanoa at gmail.com Tue May 27 04:35:46 2014 From: mainanoa at gmail.com (Noah Maina) Date: Tue, 27 May 2014 07:35:46 +0300 Subject: [rpd] Agenda for Policy Development Process meeting at AIS 2014 (AFRINIC-20) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Seun Thanks for this agenda. Will remote participation for this, be made possible? Noah On 26 May 2014 23:59, "Seun Ojedeji" wrote: > Dear Community members > *,* > > *PDWG Agenda for AFRINIC-20* > > The AFRINIC-20 meeting will be held during the Africa Internet Summit > (AIS) 2014 in Djibouti from 4th to 6th June 2014. Within the multi-day > meeting, the following sessions have been reserved for policy discussions. > > > *Meeting Date: 05 June 2014* > > - 11:00 - 12:30 > - 14:00 - 15:30 > - 16:00 - 17:30 > > > *DETAILED AGENDA* > > The following topics will be covered during the time allocated to the > PDWG, subject to change. > > *1100 - 1230:* > > - Welcome > - Introduction to the Policy Development Process > - Status of all policy proposals in the AFRINIC region > - Summary of recent mailing list discussions > - Summary of policies under discussion in other regions > > > *1400 - 1530:* > > - The Academic IPv4 Allocation Proposal (AFPUB-2013-GEN-001-DRAFT-03) > > > - The AFRINIC Whois Database Update Process > (AFPUB-2014-GEN-001-DRAFT-01) > > > - Resource Policy Manual Status Report > > > - Policy Implementation Report > > > *1600 - 1730:* > > - Discussion on proposed modifications and enhancements to the PDP. > - Election of the PDWG Co-Chair (2014 - 2016) > - Open Microphone > - Closing > > > *USEFUL REFERENCES*: > > AFPUB-2013-GEN-001-DRAFT-03: > url: > http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposals/842-academic-ipv4-allocation--afpub-2013-gen-001-draft-03--last-call > short url: http://goo.gl/c0Gzof > > AFPUB-2014-GEN-001-DRAFT-01 > url: > http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposals/1109-afrinic-whois-database-update-process > short url: http://goo.gl/snrso9 > > *FURTHER INFORMATION* > > For more information, please see: > > The entire event: > http://internetsummitafrica.org/en/component/k2/item/137-afrinic-programme > > A summary agenda for the entire event: > http://www.internetsummitafrica.org/en/program/agenda > > The Policy Development Process, including links to policies under > discussion: http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development> > > Seun Ojedeji and Emile Milandou, > AFRINIC PDWG co-chairs > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com Tue May 27 05:05:10 2014 From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji) Date: Tue, 27 May 2014 08:05:10 +0300 Subject: [rpd] Agenda for Policy Development Process meeting at AIS 2014 (AFRINIC-20) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hello Noah, There is usually realtime streaming of the policy sessions and the AfriNIC jabber rooms will be available for remote participation. Those information will be provided on the website before the commencement policy meeting. Regards sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 27 May 2014 07:35, "Noah Maina" wrote: > Hi Seun > > Thanks for this agenda. Will remote participation for this, be made > possible? > > Noah > On 26 May 2014 23:59, "Seun Ojedeji" wrote: > >> Dear Community members >> *,* >> >> *PDWG Agenda for AFRINIC-20* >> >> The AFRINIC-20 meeting will be held during the Africa Internet Summit >> (AIS) 2014 in Djibouti from 4th to 6th June 2014. Within the multi-day >> meeting, the following sessions have been reserved for policy discussions. >> >> >> *Meeting Date: 05 June 2014* >> >> - 11:00 - 12:30 >> - 14:00 - 15:30 >> - 16:00 - 17:30 >> >> >> *DETAILED AGENDA* >> >> The following topics will be covered during the time allocated to the >> PDWG, subject to change. >> >> *1100 - 1230:* >> >> - Welcome >> - Introduction to the Policy Development Process >> - Status of all policy proposals in the AFRINIC region >> - Summary of recent mailing list discussions >> - Summary of policies under discussion in other regions >> >> >> *1400 - 1530:* >> >> - The Academic IPv4 Allocation Proposal (AFPUB-2013-GEN-001-DRAFT-03) >> >> >> - The AFRINIC Whois Database Update Process >> (AFPUB-2014-GEN-001-DRAFT-01) >> >> >> - Resource Policy Manual Status Report >> >> >> - Policy Implementation Report >> >> >> *1600 - 1730:* >> >> - Discussion on proposed modifications and enhancements to the PDP. >> - Election of the PDWG Co-Chair (2014 - 2016) >> - Open Microphone >> - Closing >> >> >> *USEFUL REFERENCES*: >> >> AFPUB-2013-GEN-001-DRAFT-03: >> url: >> http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposals/842-academic-ipv4-allocation--afpub-2013-gen-001-draft-03--last-call >> short url: http://goo.gl/c0Gzof >> >> AFPUB-2014-GEN-001-DRAFT-01 >> url: >> http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposals/1109-afrinic-whois-database-update-process >> short url: http://goo.gl/snrso9 >> >> *FURTHER INFORMATION* >> >> For more information, please see: >> >> The entire event: >> http://internetsummitafrica.org/en/component/k2/item/137-afrinic-programme >> >> A summary agenda for the entire event: >> http://www.internetsummitafrica.org/en/program/agenda >> >> The Policy Development Process, including links to policies under >> discussion: http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development> >> >> Seun Ojedeji and Emile Milandou, >> AFRINIC PDWG co-chairs >> >> _______________________________________________ >> rpd mailing list >> rpd at afrinic.net >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From h.lu at anytimechinese.com Tue May 27 06:42:40 2014 From: h.lu at anytimechinese.com (Lu) Date: Tue, 27 May 2014 08:42:40 +0200 Subject: [rpd] Agenda for Policy Development Process meeting at AIS 2014 (AFRINIC-20) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi I tried to join the nomination for policy chair, no reply so far as I sent out my info( I did on the same night they call for it), anyone helps? This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this message and including the text of the transmission received. > On 2014?5?27?, at ??7:05, Seun Ojedeji wrote: > > Hello Noah, > > There is usually realtime streaming of the policy sessions and the AfriNIC jabber rooms will be available for remote participation. > Those information will be provided on the website before the commencement policy meeting. > > Regards > > sent from Google nexus 4 > kindly excuse brevity and typos. > >> On 27 May 2014 07:35, "Noah Maina" wrote: >> Hi Seun >> >> Thanks for this agenda. Will remote participation for this, be made possible? >> >> Noah >> >>> On 26 May 2014 23:59, "Seun Ojedeji" wrote: >>> Dear Community members, >>> >>> PDWG Agenda for AFRINIC-20 >>> >>> The AFRINIC-20 meeting will be held during the Africa Internet Summit (AIS) 2014 in Djibouti from 4th to 6th June 2014. Within the multi-day meeting, the following sessions have been reserved for policy discussions. >>> >>> >>> Meeting Date: 05 June 2014 >>> 11:00 - 12:30 >>> 14:00 - 15:30 >>> 16:00 - 17:30 >>> >>> DETAILED AGENDA >>> >>> The following topics will be covered during the time allocated to the PDWG, subject to change. >>> >>> 1100 - 1230: >>> Welcome >>> Introduction to the Policy Development Process >>> Status of all policy proposals in the AFRINIC region >>> Summary of recent mailing list discussions >>> Summary of policies under discussion in other regions >>> >>> 1400 - 1530: >>> The Academic IPv4 Allocation Proposal (AFPUB-2013-GEN-001-DRAFT-03) >>> The AFRINIC Whois Database Update Process (AFPUB-2014-GEN-001-DRAFT-01) >>> Resource Policy Manual Status Report >>> Policy Implementation Report >>> >>> 1600 - 1730: >>> Discussion on proposed modifications and enhancements to the PDP. >>> Election of the PDWG Co-Chair (2014 - 2016) >>> Open Microphone >>> Closing >>> >>> USEFUL REFERENCES: >>> >>> AFPUB-2013-GEN-001-DRAFT-03: >>> url: http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposals/842-academic-ipv4-allocation--afpub-2013-gen-001-draft-03--last-call >>> short url: http://goo.gl/c0Gzof >>> >>> AFPUB-2014-GEN-001-DRAFT-01 >>> url: http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposals/1109-afrinic-whois-database-update-process >>> short url: http://goo.gl/snrso9 >>> >>> FURTHER INFORMATION >>> >>> For more information, please see: >>> >>> The entire event: http://internetsummitafrica.org/en/component/k2/item/137-afrinic-programme >>> >>> A summary agenda for the entire event: http://www.internetsummitafrica.org/en/program/agenda >>> >>> The Policy Development Process, including links to policies under discussion: http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development> >>> >>> Seun Ojedeji and Emile Milandou, >>> AFRINIC PDWG co-chairs >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> rpd mailing list >>> rpd at afrinic.net >>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ernest at afrinic.net Tue May 27 06:51:41 2014 From: ernest at afrinic.net (Ernest) Date: Tue, 27 May 2014 08:51:41 +0200 Subject: [rpd] Agenda for Policy Development Process meeting at AIS 2014 (AFRINIC-20) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <538435FD.8000406@afrinic.net> Lu wrote thus on 5/27/14, 8:42 AM: > Hi > > I tried to join the nomination for policy chair, no reply so far as > I sent out my info( I did on the same night they call for it), > anyone helps? We shall pass this on to NomCom who will correspond to you directly. Regards, Ernest. From h.lu at anytimechinese.com Wed May 28 04:39:50 2014 From: h.lu at anytimechinese.com (Lu Heng) Date: Wed, 28 May 2014 06:39:50 +0200 Subject: [rpd] Agenda for Policy Development Process meeting at AIS 2014 (AFRINIC-20) In-Reply-To: <538435FD.8000406@afrinic.net> References: <538435FD.8000406@afrinic.net> Message-ID: Hi I did not receive any reply from them. hoping anyone can help. On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 8:51 AM, Ernest wrote: > Lu wrote thus on 5/27/14, 8:42 AM: >> Hi >> >> I tried to join the nomination for policy chair, no reply so far as >> I sent out my info( I did on the same night they call for it), >> anyone helps? > > > We shall pass this on to NomCom who will correspond to you directly. > > Regards, > Ernest. > -- -- Kind regards. Lu This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this message and including the text of the transmission received. From mje at posix.co.za Wed May 28 07:38:34 2014 From: mje at posix.co.za (Mark Elkins) Date: Wed, 28 May 2014 09:38:34 +0200 Subject: [rpd] Agenda for Policy Development Process meeting at AIS 2014 (AFRINIC-20) In-Reply-To: References: <538435FD.8000406@afrinic.net> Message-ID: <1401262714.9657.87.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> Hi Lu, I've sent you two e-mails regarding your nomination and why it has not been accepted by NomCom. This is my third. Have you not received anything from me? On Wed, 2014-05-28 at 06:39 +0200, Lu Heng wrote: > Hi > > I did not receive any reply from them. > > hoping anyone can help. > > > > On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 8:51 AM, Ernest wrote: > > Lu wrote thus on 5/27/14, 8:42 AM: > >> Hi > >> > >> I tried to join the nomination for policy chair, no reply so far as > >> I sent out my info( I did on the same night they call for it), > >> anyone helps? > > > > > > We shall pass this on to NomCom who will correspond to you directly. > > > > Regards, > > Ernest. > > > > > -- Mark James ELKINS - Posix Systems - (South) Africa mje at posix.co.za Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: https://ftth.posix.co.za -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 5810 bytes Desc: not available URL: From ernest at afrinic.net Wed May 28 08:48:45 2014 From: ernest at afrinic.net (Ernest) Date: Wed, 28 May 2014 10:48:45 +0200 Subject: [rpd] Agenda for Policy Development Process meeting at AIS 2014 (AFRINIC-20) In-Reply-To: References: <538435FD.8000406@afrinic.net> Message-ID: <5385A2ED.4070808@afrinic.net> Lu Heng wrote thus on 5/28/14, 6:39 AM: > Hi > > I did not receive any reply from them. > > hoping anyone can help. Please mail nomcom2014 at afrinic.net Regards, Ernest. From h.lu at anytimechinese.com Wed May 28 11:18:40 2014 From: h.lu at anytimechinese.com (Lu Heng) Date: Wed, 28 May 2014 13:18:40 +0200 Subject: [rpd] Agenda for Policy Development Process meeting at AIS 2014 (AFRINIC-20) In-Reply-To: <5385A2ED.4070808@afrinic.net> References: <538435FD.8000406@afrinic.net> <5385A2ED.4070808@afrinic.net> Message-ID: Hi The only email i got saying that I did not give motivation letter--after the nomination was closed and I asked myself the reason why I was not on the list, then I sent my motivation letter and CV to them and I did not get any reply so far. I mean if the candidates missed one or two things send in data for nomination, there is no reminder of things are missing whatsoever, before total closing. I thought that would be at least a little reminder that you ware missing a motivation letter in your nomination--because it is like 5 people are competing not 10,000. I have been working on policy discussion for past 7 years globally and would really like to contribute to this community, but I see it is not very good handing in the nomination process unfortunately. On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 10:48 AM, Ernest wrote: > Lu Heng wrote thus on 5/28/14, 6:39 AM: >> Hi >> >> I did not receive any reply from them. >> >> hoping anyone can help. > > Please mail nomcom2014 at afrinic.net > > Regards, > Ernest. -- -- Kind regards. Lu This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this message and including the text of the transmission received. From list-admin at afrinic.net Sun Jun 1 03:11:11 2014 From: list-admin at afrinic.net (list-admin at afrinic.net) Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2014 05:11:11 +0200 Subject: [rpd] Monthly statistics for mailing-list: rpd@afrinic.net Message-ID: <201406010311.s513BBhZ017924@ns1.afrinic.net> Monthly statistics for mailing-list: rpd at afrinic.net (Generated at: Sun Jun 1 03:11:01 UTC 2014) Statistics for month: May 2014 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ***** Authors with the most number of messages posted: +----+-----Author-----------------------------------+--Msg-+-Percent-+ | 1 | seun.ojedeji at gmail.com | 30 | 16.13 % | | 2 | owen at delong.com | 21 | 11.29 % | | 3 | kofi.ansa at gmail.com | 20 | 10.75 % | | 4 | mje at posix.co.za | 18 | 9.68 % | | 5 | Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com | 14 | 7.53 % | | 6 | quaynor at ghana.com | 10 | 5.38 % | | 7 | adiel at afrinic.net | 8 | 4.30 % | | 8 | ademola at ng.lopworks.com | 6 | 3.23 % | | 9 | keshwarsingh.nadan at millenium.mu | 5 | 2.69 % | | 10 | saul at enetworks.co.za | 4 | 2.15 % | | 11 | jrhountomey at gmail.com | 4 | 2.15 % | | 12 | mainanoa at gmail.com | 4 | 2.15 % | | 13 | ernest at afrinic.net | 4 | 2.15 % | | 14 | h.lu at anytimechinese.com | 4 | 2.15 % | | 15 | gift at itibots.com | 3 | 1.61 % | | 16 | Ben.Roberts at liquidtelecom.com | 3 | 1.61 % | | 17 | geier at geier.ne.tz | 3 | 1.61 % | | 18 | neriah at afrinic.net | 3 | 1.61 % | | 19 | dogwallah at gmail.com | 2 | 1.08 % | | 20 | ondouglas at gmail.com | 2 | 1.08 % | +----+----------------------------------------------+------+---------+ | | other | 18 | 9.68 % | +----+----------------------------------------------+------+---------+ ***** Authors with the largest total size of messages posted: +----+-----Author-------------------------------------------+-KBytes-+ | 1 | seun.ojedeji at gmail.com | 302.7 | | 2 | kofi.ansa at gmail.com | 263.5 | | 3 | Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com | 182.0 | | 4 | mje at posix.co.za | 159.2 | | 5 | owen at delong.com | 109.5 | | 6 | adiel at afrinic.net | 91.4 | | 7 | Ben.Roberts at liquidtelecom.com | 53.8 | | 8 | saul at enetworks.co.za | 53.2 | | 9 | neriah at afrinic.net | 51.1 | | 10 | quaynor at ghana.com | 48.3 | | 11 | jrhountomey at gmail.com | 29.0 | | 12 | gift at itibots.com | 22.7 | | 13 | mainanoa at gmail.com | 19.9 | | 14 | sergekbk at yahoo.fr | 19.4 | | 15 | boubakarbarry at gmail.com | 17.7 | | 16 | ademola at ng.lopworks.com | 16.8 | | 17 | seeburn.k at gmail.com | 15.5 | | 18 | omo at datasphir.com | 12.2 | | 19 | steve.wilcox at ixreach.com | 11.8 | | 20 | christianbope at gmail.com | 11.6 | +----+------------------------------------------------------+--------+ ***** Authors with the largest average size of messages posted: +----+-----Author--------------------------------------------+-bytes-+ | 1 | sergekbk at yahoo.fr | 19874 | | 2 | Ben.Roberts at liquidtelecom.com | 18374 | | 3 | neriah at afrinic.net | 17458 | | 4 | seeburn.k at gmail.com | 15869 | | 5 | saul at enetworks.co.za | 13613 | | 6 | kofi.ansa at gmail.com | 13490 | | 7 | Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com | 13313 | | 8 | omo at datasphir.com | 12486 | | 9 | adiel at afrinic.net | 11701 | | 10 | seun.ojedeji at gmail.com | 10333 | | 11 | mje at posix.co.za | 9058 | | 12 | boubakarbarry at gmail.com | 9052 | | 13 | gift at itibots.com | 7760 | | 14 | jrhountomey at gmail.com | 7427 | | 15 | scottleibrand at gmail.com | 6337 | | 16 | steve.wilcox at ixreach.com | 6054 | | 17 | christianbope at gmail.com | 5950 | | 18 | list-admin at afrinic.net | 5826 | | 19 | jwalu at yahoo.com | 5367 | | 20 | owen at delong.com | 5339 | +----+-------------------------------------------------------+-------+ ***** Top subjects by popularity: +----+----Subject-----------------------------------+--Msg-+-Percent-+ | 1 | [rpd] Discussion about e-voting | 49 | 26.34 % | | 2 | Election process (was re: [rpd] AFRINIC Boar | 36 | 19.35 % | | 3 | [rpd] IPv4 policy on where space is used. | 25 | 13.44 % | | 4 | [rpd] New proposal - "AfriNIC Whois Database | 19 | 10.22 % | | 5 | [rpd] AFRINIC Board Elections - 2014: Call f | 13 | 6.99 % | | 6 | [members-discuss] [rpd] Discussion about e-v | 10 | 5.38 % | | 7 | [rpd] Agenda for Policy Development Process | 9 | 4.84 % | | 8 | [rpd] Fwd: Discussion about e-voting | 8 | 4.30 % | | 9 | [rpd] Re: [AfrICANN-discuss] AFRINIC Board E | 5 | 2.69 % | | 10 | [rpd] Fwd: [afnog] IANA IPv4 Recovered Addre | 2 | 1.08 % | | 11 | [rpd] Monthly statistics for mailing-list: r | 1 | 0.54 % | | 12 | Election process (was re: [rpd] AFRINIC Boar | 1 | 0.54 % | | 13 | Election process (was re: [rpd] AFRINIC Boar | 1 | 0.54 % | | 14 | [rpd] Fwd: Discussion about e-voting | 1 | 0.54 % | | 15 | Fwd: [rpd] Discussion about e-voting | 1 | 0.54 % | | 16 | [rpd] Fwd: [members-discuss] Discussion abou | 1 | 0.54 % | | 17 | [rpd] Fwd: [members-discuss] Discussion abou | 1 | 0.54 % | | 18 | [rpd] Call for nomination to AFRINIC PDWG Co | 1 | 0.54 % | | 19 | [rpd] Re: [AfrICANN-discuss] AFRINIC Board E | 1 | 0.54 % | | 20 | [rpd] Candidate Slate - Policy Development W | 1 | 0.54 % | +----+----------------------------------------------+------+---------+ | | other | 0 | 0.00 % | +----+----------------------------------------------+------+---------+ ***** Graph showing number of messages written during hours of day: 100% ---------------------------------#--------------- - 16 90% ---------------------------------#--------------- msgs 80% -----------------#---------------#--------------- 70% -----------------#---------#-----#--------------- 60% -----------------#-#-#-#---#-----#-#-#-----#----- 50% ---------------#-#-#-#-#-#-#---#-#-#-#---#-#-#-#- 40% ---------------#-#-#-#-#-#-#---#-#-#-#---#-#-#-#- 30% -------------#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#- 20% -#-----#---#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#- 10% -#---#-#---#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#- * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * hour 0 5 11 17 23 ***** Graph showing number of messages written during days of month: 100% -----------------------------#--------------------------------- - 27 90% -----------------------------#--------------------------------- msgs 80% -----------------------------#-#------------------------------- 70% -------------------------#---#-#------------------------------- 60% -------------------------#---#-#------------------------------- 50% -------------------#-----#---#-#------------------------------- 40% ---------------#---#-#-#-#---#-#---#--------------------------- 30% ---------------#---#-#-#-#-#-#-#---#-#------------------------- 20% -------------#-#---#-#-#-#-#-#-#---#-#-#----------------------- 10% -------------#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-------------#-#------- * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * day 1 6 12 18 24 31 ***** Graph showing number of messages written during days of week: 100% -------------#--------------- - 40 90% -------------#--------------- msgs 80% -------------#--------------- 70% -----#-------#--------------- 60% -#---#---#---#---#----------- 50% -#---#---#---#---#-------#--- 40% -#---#---#---#---#---#---#--- 30% -#---#---#---#---#---#---#--- 20% -#---#---#---#---#---#---#--- 10% -#---#---#---#---#---#---#--- * * * * * * * Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun ***** Longest message: Author : adiel at afrinic.net Subject : [rpd] Fwd: [members-discuss] Discussion about e-voting Date : Thu, 15 May 2014 05:52:09 +0400 Size : 47355 bytes ***** Most popular subject: Subject : [rpd] Discussion about e-voting No. of msgs: 49 Total size : 916007 bytes ***** Final summary: Total number of messages: 186 Total number of different authors: 33 Total number of different subjects: 20 Total size of messages (w/o headers): 2375306 bytes Average size of a message: 12770 bytes -- Regards, AFRINIC _____________________ powered by grepmail and MailListStat From omo at wacren.net Wed Jun 4 10:49:03 2014 From: omo at wacren.net (Omo Oaiya) Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2014 13:49:03 +0300 Subject: [rpd] Re: AFRINIC Board Election 2014 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear NomCom, I am yet to receive a response to my mails to you. I am in Djibouti and still unclear why I am not getting a response. The quality of your selection process and adherence to the guidelines largely determines the effectiveness of AfriNIC board of directors. Please respond to my inquiry. Regards -- Omo Oaiya CTO/Directeur Technique, WACREN Mobile: +234 806 4522778, +234 708 4410514 Skype: kodion http://www.wacren.net On 27 May 2014 08:11, Omo Oaiya wrote: > Dear NomCom. > > I acknowledge that it is a busy time but online voting starts today and I > had hoped to get a response before. > > Kindly revert with a response to my inquiry. What were the criteria and > qualifications used to determine candidate eligibility? > > Many trhanks > > Omo > > > > > On 22 May 2014 13:27, Omo Oaiya wrote: > >> Dear NomCom, >> >> Many thanks for the work you are doing. >> >> I am interested in the criteria and qualifications used to determine the >> eligibility of the candidates for the Independent/Non-Geographic seat. I >> would be grateful if this can be made public. >> >> Look forward to your feedback >> >> Best regards >> >> -- >> Omo Oaiya >> CTO/Directeur Technique, WACREN >> Mobile: +234 806 4522778, +234 708 4410514 >> Skype: kodion >> http://www.wacren.net >> >> >> >> >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mje at posix.co.za Thu Jun 5 09:58:26 2014 From: mje at posix.co.za (Mark Elkins) Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2014 11:58:26 +0200 Subject: [rpd] AnyCast Address Message-ID: <1401962306.19621.11.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> As discussed at the Policy Meeting 5th June, 2014 in Djibouti: A question was asked "in which country should the resource be registered in" (possibly something to do with geo-location???) An AnyCast block of IP's can (and should) be used any/every where in the world... The "Location" of the block though should be registered at the primary address of the member who asked for the AnyCast block. Perhaps GeoLocation services should use an "Earth" flag for now? - or UN Flag? -- Mark James ELKINS - Posix Systems - (South) Africa mje at posix.co.za Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: https://ftth.posix.co.za -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 5810 bytes Desc: not available URL: From owen at delong.com Thu Jun 5 11:21:49 2014 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2014 12:21:49 +0100 Subject: [rpd] AnyCast Address In-Reply-To: <1401962306.19621.11.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> References: <1401962306.19621.11.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> Message-ID: <7BA53946-8C81-4394-8617-AA7300C11CC9@delong.com> Perhaps people should recognize that IP Address != Street address and give up on silly geolocation inferences from IP addresses. Perhaps that is too much to hope for. Owen > On Jun 5, 2014, at 10:58 AM, Mark Elkins wrote: > > As discussed at the Policy Meeting 5th June, 2014 in Djibouti: > > A question was asked "in which country should the resource be registered > in" (possibly something to do with geo-location???) > > An AnyCast block of IP's can (and should) be used any/every where in the > world... > The "Location" of the block though should be registered at the primary > address of the member who asked for the AnyCast block. > Perhaps GeoLocation services should use an "Earth" flag for now? - or UN > Flag? > -- > Mark James ELKINS - Posix Systems - (South) Africa > mje at posix.co.za Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 > For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: https://ftth.posix.co.za > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd From efomenjie at yahoo.com Thu Jun 5 12:54:29 2014 From: efomenjie at yahoo.com (NJIE EFOME Paul) Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2014 13:54:29 +0100 Subject: [rpd] Proposal for HEIs Message-ID: Dear all, I have a proposal for this. I think that these HSIs should submit their request through their respective LIRs. This way the LIRs can send someone to go and audit the network plan, verify the number of sudents and staff, validate the request ?and allocate them the 5:1 ratio. Sincere Regards, --------------------------- NJIE EFOME P. IT & IP Manager Cameroon Telecommunications Mobile 22 75 82 29 Sent from Samsung tablet -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mje at posix.co.za Thu Jun 5 13:18:37 2014 From: mje at posix.co.za (Mark Elkins) Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2014 15:18:37 +0200 Subject: [rpd] AFPUB-2013-GEN-001, Academic ipv4 allocation Message-ID: <1401974317.10680.3.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> I'm still amazed that the Academic people appear not to want this policy pass. Very strange. -- Mark James ELKINS - Posix Systems - (South) Africa mje at posix.co.za Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: https://ftth.posix.co.za -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 5810 bytes Desc: not available URL: From Ben.Roberts at liquidtelecom.com Thu Jun 5 13:20:03 2014 From: Ben.Roberts at liquidtelecom.com (Ben Roberts) Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2014 14:20:03 +0100 Subject: [rpd] Proposal for HEIs In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <04ABA9AC-CB89-4832-8B36-FE133948F267@liquidtelecom.com> I think that certain people had very strong objections. I'm not really convinced a lot of them offered any reasons why. Maybe we can start with those who strongly object to making it easier for students networks to be supported with our IP resources we have left. If those people can start with their reasons for those strong objections then it will assist the authors with making their modifications. Cheers Ben Sent from my iPhone On 5 Jun 2014, at 16:00, "NJIE EFOME Paul" > wrote: Dear all, I have a proposal for this. I think that these HSIs should submit their request through their respective LIRs. This way the LIRs can send someone to go and audit the network plan, verify the number of sudents and staff, validate the request and allocate them the 5:1 ratio. Sincere Regards, --------------------------- NJIE EFOME P. IT & IP Manager Cameroon Telecommunications Mobile 22 75 82 29 Sent from Samsung tablet ________________________________ DISCLAIMER: This email contains proprietary information some or all of which may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this email, please notify the author by replying to this email. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose, copy, print, or rely on this email. We cannot accept liability for any statements made which are clearly the sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of this company or one of its agents. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mainanoa at gmail.com Thu Jun 5 13:55:15 2014 From: mainanoa at gmail.com (Noah Maina) Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2014 16:55:15 +0300 Subject: [rpd] AFPUB-2013-GEN-001, Academic ipv4 allocation In-Reply-To: <1401974317.10680.3.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> References: <1401974317.10680.3.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> Message-ID: "If you can't see beyond your own nose, evolving and moving forth becomes a challenge". On 5 Jun 2014 16:20, "Mark Elkins" wrote: > I'm still amazed that the Academic people appear not to want this policy > pass. Very strange. > > -- > Mark James ELKINS - Posix Systems - (South) Africa > mje at posix.co.za Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 > For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: https://ftth.posix.co.za > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From woody at pch.net Thu Jun 5 13:58:29 2014 From: woody at pch.net (Bill Woodcock) Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2014 06:58:29 -0700 Subject: [rpd] AnyCast Address In-Reply-To: <1401962306.19621.11.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> References: <1401962306.19621.11.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> Message-ID: <9D59124C-5BF1-4892-B585-CBFB2F66F69F@pch.net> On Jun 5, 2014, at 2:58 AM, Mark Elkins wrote: > A question was asked "in which country should the resource be registered > in" (possibly something to do with geo-location???) > An AnyCast block of IP's can (and should) be used any/every where in the > world... > The "Location" of the block though should be registered at the primary > address of the member who asked for the AnyCast block. > Perhaps GeoLocation services should use an "Earth" flag for now? - or UN > Flag? I asked two questions: 1) When an LIR subnets an allocation, and sub-allocates those subnets to different countries, what?s the method for country-coding those sub-allocations? SWIP? RWHOIS? I wasn?t clear on Ernest?s answer to that question. 2) When an allocation winds up being used anycast, where it?s being equally advertised in multiple countries within the region, what country-code should be put in the whois? You?re saying, here, that it should be the country of incorporation of the LIR, but I?m not sure that makes sense? Wouldn?t it make more sense to use the country of incorporation of the customer? -Bill -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 841 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From h.lu at anytimechinese.com Thu Jun 5 15:41:29 2014 From: h.lu at anytimechinese.com (Lu Heng) Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2014 18:41:29 +0300 Subject: [rpd] Guessing is not the way to verify information Message-ID: Hey everybody: Today on the floor that is a common said guessing is a way to verifying information for noncom--as long as you guess it right. I think it is not the right way of doing things. just a common. -- -- Kind regards. Lu This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this message and including the text of the transmission received. From woody at pch.net Thu Jun 5 15:58:21 2014 From: woody at pch.net (Bill Woodcock) Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2014 08:58:21 -0700 Subject: [rpd] Guessing is not the way to verify information In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Jun 5, 2014, at 8:41 AM, Lu Heng wrote: > Today on the floor that is a common said guessing is a way to > verifying information for noncom--as long as you guess it right. > I think it is not the right way of doing things. Lu: You?re misunderstanding the role of a nomcom. The role of a nomcom is to advance a slate of qualified candidates to the voters. It _really doesn?t matter_ how they do it, so long as they succeed. Nomcoms are a black box. All that matters is the result. And the result, as you?ve admitted, was correct. -Bill -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 841 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From h.lu at anytimechinese.com Thu Jun 5 16:11:51 2014 From: h.lu at anytimechinese.com (Lu Heng) Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2014 19:11:51 +0300 Subject: [rpd] Guessing is not the way to verify information In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi I believe as the election process goes--it shouldn't be a black box, instead, it should be transparent. The result in this case, is not matter all--I do not have any personal gain of being a policy working group chair as well as for my company, for me, being involving in the process is good experience itself. It is how they process the nomination process is all it is matters, if it is fair, transparent, and legitimate, saying an nomination committee as black box is already means it is not transparent so it's legitimacy is in question as well. I believe it is universal common sense any nomination committee on this planet would not base its candidates background information on guessing, it is irresponsibility to the nomination itself as well as being very in appreciate for the candidates--no body wants other people decided who you are for you. On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 6:58 PM, Bill Woodcock wrote: > > On Jun 5, 2014, at 8:41 AM, Lu Heng wrote: >> Today on the floor that is a common said guessing is a way to >> verifying information for noncom--as long as you guess it right. >> I think it is not the right way of doing things. > > Lu: > > You?re misunderstanding the role of a nomcom. The role of a nomcom is to advance a slate of qualified candidates to the voters. It _really doesn?t matter_ how they do it, so long as they succeed. Nomcoms are a black box. All that matters is the result. And the result, as you?ve admitted, was correct. > > -Bill > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > -- -- Kind regards. Lu This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this message and including the text of the transmission received. From woody at pch.net Thu Jun 5 16:15:50 2014 From: woody at pch.net (Bill Woodcock) Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2014 09:15:50 -0700 Subject: [rpd] Guessing is not the way to verify information In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7D1BF404-81B8-42CE-874C-182EF932F3DC@pch.net> On Jun 5, 2014, at 9:11 AM, Lu Heng wrote: > I believe it is universal common sense any nomination committee on > this planet would not base its candidates background information on > guessing. You don?t appear to have read what I wrote. A nomcom is a black box. Arguing about how it does its job is feckless if you?re not _on that particular nomcom_. If your argument is that you think a nomcom should not be employed in the AfriNIC election process, you?re free to make that argument. But there?s no point in arguing that you want a nomcom that?s not a nomcom. What would be the point? If you don?t want a nomcom, don?t have a nomcom. -Bill -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 841 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From owen at delong.com Fri Jun 6 02:44:09 2014 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2014 03:44:09 +0100 Subject: [rpd] Guessing is not the way to verify information In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: That was said largely tongue in cheek and you failed to get it. The reality was that you made a fraudulent application claiming residency in a country where you have an office, but do not reside. Your fraud was noticed by the nominating committee and your candidacy was rejected. Then you accused them of guessing instead of asking you, so multiple people asked you. You basically refused to state your residency, but when finally pushed, you admitted that you did not live in the service region. After that, the phrase "but he guessed right" was used as a semi-humorous retort to your continued and repeated accusation that he guessed. In reality, your fraud attempt was noted and you were removed from the slate for entirely legitimate reasons. The process worked and the correct outcome was achieved. It's past time to move on from this absurdity. Owen > On Jun 5, 2014, at 4:41 PM, Lu Heng wrote: > > Hey everybody: > > Today on the floor that is a common said guessing is a way to > verifying information for noncom--as long as you guess it right. > > I think it is not the right way of doing things. just a common. > > -- > -- > Kind regards. > Lu > > This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. > It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or > otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use > of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the > intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received > this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and > e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this > message and including the text of the transmission received. > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd From h.lu at anytimechinese.com Fri Jun 6 06:46:15 2014 From: h.lu at anytimechinese.com (Lu Heng) Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2014 09:46:15 +0300 Subject: [rpd] Guessing is not the way to verify information In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The whole point that requirement was not valid according to bylaw itself, and assuring me for being fraud is largely in-appreciate and in-correct. Both of your fail to understand a simple principle, an nomination should be transparent to be legitimate to begin with. I guess that is the reason most so called democracy government establish by one western country in the world won't really a success. Because your guys prefer a "black box". All I said, guessing the information(in which mark admitted in the floor), was a wrong process, and both of your americans pop up and start telling the floor it is the right process--it may works in your country but I guess not anywhere else. And plus, I has never arguing about being the chair or not--as I said multiple times, results does not matter to me--if I be the chair and helping the community, I am happy, but if community thinks someone else more capable then me, I will support the new chair as well. End of the day, THE NOMINATION PROCESS NEED TO BE IMPROVED, and nomination committee should apologise to me for telling me who I am. On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 5:44 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: > That was said largely tongue in cheek and you failed to get it. > > The reality was that you made a fraudulent application claiming residency in a country where you have an office, but do not reside. Your fraud was noticed by the nominating committee and your candidacy was rejected. > > Then you accused them of guessing instead of asking you, so multiple people asked you. You basically refused to state your residency, but when finally pushed, you admitted that you did not live in the service region. > > After that, the phrase "but he guessed right" was used as a semi-humorous retort to your continued and repeated accusation that he guessed. In reality, your fraud attempt was noted and you were removed from the slate for entirely legitimate reasons. The process worked and the correct outcome was achieved. > > It's past time to move on from this absurdity. > > Owen > > >> On Jun 5, 2014, at 4:41 PM, Lu Heng wrote: >> >> Hey everybody: >> >> Today on the floor that is a common said guessing is a way to >> verifying information for noncom--as long as you guess it right. >> >> I think it is not the right way of doing things. just a common. >> >> -- >> -- >> Kind regards. >> Lu >> >> This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. >> It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or >> otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use >> of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the >> intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received >> this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and >> e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this >> message and including the text of the transmission received. >> _______________________________________________ >> rpd mailing list >> rpd at afrinic.net >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd -- -- Kind regards. Lu This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this message and including the text of the transmission received. From owen at delong.com Fri Jun 6 07:16:33 2014 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2014 08:16:33 +0100 Subject: [rpd] Guessing is not the way to verify information In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > On Jun 6, 2014, at 7:46 AM, Lu Heng wrote: > > The whole point that requirement was not valid according to bylaw > itself, and assuring me for being fraud is largely in-appreciate and > in-correct. Whether you think the requirement is valid or not, the requirement is listed in the election procedures. You clearly understood the requirement and somewhat accepted it because you claimed to be a resident of the Seychelles in your self-nomination. Since that statement was a misrepresentation in order to gain a material advantage (the very definition of fraud), I stand by my statement. > Both of your fail to understand a simple principle, an nomination > should be transparent to be legitimate to begin with. I guess that is > the reason most so called democracy government establish by one > western country in the world won't really a success. Because your guys > prefer a "black box". I find accusations of non-transparency coming from someone who attempted to hide his residency status from the community questionable at best. > All I said, guessing the information(in which mark admitted in the > floor), was a wrong process, and both of your americans pop up and > start telling the floor it is the right process--it may works in your > country but I guess not anywhere else. It seems to have worked here. > And plus, I has never arguing about being the chair or not--as I said > multiple times, results does not matter to me--if I be the chair and > helping the community, I am happy, but if community thinks someone > else more capable then me, I will support the new chair as well. Yes... To others, the result is the important thing. From our perspective, the process worked and the desired result (a slate of qualified candidates) was achieved. The process complaints of an unqualified candidate who feels that his lack of qualification was detected by means he doesn't like pretty much come out sounding like a simple case of sour grapes. > End of the day, THE NOMINATION PROCESS NEED TO BE IMPROVED, and > nomination committee should apologise to me for telling me who I am. If they were wrong, perhaps you have a legitimate beef. Since they were correct, I have trouble thinking that anyone owes you an apology. Rather, I think you owe the community an apology for the colossal amount of time you have wasted with this issue. If you want the last word, be my guest. I am done with this discussion and my points have been made. Owen From jacksonmuthi at gmail.com Fri Jun 6 07:19:40 2014 From: jacksonmuthi at gmail.com (Jackson Muthili) Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2014 10:19:40 +0300 Subject: [rpd] Guessing is not the way to verify information In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Are you crazy? You are a fraudster and liar and this was been established in front on entire community. You want nomcom to apologize for exposing truth???? On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 9:46 AM, Lu Heng wrote: > The whole point that requirement was not valid according to bylaw > itself, and assuring me for being fraud is largely in-appreciate and > in-correct. > > Both of your fail to understand a simple principle, an nomination > should be transparent to be legitimate to begin with. I guess that is > the reason most so called democracy government establish by one > western country in the world won't really a success. Because your guys > prefer a "black box". > > All I said, guessing the information(in which mark admitted in the > floor), was a wrong process, and both of your americans pop up and > start telling the floor it is the right process--it may works in your > country but I guess not anywhere else. > > And plus, I has never arguing about being the chair or not--as I said > multiple times, results does not matter to me--if I be the chair and > helping the community, I am happy, but if community thinks someone > else more capable then me, I will support the new chair as well. > > End of the day, THE NOMINATION PROCESS NEED TO BE IMPROVED, and > nomination committee should apologise to me for telling me who I am. > > > On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 5:44 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: >> That was said largely tongue in cheek and you failed to get it. >> >> The reality was that you made a fraudulent application claiming residency in a country where you have an office, but do not reside. Your fraud was noticed by the nominating committee and your candidacy was rejected. >> >> Then you accused them of guessing instead of asking you, so multiple people asked you. You basically refused to state your residency, but when finally pushed, you admitted that you did not live in the service region. >> >> After that, the phrase "but he guessed right" was used as a semi-humorous retort to your continued and repeated accusation that he guessed. In reality, your fraud attempt was noted and you were removed from the slate for entirely legitimate reasons. The process worked and the correct outcome was achieved. >> >> It's past time to move on from this absurdity. >> >> Owen >> >> >>> On Jun 5, 2014, at 4:41 PM, Lu Heng wrote: >>> >>> Hey everybody: >>> >>> Today on the floor that is a common said guessing is a way to >>> verifying information for noncom--as long as you guess it right. >>> >>> I think it is not the right way of doing things. just a common. >>> >>> -- >>> -- >>> Kind regards. >>> Lu >>> >>> This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. >>> It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or >>> otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use >>> of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the >>> intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received >>> this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and >>> e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this >>> message and including the text of the transmission received. >>> _______________________________________________ >>> rpd mailing list >>> rpd at afrinic.net >>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > > > -- > -- > Kind regards. > Lu > > This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. > It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or > otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use > of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the > intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received > this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and > e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this > message and including the text of the transmission received. > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd From nbyoudienow at 163.com Fri Jun 6 07:46:48 2014 From: nbyoudienow at 163.com (nbyoudienow) Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2014 15:46:48 +0800 (CST) Subject: [rpd] Guessing is not the way to verify information In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi I heard from my colleuage yesterday, and if what Lu said was true, he has a point to make his complain, he was at least not very well informed some common sense thing by the noncom including something like mission statement. and I think saying another person in a public mailling list crazy is not very good thing to do. Chen At 2014-06-06 03:19:40, "Jackson Muthili" wrote: >Are you crazy? You are a fraudster and liar and this was been >established in front on entire community. > >You want nomcom to apologize for exposing truth???? > >On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 9:46 AM, Lu Heng wrote: >> The whole point that requirement was not valid according to bylaw >> itself, and assuring me for being fraud is largely in-appreciate and >> in-correct. >> >> Both of your fail to understand a simple principle, an nomination >> should be transparent to be legitimate to begin with. I guess that is >> the reason most so called democracy government establish by one >> western country in the world won't really a success. Because your guys >> prefer a "black box". >> >> All I said, guessing the information(in which mark admitted in the >> floor), was a wrong process, and both of your americans pop up and >> start telling the floor it is the right process--it may works in your >> country but I guess not anywhere else. >> >> And plus, I has never arguing about being the chair or not--as I said >> multiple times, results does not matter to me--if I be the chair and >> helping the community, I am happy, but if community thinks someone >> else more capable then me, I will support the new chair as well. >> >> End of the day, THE NOMINATION PROCESS NEED TO BE IMPROVED, and >> nomination committee should apologise to me for telling me who I am. >> >> >> On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 5:44 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: >>> That was said largely tongue in cheek and you failed to get it. >>> >>> The reality was that you made a fraudulent application claiming residency in a country where you have an office, but do not reside. Your fraud was noticed by the nominating committee and your candidacy was rejected. >>> >>> Then you accused them of guessing instead of asking you, so multiple people asked you. You basically refused to state your residency, but when finally pushed, you admitted that you did not live in the service region. >>> >>> After that, the phrase "but he guessed right" was used as a semi-humorous retort to your continued and repeated accusation that he guessed. In reality, your fraud attempt was noted and you were removed from the slate for entirely legitimate reasons. The process worked and the correct outcome was achieved. >>> >>> It's past time to move on from this absurdity. >>> >>> Owen >>> >>> >>>> On Jun 5, 2014, at 4:41 PM, Lu Heng wrote: >>>> >>>> Hey everybody: >>>> >>>> Today on the floor that is a common said guessing is a way to >>>> verifying information for noncom--as long as you guess it right. >>>> >>>> I think it is not the right way of doing things. just a common. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> -- >>>> Kind regards. >>>> Lu >>>> >>>> This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. >>>> It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or >>>> otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use >>>> of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the >>>> intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received >>>> this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and >>>> e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this >>>> message and including the text of the transmission received. >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> rpd mailing list >>>> rpd at afrinic.net >>>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >> >> >> >> -- >> -- >> Kind regards. >> Lu >> >> This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. >> It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or >> otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use >> of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the >> intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received >> this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and >> e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this >> message and including the text of the transmission received. >> _______________________________________________ >> rpd mailing list >> rpd at afrinic.net >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >_______________________________________________ >rpd mailing list >rpd at afrinic.net >https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dewole at forum.org.ng Fri Jun 6 07:54:14 2014 From: dewole at forum.org.ng (Dewole Ajao [Bandwidth Consortium]) Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2014 07:54:14 +0000 Subject: [rpd] Guessing is not the way to verify information In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <217690452-1402041257-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-589897888-@b16.c8.bise7.blackberry> Let's all calm down and forget about this, please. We could be doing better things for the community with this time and energy. Dewole. Talk to me about high speed Internet access anywhere in Nigeria Sent from a Nomad-powered smartphone. www.nomadcharger.com -----Original Message----- From: Jackson Muthili Sender: rpd-bounces at afrinic.net Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2014 10:19:40 To: Lu Heng Cc: rpd Subject: Re: [rpd] Guessing is not the way to verify information Are you crazy? You are a fraudster and liar and this was been established in front on entire community. You want nomcom to apologize for exposing truth???? On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 9:46 AM, Lu Heng wrote: > The whole point that requirement was not valid according to bylaw > itself, and assuring me for being fraud is largely in-appreciate and > in-correct. > > Both of your fail to understand a simple principle, an nomination > should be transparent to be legitimate to begin with. I guess that is > the reason most so called democracy government establish by one > western country in the world won't really a success. Because your guys > prefer a "black box". > > All I said, guessing the information(in which mark admitted in the > floor), was a wrong process, and both of your americans pop up and > start telling the floor it is the right process--it may works in your > country but I guess not anywhere else. > > And plus, I has never arguing about being the chair or not--as I said > multiple times, results does not matter to me--if I be the chair and > helping the community, I am happy, but if community thinks someone > else more capable then me, I will support the new chair as well. > > End of the day, THE NOMINATION PROCESS NEED TO BE IMPROVED, and > nomination committee should apologise to me for telling me who I am. > > > On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 5:44 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: >> That was said largely tongue in cheek and you failed to get it. >> >> The reality was that you made a fraudulent application claiming residency in a country where you have an office, but do not reside. Your fraud was noticed by the nominating committee and your candidacy was rejected. >> >> Then you accused them of guessing instead of asking you, so multiple people asked you. You basically refused to state your residency, but when finally pushed, you admitted that you did not live in the service region. >> >> After that, the phrase "but he guessed right" was used as a semi-humorous retort to your continued and repeated accusation that he guessed. In reality, your fraud attempt was noted and you were removed from the slate for entirely legitimate reasons. The process worked and the correct outcome was achieved. >> >> It's past time to move on from this absurdity. >> >> Owen >> >> >>> On Jun 5, 2014, at 4:41 PM, Lu Heng wrote: >>> >>> Hey everybody: >>> >>> Today on the floor that is a common said guessing is a way to >>> verifying information for noncom--as long as you guess it right. >>> >>> I think it is not the right way of doing things. just a common. >>> >>> -- >>> -- >>> Kind regards. >>> Lu >>> >>> This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. >>> It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or >>> otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use >>> of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the >>> intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received >>> this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and >>> e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this >>> message and including the text of the transmission received. >>> _______________________________________________ >>> rpd mailing list >>> rpd at afrinic.net >>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > > > -- > -- > Kind regards. > Lu > > This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. > It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or > otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use > of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the > intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received > this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and > e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this > message and including the text of the transmission received. > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd _______________________________________________ rpd mailing list rpd at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd From h.lu at anytimechinese.com Fri Jun 6 07:52:36 2014 From: h.lu at anytimechinese.com (Lu Heng) Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2014 10:52:36 +0300 Subject: [rpd] Guessing is not the way to verify information In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: i am not crazy, you been crazy saying another person in a discussion in a public meeting list crazy. and what is the definition of your "entire community" here? total 20 people in the room and quite some of them might not agree with you to begin with? noncom rejecting me on the first basis saying in which i do not send in mission statement---in which they never asked for---so it has nothing to do with exposing the truth to begin with. And I do not think I own any an apology by helping improve the nomination process, and make it more transparent. and "guessing" worked or not is irrelevant, it is like killing redeem people in the street then that people happen to be criminal. killing redeem people is wrong anyway you still have to be arrested regardless if that person is criminal or not. I don't think any where in the world jurisdiction system would support such behaviour. it works or not can not justify the fact it is wrong for telling other people who they are. On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 10:19 AM, Jackson Muthili wrote: > Are you crazy? You are a fraudster and liar and this was been > established in front on entire community. > > You want nomcom to apologize for exposing truth???? > > On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 9:46 AM, Lu Heng wrote: >> The whole point that requirement was not valid according to bylaw >> itself, and assuring me for being fraud is largely in-appreciate and >> in-correct. >> >> Both of your fail to understand a simple principle, an nomination >> should be transparent to be legitimate to begin with. I guess that is >> the reason most so called democracy government establish by one >> western country in the world won't really a success. Because your guys >> prefer a "black box". >> >> All I said, guessing the information(in which mark admitted in the >> floor), was a wrong process, and both of your americans pop up and >> start telling the floor it is the right process--it may works in your >> country but I guess not anywhere else. >> >> And plus, I has never arguing about being the chair or not--as I said >> multiple times, results does not matter to me--if I be the chair and >> helping the community, I am happy, but if community thinks someone >> else more capable then me, I will support the new chair as well. >> >> End of the day, THE NOMINATION PROCESS NEED TO BE IMPROVED, and >> nomination committee should apologise to me for telling me who I am. >> >> >> On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 5:44 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: >>> That was said largely tongue in cheek and you failed to get it. >>> >>> The reality was that you made a fraudulent application claiming residency in a country where you have an office, but do not reside. Your fraud was noticed by the nominating committee and your candidacy was rejected. >>> >>> Then you accused them of guessing instead of asking you, so multiple people asked you. You basically refused to state your residency, but when finally pushed, you admitted that you did not live in the service region. >>> >>> After that, the phrase "but he guessed right" was used as a semi-humorous retort to your continued and repeated accusation that he guessed. In reality, your fraud attempt was noted and you were removed from the slate for entirely legitimate reasons. The process worked and the correct outcome was achieved. >>> >>> It's past time to move on from this absurdity. >>> >>> Owen >>> >>> >>>> On Jun 5, 2014, at 4:41 PM, Lu Heng wrote: >>>> >>>> Hey everybody: >>>> >>>> Today on the floor that is a common said guessing is a way to >>>> verifying information for noncom--as long as you guess it right. >>>> >>>> I think it is not the right way of doing things. just a common. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> -- >>>> Kind regards. >>>> Lu >>>> >>>> This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. >>>> It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or >>>> otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use >>>> of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the >>>> intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received >>>> this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and >>>> e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this >>>> message and including the text of the transmission received. >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> rpd mailing list >>>> rpd at afrinic.net >>>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >> >> >> >> -- >> -- >> Kind regards. >> Lu >> >> This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. >> It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or >> otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use >> of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the >> intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received >> this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and >> e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this >> message and including the text of the transmission received. >> _______________________________________________ >> rpd mailing list >> rpd at afrinic.net >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd -- -- Kind regards. Lu This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this message and including the text of the transmission received. From huahuala222 at 126.com Fri Jun 6 08:02:54 2014 From: huahuala222 at 126.com (huahuala222) Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2014 16:02:54 +0800 (CST) Subject: [rpd] Guessing is not the way to verify information In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <150cbf7b.139d9.1467033b2e1.Coremail.huahuala222@126.com> Hi We won't in the room yesterday due to another meeting, but I think lu has some mistake here by not complete right about his recidency at begining, but still, I believe some part of his complain is vald and maybe the election process can be improved in the future. But end of the day, I believe Lu is a good community member and just being too young to handle things, let us get over this and move on. and hope maybe next time it will be a better process and communication for both the election commitee and Lu. At 2014-06-06 03:19:40, "Jackson Muthili" wrote: >Are you crazy? You are a fraudster and liar and this was been >established in front on entire community. > >You want nomcom to apologize for exposing truth???? > >On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 9:46 AM, Lu Heng wrote: >> The whole point that requirement was not valid according to bylaw >> itself, and assuring me for being fraud is largely in-appreciate and >> in-correct. >> >> Both of your fail to understand a simple principle, an nomination >> should be transparent to be legitimate to begin with. I guess that is >> the reason most so called democracy government establish by one >> western country in the world won't really a success. Because your guys >> prefer a "black box". >> >> All I said, guessing the information(in which mark admitted in the >> floor), was a wrong process, and both of your americans pop up and >> start telling the floor it is the right process--it may works in your >> country but I guess not anywhere else. >> >> And plus, I has never arguing about being the chair or not--as I said >> multiple times, results does not matter to me--if I be the chair and >> helping the community, I am happy, but if community thinks someone >> else more capable then me, I will support the new chair as well. >> >> End of the day, THE NOMINATION PROCESS NEED TO BE IMPROVED, and >> nomination committee should apologise to me for telling me who I am. >> >> >> On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 5:44 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: >>> That was said largely tongue in cheek and you failed to get it. >>> >>> The reality was that you made a fraudulent application claiming residency in a country where you have an office, but do not reside. Your fraud was noticed by the nominating committee and your candidacy was rejected. >>> >>> Then you accused them of guessing instead of asking you, so multiple people asked you. You basically refused to state your residency, but when finally pushed, you admitted that you did not live in the service region. >>> >>> After that, the phrase "but he guessed right" was used as a semi-humorous retort to your continued and repeated accusation that he guessed. In reality, your fraud attempt was noted and you were removed from the slate for entirely legitimate reasons. The process worked and the correct outcome was achieved. >>> >>> It's past time to move on from this absurdity. >>> >>> Owen >>> >>> >>>> On Jun 5, 2014, at 4:41 PM, Lu Heng wrote: >>>> >>>> Hey everybody: >>>> >>>> Today on the floor that is a common said guessing is a way to >>>> verifying information for noncom--as long as you guess it right. >>>> >>>> I think it is not the right way of doing things. just a common. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> -- >>>> Kind regards. >>>> Lu >>>> >>>> This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. >>>> It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or >>>> otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use >>>> of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the >>>> intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received >>>> this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and >>>> e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this >>>> message and including the text of the transmission received. >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> rpd mailing list >>>> rpd at afrinic.net >>>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >> >> >> >> -- >> -- >> Kind regards. >> Lu >> >> This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. >> It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or >> otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use >> of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the >> intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received >> this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and >> e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this >> message and including the text of the transmission received. >> _______________________________________________ >> rpd mailing list >> rpd at afrinic.net >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >_______________________________________________ >rpd mailing list >rpd at afrinic.net >https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jacksonmuthi at gmail.com Fri Jun 6 09:06:38 2014 From: jacksonmuthi at gmail.com (Jackson Muthili) Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2014 12:06:38 +0300 Subject: [rpd] Guessing is not the way to verify information In-Reply-To: <150cbf7b.139d9.1467033b2e1.Coremail.huahuala222@126.com> References: <150cbf7b.139d9.1467033b2e1.Coremail.huahuala222@126.com> Message-ID: Through fraud and lying to community? On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 11:02 AM, huahuala222 wrote: > Hi > > We won't in the room yesterday due to another meeting, but I think lu has > some mistake here by not complete right about his recidency at begining, but > still, I believe some part of his complain is vald and maybe the election > process can be improved in the future. > > But end of the day, I believe Lu is a good community member and just being > too young to handle things, let us get over this and move on. and hope maybe > next time it will be a better process and communication for both the > election commitee and Lu. > > > > > At 2014-06-06 03:19:40, "Jackson Muthili" wrote: >>Are you crazy? You are a fraudster and liar and this was been >>established in front on entire community. >> >>You want nomcom to apologize for exposing truth???? >> >>On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 9:46 AM, Lu Heng wrote: >>> The whole point that requirement was not valid according to bylaw >>> itself, and assuring me for being fraud is largely in-appreciate and >>> in-correct. >>> >>> Both of your fail to understand a simple principle, an nomination >>> should be transparent to be legitimate to begin with. I guess that is >>> the reason most so called democracy government establish by one >>> western country in the world won't really a success. Because your guys >>> prefer a "black box". >>> >>> All I said, guessing the information(in which mark admitted in the >>> floor), was a wrong process, and both of your americans pop up and >>> start telling the floor it is the right process--it may works in your >>> country but I guess not anywhere else. >>> >>> And plus, I has never arguing about being the chair or not--as I said >>> multiple times, results does not matter to me--if I be the chair and >>> helping the community, I am happy, but if community thinks someone >>> else more capable then me, I will support the new chair as well. >>> >>> End of the day, THE NOMINATION PROCESS NEED TO BE IMPROVED, and >>> nomination committee should apologise to me for telling me who I am. >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 5:44 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: >>>> That was said largely tongue in cheek and you failed to get it. >>>> >>>> The reality was that you made a fraudulent application claiming >>>> residency in a country where you have an office, but do not reside. Your >>>> fraud was noticed by the nominating committee and your candidacy was >>>> rejected. >>>> >>>> Then you accused them of guessing instead of asking you, so multiple >>>> people asked you. You basically refused to state your residency, but when >>>> finally pushed, you admitted that you did not live in the service region. >>>> >>>> After that, the phrase "but he guessed right" was used as a >>>> semi-humorous retort to your continued and repeated accusation that he >>>> guessed. In reality, your fraud attempt was noted and you were removed from >>>> the slate for entirely legitimate reasons. The process worked and the >>>> correct outcome was achieved. >>>> >>>> It's past time to move on from this absurdity. >>>> >>>> Owen >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Jun 5, 2014, at 4:41 PM, Lu Heng wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hey everybody: >>>>> >>>>> Today on the floor that is a common said guessing is a way to >>>>> verifying information for noncom--as long as you guess it right. >>>>> >>>>> I think it is not the right way of doing things. just a common. >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> -- >>>>> Kind regards. >>>>> Lu >>>>> >>>>> This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. >>>>> It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or >>>>> otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use >>>>> of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the >>>>> intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received >>>>> this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and >>>>> e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this >>>>> message and including the text of the transmission received. >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> rpd mailing list >>>>> rpd at afrinic.net >>>>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> -- >>> Kind regards. >>> Lu >>> >>> This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. >>> It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or >>> otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use >>> of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the >>> intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received >>> this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and >>> e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this >>> message and including the text of the transmission received. >>> _______________________________________________ >>> rpd mailing list >>> rpd at afrinic.net >>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >>_______________________________________________ >>rpd mailing list >>rpd at afrinic.net >>https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > > From apb at cequrux.com Fri Jun 6 11:20:49 2014 From: apb at cequrux.com (Alan Barrett) Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2014 14:20:49 +0300 Subject: [rpd] AnyCast Address In-Reply-To: <9D59124C-5BF1-4892-B585-CBFB2F66F69F@pch.net> References: <1401962306.19621.11.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> <9D59124C-5BF1-4892-B585-CBFB2F66F69F@pch.net> Message-ID: <20140606112049.GD626@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> On Thu, 05 Jun 2014, Bill Woodcock wrote: > 1) When an LIR subnets an allocation, and sub-allocates > those subnets to different countries, what?s the method > for country-coding those sub-allocations? SWIP? RWHOIS? I > wasn?t clear on Ernest?s answer to that question. As long as the information is there, why would I care whether it was sent from the LIR to the RIR using SWIP, RWHIOS, or email? > 2) When an allocation winds up being used anycast, where it?s > being equally advertised in multiple countries within the > region, what country-code should be put in the whois? You?re > saying, here, that it should be the country of incorporation > of the LIR, but I?m not sure that makes sense? Wouldn?t > it make more sense to use the country of incorporation of the > customer? I'd be inclined to use the location of the primary or master anycast instance. If they really are all equal, or the master can't be identified, then just use the location of any instance, or the location of the organisation that operates the anycast service. --apb (Alan Barrett) From dogwallah at gmail.com Fri Jun 6 11:30:21 2014 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2014 06:30:21 -0500 Subject: [rpd] NomCom according to the Bylaws Message-ID: As a former Chair of an AFRINIC NomCom, I can say with some degree of expertise that the bylaws allow a nomcom to set residency requirements (see text in BOLD below) Apologies for HTML format: https://afrinic.net/en/about-us/bylaws?start=8 9 THE NOMINATION COMMITTEE There shall be a Nomination Committee (Nom Com), which shall consist of a chairman and three other members as appointed by the Board and composed of qualified and experienced persons. The Board shall make a public call for voluntary nomination from the African Internet Community. 9.1 No person shall be qualified for appointment to the Nom Com if he/she is a candidate for election to the Board or is domiciled in a region whose seat is open for renewal during an election. 9.2 The Nom Com shall report to the Board and operate under such guidelines as may be prescribed by the Board. 9.3 Functions of the Nomination Committee: (i) The Nom Com shall: a) use its best effort towards ensuring that a satisfactory number of individuals from the African internet community stand as candidate for the election of the directors of AFRINIC; and b) have general responsibility for, and shall supervise the conduct of the polls by the election Committee on election day. (ii) In the discharge of its function under Article 9(i) above, the Nom Com: a) shall call for candidates for elections held by AFRINIC; *b) prescribe criteria and qualifications for eligibility to stand as candidate for elections held by AFRINIC;* c) may interview candidates prior to finalising the list of candidature; and d) Shall finalise the list of candidates for any election held by AFRINIC. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ernest at afrinic.net Fri Jun 6 12:58:39 2014 From: ernest at afrinic.net (Ernest) Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2014 15:58:39 +0300 Subject: [rpd] AnyCast Address In-Reply-To: <9D59124C-5BF1-4892-B585-CBFB2F66F69F@pch.net> References: <1401962306.19621.11.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> <9D59124C-5BF1-4892-B585-CBFB2F66F69F@pch.net> Message-ID: <5391BAFF.3050302@afrinic.net> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Bill Woodcock wrote thus on 6/5/14, 4:58 PM: > > On Jun 5, 2014, at 2:58 AM, Mark Elkins wrote: >> A question was asked "in which country should the resource be >> registered in" (possibly something to do with geo-location???) >> An AnyCast block of IP's can (and should) be used any/every >> where in the world... The "Location" of the block though should >> be registered at the primary address of the member who asked >> for the AnyCast block. Perhaps GeoLocation services should use >> an "Earth" flag for now? - or UN Flag? > > I asked two questions: > > 1) When an LIR subnets an allocation, and sub-allocates those > subnets to different countries, what?s the method for > country-coding those sub-allocations? SWIP? RWHOIS? I wasn?t > clear on Ernest?s answer to that question. We don't use the 'SWIP' wording here, but yes, it's ARIN's SWIP equivalent. The LIR adds the subnet into the whois database; such a subnet would have a "status" attribute value of either "ASSIGNED PA" or "SUB-ALLOCATED PA" as well as the appropriate "country" attribute value. Regards, Ernest. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.19 (Darwin) Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org iEYEARECAAYFAlORuv8ACgkQmoxRPBEkoeVqaQCeOpcx/aLkLmcfwkHfql9N04yP xREAn1PX+FntQB0ag3bCh0OZngzfpGXj =WlHk -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From apb at cequrux.com Fri Jun 6 17:43:08 2014 From: apb at cequrux.com (Alan Barrett) Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2014 20:43:08 +0300 Subject: [rpd] Guessing is not the way to verify information In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20140606174308.GE626@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> On Fri, 06 Jun 2014, Lu Heng wrote: >End of the day, THE NOMINATION PROCESS NEED TO BE IMPROVED, and >nomination committee should apologise to me for telling me who I am. On the one hand, NomCom's job is to take in nominations and to output a short list of candidates for the ballot, and they don't need to give reasons for a decision to omit any candidate from the ballot. On the other hand, if they do give reasons, then they should expect the reasons to be scrutinised. If a candidate fails to provide some required information, then I think that the nomination committee should contact the candidate at least once to request the information. Also, if any of the information provided by a candidate appears to contradict information known or believed by the nomination committee via some other source, then I think that it would be reasonable, though not necessary, for the nomination committee to contact the candidate to give them a chance to explain. In this case, it would have been reasonable for NomCom to send a message saying something like "Your nomination said you lived in Seychelles, but we have heard that you live in ${other_country}, please could you clarify?" --apb (Alan Barrett) From sami at ntc.gov.sd Mon Jun 9 07:07:53 2014 From: sami at ntc.gov.sd (SamiSalih) Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2014 10:07:53 +0300 (EAT) Subject: [rpd] Guessing is not the way to verify information In-Reply-To: <20140606174308.GE626@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> References: <20140606174308.GE626@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> Message-ID: <1214307719.226361.1402297673882.JavaMail.zimbra@ntc.gov.sd> Dear All, As NomCom let me try to make some points, 1- The current situation now is NomCom provide the best candidates to the community, but in a non-systematic way, 2- using the letter of the law versus the spirit of the law is an old dilemma, in this specific case we use the spirit, and it works, 3- I believe that NomCom as "DELPHI" is a good approach to assure transparent and objective methodology, a little bit of subjectivity is also required, 4- On the other side, I think because NomCom use mailing list and then manually prepare the candidate list a miss communication can occur, in this case we can admit that, however nothing is perfect, 5- So, to fix this, I propose the process of nomination, providing information, verification, and then publishing the final list, to be automatized via web-portal, 6- and of course as NomCom we are more than happy to help AfriNIC staff developing this portal, I'm sure if we start asap we can make it before the next election. Best Regards, Dr. Sami H.O. Salih CEO, Sudanese Research and Education Network President of SDv6TF T/F: (249)122045707/187171355 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alan Barrett" To: "rpd" Sent: Friday, June 6, 2014 8:43:08 PM Subject: Re: [rpd] Guessing is not the way to verify information On Fri, 06 Jun 2014, Lu Heng wrote: >End of the day, THE NOMINATION PROCESS NEED TO BE IMPROVED, and >nomination committee should apologise to me for telling me who I am. On the one hand, NomCom's job is to take in nominations and to output a short list of candidates for the ballot, and they don't need to give reasons for a decision to omit any candidate from the ballot. On the other hand, if they do give reasons, then they should expect the reasons to be scrutinised. If a candidate fails to provide some required information, then I think that the nomination committee should contact the candidate at least once to request the information. Also, if any of the information provided by a candidate appears to contradict information known or believed by the nomination committee via some other source, then I think that it would be reasonable, though not necessary, for the nomination committee to contact the candidate to give them a chance to explain. In this case, it would have been reasonable for NomCom to send a message saying something like "Your nomination said you lived in Seychelles, but we have heard that you live in ${other_country}, please could you clarify?" --apb (Alan Barrett) _______________________________________________ rpd mailing list rpd at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com Mon Jun 9 07:14:42 2014 From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji) Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2014 10:14:42 +0300 Subject: [rpd] Guessing is not the way to verify information In-Reply-To: <1214307719.226361.1402297673882.JavaMail.zimbra@ntc.gov.sd> References: <20140606174308.GE626@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> <1214307719.226361.1402297673882.JavaMail.zimbra@ntc.gov.sd> Message-ID: Hello Sami, On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 10:07 AM, SamiSalih wrote: > > 5- So, to fix this, I propose the process of nomination, providing > information, verification, and then publishing the final list, to be > automatized via web-portal, > good suggestion > 6- and of course as NomCom we are more than happy to help AfriNIC staff > developing this portal, I'm sure if we start asap we can make it before the > next election. > > ....as *nomcom*? Cheers! > Best Regards, > > Dr. Sami H.O. Salih > CEO, Sudanese Research and Education Network > President of SDv6TF > T/F: (249)122045707/187171355 > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Alan Barrett" > To: "rpd" > Sent: Friday, June 6, 2014 8:43:08 PM > Subject: Re: [rpd] Guessing is not the way to verify information > > On Fri, 06 Jun 2014, Lu Heng wrote: > >End of the day, THE NOMINATION PROCESS NEED TO BE IMPROVED, and > >nomination committee should apologise to me for telling me who I am. > > On the one hand, NomCom's job is to take in nominations and to > output a short list of candidates for the ballot, and they don't > need to give reasons for a decision to omit any candidate from the > ballot. On the other hand, if they do give reasons, then they > should expect the reasons to be scrutinised. > > If a candidate fails to provide some required information, then I > think that the nomination committee should contact the candidate > at least once to request the information. > > Also, if any of the information provided by a candidate appears > to contradict information known or believed by the nomination > committee via some other source, then I think that it would be > reasonable, though not necessary, for the nomination committee > to contact the candidate to give them a chance to explain. In > this case, it would have been reasonable for NomCom to send a > message saying something like "Your nomination said you lived in > Seychelles, but we have heard that you live in ${other_country}, > please could you clarify?" > > --apb (Alan Barrett) > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng * The key to understanding is humility - my view ! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From apb at cequrux.com Tue Jun 10 16:18:21 2014 From: apb at cequrux.com (Alan Barrett) Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2014 19:18:21 +0300 Subject: [rpd] LACNIC reaches final /10 of IPv4 space Message-ID: <20140610161821.GI6306@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> Three weeks ago, on 20 May 2014, LACNIC's available pool of IPv4 space became less then a /9 equivalent. This triggered the activation of IANA's Recovered IPv4 Pool in terms of Global Policy GPP-IPv4-2011. Today, 10 June 2014, LACNIC's available pool of IPv4 space became less than a /10 equivalent (4194302 IPv4 addresses). This triggers LACNIC's IPv4 exhaustion policy. Announcements from 20 May 2014: Announcement from 10 Jun 2014: --apb (Alan Barrett) From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com Tue Jun 10 20:13:54 2014 From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji) Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2014 23:13:54 +0300 Subject: [rpd] LACNIC reaches final /10 of IPv4 space In-Reply-To: <20140610161821.GI6306@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> References: <20140610161821.GI6306@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> Message-ID: Thanks for this update Alan, from all indication it will seem that v4 exhaustion time within AfriNIC region may be sooner than earlier predicted. Should this region be worried?... maybe: - More content in those region where v4 is getting exhausted will go v6 but then v6 deployment in our region is relatively low (someone says there is translation to the rescue) - Our region will continue to experience an increase in v4 requests from organizations that are more domicile in regions with v4 exhaustion. Perhaps this could be an opportunity to "by policy" improve ISP establishment in our region? Maybe yes. Should we also "by policy" ensure addresses within this region are used more within the region.... how do we encourage this as the region seem to be comfortable with *translation*. Can policy make this happen? Cheers! PS: My views alone. sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 10 Jun 2014 17:23, "Alan Barrett" wrote: > Three weeks ago, on 20 May 2014, LACNIC's available pool of IPv4 space > became less then a /9 equivalent. This triggered the activation of IANA's > Recovered IPv4 Pool in terms of Global Policy GPP-IPv4-2011. > > Today, 10 June 2014, LACNIC's available pool of IPv4 space became less > than a /10 equivalent (4194302 IPv4 addresses). This triggers LACNIC's > IPv4 exhaustion policy. > > Announcements from 20 May 2014: > > > > Announcement from 10 Jun 2014: > direcciones-ipv4-en-lac> > > --apb (Alan Barrett) > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sfolayan at gmail.com Tue Jun 10 20:51:11 2014 From: sfolayan at gmail.com (Sunday Folayan) Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2014 21:51:11 +0100 Subject: [rpd] Academic IPv4 Policy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi All, With regards to the Academic IPv4 Policy (Policy Draft AFPUB-2013-GEN-001-DRAFT-03). Due to the fact that both authors of the policy have now been elected to the board, and we are of the opinion that this represents a severe potential conflict of interest, we would like to ask the list if there were any individuals who would like to take over further actions on this policy (changing it, promoting it, defending it at meetings etc). Both authors still strongly believe in the policy and the sentiments behind it, and still believe the policy is in the best interest of the African region as a whole, and hence, we have opted to make this appeal rather than withdrawing the policy or letting it lapse on the 26th of June. Should there be anyone interested in taking over the policy from here on out, please advise either of the authors. Many Thanks Sunday Folayan / Andrew Alston -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From christianbope at gmail.com Wed Jun 11 05:17:23 2014 From: christianbope at gmail.com (Bope Domilongo Christian) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 13:17:23 +0800 Subject: [rpd] LACNIC reaches final /10 of IPv4 space In-Reply-To: References: <20140610161821.GI6306@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> Message-ID: Thank you Alan and seun, this an important milestone, having a policy to protect our critical resources will be great. With best regards, writing on my personal capacity. On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 4:13 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: > Thanks for this update Alan, from all indication it will seem that v4 > exhaustion time within AfriNIC region may be sooner than earlier > predicted. > > Should this region be worried?... maybe: > - More content in those region where v4 is getting exhausted will go v6 > but then v6 deployment in our region is relatively low (someone says there > is translation to the rescue) > - Our region will continue to experience an increase in v4 requests from > organizations that are more domicile in regions with v4 exhaustion. Perhaps > this could be an opportunity to "by policy" improve ISP establishment in > our region? Maybe yes. Should we also "by policy" ensure addresses within > this region are used more within the region.... how do we encourage this as > the region seem to be comfortable with *translation*. Can policy make this > happen? > > Cheers! > PS: My views alone. > sent from Google nexus 4 > kindly excuse brevity and typos. > On 10 Jun 2014 17:23, "Alan Barrett" wrote: > >> Three weeks ago, on 20 May 2014, LACNIC's available pool of IPv4 space >> became less then a /9 equivalent. This triggered the activation of IANA's >> Recovered IPv4 Pool in terms of Global Policy GPP-IPv4-2011. >> >> Today, 10 June 2014, LACNIC's available pool of IPv4 space became less >> than a /10 equivalent (4194302 IPv4 addresses). This triggers LACNIC's >> IPv4 exhaustion policy. >> >> Announcements from 20 May 2014: >> >> >> >> Announcement from 10 Jun 2014: >> > direcciones-ipv4-en-lac> >> >> --apb (Alan Barrett) >> _______________________________________________ >> rpd mailing list >> rpd at afrinic.net >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >> > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From seeburn.k at gmail.com Wed Jun 11 05:43:13 2014 From: seeburn.k at gmail.com (Kris Seeburn) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 09:43:13 +0400 Subject: [rpd] LACNIC reaches final /10 of IPv4 space In-Reply-To: References: <20140610161821.GI6306@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> Message-ID: There are two ends to it. We either look at a policy to protect our ipv4 space which would actually defeat the full push of ipv6 Or we find ways to deplete our ipv4 space faster that we can move to ipv6 faster We all know that most hosting / ecom sites are still based on ipv4 infrastructure though. As much as we need to protect the ipv4 space we still need to push the ipv6 space. Afrinic nevertheless still has a good deal of ipv4 space. The question is how do we move both agenda forward? I think obviously we need to look at our policy and what can make things work for us. A sharing or sales of ipv4 space with other RIRs as need may also look as a better way of still protecting the precious space whilst still making money out of it. I am not sure. I think this is still a dilemma we all need to figure out. NB: This is not a board perspective but my personal take at it. Kris On Jun 11, 2014, at 9:17 AM, Bope Domilongo Christian wrote: > Thank you Alan and seun, this an important milestone, having a policy to protect our critical resources will be great. > > With best regards, > writing on my personal capacity. > > > On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 4:13 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: > Thanks for this update Alan, from all indication it will seem that v4 exhaustion time within AfriNIC region may be sooner than earlier predicted. > > Should this region be worried?... maybe: > - More content in those region where v4 is getting exhausted will go v6 but then v6 deployment in our region is relatively low (someone says there is translation to the rescue) > - Our region will continue to experience an increase in v4 requests from organizations that are more domicile in regions with v4 exhaustion. Perhaps this could be an opportunity to "by policy" improve ISP establishment in our region? Maybe yes. Should we also "by policy" ensure addresses within this region are used more within the region.... how do we encourage this as the region seem to be comfortable with *translation*. Can policy make this happen? > > Cheers! > PS: My views alone. > sent from Google nexus 4 > kindly excuse brevity and typos. > > On 10 Jun 2014 17:23, "Alan Barrett" wrote: > Three weeks ago, on 20 May 2014, LACNIC's available pool of IPv4 space became less then a /9 equivalent. This triggered the activation of IANA's Recovered IPv4 Pool in terms of Global Policy GPP-IPv4-2011. > > Today, 10 June 2014, LACNIC's available pool of IPv4 space became less than a /10 equivalent (4194302 IPv4 addresses). This triggers LACNIC's IPv4 exhaustion policy. > > Announcements from 20 May 2014: > > > > Announcement from 10 Jun 2014: > > > --apb (Alan Barrett) > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd Kris Seeburn seeburn.k at gmail.com www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 496 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From jhay at meraka.org.za Wed Jun 11 05:48:13 2014 From: jhay at meraka.org.za (John Hay) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 07:48:13 +0200 Subject: [rpd] LACNIC reaches final /10 of IPv4 space In-Reply-To: References: <20140610161821.GI6306@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> Message-ID: <20140611054813.GB72566@zibbi.meraka.csir.co.za> On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 01:17:23PM +0800, Bope Domilongo Christian wrote: > Thank you Alan and seun, this an important milestone, having a policy to > protect our critical resources will be great. But is there much point in protecting and trying to prolong ipv4 in the AfriNIC region if the rest of the NICs are running out? At some stage companies / organisations in those regions will only be able to get ipv6 addresses. Are you sure your users will not want to communicate with them or they with the users / companies on your networks? I think Alan's email should rather serve as a heads up to implement ipv6 in your network and start to think about what missing IPv6 policy there is. Regards John -- John Hay -- jhay at meraka.csir.co.za / jhay at meraka.org.za > > With best regards, > writing on my personal capacity. > > > On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 4:13 AM, Seun Ojedeji > wrote: > > > Thanks for this update Alan, from all indication it will seem that v4 > > exhaustion time within AfriNIC region may be sooner than earlier > > predicted. > > > > Should this region be worried?... maybe: > > - More content in those region where v4 is getting exhausted will go v6 > > but then v6 deployment in our region is relatively low (someone says there > > is translation to the rescue) > > - Our region will continue to experience an increase in v4 requests from > > organizations that are more domicile in regions with v4 exhaustion. Perhaps > > this could be an opportunity to "by policy" improve ISP establishment in > > our region? Maybe yes. Should we also "by policy" ensure addresses within > > this region are used more within the region.... how do we encourage this as > > the region seem to be comfortable with *translation*. Can policy make this > > happen? > > > > Cheers! > > PS: My views alone. > > sent from Google nexus 4 > > kindly excuse brevity and typos. > > On 10 Jun 2014 17:23, "Alan Barrett" wrote: > > > >> Three weeks ago, on 20 May 2014, LACNIC's available pool of IPv4 space > >> became less then a /9 equivalent. This triggered the activation of IANA's > >> Recovered IPv4 Pool in terms of Global Policy GPP-IPv4-2011. > >> > >> Today, 10 June 2014, LACNIC's available pool of IPv4 space became less > >> than a /10 equivalent (4194302 IPv4 addresses). This triggers LACNIC's > >> IPv4 exhaustion policy. > >> > >> Announcements from 20 May 2014: > >> > >> > >> > >> Announcement from 10 Jun 2014: > >> >> direcciones-ipv4-en-lac> > >> > >> --apb (Alan Barrett) > >> _______________________________________________ > >> rpd mailing list > >> rpd at afrinic.net > >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > rpd mailing list > > rpd at afrinic.net > > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > > > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd -- John Hay -- jhay at meraka.csir.co.za / jhay at meraka.org.za From badru.ntege at nftconsult.com Wed Jun 11 05:56:58 2014 From: badru.ntege at nftconsult.com (Badru Ntege) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 05:56:58 +0000 Subject: [rpd] LACNIC reaches final /10 of IPv4 space In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi Seun How about a policy that reserves the last portion of V4 to purely continental Academic institutions through the existing needs based justification process and thus limiting the generally available V4 which will mean that we all start thinking and walking towards v6. So unless you are academia, Available V4 will be very limited. This also ensures that resources would stay in the region. So for example take 40% of the available resources now and reserve them for Academia with a limited time say 4 years. Make the remaining resources available but with strict conditions for those who might be planning to take them abroad. A very generalized view to trigger dialogue. Regards [cid:5F124574-EE57-4CC5-9338-918380EA1106] On 6/10/14, 11:13 PM, "Seun Ojedeji" > wrote: Thanks for this update Alan, from all indication it will seem that v4 exhaustion time within AfriNIC region may be sooner than earlier predicted. Should this region be worried?... maybe: - More content in those region where v4 is getting exhausted will go v6 but then v6 deployment in our region is relatively low (someone says there is translation to the rescue) - Our region will continue to experience an increase in v4 requests from organizations that are more domicile in regions with v4 exhaustion. Perhaps this could be an opportunity to "by policy" improve ISP establishment in our region? Maybe yes. Should we also "by policy" ensure addresses within this region are used more within the region.... how do we encourage this as the region seem to be comfortable with *translation*. Can policy make this happen? Cheers! PS: My views alone. sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 10 Jun 2014 17:23, "Alan Barrett" > wrote: Three weeks ago, on 20 May 2014, LACNIC's available pool of IPv4 space became less then a /9 equivalent. This triggered the activation of IANA's Recovered IPv4 Pool in terms of Global Policy GPP-IPv4-2011. Today, 10 June 2014, LACNIC's available pool of IPv4 space became less than a /10 equivalent (4194302 IPv4 addresses). This triggers LACNIC's IPv4 exhaustion policy. Announcements from 20 May 2014: Announcement from 10 Jun 2014: --apb (Alan Barrett) _______________________________________________ rpd mailing list rpd at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: A6B4555D-F867-4A2F-A9F9-BAF29039D12B[1].png Type: image/png Size: 65261 bytes Desc: A6B4555D-F867-4A2F-A9F9-BAF29039D12B[1].png URL: From Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com Wed Jun 11 06:47:50 2014 From: Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com (Andrew Alston) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 07:47:50 +0100 Subject: [rpd] LACNIC reaches final /10 of IPv4 space In-Reply-To: References: <20140610161821.GI6306@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> Message-ID: <7FF93785BD2D534EA45841A8AAA1D89B2FF76B8EDF@liquid-exch.liquidtelecom.local> Hi All, As far as I can see it the following should be considered. Firstly, our continent is far to NAT dependent, and this is in everyone's disadvantage. From a network provider perspective, clients who run NAT are more likely to churn due to ease of renumbering. From a client perspective, the limitations on end to end communications can introduce problems. From a security perspective, the ability of individuals with nefarious purpose to hide behind NAT creates problems. As such, I'd argue that using our remaining space to remove the heavy NAT we see on this continent would be advantageous. Further to this, the removal of NAT actually encourages the adoption of IPv6, it is far easier to dual-stack a network with IPv6 if you can run a single topology without worrying about the IPv4 translations. The question is, how do we encourage people to move away from a legacy behavior that is in their disadvantage but for so long as been painted as a security mechanism (which it most certainly is not, and there are multiple papers to back this perspective available). Secondly, we need to consider if we wish to encourage end user adoption of IPv4 space, or encourage further takeup of space by LIR's. There is a key differentiator here, and it actually creates an interesting conflict. From a provider perspective, having clients numbered on their space again, reduces churn and is in the advantage of the provider (LIR), from a client perspective, having provider independent space makes them more portable, grants the easy ability to multi-home and in many instances it may be easier for them to obtain end user space than to get it out of a provider. That however comes with the disadvantage that the end user who chooses this route will probably need to think about running BGP (particularly if they are multi-homing), or alternatively having their sole provider announce on their behalf, this creates complexity that can lead to a rise in OPEX. Either way though, I believe we need to encourage the adoption of our space by whatever reasonable means are possible. Sitting on a large pool of IPv4 space that is being unallocated disadvantages the continent in a multitude of ways, including, but not limited to: a.) The amount of V4 space sitting unused discourages the adoption of IPv6, which in the long term holistic sense is bad for the continent in general b.) The large pool encourages dodgy vendors to come with an argument that we don't need V6 any time soon so we can be a legacy hardware dumping ground c.) A greater adoption of V4 by the general community will lead to a greater economy of scale in terms of allocation and management of space within the RIR. Hence, I'd welcome any ideas as to how to drastically encourage the uptake of the V4 that is sitting unused in our pool. Note: This thoughts represent my personal views and are in no way stated as board perspective or the perspective of any other entity to which I may be associated. Thanks Andrew From: rpd-bounces at afrinic.net [mailto:rpd-bounces at afrinic.net] On Behalf Of Kris Seeburn Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2014 8:43 AM To: rpd Subject: Re: [rpd] LACNIC reaches final /10 of IPv4 space There are two ends to it. * We either look at a policy to protect our ipv4 space which would actually defeat the full push of ipv6 * Or we find ways to deplete our ipv4 space faster that we can move to ipv6 faster We all know that most hosting / ecom sites are still based on ipv4 infrastructure though. As much as we need to protect the ipv4 space we still need to push the ipv6 space. Afrinic nevertheless still has a good deal of ipv4 space. The question is how do we move both agenda forward? I think obviously we need to look at our policy and what can make things work for us. A sharing or sales of ipv4 space with other RIRs as need may also look as a better way of still protecting the precious space whilst still making money out of it. I am not sure. I think this is still a dilemma we all need to figure out. NB: This is not a board perspective but my personal take at it. Kris On Jun 11, 2014, at 9:17 AM, Bope Domilongo Christian > wrote: Thank you Alan and seun, this an important milestone, having a policy to protect our critical resources will be great. With best regards, writing on my personal capacity. On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 4:13 AM, Seun Ojedeji > wrote: Thanks for this update Alan, from all indication it will seem that v4 exhaustion time within AfriNIC region may be sooner than earlier predicted. Should this region be worried?... maybe: - More content in those region where v4 is getting exhausted will go v6 but then v6 deployment in our region is relatively low (someone says there is translation to the rescue) - Our region will continue to experience an increase in v4 requests from organizations that are more domicile in regions with v4 exhaustion. Perhaps this could be an opportunity to "by policy" improve ISP establishment in our region? Maybe yes. Should we also "by policy" ensure addresses within this region are used more within the region.... how do we encourage this as the region seem to be comfortable with *translation*. Can policy make this happen? Cheers! PS: My views alone. sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 10 Jun 2014 17:23, "Alan Barrett" > wrote: Three weeks ago, on 20 May 2014, LACNIC's available pool of IPv4 space became less then a /9 equivalent. This triggered the activation of IANA's Recovered IPv4 Pool in terms of Global Policy GPP-IPv4-2011. Today, 10 June 2014, LACNIC's available pool of IPv4 space became less than a /10 equivalent (4194302 IPv4 addresses). This triggers LACNIC's IPv4 exhaustion policy. Announcements from 20 May 2014: Announcement from 10 Jun 2014: --apb (Alan Barrett) _______________________________________________ rpd mailing list rpd at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd _______________________________________________ rpd mailing list rpd at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd _______________________________________________ rpd mailing list rpd at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd Kris Seeburn seeburn.k at gmail.com * www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/ ________________________________ DISCLAIMER: This email contains proprietary information some or all of which may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this email, please notify the author by replying to this email. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose, copy, print, or rely on this email. We cannot accept liability for any statements made which are clearly the sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of this company or one of its agents. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From owen at delong.com Wed Jun 11 06:50:36 2014 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2014 23:50:36 -0700 Subject: [rpd] Academic IPv4 Policy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <84FA3FBE-8D29-4AB8-8F28-E395851228E9@delong.com> I do not believe it would be appropriate for me to do so as I do not live in region and am a member of the elected policy body for another RIR. However, I want to take this moment to applaud the integrity shown in this message and agree and support your decision. I sincerely hope that someone from the community will step up and do as you requested. Owen On Jun 10, 2014, at 13:51 , Sunday Folayan wrote: > Hi All, > > With regards to the Academic IPv4 Policy (Policy Draft AFPUB-2013-GEN-001-DRAFT-03). > > Due to the fact that both authors of the policy have now been elected to the board, and we are of the opinion that this represents a severe potential conflict of interest, we would like to ask the list if there were any individuals who would like to take over further actions on this policy (changing it, promoting it, defending it at meetings etc). > > Both authors still strongly believe in the policy and the sentiments behind it, and still believe the policy is in the best interest of the African region as a whole, and hence, we have opted to make this appeal rather than withdrawing the policy or letting it lapse on the 26th of June. > > Should there be anyone interested in taking over the policy from here on out, please advise either of the authors. > > Many Thanks > > Sunday Folayan / Andrew Alston > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Kivuva at transworldafrica.com Wed Jun 11 06:55:49 2014 From: Kivuva at transworldafrica.com (Mwendwa Kivuva) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 09:55:49 +0300 Subject: [rpd] LACNIC reaches final /10 of IPv4 space In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Protecting IPv4 beats the purpose. It has been noted in other circles that over-reliance to NATing in the African region is among the contributors to the few footprints of IPv4 in Africa compared to other regions. After all other RIRs exhaust their allocation, we will certainly look like the dark continent. However, we should continue the push for IPV6 uptake -- ______________________ Mwendwa Kivuva, Nairobi, Kenya twitter.com/lordmwesh The best athletes never started as the best athletes. You have to think anyway, so why not think big? - Donald Trump. "You miss 100 percent of the shots you never take." - Wayne Gretzky. Tackle the biggest frog first. I will persist until I succeed - Og Mandino. From apb at cequrux.com Wed Jun 11 06:56:07 2014 From: apb at cequrux.com (Alan Barrett) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 09:56:07 +0300 Subject: [rpd] Unnecessary attachments In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20140611065607.GA13495@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> Ignoring the merits of Badru's message itself, I'd like to focus on the structure: 1 multipart/related [94K, 7bit] 2 |->multipart/alternative [7.5K, 7bit] 3 | |->text/plain [2.7K, quoted-printable, us-ascii] 4 | `->text/html [4.5K, quoted-printable, us-ascii] 5 `->image/png [86K, base64] A6B4555D-F867-4A2F-A9F9-BAF29039D12B[1].pn 6 text/plain [0.1K, 7bit, us-ascii] The useful part of the message (the text/plain part number 3) is less than 3K. The entire message is bloated to 94K by the inclusion of an unnecessary HTML part, and an unnecessary image. (The text/plain part number 6 is the footer automatically added by the mailing list software.) I'd like it if the mailing list software automatically blocked all messages with attachments, pending approval by a moderator. The moderator could delete unnecessary attachments, or simply ask the sender to try again without the attachment. The moderator could approve messages with useful attachments. So many people send unnecessary HTML messages that it's pointless to hold them for moderation. I'd prefer to delete the HTML part and keep the plain text, but I won't object if the community prefers to keep both text and HTML. --apb (Alan Barrett) From mainanoa at gmail.com Wed Jun 11 07:08:11 2014 From: mainanoa at gmail.com (Noah Maina) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 10:08:11 +0300 Subject: [rpd] LACNIC reaches final /10 of IPv4 space In-Reply-To: References: <20140610161821.GI6306@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> Message-ID: Stop protecting IPv4..... the protocol is a drying water well and before you know it, ya'all will be thirsty and there will be no more water to drink.... IPv6 IPv6 IPv6 IPv6 IPv6 IPv6 IPv6 i can say that 1000000 times.... Noah On 11 June 2014 08:17, Bope Domilongo Christian wrote: > Thank you Alan and seun, this an important milestone, having a policy to > protect our critical resources will be great. > > With best regards, > writing on my personal capacity. > > > On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 4:13 AM, Seun Ojedeji > wrote: > >> Thanks for this update Alan, from all indication it will seem that v4 >> exhaustion time within AfriNIC region may be sooner than earlier >> predicted. >> >> Should this region be worried?... maybe: >> - More content in those region where v4 is getting exhausted will go v6 >> but then v6 deployment in our region is relatively low (someone says there >> is translation to the rescue) >> - Our region will continue to experience an increase in v4 requests from >> organizations that are more domicile in regions with v4 exhaustion. Perhaps >> this could be an opportunity to "by policy" improve ISP establishment in >> our region? Maybe yes. Should we also "by policy" ensure addresses within >> this region are used more within the region.... how do we encourage this as >> the region seem to be comfortable with *translation*. Can policy make this >> happen? >> >> Cheers! >> PS: My views alone. >> sent from Google nexus 4 >> kindly excuse brevity and typos. >> On 10 Jun 2014 17:23, "Alan Barrett" wrote: >> >>> Three weeks ago, on 20 May 2014, LACNIC's available pool of IPv4 space >>> became less then a /9 equivalent. This triggered the activation of IANA's >>> Recovered IPv4 Pool in terms of Global Policy GPP-IPv4-2011. >>> >>> Today, 10 June 2014, LACNIC's available pool of IPv4 space became less >>> than a /10 equivalent (4194302 IPv4 addresses). This triggers LACNIC's >>> IPv4 exhaustion policy. >>> >>> Announcements from 20 May 2014: >>> >>> >>> >>> Announcement from 10 Jun 2014: >>> >> direcciones-ipv4-en-lac> >>> >>> --apb (Alan Barrett) >>> _______________________________________________ >>> rpd mailing list >>> rpd at afrinic.net >>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> rpd mailing list >> rpd at afrinic.net >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From geier at geier.ne.tz Wed Jun 11 07:20:32 2014 From: geier at geier.ne.tz (Frank Habicht) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 10:20:32 +0300 Subject: [rpd] Academic IPv4 Policy In-Reply-To: <84FA3FBE-8D29-4AB8-8F28-E395851228E9@delong.com> References: <84FA3FBE-8D29-4AB8-8F28-E395851228E9@delong.com> Message-ID: <53980340.2060409@geier.ne.tz> Hi all, On 6/11/2014 9:50 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: > ... > However, I want to take this moment to applaud the integrity shown in this > message and agree and support your decision. +1 > I sincerely hope that someone > from the community will step up and do as you requested. ... not me ;-) while I understand there were problems with some applications, I also hope that the spirit of the policy can be some guidance to those implementing policy. As said in the meeting at the microphone, there were apparently no application within the last year from academic institutions. Why? all are happily covered? by NRENs? I have hope that academic institutions can assess their IP needs realistically and make any necessary applications under existing policies. I'd like to encourage them to do so sooner rather than later. And if there are any challenges, I'd like to hear about them on this list. In my opinion needs by academic institutions are genuine and in many many cases higher than their current utilisation. I trust they will get new or additional resources if and when applied for. And if not 5 * students then at least they likely can get much more than what they have now. If Higher Education Institutions (or their NRENs) don't manage to do the right applications soon, I will have to count them as one of the many organisations with their heads in the sand. Regards, Frank > Owen > > > On Jun 10, 2014, at 13:51 , Sunday Folayan > wrote: > >> Hi All, >> >> With regards to the Academic IPv4 Policy (Policy >> Draft AFPUB-2013-GEN-001-DRAFT-03). >> >> Due to the fact that both authors of the policy have now been elected to >> the board, and we are of the opinion that this represents a severe >> potential conflict of interest, we would like to ask the list if there >> were any individuals who would like to take over further actions on this >> policy (changing it, promoting it, defending it at meetings etc). >> >> Both authors still strongly believe in the policy and the sentiments >> behind it, and still believe the policy is in the best interest of the >> African region as a whole, and hence, we have opted to make this appeal >> rather than withdrawing the policy or letting it lapse on the 26th of June. >> >> Should there be anyone interested in taking over the policy from here on >> out, please advise either of the authors. >> >> Many Thanks >> >> Sunday Folayan / Andrew Alston >> >> _______________________________________________ >> rpd mailing list >> rpd at afrinic.net >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > From mje at posix.co.za Wed Jun 11 07:39:24 2014 From: mje at posix.co.za (Mark Elkins) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 09:39:24 +0200 Subject: [rpd] LACNIC reaches final /10 of IPv4 space In-Reply-To: References: <20140610161821.GI6306@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> Message-ID: <1402472364.29897.52.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> The fact that a number of Board people have concerns and have voiced them is good - it shows where their hearts are. I too (in my personal capacity) have concerns on the slow adoption of IPv6 within the AFRINIC service region. I also don't like our IPv4 resources being used outside of our service region by entities without African roots yet at the same time wish we had a lot less left. 1 - What about "except for the very first allocation/assignment, No more IPv4 until the member has their own IPv6 from AFRINIC, visible in the routing table" ??? Would love to add that if the members upstream(s) do not support IPv6 connectivity to the member, no more IPv4 for them either. 2 - What about "for the second last /8, anyone acquiring addresses from this pool has to prove (onus on the member) that more than half of their existing addresses are used on equipment within the AFRINIC service region" ??? 3 - I also think a reservation policy might be useful for large requests. Client wants a /12, AFRINIC can reserve the whole /12 but only issues a /16 of it - for use in "chicken and egg" cases... where funding might not be (fully) approved until resources are secured. The rest of the /12 is issued later (on qualification) as part of the same job. (I use /12 and /16 purely as examples) On Wed, 2014-06-11 at 09:43 +0400, Kris Seeburn wrote: > There are two ends to it. > > > * We either look at a policy to protect our ipv4 space which > would actually defeat the full push of ipv6 > * Or we find ways to deplete our ipv4 space faster that we can > move to ipv6 faster > > > We all know that most hosting / ecom sites are still based on ipv4 > infrastructure though. As much as we need to protect the ipv4 space we > still need to push the ipv6 space. Afrinic nevertheless still has a > good deal of ipv4 space. The question is how do we move both agenda > forward? > > > I think obviously we need to look at our policy and what can make > things work for us. A sharing or sales of ipv4 space with other RIRs > as need may also look as a better way of still protecting the precious > space whilst still making money out of it. I am not sure. I think this > is still a dilemma we all need to figure out. > > > NB: This is not a board perspective but my personal take at it. > > > Kris > > On Jun 11, 2014, at 9:17 AM, Bope Domilongo Christian > wrote: > > > Thank you Alan and seun, this an important milestone, having a > > policy to protect our critical resources will be great. > > > > > > With best regards, > > > > writing on my personal capacity. > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 4:13 AM, Seun Ojedeji > > wrote: > > Thanks for this update Alan, from all indication it will > > seem that v4 exhaustion time within AfriNIC region may be > > sooner than earlier predicted. > > > > Should this region be worried?... maybe: > > - More content in those region where v4 is getting exhausted > > will go v6 but then v6 deployment in our region is > > relatively low (someone says there is translation to the > > rescue) > > - Our region will continue to experience an increase in v4 > > requests from organizations that are more domicile in > > regions with v4 exhaustion. Perhaps this could be an > > opportunity to "by policy" improve ISP establishment in our > > region? Maybe yes. Should we also "by policy" ensure > > addresses within this region are used more within the > > region.... how do we encourage this as the region seem to be > > comfortable with *translation*. Can policy make this happen? > > > > Cheers! > > PS: My views alone. > > sent from Google nexus 4 > > kindly excuse brevity and typos. > > > > On 10 Jun 2014 17:23, "Alan Barrett" > > wrote: > > Three weeks ago, on 20 May 2014, LACNIC's available > > pool of IPv4 space became less then a /9 > > equivalent. This triggered the activation of IANA's > > Recovered IPv4 Pool in terms of Global Policy > > GPP-IPv4-2011. > > > > Today, 10 June 2014, LACNIC's available pool of IPv4 > > space became less than a /10 equivalent (4194302 > > IPv4 addresses). This triggers LACNIC's IPv4 > > exhaustion policy. > > > > Announcements from 20 May 2014: > > > > > > > > Announcement from 10 Jun 2014: > > > > > > --apb (Alan Barrett) > > _______________________________________________ > > rpd mailing list > > rpd at afrinic.net > > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > > > _______________________________________________ > > rpd mailing list > > rpd at afrinic.net > > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > rpd mailing list > > rpd at afrinic.net > > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > Kris Seeburn > seeburn.k at gmail.com > * > www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/ > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd -- Mark James ELKINS - Posix Systems - (South) Africa mje at posix.co.za Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: https://ftth.posix.co.za -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 5810 bytes Desc: not available URL: From owen at delong.com Wed Jun 11 07:47:13 2014 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 00:47:13 -0700 Subject: [rpd] Unnecessary attachments In-Reply-To: <20140611065607.GA13495@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> References: <20140611065607.GA13495@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> Message-ID: While I agree with Alan on the pointless and gratuitous waste of bandwidth devoted to this type of message format, I do have to point out that in this day and age, even in Africa, a message that remains less than 100Kbytes is unlikely to represent a significant issue, even at the scale of the rpd traffic on it's busiest days. An occasional polite request to try and keep messages to plain text as much as possible should be all that is required here. I think moderation and/or message stripping is excessive and unnecessary. It also carries the further disadvantage of preventing a network diagram or other such small infographic from being used when it would add clarification and perhaps avoid 100s of Kbytes of discussion and misunderstanding. Just my $0.02. Owen On Jun 10, 2014, at 23:56 , Alan Barrett wrote: > Ignoring the merits of Badru's message itself, I'd like to focus on the > structure: > > 1 multipart/related [94K, 7bit] > 2 |->multipart/alternative [7.5K, 7bit] > 3 | |->text/plain [2.7K, quoted-printable, us-ascii] > 4 | `->text/html [4.5K, quoted-printable, us-ascii] > 5 `->image/png [86K, base64] A6B4555D-F867-4A2F-A9F9-BAF29039D12B[1].pn > 6 text/plain [0.1K, 7bit, us-ascii] > > The useful part of the message (the text/plain part number 3) is less than 3K. The entire message is bloated to 94K by the inclusion of an unnecessary HTML part, and an unnecessary image. (The text/plain part number 6 is the footer automatically added by the mailing list software.) > > I'd like it if the mailing list software automatically blocked all messages with attachments, pending approval by a moderator. The moderator could delete unnecessary attachments, or simply ask the sender to try again without the attachment. The moderator could approve messages with useful attachments. > > So many people send unnecessary HTML messages that it's pointless to hold them for moderation. I'd prefer to delete the HTML part and keep the plain text, but I won't object if the community prefers to keep both text and HTML. > > --apb (Alan Barrett) > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd From kofi.ansa at gmail.com Wed Jun 11 07:50:51 2014 From: kofi.ansa at gmail.com (Kofi ansa akufo) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 11:50:51 +0400 Subject: [rpd] LACNIC reaches final /10 of IPv4 space In-Reply-To: <7FF93785BD2D534EA45841A8AAA1D89B2FF76B8EDF@liquid-exch.liquidtelecom.local> References: <20140610161821.GI6306@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> <7FF93785BD2D534EA45841A8AAA1D89B2FF76B8EDF@liquid-exch.liquidtelecom.local> Message-ID: Hi All Well so IPv4 is depleting in other regions - but what are the REAL stats with respect to the type of consumers of the resources in those regions? Which kind of LIRs and EUs are consuming the resources in these regions? Is it telcos, Hosting Providers? I bet you will find 7 out of 10 homes in these regions using NAT assuming v6 is not transparently pushed to these consumers. We still have a lot of mobile Telcos NATing. If these kind of LIRs alone in our region decide to do away with NATing, our IPv4 left will be vaporized :). We sldo see a lot of LTE (well branded as 4G data service) being deployed which instead of taking advantage of new setups to deploy native v6 and / or v4 also going down the NATing route. If we really want to do away with the rest of the v4 quickly i bet these groups hold the solution. But then how much does the community get out of this in terms of both revenue, infrastructure as well job creation? Is there a case for encouraging businesses in other regions to be established or co-located in our region for mutual benefit? What we have by far in terms of access technology which has seen much usage of IPv4 is xDSL (e.g. ADSL). Even here due to operational cost many operators assign a single dynamic IPv4 address to each client CPE (unless explicity requested by customer) which by default implement NAT behind the "public dynamic IPv4". Most consumer CPEs by default implement NATing and a few have IPv6 in their protocol stack. A few providers have well deployed automated push configs to CPEs in terms of managed services. - This is where I believe IPv6 adoption program should concentrate. Encourage procurement of CPEs with v6 support as well as put up element management systems which will automatically configure such CPEs not just for the outside facing interfaces but the inside as well. New roll-outs Projects like LTE should consider going native v6. Key point here is if End Users - I mean consumers (not Companies in the EU category) seldom care about how their various devices are connected be it NATing behind one Public IP or a hierarchy of NATing. Are they our target group? If they are what should we do to make them aware of the issues with NATing and how do we make their connectivity transparent to them? cheers Kofi On 11 June 2014 10:47, Andrew Alston wrote: > Hi All, > > > > As far as I can see it the following should be considered. > > > > Firstly, our continent is far to NAT dependent, and this is in everyone?s > disadvantage. >From a network provider perspective, clients who run NAT > are more likely to churn due to ease of renumbering. From a client > perspective, the limitations on end to end communications can introduce > problems. From a security perspective, the ability of individuals with > nefarious purpose to hide behind NAT creates problems. As such, I?d argue > that using our remaining space to remove the heavy NAT we see on this > continent would be advantageous. > > > > Further to this, the removal of NAT actually encourages the adoption of > IPv6, it is far easier to dual-stack a network with IPv6 if you can run a > single topology without worrying about the IPv4 translations. The question > is, how do we encourage people to move away from a legacy behavior that is > in their disadvantage but for so long as been painted as a security > mechanism (which it most certainly is not, and there are multiple papers to > back this perspective available). > > > > Secondly, we need to consider if we wish to encourage end user adoption of > IPv4 space, or encourage further takeup of space by LIR?s. There is a key > differentiator here, and it actually creates an interesting conflict. From > a provider perspective, having clients numbered on their space again, > reduces churn and is in the advantage of the provider (LIR), from a client > perspective, having provider independent space makes them more portable, > grants the easy ability to multi-home and in many instances it may be > easier for them to obtain end user space than to get it out of a provider. > That however comes with the disadvantage that the end user who chooses this > route will probably need to think about running BGP (particularly if they > are multi-homing), or alternatively having their sole provider announce on > their behalf, this creates complexity that can lead to a rise in OPEX. > > > > Either way though, I believe we need to encourage the adoption of our > space by whatever reasonable means are possible. Sitting on a large pool > of IPv4 space that is being unallocated disadvantages the continent in a > multitude of ways, including, but not limited to: > > > > a.) The amount of V4 space sitting unused discourages the adoption of > IPv6, which in the long term holistic sense is bad for the continent in > general > > b.) The large pool encourages dodgy vendors to come with an argument > that we don?t need V6 any time soon so we can be a legacy hardware dumping > ground > > c.) A greater adoption of V4 by the general community will lead to a > greater economy of scale in terms of allocation and management of space > within the RIR. > > > > Hence, I?d welcome any ideas as to how to drastically encourage the uptake > of the V4 that is sitting unused in our pool. > > > > Note: This thoughts represent my personal views and are in no way stated > as board perspective or the perspective of any other entity to which I may > be associated. > > > > Thanks > > > > Andrew > > > > > > *From:* rpd-bounces at afrinic.net [mailto:rpd-bounces at afrinic.net] *On > Behalf Of *Kris Seeburn > *Sent:* Wednesday, June 11, 2014 8:43 AM > *To:* rpd > *Subject:* Re: [rpd] LACNIC reaches final /10 of IPv4 space > > > > There are two ends to it. > > > > - We either look at a policy to protect our ipv4 space which would > actually defeat the full push of ipv6 > - Or we find ways to deplete our ipv4 space faster that we can move to > ipv6 faster > > > > We all know that most hosting / ecom sites are still based on ipv4 > infrastructure though. As much as we need to protect the ipv4 space we > still need to push the ipv6 space. Afrinic nevertheless still has a good > deal of ipv4 space. The question is how do we move both agenda forward? > > > > I think obviously we need to look at our policy and what can make things > work for us. A sharing or sales of ipv4 space with other RIRs as need may > also look as a better way of still protecting the precious space whilst > still making money out of it. I am not sure. I think this is still a > dilemma we all need to figure out. > > > > NB: This is not a board perspective but my personal take at it. > > > > Kris > > > > On Jun 11, 2014, at 9:17 AM, Bope Domilongo Christian < > christianbope at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Thank you Alan and seun, this an important milestone, having a policy > to protect our critical resources will be great. > > With best regards, > > writing on my personal capacity. > > > > On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 4:13 AM, Seun Ojedeji > wrote: > > Thanks for this update Alan, from all indication it will seem that v4 > exhaustion time within AfriNIC region may be sooner than earlier > predicted. > > Should this region be worried?... maybe: > - More content in those region where v4 is getting exhausted will go v6 > but then v6 deployment in our region is relatively low (someone says there > is translation to the rescue) > - Our region will continue to experience an increase in v4 requests from > organizations that are more domicile in regions with v4 exhaustion. Perhaps > this could be an opportunity to "by policy" improve ISP establishment in > our region? Maybe yes. Should we also "by policy" ensure addresses within > this region are used more within the region.... how do we encourage this as > the region seem to be comfortable with *translation*. Can policy make this > happen? > > Cheers! > PS: My views alone. > sent from Google nexus 4 > kindly excuse brevity and typos. > > On 10 Jun 2014 17:23, "Alan Barrett" wrote: > > Three weeks ago, on 20 May 2014, LACNIC's available pool of IPv4 space > became less then a /9 equivalent. This triggered the activation of IANA's > Recovered IPv4 Pool in terms of Global Policy GPP-IPv4-2011. > > Today, 10 June 2014, LACNIC's available pool of IPv4 space became less > than a /10 equivalent (4194302 IPv4 addresses). This triggers LACNIC's > IPv4 exhaustion policy. > > Announcements from 20 May 2014: > > > > Announcement from 10 Jun 2014: > < > http://www.lacnic.net/en/web/anuncios/2014-no-hay-mas-direcciones-ipv4-en-lac > > > > --apb (Alan Barrett) > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > > > Kris Seeburn > > seeburn.k at gmail.com > > - www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/ > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > DISCLAIMER: This email contains proprietary information some or all of > which may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. If > an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this email, please > notify the author by replying to this email. If you are not the intended > recipient, you must not use, disclose, copy, print, or rely on this email. > We cannot accept liability for any statements made which are clearly the > sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of this company or one of its > agents. > > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com Wed Jun 11 07:51:24 2014 From: Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com (Andrew Alston) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 08:51:24 +0100 Subject: [rpd] LACNIC reaches final /10 of IPv4 space In-Reply-To: <1402472364.29897.52.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> References: <20140610161821.GI6306@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> <1402472364.29897.52.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> Message-ID: <7FF93785BD2D534EA45841A8AAA1D89B2FF76B8F0A@liquid-exch.liquidtelecom.local> (Responding in my personal capacity once again) > 1 - What about "except for the very first allocation/assignment, No more IPv4 until the member has their own IPv6 from AFRINIC, visible in the routing table" ??? > Would love to add that if the members upstream(s) do not support IPv6 connectivity to the member, no more IPv4 for them either. I'd have no issues with this requirement, though a slight concern that this may lead to massive tunneling that will never be reverted to native v6. > 2 - What about "for the second last /8, anyone acquiring addresses from this pool has to prove (onus on the member) that more than half of their existing addresses are used on \ > equipment within the AFRINIC service region" ??? I'd have serious issues with this last one. Purely because I'm not sure how you would prove it, short of disclosing exact equipment and locations to AfriNIC, and I think that may set a dangerous precedent. I also am far from convinced that we should be all that concerned about where the space is used. The arguments about geographic location of IP space are complicated, particularly on a continent that is still so heavily reliant on satellite communications unless you're at a costal region, and how do you prove where the other end of a satellite connection is? Let's face reality, IPv4 is in its death throws, lets stop trying to figure out which hospital to put it in, and how to extend its life support, and let it pass peacefully and move on. > 3 - I also think a reservation policy might be useful for large requests. > Client wants a /12, AFRINIC can reserve the whole /12 but only issues a /16 of it - for use in "chicken and egg" cases... where funding might not be (fully) approved until > resources are secured. The rest of the /12 is issued later (on qualification) as part of the same job. > (I use /12 and /16 purely as examples) I have no issues with this, provided that the applicant doesn't pay huge financial penalties for this. It would need to be very closely analyzed to see how this would work in terms of the current billing structures and where the limits of policy are in setting this. For example, if a client applies for a /12, and is allocated the /12 in blocks as he moves forward, should he have to pay a separate application fee each time he gets more space out of that block? That is my only concern with this. Just my thoughts. Andrew On Wed, 2014-06-11 at 09:43 +0400, Kris Seeburn wrote: > There are two ends to it. > > > * We either look at a policy to protect our ipv4 space which > would actually defeat the full push of ipv6 > * Or we find ways to deplete our ipv4 space faster that we can > move to ipv6 faster > > > We all know that most hosting / ecom sites are still based on ipv4 > infrastructure though. As much as we need to protect the ipv4 space we > still need to push the ipv6 space. Afrinic nevertheless still has a > good deal of ipv4 space. The question is how do we move both agenda > forward? > > > I think obviously we need to look at our policy and what can make > things work for us. A sharing or sales of ipv4 space with other RIRs > as need may also look as a better way of still protecting the precious > space whilst still making money out of it. I am not sure. I think this > is still a dilemma we all need to figure out. > > > NB: This is not a board perspective but my personal take at it. > > > Kris > > On Jun 11, 2014, at 9:17 AM, Bope Domilongo Christian > wrote: > > > Thank you Alan and seun, this an important milestone, having a > > policy to protect our critical resources will be great. > > > > > > With best regards, > > > > writing on my personal capacity. > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 4:13 AM, Seun Ojedeji > > wrote: > > Thanks for this update Alan, from all indication it will > > seem that v4 exhaustion time within AfriNIC region may be > > sooner than earlier predicted. > > > > Should this region be worried?... maybe: > > - More content in those region where v4 is getting exhausted > > will go v6 but then v6 deployment in our region is > > relatively low (someone says there is translation to the > > rescue) > > - Our region will continue to experience an increase in v4 > > requests from organizations that are more domicile in > > regions with v4 exhaustion. Perhaps this could be an > > opportunity to "by policy" improve ISP establishment in our > > region? Maybe yes. Should we also "by policy" ensure > > addresses within this region are used more within the > > region.... how do we encourage this as the region seem to be > > comfortable with *translation*. Can policy make this happen? > > > > Cheers! > > PS: My views alone. > > sent from Google nexus 4 > > kindly excuse brevity and typos. > > > > On 10 Jun 2014 17:23, "Alan Barrett" > > wrote: > > Three weeks ago, on 20 May 2014, LACNIC's available > > pool of IPv4 space became less then a /9 > > equivalent. This triggered the activation of IANA's > > Recovered IPv4 Pool in terms of Global Policy > > GPP-IPv4-2011. > > > > Today, 10 June 2014, LACNIC's available pool of IPv4 > > space became less than a /10 equivalent (4194302 > > IPv4 addresses). This triggers LACNIC's IPv4 > > exhaustion policy. > > > > Announcements from 20 May 2014: > > > > > > > rir> > > > > Announcement from 10 Jun 2014: > > > > > pv4-en-lac> > > > > --apb (Alan Barrett) > > _______________________________________________ > > rpd mailing list > > rpd at afrinic.net > > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > > > _______________________________________________ > > rpd mailing list > > rpd at afrinic.net > > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > rpd mailing list > > rpd at afrinic.net > > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > Kris Seeburn > seeburn.k at gmail.com > * > www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/ > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd -- Mark James ELKINS - Posix Systems - (South) Africa mje at posix.co.za Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: https://ftth.posix.co.za DISCLAIMER: This email contains proprietary information some or all of which may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this email, please notify the author by replying to this email. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose, copy, print, or rely on this email. We cannot accept liability for any statements made which are clearly the sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of this company or one of its agents. From owen at delong.com Wed Jun 11 07:50:15 2014 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 00:50:15 -0700 Subject: [rpd] LACNIC reaches final /10 of IPv4 space In-Reply-To: References: <20140610161821.GI6306@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> Message-ID: "Translation to the rescue" is a little like saying "taxman to the rescue". Taxman comes to take your money. Allegedly, part of that money goes to fund search and rescue teams. I leave it to you to decide whether this is a wise investment vs. deploying IPv6. Owen On Jun 10, 2014, at 13:13 , Seun Ojedeji wrote: > Thanks for this update Alan, from all indication it will seem that v4 exhaustion time within AfriNIC region may be sooner than earlier predicted. > > Should this region be worried?... maybe: > - More content in those region where v4 is getting exhausted will go v6 but then v6 deployment in our region is relatively low (someone says there is translation to the rescue) > - Our region will continue to experience an increase in v4 requests from organizations that are more domicile in regions with v4 exhaustion. Perhaps this could be an opportunity to "by policy" improve ISP establishment in our region? Maybe yes. Should we also "by policy" ensure addresses within this region are used more within the region.... how do we encourage this as the region seem to be comfortable with *translation*. Can policy make this happen? > > Cheers! > PS: My views alone. > sent from Google nexus 4 > kindly excuse brevity and typos. > > On 10 Jun 2014 17:23, "Alan Barrett" wrote: > Three weeks ago, on 20 May 2014, LACNIC's available pool of IPv4 space became less then a /9 equivalent. This triggered the activation of IANA's Recovered IPv4 Pool in terms of Global Policy GPP-IPv4-2011. > > Today, 10 June 2014, LACNIC's available pool of IPv4 space became less than a /10 equivalent (4194302 IPv4 addresses). This triggers LACNIC's IPv4 exhaustion policy. > > Announcements from 20 May 2014: > > > > Announcement from 10 Jun 2014: > > > --apb (Alan Barrett) > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From owen at delong.com Wed Jun 11 07:58:27 2014 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 00:58:27 -0700 Subject: [rpd] LACNIC reaches final /10 of IPv4 space In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Do we really want to incentivize the institutions that should be at the forefront of teaching IPv6 to future generations to remain on IPv4 instead? I agree that the other aspects of this policy idea sound potentially good on the surface, but one must also consider the unintended consequences. Owen On Jun 10, 2014, at 22:56 , Badru Ntege wrote: > Hi Seun > > How about a policy that reserves the last portion of V4 to purely continental Academic institutions through the existing needs based justification process and thus limiting the generally available V4 which will mean that we all start thinking and walking towards v6. > > So unless you are academia, Available V4 will be very limited. This also ensures that resources would stay in the region. > > So for example take 40% of the available resources now and reserve them for Academia with a limited time say 4 years. > > Make the remaining resources available but with strict conditions for those who might be planning to take them abroad. > > A very generalized view to trigger dialogue. > > Regards > > > > > > > On 6/10/14, 11:13 PM, "Seun Ojedeji" wrote: > > Thanks for this update Alan, from all indication it will seem that v4 exhaustion time within AfriNIC region may be sooner than earlier predicted. > > Should this region be worried?... maybe: > - More content in those region where v4 is getting exhausted will go v6 but then v6 deployment in our region is relatively low (someone says there is translation to the rescue) > - Our region will continue to experience an increase in v4 requests from organizations that are more domicile in regions with v4 exhaustion. Perhaps this could be an opportunity to "by policy" improve ISP establishment in our region? Maybe yes. Should we also "by policy" ensure addresses within this region are used more within the region.... how do we encourage this as the region seem to be comfortable with *translation*. Can policy make this happen? > > Cheers! > PS: My views alone. > sent from Google nexus 4 > kindly excuse brevity and typos. > > On 10 Jun 2014 17:23, "Alan Barrett" wrote: > Three weeks ago, on 20 May 2014, LACNIC's available pool of IPv4 space became less then a /9 equivalent. This triggered the activation of IANA's Recovered IPv4 Pool in terms of Global Policy GPP-IPv4-2011. > > Today, 10 June 2014, LACNIC's available pool of IPv4 space became less than a /10 equivalent (4194302 IPv4 addresses). This triggers LACNIC's IPv4 exhaustion policy. > > Announcements from 20 May 2014: > > > > Announcement from 10 Jun 2014: > > > --apb (Alan Barrett) > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From seeburn.k at gmail.com Wed Jun 11 08:01:44 2014 From: seeburn.k at gmail.com (Kris Seeburn) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 12:01:44 +0400 Subject: [rpd] LACNIC reaches final /10 of IPv4 space In-Reply-To: References: <20140610161821.GI6306@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> <7FF93785BD2D534EA45841A8AAA1D89B2FF76B8EDF@liquid-exch.liquidtelecom.local> Message-ID: <7186CE7A-2BDD-46A3-8DD6-394BBB4318DD@gmail.com> I guess it is a simple question of what can we do to ensure that the telcos and we know the best users are mobile operators who can use this space easily and surely we have ADSL in many parts of our service region who are still bound to NAT. Do we need a lenient policy to force them to take up more space but still we want the end users at the same time to adopt so we can wear our space out and move on. my guess is that we all know what is happening and how things are moving but we need to reflect better on easing the space allocation whilst ensuring a proper allocation without being stolen. The best question is what policy do we push to ensure that these happen naturally. Kris On Jun 11, 2014, at 11:50 AM, Kofi ansa akufo wrote: > Hi All > > Well so IPv4 is depleting in other regions - but what are the REAL stats with respect to the type of consumers of the resources in those regions? Which kind of LIRs and EUs are consuming the resources in these regions? Is it telcos, Hosting Providers? I bet you will find 7 out of 10 homes in these regions using NAT assuming v6 is not transparently pushed to these consumers. > > We still have a lot of mobile Telcos NATing. If these kind of LIRs alone in our region decide to do away with NATing, our IPv4 left will be vaporized :). We sldo see a lot of LTE (well branded as 4G data service) being deployed which instead of taking advantage of new setups to deploy native v6 and / or v4 also going down the NATing route. If we really want to do away with the rest of the v4 quickly i bet these groups hold the solution. But then how much does the community get out of this in terms of both revenue, infrastructure as well job creation? Is there a case for encouraging businesses in other regions to be established or co-located in our region for mutual benefit? > > What we have by far in terms of access technology which has seen much usage of IPv4 is xDSL (e.g. ADSL). Even here due to operational cost many operators assign a single dynamic IPv4 address to each client CPE (unless explicity requested by customer) which by default implement NAT behind the "public dynamic IPv4". Most consumer CPEs by default implement NATing and a few have IPv6 in their protocol stack. A few providers have well deployed automated push configs to CPEs in terms of managed services. > > - This is where I believe IPv6 adoption program should concentrate. Encourage procurement of CPEs with v6 support as well as put up element management systems which will automatically configure such CPEs not just for the outside facing interfaces but the inside as well. New roll-outs Projects like LTE should consider going native v6. > > Key point here is if End Users - I mean consumers (not Companies in the EU category) seldom care about how their various devices are connected be it NATing behind one Public IP or a hierarchy of NATing. Are they our target group? If they are what should we do to make them aware of the issues with NATing and how do we make their connectivity transparent to them? > > cheers > > Kofi > > > On 11 June 2014 10:47, Andrew Alston wrote: > Hi All, > > > > As far as I can see it the following should be considered. > > > > Firstly, our continent is far to NAT dependent, and this is in everyone?s disadvantage. >From a network provider perspective, clients who run NAT are more likely to churn due to ease of renumbering. From a client perspective, the limitations on end to end communications can introduce problems. From a security perspective, the ability of individuals with nefarious purpose to hide behind NAT creates problems. As such, I?d argue that using our remaining space to remove the heavy NAT we see on this continent would be advantageous. > > > > Further to this, the removal of NAT actually encourages the adoption of IPv6, it is far easier to dual-stack a network with IPv6 if you can run a single topology without worrying about the IPv4 translations. The question is, how do we encourage people to move away from a legacy behavior that is in their disadvantage but for so long as been painted as a security mechanism (which it most certainly is not, and there are multiple papers to back this perspective available). > > > > Secondly, we need to consider if we wish to encourage end user adoption of IPv4 space, or encourage further takeup of space by LIR?s. There is a key differentiator here, and it actually creates an interesting conflict. From a provider perspective, having clients numbered on their space again, reduces churn and is in the advantage of the provider (LIR), from a client perspective, having provider independent space makes them more portable, grants the easy ability to multi-home and in many instances it may be easier for them to obtain end user space than to get it out of a provider. That however comes with the disadvantage that the end user who chooses this route will probably need to think about running BGP (particularly if they are multi-homing), or alternatively having their sole provider announce on their behalf, this creates complexity that can lead to a rise in OPEX. > > > > Either way though, I believe we need to encourage the adoption of our space by whatever reasonable means are possible. Sitting on a large pool of IPv4 space that is being unallocated disadvantages the continent in a multitude of ways, including, but not limited to: > > > > a.) The amount of V4 space sitting unused discourages the adoption of IPv6, which in the long term holistic sense is bad for the continent in general > > b.) The large pool encourages dodgy vendors to come with an argument that we don?t need V6 any time soon so we can be a legacy hardware dumping ground > > c.) A greater adoption of V4 by the general community will lead to a greater economy of scale in terms of allocation and management of space within the RIR. > > > > Hence, I?d welcome any ideas as to how to drastically encourage the uptake of the V4 that is sitting unused in our pool. > > > > Note: This thoughts represent my personal views and are in no way stated as board perspective or the perspective of any other entity to which I may be associated. > > > > Thanks > > > > Andrew > > > > > > From: rpd-bounces at afrinic.net [mailto:rpd-bounces at afrinic.net] On Behalf Of Kris Seeburn > Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2014 8:43 AM > To: rpd > Subject: Re: [rpd] LACNIC reaches final /10 of IPv4 space > > > > There are two ends to it. > > > > We either look at a policy to protect our ipv4 space which would actually defeat the full push of ipv6 > Or we find ways to deplete our ipv4 space faster that we can move to ipv6 faster > > > We all know that most hosting / ecom sites are still based on ipv4 infrastructure though. As much as we need to protect the ipv4 space we still need to push the ipv6 space. Afrinic nevertheless still has a good deal of ipv4 space. The question is how do we move both agenda forward? > > > > I think obviously we need to look at our policy and what can make things work for us. A sharing or sales of ipv4 space with other RIRs as need may also look as a better way of still protecting the precious space whilst still making money out of it. I am not sure. I think this is still a dilemma we all need to figure out. > > > > NB: This is not a board perspective but my personal take at it. > > > > Kris > > > > On Jun 11, 2014, at 9:17 AM, Bope Domilongo Christian wrote: > > > > > Thank you Alan and seun, this an important milestone, having a policy to protect our critical resources will be great. > > With best regards, > > writing on my personal capacity. > > > > On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 4:13 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: > > Thanks for this update Alan, from all indication it will seem that v4 exhaustion time within AfriNIC region may be sooner than earlier predicted. > > Should this region be worried?... maybe: > - More content in those region where v4 is getting exhausted will go v6 but then v6 deployment in our region is relatively low (someone says there is translation to the rescue) > - Our region will continue to experience an increase in v4 requests from organizations that are more domicile in regions with v4 exhaustion. Perhaps this could be an opportunity to "by policy" improve ISP establishment in our region? Maybe yes. Should we also "by policy" ensure addresses within this region are used more within the region.... how do we encourage this as the region seem to be comfortable with *translation*. Can policy make this happen? > > Cheers! > PS: My views alone. > sent from Google nexus 4 > kindly excuse brevity and typos. > > On 10 Jun 2014 17:23, "Alan Barrett" wrote: > > Three weeks ago, on 20 May 2014, LACNIC's available pool of IPv4 space became less then a /9 equivalent. This triggered the activation of IANA's Recovered IPv4 Pool in terms of Global Policy GPP-IPv4-2011. > > Today, 10 June 2014, LACNIC's available pool of IPv4 space became less than a /10 equivalent (4194302 IPv4 addresses). This triggers LACNIC's IPv4 exhaustion policy. > > Announcements from 20 May 2014: > > > > Announcement from 10 Jun 2014: > > > --apb (Alan Barrett) > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > > > Kris Seeburn > > seeburn.k at gmail.com > > www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/ > > > > > > > > > > DISCLAIMER: This email contains proprietary information some or all of which may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this email, please notify the author by replying to this email. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose, copy, print, or rely on this email. We cannot accept liability for any statements made which are clearly the sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of this company or one of its agents. > > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 496 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com Wed Jun 11 08:13:54 2014 From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 09:13:54 +0100 Subject: [rpd] Unnecessary attachments In-Reply-To: References: <20140611065607.GA13495@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> Message-ID: +1 to Owen's comment. I agree that at times, sender's html signatures could be larger than the actual message body itself. ;) However i think setting the moderation bit on that basis alone would just create an un-necessary overhead of moderation. I think the connectivity in Africa is improving and i think we should just be fine with those extras kb. Nevertheless as Alan and Owen has mentioned, it will be helpful if list members endeavour to avoid those large size signatures :) Cheers! On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 8:47 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: > While I agree with Alan on the pointless and gratuitous waste of bandwidth > devoted to this type of message format, I do have to point out that in this > day and age, even in Africa, a message that remains less than 100Kbytes is > unlikely to represent a significant issue, even at the scale of the rpd > traffic on it's busiest days. > > An occasional polite request to try and keep messages to plain text as > much as possible should be all that is required here. > > I think moderation and/or message stripping is excessive and unnecessary. > It also carries the further disadvantage of preventing a network diagram or > other such small infographic from being used when it would add > clarification and perhaps avoid 100s of Kbytes of discussion and > misunderstanding. > > Just my $0.02. > > Owen > > On Jun 10, 2014, at 23:56 , Alan Barrett wrote: > > > Ignoring the merits of Badru's message itself, I'd like to focus on the > > structure: > > > > 1 multipart/related [94K, 7bit] > > 2 |->multipart/alternative [7.5K, 7bit] > > 3 | |->text/plain [2.7K, quoted-printable, us-ascii] > > 4 | `->text/html [4.5K, quoted-printable, us-ascii] > > 5 `->image/png [86K, base64] A6B4555D-F867-4A2F-A9F9-BAF29039D12B[1].pn > > 6 text/plain [0.1K, 7bit, us-ascii] > > > > The useful part of the message (the text/plain part number 3) is less > than 3K. The entire message is bloated to 94K by the inclusion of an > unnecessary HTML part, and an unnecessary image. (The text/plain part > number 6 is the footer automatically added by the mailing list software.) > > > > I'd like it if the mailing list software automatically blocked all > messages with attachments, pending approval by a moderator. The moderator > could delete unnecessary attachments, or simply ask the sender to try again > without the attachment. The moderator could approve messages with useful > attachments. > > > > So many people send unnecessary HTML messages that it's pointless to > hold them for moderation. I'd prefer to delete the HTML part and keep the > plain text, but I won't object if the community prefers to keep both text > and HTML. > > > > --apb (Alan Barrett) > > _______________________________________________ > > rpd mailing list > > rpd at afrinic.net > > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng * The key to understanding is humility - my view ! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From omo at wacren.net Wed Jun 11 08:18:45 2014 From: omo at wacren.net (Omo Oaiya) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 11:18:45 +0300 Subject: [rpd] Academic IPv4 Policy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hello Sunday / Andrew Joe Kimaili from Ubuntunet Alliance and I discussed this in Djibouti. We share some of the sentiments and also have the best interests of the region at heart. We have however taken note of the objections so we will be proposing a new policy backed with data from REN community. Many thanks to both for sensitising the community to our needs. Omo On 10 June 2014 23:51, Sunday Folayan wrote: > Hi All, > > With regards to the Academic IPv4 Policy (Policy > Draft AFPUB-2013-GEN-001-DRAFT-03). > > Due to the fact that both authors of the policy have now been elected to > the board, and we are of the opinion that this represents a severe > potential conflict of interest, we would like to ask the list if there were > any individuals who would like to take over further actions on this policy > (changing it, promoting it, defending it at meetings etc). > > Both authors still strongly believe in the policy and the sentiments > behind it, and still believe the policy is in the best interest of the > African region as a whole, and hence, we have opted to make this appeal > rather than withdrawing the policy or letting it lapse on the 26th of June. > > Should there be anyone interested in taking over the policy from here on > out, please advise either of the authors. > > Many Thanks > > Sunday Folayan / Andrew Alston > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com Wed Jun 11 08:20:52 2014 From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 09:20:52 +0100 Subject: [rpd] Academic IPv4 Policy In-Reply-To: <53980340.2060409@geier.ne.tz> References: <84FA3FBE-8D29-4AB8-8F28-E395851228E9@delong.com> <53980340.2060409@geier.ne.tz> Message-ID: Hello Frank, On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 8:20 AM, Frank Habicht wrote: > > > I sincerely hope that someone > > from the community will step up and do as you requested. > > ... not me ;-) > > Why not? :-) > As said in the meeting at the microphone, there were apparently no > application within the last year from academic institutions. Why? all are > happily covered? by NRENs? > Mmm....i am not sure about hearing that during the last face 2 face meeting. I know a few institutions that applied for and got IP resource last year. (Mine being one of them ;)) Cheers! -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng * The key to understanding is humility - my view ! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ademola at ng.lopworks.com Wed Jun 11 08:23:21 2014 From: ademola at ng.lopworks.com (Ademola Osindero) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 09:23:21 +0100 Subject: [rpd] Unnecessary attachments In-Reply-To: References: <20140611065607.GA13495@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> Message-ID: <663F27C3-694D-4B1D-B77E-41377887D41D@ng.lopworks.com> Hi, Seriously, are you marshalling email format? Regards, Ademola Osindero CEO/Consulting Director Lopworks Limited 29 Ago Palace Way, Okota, Isolo, Lagos, Nigeria Mob: +234 8058097820, +234 8091291780 Tel: +234 1 3422633, +234 709 821 2625 Email: ademola at ng.lopworks.com Web: http://www.lopworks.com On 11 Jun 2014, at 09:13, Seun Ojedeji wrote: > +1 to Owen's comment. I agree that at times, sender's html signatures could be larger than the actual message body itself. ;) However i think setting the moderation bit on that basis alone would just create an un-necessary overhead of moderation. > > I think the connectivity in Africa is improving and i think we should just be fine with those extras kb. > > Nevertheless as Alan and Owen has mentioned, it will be helpful if list members endeavour to avoid those large size signatures :) > > Cheers! > > > On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 8:47 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: > While I agree with Alan on the pointless and gratuitous waste of bandwidth devoted to this type of message format, I do have to point out that in this day and age, even in Africa, a message that remains less than 100Kbytes is unlikely to represent a significant issue, even at the scale of the rpd traffic on it's busiest days. > > An occasional polite request to try and keep messages to plain text as much as possible should be all that is required here. > > I think moderation and/or message stripping is excessive and unnecessary. It also carries the further disadvantage of preventing a network diagram or other such small infographic from being used when it would add clarification and perhaps avoid 100s of Kbytes of discussion and misunderstanding. > > Just my $0.02. > > Owen > > On Jun 10, 2014, at 23:56 , Alan Barrett wrote: > > > Ignoring the merits of Badru's message itself, I'd like to focus on the > > structure: > > > > 1 multipart/related [94K, 7bit] > > 2 |->multipart/alternative [7.5K, 7bit] > > 3 | |->text/plain [2.7K, quoted-printable, us-ascii] > > 4 | `->text/html [4.5K, quoted-printable, us-ascii] > > 5 `->image/png [86K, base64] A6B4555D-F867-4A2F-A9F9-BAF29039D12B[1].pn > > 6 text/plain [0.1K, 7bit, us-ascii] > > > > The useful part of the message (the text/plain part number 3) is less than 3K. The entire message is bloated to 94K by the inclusion of an unnecessary HTML part, and an unnecessary image. (The text/plain part number 6 is the footer automatically added by the mailing list software.) > > > > I'd like it if the mailing list software automatically blocked all messages with attachments, pending approval by a moderator. The moderator could delete unnecessary attachments, or simply ask the sender to try again without the attachment. The moderator could approve messages with useful attachments. > > > > So many people send unnecessary HTML messages that it's pointless to hold them for moderation. I'd prefer to delete the HTML part and keep the plain text, but I won't object if the community prefers to keep both text and HTML. > > > > --apb (Alan Barrett) > > _______________________________________________ > > rpd mailing list > > rpd at afrinic.net > > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Seun Ojedeji, > Federal University Oye-Ekiti > web: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng > Mobile: +2348035233535 > alt email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng > > The key to understanding is humility - my view ! > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Ben.Roberts at liquidtelecom.com Wed Jun 11 08:26:03 2014 From: Ben.Roberts at liquidtelecom.com (Ben Roberts) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 09:26:03 +0100 Subject: [rpd] Unnecessary attachments In-Reply-To: <20140611065607.GA13495@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> References: <20140611065607.GA13495@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> Message-ID: <73566116BC183F43AF71613C042535AF03CFF6E2C4E7@liquid-exch.liquidtelecom.local> I have no problem with HTML mails or logos in signatures and I have sufficient operating systems and email software to read them as well as sufficient bandwidth and disk space to accept 'large' 86 kB GIF attachments. 2014 not 1994. Ben Roberts Group Director of Network Strategy Liquid Telecommunications [cid:image001.png at 01CF8567.ED8732E0] Liquid Telecommunications Limited, 6 New Street Square, London EC4A 3BF T: +44 (0) 20 7101 6100 - D: +44 (0) 20 7101 6203 - M: +44 (0) 7880 730 279 - E: ben.roberts at liquidtelecom.com W: www.liquidtelecom.com -----Original Message----- From: rpd-bounces at afrinic.net [mailto:rpd-bounces at afrinic.net] On Behalf Of Alan Barrett Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2014 9:56 AM To: rpd Subject: [rpd] Unnecessary attachments Ignoring the merits of Badru's message itself, I'd like to focus on the structure: 1 multipart/related [94K, 7bit] 2 |->multipart/alternative [7.5K, 7bit] 3 | |->text/plain [2.7K, quoted-printable, us-ascii] 4 | `->text/html [4.5K, quoted-printable, us-ascii] 5 `->image/png [86K, base64] A6B4555D-F867-4A2F-A9F9-BAF29039D12B[1].pn 6 text/plain [0.1K, 7bit, us-ascii] The useful part of the message (the text/plain part number 3) is less than 3K. The entire message is bloated to 94K by the inclusion of an unnecessary HTML part, and an unnecessary image. (The text/plain part number 6 is the footer automatically added by the mailing list software.) I'd like it if the mailing list software automatically blocked all messages with attachments, pending approval by a moderator. The moderator could delete unnecessary attachments, or simply ask the sender to try again without the attachment. The moderator could approve messages with useful attachments. So many people send unnecessary HTML messages that it's pointless to hold them for moderation. I'd prefer to delete the HTML part and keep the plain text, but I won't object if the community prefers to keep both text and HTML. --apb (Alan Barrett) _______________________________________________ rpd mailing list rpd at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd ________________________________ DISCLAIMER: This email contains proprietary information some or all of which may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this email, please notify the author by replying to this email. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose, copy, print, or rely on this email. We cannot accept liability for any statements made which are clearly the sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of this company or one of its agents. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 10520 bytes Desc: image001.png URL: From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com Wed Jun 11 08:47:46 2014 From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 09:47:46 +0100 Subject: [rpd] Academic IPv4 Policy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hello Omo, Thanks for your response, On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 9:18 AM, Omo Oaiya wrote: > > We have however taken note of the objections so we will be proposing a > new policy backed with data from REN community. > Can you confirm if your statement above mean you are taking up the IPv4 Academic policy and will henceforth shepherd it? Regards PDWG Co-Chair On 10 June 2014 23:51, Sunday Folayan wrote: > Hi All, > > With regards to the Academic IPv4 Policy (Policy > Draft AFPUB-2013-GEN-001-DRAFT-03). > > Due to the fact that both authors of the policy have now been elected to > the board, and we are of the opinion that this represents a severe > potential conflict of interest, we would like to ask the list if there were > any individuals who would like to take over further actions on this policy > (changing it, promoting it, defending it at meetings etc). > > Both authors still strongly believe in the policy and the sentiments > behind it, and still believe the policy is in the best interest of the > African region as a whole, and hence, we have opted to make this appeal > rather than withdrawing the policy or letting it lapse on the 26th of June. > > Should there be anyone interested in taking over the policy from here on > out, please advise either of the authors. > > Many Thanks > > Sunday Folayan / Andrew Alston > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng * The key to understanding is humility - my view ! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com Wed Jun 11 08:50:27 2014 From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 09:50:27 +0100 Subject: [rpd] Unnecessary attachments In-Reply-To: <663F27C3-694D-4B1D-B77E-41377887D41D@ng.lopworks.com> References: <20140611065607.GA13495@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> <663F27C3-694D-4B1D-B77E-41377887D41D@ng.lopworks.com> Message-ID: Hello Ademola On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 9:23 AM, Ademola Osindero wrote: > Hi, > > Seriously, are you marshalling email format? > More like the opposite. A proposal to moderate was made and i suggested its not worth the effort. Cheers! > > Regards, > Ademola Osindero > > CEO/Consulting Director > Lopworks Limited > 29 Ago Palace Way, > Okota, Isolo, > Lagos, Nigeria > > Mob: +234 8058097820, +234 8091291780 > Tel: +234 1 3422633, +234 709 821 2625 > Email: ademola at ng.lopworks.com > Web: http://www.lopworks.com > > On 11 Jun 2014, at 09:13, Seun Ojedeji wrote: > > +1 to Owen's comment. I agree that at times, sender's html signatures > could be larger than the actual message body itself. ;) However i think > setting the moderation bit on that basis alone would just create an > un-necessary overhead of moderation. > > I think the connectivity in Africa is improving and i think we should just > be fine with those extras kb. > > Nevertheless as Alan and Owen has mentioned, it will be helpful if list > members endeavour to avoid those large size signatures :) > > Cheers! > > > On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 8:47 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: > >> While I agree with Alan on the pointless and gratuitous waste of >> bandwidth devoted to this type of message format, I do have to point out >> that in this day and age, even in Africa, a message that remains less than >> 100Kbytes is unlikely to represent a significant issue, even at the scale >> of the rpd traffic on it's busiest days. >> >> An occasional polite request to try and keep messages to plain text as >> much as possible should be all that is required here. >> >> I think moderation and/or message stripping is excessive and unnecessary. >> It also carries the further disadvantage of preventing a network diagram or >> other such small infographic from being used when it would add >> clarification and perhaps avoid 100s of Kbytes of discussion and >> misunderstanding. >> >> Just my $0.02. >> >> Owen >> >> On Jun 10, 2014, at 23:56 , Alan Barrett wrote: >> >> > Ignoring the merits of Badru's message itself, I'd like to focus on the >> > structure: >> > >> > 1 multipart/related [94K, 7bit] >> > 2 |->multipart/alternative [7.5K, 7bit] >> > 3 | |->text/plain [2.7K, quoted-printable, us-ascii] >> > 4 | `->text/html [4.5K, quoted-printable, us-ascii] >> > 5 `->image/png [86K, base64] A6B4555D-F867-4A2F-A9F9-BAF29039D12B[1].pn >> > 6 text/plain [0.1K, 7bit, us-ascii] >> > >> > The useful part of the message (the text/plain part number 3) is less >> than 3K. The entire message is bloated to 94K by the inclusion of an >> unnecessary HTML part, and an unnecessary image. (The text/plain part >> number 6 is the footer automatically added by the mailing list software.) >> > >> > I'd like it if the mailing list software automatically blocked all >> messages with attachments, pending approval by a moderator. The moderator >> could delete unnecessary attachments, or simply ask the sender to try again >> without the attachment. The moderator could approve messages with useful >> attachments. >> > >> > So many people send unnecessary HTML messages that it's pointless to >> hold them for moderation. I'd prefer to delete the HTML part and keep the >> plain text, but I won't object if the community prefers to keep both text >> and HTML. >> > >> > --apb (Alan Barrett) >> > _______________________________________________ >> > rpd mailing list >> > rpd at afrinic.net >> > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >> >> _______________________________________________ >> rpd mailing list >> rpd at afrinic.net >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >> > > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > > *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: > http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535**alt > email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng > * > > The key to understanding is humility - my view ! > > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng * The key to understanding is humility - my view ! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From omo at wacren.net Wed Jun 11 08:55:51 2014 From: omo at wacren.net (Omo Oaiya) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 09:55:51 +0100 Subject: [rpd] Academic IPv4 Policy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Seun, We will propose a new policy. Omo On 11 June 2014 09:47, Seun Ojedeji wrote: > Hello Omo, > > Thanks for your response, > > On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 9:18 AM, Omo Oaiya wrote: > >> >> We have however taken note of the objections so we will be proposing a >> new policy backed with data from REN community. >> > > Can you confirm if your statement above mean you are taking up the IPv4 > Academic policy and will henceforth shepherd it? > > Regards > PDWG Co-Chair > > On 10 June 2014 23:51, Sunday Folayan wrote: > >> Hi All, >> >> With regards to the Academic IPv4 Policy (Policy >> Draft AFPUB-2013-GEN-001-DRAFT-03). >> >> Due to the fact that both authors of the policy have now been elected to >> the board, and we are of the opinion that this represents a severe >> potential conflict of interest, we would like to ask the list if there were >> any individuals who would like to take over further actions on this policy >> (changing it, promoting it, defending it at meetings etc). >> >> Both authors still strongly believe in the policy and the sentiments >> behind it, and still believe the policy is in the best interest of the >> African region as a whole, and hence, we have opted to make this appeal >> rather than withdrawing the policy or letting it lapse on the 26th of June. >> >> Should there be anyone interested in taking over the policy from here on >> out, please advise either of the authors. >> >> Many Thanks >> >> Sunday Folayan / Andrew Alston >> >> _______________________________________________ >> rpd mailing list >> rpd at afrinic.net >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >> >> > >> _______________________________________________ >> rpd mailing list >> rpd at afrinic.net >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >> >> > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > > *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: > http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535**alt > email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng > * > > The key to understanding is humility - my view ! > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mainanoa at gmail.com Wed Jun 11 09:32:06 2014 From: mainanoa at gmail.com (Noah Maina) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 12:32:06 +0300 Subject: [rpd] LACNIC reaches final /10 of IPv4 space In-Reply-To: <7186CE7A-2BDD-46A3-8DD6-394BBB4318DD@gmail.com> References: <20140610161821.GI6306@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> <7FF93785BD2D534EA45841A8AAA1D89B2FF76B8EDF@liquid-exch.liquidtelecom.local> <7186CE7A-2BDD-46A3-8DD6-394BBB4318DD@gmail.com> Message-ID: Involve the regulators so they can police the process... Telecoms only listen to the regulators. Noah On 11 Jun 2014 11:05, "Kris Seeburn" wrote: > I guess it is a simple question of what can we do to ensure that the > telcos and we know the best users are mobile operators who can use this > space easily and surely we have ADSL in many parts of our service region > who are still bound to NAT. > > Do we need a lenient policy to force them to take up more space but still > we want the end users at the same time to adopt so we can wear our space > out and move on. > > my guess is that we all know what is happening and how things are moving > but we need to reflect better on easing the space allocation whilst > ensuring a proper allocation without being stolen. > > The best question is what policy do we push to ensure that these happen > naturally. > > Kris > > On Jun 11, 2014, at 11:50 AM, Kofi ansa akufo wrote: > > Hi All > > Well so IPv4 is depleting in other regions - but what are the REAL stats > with respect to the type of consumers of the resources in those regions? > Which kind of LIRs and EUs are consuming the resources in these regions? Is > it telcos, Hosting Providers? I bet you will find 7 out of 10 homes in > these regions using NAT assuming v6 is not transparently pushed to these > consumers. > > We still have a lot of mobile Telcos NATing. If these kind of LIRs alone > in our region decide to do away with NATing, our IPv4 left will be > vaporized :). We sldo see a lot of LTE (well branded as 4G data service) > being deployed which instead of taking advantage of new setups to deploy > native v6 and / or v4 also going down the NATing route. If we really want > to do away with the rest of the v4 quickly i bet these groups hold the > solution. But then how much does the community get out of this in terms of > both revenue, infrastructure as well job creation? Is there a case for > encouraging businesses in other regions to be established or co-located in > our region for mutual benefit? > > What we have by far in terms of access technology which has seen much > usage of IPv4 is xDSL (e.g. ADSL). Even here due to operational cost many > operators assign a single dynamic IPv4 address to each client CPE (unless > explicity requested by customer) which by default implement NAT behind the > "public dynamic IPv4". Most consumer CPEs by default implement NATing and a > few have IPv6 in their protocol stack. A few providers have well deployed > automated push configs to CPEs in terms of managed services. > > - This is where I believe IPv6 adoption program should concentrate. > Encourage procurement of CPEs with v6 support as well as put up element > management systems which will automatically configure such CPEs not just > for the outside facing interfaces but the inside as well. New roll-outs > Projects like LTE should consider going native v6. > > Key point here is if End Users - I mean consumers (not Companies in the EU > category) seldom care about how their various devices are connected be it > NATing behind one Public IP or a hierarchy of NATing. Are they our target > group? If they are what should we do to make them aware of the issues with > NATing and how do we make their connectivity transparent to them? > > cheers > > Kofi > > > On 11 June 2014 10:47, Andrew Alston > wrote: > >> Hi All, >> >> >> >> As far as I can see it the following should be considered. >> >> >> >> Firstly, our continent is far to NAT dependent, and this is in everyone?s >> disadvantage. >From a network provider perspective, clients who run NAT >> are more likely to churn due to ease of renumbering. From a client >> perspective, the limitations on end to end communications can introduce >> problems. From a security perspective, the ability of individuals with >> nefarious purpose to hide behind NAT creates problems. As such, I?d argue >> that using our remaining space to remove the heavy NAT we see on this >> continent would be advantageous. >> >> >> >> Further to this, the removal of NAT actually encourages the adoption of >> IPv6, it is far easier to dual-stack a network with IPv6 if you can run a >> single topology without worrying about the IPv4 translations. The question >> is, how do we encourage people to move away from a legacy behavior that is >> in their disadvantage but for so long as been painted as a security >> mechanism (which it most certainly is not, and there are multiple papers to >> back this perspective available). >> >> >> >> Secondly, we need to consider if we wish to encourage end user adoption >> of IPv4 space, or encourage further takeup of space by LIR?s. There is a >> key differentiator here, and it actually creates an interesting conflict. >> From a provider perspective, having clients numbered on their space again, >> reduces churn and is in the advantage of the provider (LIR), from a client >> perspective, having provider independent space makes them more portable, >> grants the easy ability to multi-home and in many instances it may be >> easier for them to obtain end user space than to get it out of a provider. >> That however comes with the disadvantage that the end user who chooses this >> route will probably need to think about running BGP (particularly if they >> are multi-homing), or alternatively having their sole provider announce on >> their behalf, this creates complexity that can lead to a rise in OPEX. >> >> >> >> Either way though, I believe we need to encourage the adoption of our >> space by whatever reasonable means are possible. Sitting on a large pool >> of IPv4 space that is being unallocated disadvantages the continent in a >> multitude of ways, including, but not limited to: >> >> >> >> a.) The amount of V4 space sitting unused discourages the adoption of >> IPv6, which in the long term holistic sense is bad for the continent in >> general >> >> b.) The large pool encourages dodgy vendors to come with an argument >> that we don?t need V6 any time soon so we can be a legacy hardware dumping >> ground >> >> c.) A greater adoption of V4 by the general community will lead to a >> greater economy of scale in terms of allocation and management of space >> within the RIR. >> >> >> >> Hence, I?d welcome any ideas as to how to drastically encourage the >> uptake of the V4 that is sitting unused in our pool. >> >> >> >> Note: This thoughts represent my personal views and are in no way stated >> as board perspective or the perspective of any other entity to which I may >> be associated. >> >> >> >> Thanks >> >> >> >> Andrew >> >> >> >> >> >> *From:* rpd-bounces at afrinic.net [mailto:rpd-bounces at afrinic.net] *On >> Behalf Of *Kris Seeburn >> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 11, 2014 8:43 AM >> *To:* rpd >> *Subject:* Re: [rpd] LACNIC reaches final /10 of IPv4 space >> >> >> >> There are two ends to it. >> >> >> >> - We either look at a policy to protect our ipv4 space which would >> actually defeat the full push of ipv6 >> - Or we find ways to deplete our ipv4 space faster that we can move >> to ipv6 faster >> >> >> >> We all know that most hosting / ecom sites are still based on ipv4 >> infrastructure though. As much as we need to protect the ipv4 space we >> still need to push the ipv6 space. Afrinic nevertheless still has a good >> deal of ipv4 space. The question is how do we move both agenda forward? >> >> >> >> I think obviously we need to look at our policy and what can make things >> work for us. A sharing or sales of ipv4 space with other RIRs as need may >> also look as a better way of still protecting the precious space whilst >> still making money out of it. I am not sure. I think this is still a >> dilemma we all need to figure out. >> >> >> >> NB: This is not a board perspective but my personal take at it. >> >> >> >> Kris >> >> >> >> On Jun 11, 2014, at 9:17 AM, Bope Domilongo Christian < >> christianbope at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> Thank you Alan and seun, this an important milestone, having a policy >> to protect our critical resources will be great. >> >> With best regards, >> >> writing on my personal capacity. >> >> >> >> On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 4:13 AM, Seun Ojedeji >> wrote: >> >> Thanks for this update Alan, from all indication it will seem that v4 >> exhaustion time within AfriNIC region may be sooner than earlier >> predicted. >> >> Should this region be worried?... maybe: >> - More content in those region where v4 is getting exhausted will go v6 >> but then v6 deployment in our region is relatively low (someone says there >> is translation to the rescue) >> - Our region will continue to experience an increase in v4 requests from >> organizations that are more domicile in regions with v4 exhaustion. Perhaps >> this could be an opportunity to "by policy" improve ISP establishment in >> our region? Maybe yes. Should we also "by policy" ensure addresses within >> this region are used more within the region.... how do we encourage this as >> the region seem to be comfortable with *translation*. Can policy make this >> happen? >> >> Cheers! >> PS: My views alone. >> sent from Google nexus 4 >> kindly excuse brevity and typos. >> >> On 10 Jun 2014 17:23, "Alan Barrett" wrote: >> >> Three weeks ago, on 20 May 2014, LACNIC's available pool of IPv4 space >> became less then a /9 equivalent. This triggered the activation of IANA's >> Recovered IPv4 Pool in terms of Global Policy GPP-IPv4-2011. >> >> Today, 10 June 2014, LACNIC's available pool of IPv4 space became less >> than a /10 equivalent (4194302 IPv4 addresses). This triggers LACNIC's >> IPv4 exhaustion policy. >> >> Announcements from 20 May 2014: >> >> >> >> Announcement from 10 Jun 2014: >> < >> http://www.lacnic.net/en/web/anuncios/2014-no-hay-mas-direcciones-ipv4-en-lac >> > >> >> --apb (Alan Barrett) >> _______________________________________________ >> rpd mailing list >> rpd at afrinic.net >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> rpd mailing list >> rpd at afrinic.net >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> rpd mailing list >> rpd at afrinic.net >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >> >> >> >> Kris Seeburn >> >> seeburn.k at gmail.com >> >> - www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/ >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> DISCLAIMER: This email contains proprietary information some or all of >> which may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. If >> an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this email, please >> notify the author by replying to this email. If you are not the intended >> recipient, you must not use, disclose, copy, print, or rely on this email. >> We cannot accept liability for any statements made which are clearly the >> sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of this company or one of its >> agents. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> rpd mailing list >> rpd at afrinic.net >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >> >> > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > > > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From benjamin.eshun at gmail.com Wed Jun 11 11:01:29 2014 From: benjamin.eshun at gmail.com (Benjamin Eshun) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 11:01:29 +0000 Subject: [rpd] Academic IPv4 Policy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Guys, I don't think we need to start from scratch with a new policy and even if you did, it would not be too different from the current one written by Andrew and Sunday. Hence we just need to refine the current one a little and ensure it has all the elements that would ensure a consensus from the community. The fact is that IPv4 depletion in our region is imminent and inevitably, and knowing this for a fact, we need to ensure our HEIs in the region are properly placed to have much of these resources for fulfill their core mandate for teaching, learning and research. As well as prepare them for the next evolution of the Internet with IPv6. In Djibouti, whilst on the floor I suggested the following and I still believe it should added the policy: 1. The policy for been targeted at HEIs that currently don't have any allocations from AFRiNIC or at least some sort of moratorium is place on the HEIs that have allocations and would still want to apply this policy. 2. It should a one-time-pass for institutions that would want to use. And I would even want to add that if an HEI uses this policy to get resources then the second time around the requirement for additional resource should be more stringent to ensure maximum utilization of the first allocation. 3. For an HEI to use this policy, the application must be approved by the NREN or in the case when they is no NREN in the country, then is must be approved by the RREN. Sunday, I would happy to take up the policy from here onwards. cheers, Benjamin Ghanaian Academic and Research Network (GARNET) On 11 June 2014 08:55, Omo Oaiya wrote: > Seun, > > We will propose a new policy. > > Omo > > On 11 June 2014 09:47, Seun Ojedeji wrote: > >> Hello Omo, >> >> Thanks for your response, >> >> On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 9:18 AM, Omo Oaiya wrote: >> >>> >>> We have however taken note of the objections so we will be proposing a >>> new policy backed with data from REN community. >>> >> >> Can you confirm if your statement above mean you are taking up the IPv4 >> Academic policy and will henceforth shepherd it? >> >> Regards >> PDWG Co-Chair >> >> On 10 June 2014 23:51, Sunday Folayan wrote: >> >>> Hi All, >>> >>> With regards to the Academic IPv4 Policy (Policy >>> Draft AFPUB-2013-GEN-001-DRAFT-03). >>> >>> Due to the fact that both authors of the policy have now been elected to >>> the board, and we are of the opinion that this represents a severe >>> potential conflict of interest, we would like to ask the list if there were >>> any individuals who would like to take over further actions on this policy >>> (changing it, promoting it, defending it at meetings etc). >>> >>> Both authors still strongly believe in the policy and the sentiments >>> behind it, and still believe the policy is in the best interest of the >>> African region as a whole, and hence, we have opted to make this appeal >>> rather than withdrawing the policy or letting it lapse on the 26th of June. >>> >>> Should there be anyone interested in taking over the policy from here on >>> out, please advise either of the authors. >>> >>> Many Thanks >>> >>> Sunday Folayan / Andrew Alston >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> rpd mailing list >>> rpd at afrinic.net >>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >>> >>> >> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> rpd mailing list >>> rpd at afrinic.net >>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> >> >> >> >> *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: >> http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535**alt >> email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng >> * >> >> The key to understanding is humility - my view ! >> >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ondouglas at gmail.com Wed Jun 11 11:02:06 2014 From: ondouglas at gmail.com (Douglas Onyango) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 12:02:06 +0100 Subject: [rpd] LACNIC reaches final /10 of IPv4 space In-Reply-To: References: <20140610161821.GI6306@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> Message-ID: Hi Seun, On 10 June 2014 21:13, Seun Ojedeji wrote: > Should this region be worried?... maybe: No, I wouldn't be worried. I don't think the net will break or anything like that. I actually think that as more of the Internet goes v6 the incentive to adopt/migration to v6 will be more apparent to operators around the continent which is welcome considering how much all the efforts so far have brought us. > - Our region will continue to experience an increase in v4 requests from > organizations that are more domicile in regions with v4 exhaustion. Perhaps > this could be an opportunity to "by policy" improve ISP establishment in our > region? Maybe yes. Should we also "by policy" ensure addresses within this > region are used more within the region.... how do we encourage this as the > region seem to be comfortable with *translation*. Can policy make this > happen? If an organization is not domiciled within AFRINIC's service region, it would cease to be eligible for resources, so whilst I understand that this issue is not exactly black and white, I still wouldn't be too worried about it. Regards, -- Douglas Onyango, PRINCE 2, ITILv3 UG: +256 772 712 139 | NG: +234 813 604 7638 From mje at posix.co.za Wed Jun 11 11:23:36 2014 From: mje at posix.co.za (Mark Elkins) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 13:23:36 +0200 Subject: [rpd] Academic IPv4 Policy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1402485816.29897.62.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> On Wed, 2014-06-11 at 11:01 +0000, Benjamin Eshun wrote: > Hi Guys, > > > I don't think we need to start from scratch with a new policy and even > if you did, it would not be too different from the current one written > by Andrew and Sunday. Hence we just need to refine the current one a > little and ensure it has all the elements that would ensure a > consensus from the community. The fact is that IPv4 depletion in our > region is imminent and inevitably, and knowing this for a fact, we > need to ensure our HEIs in the region are properly placed to have much > of these resources for fulfill their core mandate for teaching, > learning and research. As well as prepare them for the next evolution > of the Internet with IPv6. > > > In Djibouti, whilst on the floor I suggested the following and I still > believe it should added the policy: > > 1. The policy for been targeted at HEIs that currently don't have any > allocations from AFRiNIC or at least some sort of moratorium is place > on the HEIs that have allocations and would still want to apply this > policy. I think it should be open to any HEI that does not yet have a ration of 5:1 (or whatever is decided)... ie the policy can be used at any time to raise the ration to the agreed maximum. > > 2. It should a one-time-pass for institutions that would want to use. > And I would even want to add that if an HEI uses this policy to get > resources then the second time around the requirement for additional > resource should be more stringent to ensure maximum utilization of the > first allocation. > > 3. For an HEI to use this policy, the application must be approved by > the NREN or in the case when they is no NREN in the country, then is > must be approved by the RREN. > At the end of the day - I'd prefer HEI's to be using IPv6... so as long as IPv6 is included as a pre-requisite.... no problem. > Sunday, I would happy to take up the policy from here onwards. > > > cheers, > > > Benjamin > > > Ghanaian Academic and Research Network (GARNET) > > > > On 11 June 2014 08:55, Omo Oaiya wrote: > Seun, > > > We will propose a new policy. > > > Omo > > > On 11 June 2014 09:47, Seun Ojedeji > wrote: > Hello Omo, > > > Thanks for your response, > > On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 9:18 AM, Omo Oaiya > wrote: > > We have however taken note of the objections > so we will be proposing a new policy backed > with data from REN community. > > > Can you confirm if your statement above mean you are > taking up the IPv4 Academic policy and will henceforth > shepherd it? > > > Regards > > PDWG Co-Chair > > > On 10 June 2014 23:51, Sunday Folayan > wrote: > > Hi All, > > With regards to the Academic IPv4 Policy > (Policy Draft AFPUB-2013-GEN-001-DRAFT-03). > > Due to the fact that both authors of the > policy have now been elected to the board, and > we are of the opinion that this represents a > severe potential conflict of interest, we > would like to ask the list if there were any > individuals who would like to take over > further actions on this policy (changing it, > promoting it, defending it at meetings etc). > > Both authors still strongly believe in the > policy and the sentiments behind it, and still > believe the policy is in the best interest of > the African region as a whole, and hence, we > have opted to make this appeal rather than > withdrawing the policy or letting it lapse on > the 26th of June. > > Should there be anyone interested in taking > over the policy from here on out, please > advise either of the authors. > > Many Thanks > > Sunday Folayan / Andrew Alston > > > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Seun Ojedeji, > Federal University Oye-Ekiti > web: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng > Mobile: +2348035233535 > alt email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng > > The key to understanding is humility - > my view ! > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd -- Mark James ELKINS - Posix Systems - (South) Africa mje at posix.co.za Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: https://ftth.posix.co.za -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 5810 bytes Desc: not available URL: From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com Wed Jun 11 12:53:33 2014 From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 13:53:33 +0100 Subject: [rpd] LACNIC reaches final /10 of IPv4 space In-Reply-To: References: <20140610161821.GI6306@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> Message-ID: sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 11 Jun 2014 12:02, "Douglas Onyango" wrote: > > Hi Seun, > On 10 June 2014 21:13, Seun Ojedeji wrote: > > Should this region be worried?... maybe: > > No, I wouldn't be worried. I don't think the net will break or > anything like that. I actually think that as more of the Internet goes > v6 the incentive to adopt/migration to v6 will be more apparent to > operators around the continent which is welcome considering how much > all the efforts so far have brought us. > I think we should be worried because by history, availability of v4 in our region has not been an incentive to service providers to access v4 content natively but they have relaxed and relied on translation. If you ask me, I think such translation breaks the internet as we know it. Nevertheless, my "worry" call is in 2 folds: - other region going v6 and our region most likely imbibing in the culture of translation. - other region coming for this region's v4 while this region still imbibe in the culture of translation So should we be worried that we may yet have a more invincible region on the internet, should we be worried that we may yet be contributing to breaking the Internet nature the more through our NAT and transitioning technique cultures. I think we should. > > - Our region will continue to experience an increase in v4 requests from > > organizations that are more domicile in regions with v4 exhaustion. Perhaps > > this could be an opportunity to "by policy" improve ISP establishment in our > > region? Maybe yes. Should we also "by policy" ensure addresses within this > > region are used more within the region.... how do we encourage this as the > > region seem to be comfortable with *translation*. Can policy make this > > happen? > > If an organization is not domiciled within AFRINIC's service region, > it would cease to be eligible for resources, so whilst I understand > that this issue is not exactly black and white, I still wouldn't be > too worried about it. > I think the fact that it's not black and white should provoke our reasoning. Cheers! > > Regards, > -- > Douglas Onyango, PRINCE 2, ITILv3 > UG: +256 772 712 139 | NG: +234 813 604 7638 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jacksonmuthi at gmail.com Wed Jun 11 14:29:07 2014 From: jacksonmuthi at gmail.com (Jackson Muthili) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 17:29:07 +0300 Subject: [rpd] LACNIC reaches final /10 of IPv4 space In-Reply-To: <20140611054813.GB72566@zibbi.meraka.csir.co.za> References: <20140610161821.GI6306@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> <20140611054813.GB72566@zibbi.meraka.csir.co.za> Message-ID: On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 8:48 AM, John Hay wrote: > On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 01:17:23PM +0800, Bope Domilongo Christian wrote: >> Thank you Alan and seun, this an important milestone, having a policy to >> protect our critical resources will be great. > > But is there much point in protecting and trying to prolong ipv4 in the > AfriNIC region if the rest of the NICs are running out? Yes. Rest of world are running out and but refused to install IPv6. It is still looking for IPv4. I wonder why??? Why big guy like Microsoft, amazon have refused to large scale deploy and drive IPv6? > At some stage > companies / organisations in those regions will only be able to get > ipv6 addresses. Are you sure your users will not want to communicate > with them or they with the users / companies on your networks? > > I think Alan's email should rather serve as a heads up to implement > ipv6 in your network and start to think about what missing IPv6 policy > there is. > > Regards > > John > -- > John Hay -- jhay at meraka.csir.co.za / jhay at meraka.org.za > >> >> With best regards, >> writing on my personal capacity. >> >> >> On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 4:13 AM, Seun Ojedeji >> wrote: >> >> > Thanks for this update Alan, from all indication it will seem that v4 >> > exhaustion time within AfriNIC region may be sooner than earlier >> > predicted. >> > >> > Should this region be worried?... maybe: >> > - More content in those region where v4 is getting exhausted will go v6 >> > but then v6 deployment in our region is relatively low (someone says there >> > is translation to the rescue) >> > - Our region will continue to experience an increase in v4 requests from >> > organizations that are more domicile in regions with v4 exhaustion. Perhaps >> > this could be an opportunity to "by policy" improve ISP establishment in >> > our region? Maybe yes. Should we also "by policy" ensure addresses within >> > this region are used more within the region.... how do we encourage this as >> > the region seem to be comfortable with *translation*. Can policy make this >> > happen? >> > >> > Cheers! >> > PS: My views alone. >> > sent from Google nexus 4 >> > kindly excuse brevity and typos. >> > On 10 Jun 2014 17:23, "Alan Barrett" wrote: >> > >> >> Three weeks ago, on 20 May 2014, LACNIC's available pool of IPv4 space >> >> became less then a /9 equivalent. This triggered the activation of IANA's >> >> Recovered IPv4 Pool in terms of Global Policy GPP-IPv4-2011. >> >> >> >> Today, 10 June 2014, LACNIC's available pool of IPv4 space became less >> >> than a /10 equivalent (4194302 IPv4 addresses). This triggers LACNIC's >> >> IPv4 exhaustion policy. >> >> >> >> Announcements from 20 May 2014: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Announcement from 10 Jun 2014: >> >> > >> direcciones-ipv4-en-lac> >> >> >> >> --apb (Alan Barrett) >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> rpd mailing list >> >> rpd at afrinic.net >> >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >> >> >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > rpd mailing list >> > rpd at afrinic.net >> > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >> > >> > > >> _______________________________________________ >> rpd mailing list >> rpd at afrinic.net >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > > -- > John Hay -- jhay at meraka.csir.co.za / jhay at meraka.org.za > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd From mukom.tamon at gmail.com Wed Jun 11 16:46:43 2014 From: mukom.tamon at gmail.com (Mukom Akong T.) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 20:46:43 +0400 Subject: [rpd] LACNIC reaches final /10 of IPv4 space In-Reply-To: References: <20140610161821.GI6306@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> <20140611054813.GB72566@zibbi.meraka.csir.co.za> Message-ID: On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 6:29 PM, Jackson Muthili wrote: > > Why big guy like Microsoft, amazon have refused to large scale deploy > and drive IPv6? > Don't only look to Microsoft and Amazon but look to those who are indeed doing something like Facebook (which by the way might go IPv6-only some point within the next 2 years according to Paul Saab of Facebook. I'd argue that Facebook is a more strategic player in this field than Microsoft. Besides Microsoft by ensuring OSes support IPv6 isn't exactly holding us back. -- Mukom Akong T. http://about.me/perfexcellence | twitter: @perfexcellent ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ?When you work, you are the FLUTE through whose lungs the whispering of the hours turns to MUSIC" - Kahlil Gibran ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mainanoa at gmail.com Wed Jun 11 17:21:59 2014 From: mainanoa at gmail.com (Noah Maina) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 20:21:59 +0300 Subject: [rpd] LACNIC reaches final /10 of IPv4 space In-Reply-To: References: <20140610161821.GI6306@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> <20140611054813.GB72566@zibbi.meraka.csir.co.za> Message-ID: Proposition to the big guns... Microsoft and Amazon kindly move all your servers to v6 then customers and users seeking to update their softwares and download MS OS or buy stuff online across IPv4 powered ISP can get stranded.... Proposition to the v4 only ISP Dear support, I cant access amazon nor can I update my Microsoft OS or applications.... if this is not fixed in the next 1hr...I am terminating my contract with you and will seek services of ISP x whose customers can access Facebook Microsoft and Amazon. Dreams from wonderland. Noah On 11 Jun 2014 19:49, "Mukom Akong T." wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 6:29 PM, Jackson Muthili > wrote: > >> >> Why big guy like Microsoft, amazon have refused to large scale deploy >> and drive IPv6? >> > > Don't only look to Microsoft and Amazon but look to those who are indeed > doing something like Facebook (which by the way might go IPv6-only some > point within the next 2 years according to Paul Saab of Facebook. I'd argue > that Facebook is a more strategic player in this field than Microsoft. > Besides Microsoft by ensuring OSes support IPv6 isn't exactly holding us > back. > > > > > -- > > Mukom Akong T. > > http://about.me/perfexcellence | twitter: @perfexcellent > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > ?When you work, you are the FLUTE through whose lungs the whispering of > the hours turns to MUSIC" - Kahlil Gibran > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jhay at meraka.org.za Wed Jun 11 17:47:33 2014 From: jhay at meraka.org.za (John Hay) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 19:47:33 +0200 Subject: [rpd] LACNIC reaches final /10 of IPv4 space In-Reply-To: References: <20140610161821.GI6306@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> <20140611054813.GB72566@zibbi.meraka.csir.co.za> Message-ID: <20140611174733.GB38136@zibbi.meraka.csir.co.za> On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 05:29:07PM +0300, Jackson Muthili wrote: > Why big guy like Microsoft, amazon have refused to large scale deploy > and drive IPv6? I cannot speak on behalf of any of them, but microsoft has been working hard to get their OS and apps working with IPv6. The latest versions have shipped with IPv6 enabled. You can see their status: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/network/hh994905.aspx And there are other big players that have their web sites and services IPv6 enabled, Google with gmail and youtube, Facebook, Akamai. More than a third of our (Meraka) internet traffic is already IPv6. Regards John -- John Hay -- jhay at meraka.csir.co.za / jhay at meraka.org.za From mje at posix.co.za Wed Jun 11 18:23:33 2014 From: mje at posix.co.za (Mark Elkins) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 20:23:33 +0200 Subject: [rpd] LACNIC reaches final /10 of IPv4 space In-Reply-To: <20140611174733.GB38136@zibbi.meraka.csir.co.za> References: <20140610161821.GI6306@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> <20140611054813.GB72566@zibbi.meraka.csir.co.za> <20140611174733.GB38136@zibbi.meraka.csir.co.za> Message-ID: <1402511013.3728.6.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> On Wed, 2014-06-11 at 19:47 +0200, John Hay wrote: > On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 05:29:07PM +0300, Jackson Muthili wrote: > More than a third of our (Meraka) internet traffic is already IPv6. mjelap mje # traceroute6 www.meraka.org.za traceroute to www.meraka.org.za (2001:4200:7000:8::2) from 2001:42a0:1000:48:70fe:793f:df62:b169, 30 hops max, 24 byte packets 1 cispos2-fe0-0.posix.co.za (2001:42a0:1000:48::254) 23.72 ms 1.593 ms 1.739 ms 2 cisrb1-cispta2.posix.co.za (2001:42a0:0:ff01::1) 24.719 ms 23.351 ms 22.207 ms 3 cisrbc3-fe2-0.posix.co.za (2001:42a0:0:2::3) 23.73 ms 23.658 ms 23.989 ms 4 tenet.jinx.net.za (2001:43f8:1f0::33) 31.905 ms 25.065 ms 26.612 ms 5 t4-1-jnb1-pe1.tenet.ac.za (2001:4200::4e) 25.662 ms 25.458 ms 26.108 ms 6 vl700-jnb2-pe1.tenet.ac.za (2001:4200::4c) 27.983 ms 26.67 ms 25.723 ms 7 t0-12-0-0-jnb2-p1.tenet.ac.za (2001:4200::14) 32.886 ms 30.75 ms 67.219 ms 8 * * * 9 te9-4-pta1-pe1.tenet.ac.za (2001:4200::3f) 296.949 ms 51.591 ms 77.414 ms 10 mr3.meraka.csir.co.za (2001:4200:7000:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff:f001) 27.301 ms 37.566 ms 27.071 ms 11 2001:4200:7000:8::2 (2001:4200:7000:8::2) 27.124 ms 27.476 ms 30.113 ms mjelap mje # I'm impressed - and feeling a little less lonely... > Regards > > John -- Mark James ELKINS - Posix Systems - (South) Africa mje at posix.co.za Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: https://ftth.posix.co.za -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 5810 bytes Desc: not available URL: From steve.wilcox at ixreach.com Wed Jun 11 18:33:41 2014 From: steve.wilcox at ixreach.com (Stephen Wilcox) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 19:33:41 +0100 Subject: [rpd] LACNIC reaches final /10 of IPv4 space In-Reply-To: <1402511013.3728.6.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> References: <20140610161821.GI6306@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> <20140611054813.GB72566@zibbi.meraka.csir.co.za> <20140611174733.GB38136@zibbi.meraka.csir.co.za> <1402511013.3728.6.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> Message-ID: Microsoft presented their IPv6 plans at LACNIC, and I know other content providers have enabled v6. I think its a bit harsh to blame them when much of the issue falls to lack of support by ISPs. On 11 June 2014 19:23, Mark Elkins wrote: > On Wed, 2014-06-11 at 19:47 +0200, John Hay wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 05:29:07PM +0300, Jackson Muthili wrote: > > > More than a third of our (Meraka) internet traffic is already IPv6. > > > mjelap mje # traceroute6 www.meraka.org.za > traceroute to www.meraka.org.za (2001:4200:7000:8::2) from > 2001:42a0:1000:48:70fe:793f:df62:b169, 30 hops max, 24 byte packets > 1 cispos2-fe0-0.posix.co.za (2001:42a0:1000:48::254) 23.72 ms 1.593 > ms 1.739 ms > 2 cisrb1-cispta2.posix.co.za (2001:42a0:0:ff01::1) 24.719 ms 23.351 > ms 22.207 ms > 3 cisrbc3-fe2-0.posix.co.za (2001:42a0:0:2::3) 23.73 ms 23.658 ms > 23.989 ms > 4 tenet.jinx.net.za (2001:43f8:1f0::33) 31.905 ms 25.065 ms 26.612 > ms > 5 t4-1-jnb1-pe1.tenet.ac.za (2001:4200::4e) 25.662 ms 25.458 ms > 26.108 ms > 6 vl700-jnb2-pe1.tenet.ac.za (2001:4200::4c) 27.983 ms 26.67 ms > 25.723 ms > 7 t0-12-0-0-jnb2-p1.tenet.ac.za (2001:4200::14) 32.886 ms 30.75 ms > 67.219 ms > 8 * * * > 9 te9-4-pta1-pe1.tenet.ac.za (2001:4200::3f) 296.949 ms 51.591 ms > 77.414 ms > 10 mr3.meraka.csir.co.za (2001:4200:7000:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff:f001) > 27.301 ms 37.566 ms 27.071 ms > 11 2001:4200:7000:8::2 (2001:4200:7000:8::2) 27.124 ms 27.476 ms > 30.113 ms > mjelap mje # > > I'm impressed - and feeling a little less lonely... > > > > Regards > > > > John > > -- > Mark James ELKINS - Posix Systems - (South) Africa > mje at posix.co.za Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 > For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: https://ftth.posix.co.za > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Dawm-Bedard-microsoft-04282014-01 (1).pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 3337465 bytes Desc: not available URL: From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com Wed Jun 11 19:05:31 2014 From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 20:05:31 +0100 Subject: [rpd] LACNIC reaches final /10 of IPv4 space In-Reply-To: References: <20140610161821.GI6306@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> <20140611054813.GB72566@zibbi.meraka.csir.co.za> Message-ID: On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 6:21 PM, Noah Maina wrote: > Proposition to the big guns... > > Microsoft and Amazon kindly move all your servers to v6 then customers and > users seeking to update their softwares and download MS OS or buy stuff > online across IPv4 powered ISP can get stranded.... > > Proposition to the v4 only ISP > > Dear support, I cant access amazon nor can I update my Microsoft OS or > applications.... if this is not fixed in the next 1hr...I am terminating my > contract with you and will seek services of ISP x whose customers can > access Facebook Microsoft and Amazon. > > Dreams from wonderland. > Indeed! only if going v6 native would totally deny a v4 network access....lol. The point is our service providers needs to be pushed by other means....services that will only survive on native connections and not by translations/transitions. Cheers! > Noah > On 11 Jun 2014 19:49, "Mukom Akong T." wrote: > >> >> On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 6:29 PM, Jackson Muthili >> wrote: >> >>> >>> Why big guy like Microsoft, amazon have refused to large scale deploy >>> and drive IPv6? >>> >> >> Don't only look to Microsoft and Amazon but look to those who are indeed >> doing something like Facebook (which by the way might go IPv6-only some >> point within the next 2 years according to Paul Saab of Facebook. I'd argue >> that Facebook is a more strategic player in this field than Microsoft. >> Besides Microsoft by ensuring OSes support IPv6 isn't exactly holding us >> back. >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Mukom Akong T. >> >> http://about.me/perfexcellence | twitter: @perfexcellent >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> ?When you work, you are the FLUTE through whose lungs the whispering of >> the hours turns to MUSIC" - Kahlil Gibran >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> _______________________________________________ >> rpd mailing list >> rpd at afrinic.net >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >> >> > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng * The key to understanding is humility - my view ! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mainanoa at gmail.com Wed Jun 11 19:09:10 2014 From: mainanoa at gmail.com (Noah Maina) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 22:09:10 +0300 Subject: [rpd] LACNIC reaches final /10 of IPv4 space In-Reply-To: References: <20140610161821.GI6306@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> <20140611054813.GB72566@zibbi.meraka.csir.co.za> <20140611174733.GB38136@zibbi.meraka.csir.co.za> <1402511013.3728.6.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> Message-ID: ++++1 blame the ISP's and Telecoms. On 11 Jun 2014 21:44, "Stephen Wilcox" wrote: > Microsoft presented their IPv6 plans at LACNIC, and I know other content > providers have enabled v6. I think its a bit harsh to blame them when much > of the issue falls to lack of support by ISPs. > > > > > On 11 June 2014 19:23, Mark Elkins wrote: > >> On Wed, 2014-06-11 at 19:47 +0200, John Hay wrote: >> > On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 05:29:07PM +0300, Jackson Muthili wrote: >> >> > More than a third of our (Meraka) internet traffic is already IPv6. >> >> >> mjelap mje # traceroute6 www.meraka.org.za >> traceroute to www.meraka.org.za (2001:4200:7000:8::2) from >> 2001:42a0:1000:48:70fe:793f:df62:b169, 30 hops max, 24 byte packets >> 1 cispos2-fe0-0.posix.co.za (2001:42a0:1000:48::254) 23.72 ms 1.593 >> ms 1.739 ms >> 2 cisrb1-cispta2.posix.co.za (2001:42a0:0:ff01::1) 24.719 ms 23.351 >> ms 22.207 ms >> 3 cisrbc3-fe2-0.posix.co.za (2001:42a0:0:2::3) 23.73 ms 23.658 ms >> 23.989 ms >> 4 tenet.jinx.net.za (2001:43f8:1f0::33) 31.905 ms 25.065 ms 26.612 >> ms >> 5 t4-1-jnb1-pe1.tenet.ac.za (2001:4200::4e) 25.662 ms 25.458 ms >> 26.108 ms >> 6 vl700-jnb2-pe1.tenet.ac.za (2001:4200::4c) 27.983 ms 26.67 ms >> 25.723 ms >> 7 t0-12-0-0-jnb2-p1.tenet.ac.za (2001:4200::14) 32.886 ms 30.75 ms >> 67.219 ms >> 8 * * * >> 9 te9-4-pta1-pe1.tenet.ac.za (2001:4200::3f) 296.949 ms 51.591 ms >> 77.414 ms >> 10 mr3.meraka.csir.co.za (2001:4200:7000:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff:f001) >> 27.301 ms 37.566 ms 27.071 ms >> 11 2001:4200:7000:8::2 (2001:4200:7000:8::2) 27.124 ms 27.476 ms >> 30.113 ms >> mjelap mje # >> >> I'm impressed - and feeling a little less lonely... >> >> >> > Regards >> > >> > John >> >> -- >> Mark James ELKINS - Posix Systems - (South) Africa >> mje at posix.co.za Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 >> For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: https://ftth.posix.co.za >> >> _______________________________________________ >> rpd mailing list >> rpd at afrinic.net >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >> >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From erik+afrinic at selwerd.nl Thu Jun 12 05:21:07 2014 From: erik+afrinic at selwerd.nl (Erik Warmelink) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2014 07:21:07 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [rpd] [rdp] Reverse delegation Message-ID: First of all my apologies for writing to this list but the CAPTCHA's at posed a problem (they're quite readable, and yet all my attempts failed). I hope this is the right list. IMHO, the first sentence of "10.4 Reverse Delegation for Provider Independent (PI) Address Space": | AFRINIC will reverse delegate a zone in in-addr.arpa to an End User | that has been assigned PI space. is unneeded because of "10.2 Obtaining Delegation of an in-addr.arpa sub-zone": | End Users must send their requests to [...], or in the case of | Provider Independent addresses, to any of the LIRs of their choice. and 10.4 might even be read as allowing End Users to request the reverse delegation directly from AFRINIC. -- erik at selwerd.nl From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com Thu Jun 12 09:01:03 2014 From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2014 10:01:03 +0100 Subject: [rpd] Global Internet Report 2014 - Meeting Our region need Message-ID: The report below shows that our region will require as many IP addresses to connect the over 50% yet to be connected users. The continent thus has a great potential of becoming a region with largest usage of v6 addresses. At the same time the region also has the greatest need for v4 public addresses to reach the yet to be connected. It will be good to see a larger part of the v4 utilised to connect our yet to be connected brothers and sisters. Can policies be an incentive to achieve this? Maybe http://www.internetsociety.org/doc/global-internet-report Cheers! PS: Personal view -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng * The key to understanding is humility - my view ! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From G.halse at ru.ac.za Thu Jun 12 09:24:33 2014 From: G.halse at ru.ac.za (Guy Antony Halse) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2014 11:24:33 +0200 Subject: [rpd] LACNIC reaches final /10 of IPv4 space In-Reply-To: <20140611174733.GB38136@zibbi.meraka.csir.co.za> References: <20140610161821.GI6306@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> <20140611054813.GB72566@zibbi.meraka.csir.co.za> <20140611174733.GB38136@zibbi.meraka.csir.co.za> Message-ID: <20140612092433.GA64441@ru.ac.za> On Wed 2014-06-11 (19:47), John Hay wrote: > More than a third of our (Meraka) internet traffic is already IPv6. Our stats are roughly similar -- for anyone who still believes that there isn't any IPv6 content out there, http://imgur.com/a/PLQje shows the respective graphs from one of our edge routers a rew minutes ago. And we don't dual stack our residences yet... More importantly, at least in South Africa, the IPv6 content is here too: guy at walrus:~$ traceroute6 www.google.co.za traceroute6 to www.google.co.za (2c0f:fb50:4002:800::101f) from 2001:4200:1010:1058:210:18ff:fe2d:87f9, 64 hops max, 12 byte packets 1 struben.gw.ru.ac.za 1.014 ms 0.977 ms 0.819 ms 2 strubencore-maincampus-0.net.ru.ac.za 0.660 ms 0.661 ms 0.664 ms 3 strubenedge-strubencore.net.ru.ac.za 0.832 ms 0.847 ms 0.822 ms 4 tenet-strubenedge.net.ru.ac.za 1.290 ms 1.292 ms 1.290 ms [...] 15 2001:4860:0:1::623 40.944 ms 40.949 ms 40.925 ms 16 2c0f:fb50:4002:800::17 40.377 ms - Guy -- Manager: Systems, I&TS Division, Rhodes University, Grahamstown, South Africa Email: G.Halse at ru.ac.za Web: http://mombe.org/ IRC: rm-rf at irc.atrum.org *** ANSI Standard Disclaimer *** J.A.P.H From mainanoa at gmail.com Thu Jun 12 09:58:03 2014 From: mainanoa at gmail.com (Noah Maina) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2014 12:58:03 +0300 Subject: [rpd] LACNIC reaches final /10 of IPv4 space In-Reply-To: <20140612092433.GA64441@ru.ac.za> References: <20140610161821.GI6306@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> <20140611054813.GB72566@zibbi.meraka.csir.co.za> <20140611174733.GB38136@zibbi.meraka.csir.co.za> <20140612092433.GA64441@ru.ac.za> Message-ID: "IPv6 Content" is a mis-leading phrase and we as netizens should refrain from using it.. The servers have Ethernet ports. The OS's that run on them support both v4 and v6 protocols. The applications aka Content seats at layer above 2 and 3.... Content providers choose to only enable a single protocol across the wire, IPv4 and ignore the other sweet one IPv6. So in a nutshell, if both protocols could be preconfigure on the gate go, then same content would be accessible via both protocols. So please, lets drop this phrase, "There is no IPv6 Content" Noah On 12 June 2014 12:24, Guy Antony Halse wrote: > On Wed 2014-06-11 (19:47), John Hay wrote: > > More than a third of our (Meraka) internet traffic is already IPv6. > > Our stats are roughly similar -- for anyone who still believes that there > isn't any IPv6 content out there, http://imgur.com/a/PLQje shows the > respective graphs from one of our edge routers a rew minutes ago. And we > don't dual stack our residences yet... > > More importantly, at least in South Africa, the IPv6 content is here too: > > guy at walrus:~$ traceroute6 www.google.co.za > traceroute6 to www.google.co.za (2c0f:fb50:4002:800::101f) from > 2001:4200:1010:1058:210:18ff:fe2d:87f9, 64 hops max, 12 byte packets > 1 struben.gw.ru.ac.za 1.014 ms 0.977 ms 0.819 ms > 2 strubencore-maincampus-0.net.ru.ac.za 0.660 ms 0.661 ms 0.664 ms > 3 strubenedge-strubencore.net.ru.ac.za 0.832 ms 0.847 ms 0.822 ms > 4 tenet-strubenedge.net.ru.ac.za 1.290 ms 1.292 ms 1.290 ms > [...] > 15 2001:4860:0:1::623 40.944 ms 40.949 ms 40.925 ms > 16 2c0f:fb50:4002:800::17 40.377 ms > > - Guy > -- > Manager: Systems, I&TS Division, Rhodes University, Grahamstown, South > Africa > Email: G.Halse at ru.ac.za Web: http://mombe.org/ IRC: > rm-rf at irc.atrum.org > *** ANSI Standard Disclaimer *** > J.A.P.H > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mje at posix.co.za Thu Jun 12 11:03:02 2014 From: mje at posix.co.za (Mark Elkins) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2014 13:03:02 +0200 Subject: [rpd] LACNIC reaches final /10 of IPv4 space In-Reply-To: References: <20140610161821.GI6306@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> <20140611054813.GB72566@zibbi.meraka.csir.co.za> <20140611174733.GB38136@zibbi.meraka.csir.co.za> <20140612092433.GA64441@ru.ac.za> Message-ID: <1402570982.3728.23.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> But there *is* IPv6 only content..... Many of my customer facing admin pages show either a Static Tux or a Dancing Tux - depending on your transport. try: https://vweb.co.za A Swedish site was doing the same for a picture of a pretty woman (you saw much more by using IPv6). Other people have also presented IPv6 specific sites. Best practise would though be to offer the same content on both transport layers. On Thu, 2014-06-12 at 12:58 +0300, Noah Maina wrote: > "IPv6 Content" is a mis-leading phrase and we as netizens should > refrain from using it.. > > > The servers have Ethernet ports. The OS's that run on them support > both v4 and v6 protocols. The applications aka Content seats at layer > above 2 and 3.... Content providers choose to only enable a single > protocol across the wire, IPv4 and ignore the other sweet one IPv6. > > > So in a nutshell, if both protocols could be preconfigure on the gate > go, then same content would be accessible via both protocols. > > > So please, lets drop this phrase, "There is no IPv6 Content" > > Noah > > > > On 12 June 2014 12:24, Guy Antony Halse wrote: > On Wed 2014-06-11 (19:47), John Hay wrote: > > More than a third of our (Meraka) internet traffic is > already IPv6. > > Our stats are roughly similar -- for anyone who still believes > that there > isn't any IPv6 content out there, http://imgur.com/a/PLQje > shows the > respective graphs from one of our edge routers a rew minutes > ago. And we > don't dual stack our residences yet... > > More importantly, at least in South Africa, the IPv6 content > is here too: > > guy at walrus:~$ traceroute6 www.google.co.za > traceroute6 to www.google.co.za (2c0f:fb50:4002:800::101f) > from 2001:4200:1010:1058:210:18ff:fe2d:87f9, 64 hops max, 12 > byte packets > 1 struben.gw.ru.ac.za 1.014 ms 0.977 ms 0.819 ms > 2 strubencore-maincampus-0.net.ru.ac.za 0.660 ms 0.661 > ms 0.664 ms > 3 strubenedge-strubencore.net.ru.ac.za 0.832 ms 0.847 ms > 0.822 ms > 4 tenet-strubenedge.net.ru.ac.za 1.290 ms 1.292 ms 1.290 > ms > [...] > 15 2001:4860:0:1::623 40.944 ms 40.949 ms 40.925 ms > 16 2c0f:fb50:4002:800::17 40.377 ms > > - Guy > -- > Manager: Systems, I&TS Division, Rhodes University, > Grahamstown, South Africa > Email: G.Halse at ru.ac.za Web: http://mombe.org/ IRC: > rm-rf at irc.atrum.org > *** ANSI Standard Disclaimer *** > J.A.P.H > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd -- Mark James ELKINS - Posix Systems - (South) Africa mje at posix.co.za Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: https://ftth.posix.co.za -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 5810 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jhay at meraka.org.za Thu Jun 12 11:03:39 2014 From: jhay at meraka.org.za (John Hay) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2014 13:03:39 +0200 Subject: [rpd] LACNIC reaches final /10 of IPv4 space In-Reply-To: References: <20140610161821.GI6306@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> <20140611054813.GB72566@zibbi.meraka.csir.co.za> <20140611174733.GB38136@zibbi.meraka.csir.co.za> <20140612092433.GA64441@ru.ac.za> Message-ID: <20140612110339.GA31822@zibbi.meraka.csir.co.za> On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 12:58:03PM +0300, Noah Maina wrote: > "IPv6 Content" is a mis-leading phrase and we as netizens should refrain > from using it.. > > The servers have Ethernet ports. The OS's that run on them support both v4 > and v6 protocols. The applications aka Content seats at layer above 2 and > 3.... Content providers choose to only enable a single protocol across the > wire, IPv4 and ignore the other sweet one IPv6. > > So in a nutshell, if both protocols could be preconfigure on the gate go, > then same content would be accessible via both protocols. > > So please, lets drop this phrase, "There is no IPv6 Content" Well I think it comes from this whole chicken and egg issue. Content guys said, there is no user requirement for IPv6, and the users (and their ISPs) said, the content is not available via IPv6... And for a long time both sides did nothing. And even now a lot of them try to find reasons to keep doing nothing. So if you do not like "IPv6 Content", what should we use? "Content is available via IPv6 too"? And later when IPv6 only sites become online, "IPv6 only content"? I think some form of "IPv6 Content" is usefull because you can take that to bean counters as motivation to roll IPv6 out in your network. Regards John > > Noah > > > On 12 June 2014 12:24, Guy Antony Halse wrote: > > > On Wed 2014-06-11 (19:47), John Hay wrote: > > > More than a third of our (Meraka) internet traffic is already IPv6. > > > > Our stats are roughly similar -- for anyone who still believes that there > > isn't any IPv6 content out there, http://imgur.com/a/PLQje shows the > > respective graphs from one of our edge routers a rew minutes ago. And we > > don't dual stack our residences yet... > > > > More importantly, at least in South Africa, the IPv6 content is here too: > > > > guy at walrus:~$ traceroute6 www.google.co.za > > traceroute6 to www.google.co.za (2c0f:fb50:4002:800::101f) from > > 2001:4200:1010:1058:210:18ff:fe2d:87f9, 64 hops max, 12 byte packets > > 1 struben.gw.ru.ac.za 1.014 ms 0.977 ms 0.819 ms > > 2 strubencore-maincampus-0.net.ru.ac.za 0.660 ms 0.661 ms 0.664 ms > > 3 strubenedge-strubencore.net.ru.ac.za 0.832 ms 0.847 ms 0.822 ms > > 4 tenet-strubenedge.net.ru.ac.za 1.290 ms 1.292 ms 1.290 ms > > [...] > > 15 2001:4860:0:1::623 40.944 ms 40.949 ms 40.925 ms > > 16 2c0f:fb50:4002:800::17 40.377 ms > > > > - Guy > > -- > > Manager: Systems, I&TS Division, Rhodes University, Grahamstown, South > > Africa > > Email: G.Halse at ru.ac.za Web: http://mombe.org/ IRC: > > rm-rf at irc.atrum.org > > *** ANSI Standard Disclaimer *** > > J.A.P.H > > _______________________________________________ > > rpd mailing list > > rpd at afrinic.net > > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd -- John Hay -- jhay at meraka.csir.co.za / jhay at meraka.org.za From mainanoa at gmail.com Thu Jun 12 11:25:23 2014 From: mainanoa at gmail.com (Noah Maina) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2014 14:25:23 +0300 Subject: [rpd] LACNIC reaches final /10 of IPv4 space In-Reply-To: <20140612110339.GA31822@zibbi.meraka.csir.co.za> References: <20140610161821.GI6306@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> <20140611054813.GB72566@zibbi.meraka.csir.co.za> <20140611174733.GB38136@zibbi.meraka.csir.co.za> <20140612092433.GA64441@ru.ac.za> <20140612110339.GA31822@zibbi.meraka.csir.co.za> Message-ID: I still stick to my argument that the phrase "IPv6 Content "is misleading IMHO, .... In the v4 world, we never had such language as IPv4 content, we just knew we needed to access our applications and content across the network... Perhaps, we can champion a campaign to de-campaigner the phrase...I mean, what has content seated on Amazon, Facebook, Google the whole 9 yards across the "www" got to do with v4 or v6 transport mechanism????? ... I say, they should enable the protocol and let version 6 flow... On 12 June 2014 14:03, John Hay wrote: > On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 12:58:03PM +0300, Noah Maina wrote: > > "IPv6 Content" is a mis-leading phrase and we as netizens should refrain > > from using it.. > > > > The servers have Ethernet ports. The OS's that run on them support both > v4 > > and v6 protocols. The applications aka Content seats at layer above 2 and > > 3.... Content providers choose to only enable a single protocol across > the > > wire, IPv4 and ignore the other sweet one IPv6. > > > > So in a nutshell, if both protocols could be preconfigure on the gate go, > > then same content would be accessible via both protocols. > > > > So please, lets drop this phrase, "There is no IPv6 Content" > > Well I think it comes from this whole chicken and egg issue. Content guys > said, there is no user requirement for IPv6, and the users (and their ISPs) > said, the content is not available via IPv6... And for a long time both > sides did nothing. And even now a lot of them try to find reasons to keep > doing nothing. > > So if you do not like "IPv6 Content", what should we use? "Content is > available via IPv6 too"? And later when IPv6 only sites become online, > "IPv6 only content"? > > I think some form of "IPv6 Content" is usefull because you can take that > to bean counters as motivation to roll IPv6 out in your network. > > Regards > > John > > > > > Noah > > > > > > On 12 June 2014 12:24, Guy Antony Halse wrote: > > > > > On Wed 2014-06-11 (19:47), John Hay wrote: > > > > More than a third of our (Meraka) internet traffic is already IPv6. > > > > > > Our stats are roughly similar -- for anyone who still believes that > there > > > isn't any IPv6 content out there, http://imgur.com/a/PLQje shows the > > > respective graphs from one of our edge routers a rew minutes ago. And > we > > > don't dual stack our residences yet... > > > > > > More importantly, at least in South Africa, the IPv6 content is here > too: > > > > > > guy at walrus:~$ traceroute6 www.google.co.za > > > traceroute6 to www.google.co.za (2c0f:fb50:4002:800::101f) from > > > 2001:4200:1010:1058:210:18ff:fe2d:87f9, 64 hops max, 12 byte packets > > > 1 struben.gw.ru.ac.za 1.014 ms 0.977 ms 0.819 ms > > > 2 strubencore-maincampus-0.net.ru.ac.za 0.660 ms 0.661 ms 0.664 > ms > > > 3 strubenedge-strubencore.net.ru.ac.za 0.832 ms 0.847 ms 0.822 > ms > > > 4 tenet-strubenedge.net.ru.ac.za 1.290 ms 1.292 ms 1.290 ms > > > [...] > > > 15 2001:4860:0:1::623 40.944 ms 40.949 ms 40.925 ms > > > 16 2c0f:fb50:4002:800::17 40.377 ms > > > > > > - Guy > > > -- > > > Manager: Systems, I&TS Division, Rhodes University, Grahamstown, South > > > Africa > > > Email: G.Halse at ru.ac.za Web: http://mombe.org/ IRC: > > > rm-rf at irc.atrum.org > > > *** ANSI Standard Disclaimer *** > > > J.A.P.H > > > _______________________________________________ > > > rpd mailing list > > > rpd at afrinic.net > > > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > rpd mailing list > > rpd at afrinic.net > > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > > -- > John Hay -- jhay at meraka.csir.co.za / jhay at meraka.org.za > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mainanoa at gmail.com Thu Jun 12 11:29:31 2014 From: mainanoa at gmail.com (Noah Maina) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2014 14:29:31 +0300 Subject: [rpd] LACNIC reaches final /10 of IPv4 space In-Reply-To: <1402570982.3728.23.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> References: <20140610161821.GI6306@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> <20140611054813.GB72566@zibbi.meraka.csir.co.za> <20140611174733.GB38136@zibbi.meraka.csir.co.za> <20140612092433.GA64441@ru.ac.za> <1402570982.3728.23.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> Message-ID: On 12 June 2014 14:03, Mark Elkins wrote: > But there *is* IPv6 only content..... > > How about there is content but only IPv6 is enabled across the wire thus to access it, you network has to comply... the content itself has nothing to do with IPv6...unless if what you mean is the underlying code never took into context support for v4..... > > A Swedish site was doing the same for a picture of a pretty woman (you > saw much more by using IPv6). > > They just disabled v4....Good idea indeed...who doesn't want to look at pretty woman's picture... :-) > > Best practise would though be to offer the same content on both > transport layers. > > We are drinking from the same cup ..cheers, Noah -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com Thu Jun 12 11:31:46 2014 From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2014 12:31:46 +0100 Subject: [rpd] LACNIC reaches final /10 of IPv4 space In-Reply-To: References: <20140610161821.GI6306@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> <20140611054813.GB72566@zibbi.meraka.csir.co.za> <20140611174733.GB38136@zibbi.meraka.csir.co.za> <20140612092433.GA64441@ru.ac.za> <20140612110339.GA31822@zibbi.meraka.csir.co.za> Message-ID: On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 12:25 PM, Noah Maina wrote: > I still stick to my argument that the phrase "IPv6 Content "is misleading > IMHO, .... In the v4 world, we never had such language as IPv4 content, we > just knew we needed to access our applications and content across the > network... > The point is if you discontinue the phrase, what other marketing phrase have you got as a replacement > I say, they should enable the protocol and let version 6 flow... > And what is making the ISPs not enable the protocol? largely related to cost Cheers! > > On 12 June 2014 14:03, John Hay wrote: > >> On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 12:58:03PM +0300, Noah Maina wrote: >> > "IPv6 Content" is a mis-leading phrase and we as netizens should refrain >> > from using it.. >> > >> > The servers have Ethernet ports. The OS's that run on them support both >> v4 >> > and v6 protocols. The applications aka Content seats at layer above 2 >> and >> > 3.... Content providers choose to only enable a single protocol across >> the >> > wire, IPv4 and ignore the other sweet one IPv6. >> > >> > So in a nutshell, if both protocols could be preconfigure on the gate >> go, >> > then same content would be accessible via both protocols. >> > >> > So please, lets drop this phrase, "There is no IPv6 Content" >> >> Well I think it comes from this whole chicken and egg issue. Content guys >> said, there is no user requirement for IPv6, and the users (and their >> ISPs) >> said, the content is not available via IPv6... And for a long time both >> sides did nothing. And even now a lot of them try to find reasons to keep >> doing nothing. >> >> So if you do not like "IPv6 Content", what should we use? "Content is >> available via IPv6 too"? And later when IPv6 only sites become online, >> "IPv6 only content"? >> >> I think some form of "IPv6 Content" is usefull because you can take that >> to bean counters as motivation to roll IPv6 out in your network. >> >> Regards >> >> John >> >> > >> > Noah >> > >> > >> > On 12 June 2014 12:24, Guy Antony Halse wrote: >> > >> > > On Wed 2014-06-11 (19:47), John Hay wrote: >> > > > More than a third of our (Meraka) internet traffic is already IPv6. >> > > >> > > Our stats are roughly similar -- for anyone who still believes that >> there >> > > isn't any IPv6 content out there, http://imgur.com/a/PLQje shows the >> > > respective graphs from one of our edge routers a rew minutes ago. >> And we >> > > don't dual stack our residences yet... >> > > >> > > More importantly, at least in South Africa, the IPv6 content is here >> too: >> > > >> > > guy at walrus:~$ traceroute6 www.google.co.za >> > > traceroute6 to www.google.co.za (2c0f:fb50:4002:800::101f) from >> > > 2001:4200:1010:1058:210:18ff:fe2d:87f9, 64 hops max, 12 byte packets >> > > 1 struben.gw.ru.ac.za 1.014 ms 0.977 ms 0.819 ms >> > > 2 strubencore-maincampus-0.net.ru.ac.za 0.660 ms 0.661 ms >> 0.664 ms >> > > 3 strubenedge-strubencore.net.ru.ac.za 0.832 ms 0.847 ms 0.822 >> ms >> > > 4 tenet-strubenedge.net.ru.ac.za 1.290 ms 1.292 ms 1.290 ms >> > > [...] >> > > 15 2001:4860:0:1::623 40.944 ms 40.949 ms 40.925 ms >> > > 16 2c0f:fb50:4002:800::17 40.377 ms >> > > >> > > - Guy >> > > -- >> > > Manager: Systems, I&TS Division, Rhodes University, Grahamstown, South >> > > Africa >> > > Email: G.Halse at ru.ac.za Web: http://mombe.org/ IRC: >> > > rm-rf at irc.atrum.org >> > > *** ANSI Standard Disclaimer *** >> > > J.A.P.H >> > > _______________________________________________ >> > > rpd mailing list >> > > rpd at afrinic.net >> > > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >> > > >> >> > _______________________________________________ >> > rpd mailing list >> > rpd at afrinic.net >> > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >> >> >> -- >> John Hay -- jhay at meraka.csir.co.za / jhay at meraka.org.za >> > > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng * The key to understanding is humility - my view ! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From adam at varud.com Thu Jun 12 11:34:16 2014 From: adam at varud.com (Adam Nelson) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2014 13:34:16 +0200 Subject: [rpd] LACNIC reaches final /10 of IPv4 space In-Reply-To: References: <20140610161821.GI6306@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> <20140611054813.GB72566@zibbi.meraka.csir.co.za> <20140611174733.GB38136@zibbi.meraka.csir.co.za> <20140612092433.GA64441@ru.ac.za> <1402570982.3728.23.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> Message-ID: Here's my sad traceroute from Kenya ... no IPv6 from our ISP (Jamii Telecom) and the route goes through London :-( adam:vogons adamn$ sudo mtr vweb.co.za --report Start: Thu Jun 12 14:32:45 2014 HOST: adam.local Loss% Snt Last Avg Best Wrst StDev 1.|-- 10.186.43.1 0.0% 10 51.0 18.1 1.3 51.0 19.4 2.|-- 192.168.200.1 0.0% 10 4.3 22.7 4.3 60.3 17.2 3.|-- 41.222.9.105 0.0% 10 11.4 9.9 4.2 17.7 4.7 4.|-- 41.222.8.21 0.0% 10 6.5 15.8 3.5 38.4 13.5 5.|-- 195.229.27.17 40.0% 10 172.6 171.8 142.7 207.7 27.0 6.|-- 195.229.3.93 0.0% 10 165.9 161.1 150.7 181.8 8.9 7.|-- 195.229.4.49 0.0% 10 302.4 296.0 271.6 350.5 27.8 8.|-- xe-3-0-1.fra21.ip4.tinet. 0.0% 10 218.8 208.6 189.4 266.1 22.7 9.|-- xe-0-2-2.lon10.ip4.tinet. 0.0% 10 229.5 221.5 200.5 272.3 22.8 10.|-- posix-gw.ip4.tinet.net 10.0% 10 226.8 235.1 208.6 378.1 54.0 11.|-- cisrbc1-cisldn1.posix.co. 10.0% 10 603.8 436.5 412.4 603.8 62.8 12.|-- 160.124.208.7 30.0% 10 721.6 517.6 470.5 721.6 90.3 adam:vogons adamn$ -- Kili - Cloud for Africa: kili.io Musings: twitter.com/varud More Musings: varud.com About Adam: www.linkedin.com/in/adamcnelson On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 1:29 PM, Noah Maina wrote: > > On 12 June 2014 14:03, Mark Elkins wrote: > >> But there *is* IPv6 only content..... >> >> > How about there is content but only IPv6 is enabled across the wire thus > to access it, you network has to comply... the content itself has nothing > to do with IPv6...unless if what you mean is the underlying code never took > into context support for v4..... > > >> >> A Swedish site was doing the same for a picture of a pretty woman (you >> saw much more by using IPv6). >> >> They just disabled v4....Good idea indeed...who doesn't want to look at > pretty woman's picture... :-) > > >> >> Best practise would though be to offer the same content on both >> transport layers. >> >> > We are drinking from the same cup ..cheers, > > Noah > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From geier at geier.ne.tz Thu Jun 12 11:37:31 2014 From: geier at geier.ne.tz (Frank Habicht) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2014 14:37:31 +0300 Subject: [rpd] LACNIC reaches final /10 of IPv4 space In-Reply-To: <1402570982.3728.23.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> References: <20140610161821.GI6306@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> <20140611054813.GB72566@zibbi.meraka.csir.co.za> <20140611174733.GB38136@zibbi.meraka.csir.co.za> <20140612092433.GA64441@ru.ac.za> <1402570982.3728.23.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> Message-ID: <539990FB.5090105@geier.ne.tz> On 6/12/2014 2:03 PM, Mark Elkins wrote: > But there *is* IPv6 only content..... > > Many of my customer facing admin pages show either a Static Tux or a > Dancing Tux - depending on your transport. try: https://vweb.co.za that page shows my IP address! (yes, and there are colons in there...) I know an RIR that once had a similar thing on the main page.... ;-) Frank From geier at geier.ne.tz Thu Jun 12 11:40:31 2014 From: geier at geier.ne.tz (Frank Habicht) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2014 14:40:31 +0300 Subject: [rpd] LACNIC reaches final /10 of IPv4 space In-Reply-To: References: <20140610161821.GI6306@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> <20140611054813.GB72566@zibbi.meraka.csir.co.za> <20140611174733.GB38136@zibbi.meraka.csir.co.za> <20140612092433.GA64441@ru.ac.za> <20140612110339.GA31822@zibbi.meraka.csir.co.za> Message-ID: <539991AF.9040903@geier.ne.tz> On 6/12/2014 2:25 PM, Noah Maina wrote: > I still stick to my argument that the phrase "IPv6 Content "is misleading > IMHO, .... In the v4 world, we never had such language as IPv4 content, we > just knew we needed to access our applications and content across the > network... Yes, when the was one Layer 3 protocol there was not much point in distinguishing between .... the one... [1] You like the phrase "eye-candy with AAAA records" better ? Frank [1] assuming there was never anything other than ip ;-) From mainanoa at gmail.com Thu Jun 12 12:06:45 2014 From: mainanoa at gmail.com (Noah Maina) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2014 15:06:45 +0300 Subject: [rpd] LACNIC reaches final /10 of IPv4 space In-Reply-To: References: <20140610161821.GI6306@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> <20140611054813.GB72566@zibbi.meraka.csir.co.za> <20140611174733.GB38136@zibbi.meraka.csir.co.za> <20140612092433.GA64441@ru.ac.za> <20140612110339.GA31822@zibbi.meraka.csir.co.za> Message-ID: On 12 June 2014 14:31, Seun Ojedeji wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 12:25 PM, Noah Maina wrote: > >> I still stick to my argument that the phrase "IPv6 Content "is misleading >> IMHO, .... In the v4 world, we never had such language as IPv4 content, we >> just knew we needed to access our applications and content across the >> network... >> > > The point is if you discontinue the phrase, what other marketing phrase > have you got as a replacement > So you agree the phrase doesn't make sense... well why should we market v6 in the 1st place "Is not a product", we want to make it look like a product in anticipation that, we shall make folks adopt it....we all know its important that all providers go v6, what needs to be done IMHO is formulate policy. In fact RIR's and to be specific AfriNIC and Regulators across the board should champion v6... > > >> I say, they should enable the protocol and let version 6 flow... >> > > And what is making the ISPs not enable the protocol? largely related to > cost > Cost is just another excuse ... lets kick that cost argument also out... > Cheers! > >> >> Noah -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com Thu Jun 12 12:11:51 2014 From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2014 13:11:51 +0100 Subject: [rpd] LACNIC reaches final /10 of IPv4 space In-Reply-To: References: <20140610161821.GI6306@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> <20140611054813.GB72566@zibbi.meraka.csir.co.za> <20140611174733.GB38136@zibbi.meraka.csir.co.za> <20140612092433.GA64441@ru.ac.za> <20140612110339.GA31822@zibbi.meraka.csir.co.za> Message-ID: On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 1:06 PM, Noah Maina wrote: > On 12 June 2014 14:31, Seun Ojedeji wrote: > >> >> On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 12:25 PM, Noah Maina wrote: >> >>> I still stick to my argument that the phrase "IPv6 Content "is >>> misleading IMHO, .... In the v4 world, we never had such language as IPv4 >>> content, we just knew we needed to access our applications and content >>> across the network... >>> >> >> The point is if you discontinue the phrase, what other marketing phrase >> have you got as a replacement >> > > So you agree the phrase doesn't make sense... well why should we market v6 > in the 1st place "Is not a product", we want to make it look like a product > in anticipation that, we shall make folks adopt it....we all know its > important that all providers go v6, what needs to be done IMHO is formulate > policy. In fact RIR's and to be specific AfriNIC and Regulators across the > board should champion v6... > Yay! i see one more voice to championing the movement through policy....only wish those voice turn to actual policy text ;) >> >>> I say, they should enable the protocol and let version 6 flow... >>> >> >> And what is making the ISPs not enable the protocol? largely related to >> cost >> > > Cost is just another excuse ... lets kick that cost argument also out... > +0.5 because you don't want to kick-out cost concern entirely Cheers! > > >> Cheers! >> >>> >>> > Noah > -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng * The key to understanding is humility - my view ! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mje at posix.co.za Thu Jun 12 12:31:28 2014 From: mje at posix.co.za (Mark Elkins) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2014 14:31:28 +0200 Subject: [rpd] LACNIC reaches final /10 of IPv4 space In-Reply-To: References: <20140610161821.GI6306@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> <20140611054813.GB72566@zibbi.meraka.csir.co.za> <20140611174733.GB38136@zibbi.meraka.csir.co.za> <20140612092433.GA64441@ru.ac.za> <20140612110339.GA31822@zibbi.meraka.csir.co.za> Message-ID: <1402576288.883.8.camel@mje.posix.co.za> Hi Noah, where do you live/work. Can I test my IPv6 connectivity to a site you run from work please? On Thu, 2014-06-12 at 15:06 +0300, Noah Maina wrote: > On 12 June 2014 14:31, Seun Ojedeji wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 12:25 PM, Noah Maina > wrote: > I still stick to my argument that the phrase "IPv6 > Content "is misleading IMHO, .... In the v4 world, we > never had such language as IPv4 content, we just knew > we needed to access our applications and content > across the network... > > > > The point is if you discontinue the phrase, what other > marketing phrase have you got as a replacement > > > > So you agree the phrase doesn't make sense... well why should we > market v6 in the 1st place "Is not a product", we want to make it look > like a product in anticipation that, we shall make folks adopt > it....we all know its important that all providers go v6, what needs > to be done IMHO is formulate policy. In fact RIR's and to be specific > AfriNIC and Regulators across the board should champion v6... > > > > > > I say, they should enable the protocol and let version > 6 flow... > > > > And what is making the ISPs not enable the protocol? largely > related to cost > > > > Cost is just another excuse ... lets kick that cost argument also > out... > > > > > Cheers! > > > > > > Noah > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd -- Mark James ELKINS - Posix Systems - (South) Africa mje at posix.co.za Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: https://ftth.posix.co.za -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 3832 bytes Desc: not available URL: From owen at delong.com Thu Jun 12 12:46:28 2014 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2014 05:46:28 -0700 Subject: [rpd] LACNIC reaches final /10 of IPv4 space In-Reply-To: References: <20140610161821.GI6306@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> <20140611054813.GB72566@zibbi.meraka.csir.co.za> Message-ID: <94CB7BE1-B2B2-499A-B333-38FB3287078E@delong.com> Micr0$0ft is actually doing a lot with IPv6. It?s one of the few cases where I will give them some respect. (though limited, I still think they?re mostly evil.) Amazon, well, I don?t think it?s so much an issue of refusal as an issue of fear and finance. Fear in that they seem very uncertain how to go about even starting the migration and seem to be in a perpetual state of analysis paralysis. Finance in that what they do know is that for them, the transition is going to be very expensive. Only recently do they seem to have begun to realize that it is getting more expensive with each passing day. OTOH, consider Google, Yahoo, Facebook, Comcast, Time Warner Cable, and more have definitely taken a strong lead in IPv6. 5 years before they went out of business, nobody would have believed Montgomery Wards would be gone in 5 years. I believe that if Amazon does not solve their IPv6 problems soon, they may well face a similar fate. Owen On Jun 11, 2014, at 7:29 AM, Jackson Muthili wrote: > On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 8:48 AM, John Hay wrote: >> On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 01:17:23PM +0800, Bope Domilongo Christian wrote: >>> Thank you Alan and seun, this an important milestone, having a policy to >>> protect our critical resources will be great. >> >> But is there much point in protecting and trying to prolong ipv4 in the >> AfriNIC region if the rest of the NICs are running out? > > Yes. > Rest of world are running out and but refused to install IPv6. It is > still looking for IPv4. I wonder why??? > Why big guy like Microsoft, amazon have refused to large scale deploy > and drive IPv6? > >> At some stage >> companies / organisations in those regions will only be able to get >> ipv6 addresses. Are you sure your users will not want to communicate >> with them or they with the users / companies on your networks? >> >> I think Alan's email should rather serve as a heads up to implement >> ipv6 in your network and start to think about what missing IPv6 policy >> there is. >> >> Regards >> >> John >> -- >> John Hay -- jhay at meraka.csir.co.za / jhay at meraka.org.za >> >>> >>> With best regards, >>> writing on my personal capacity. >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 4:13 AM, Seun Ojedeji >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Thanks for this update Alan, from all indication it will seem that v4 >>>> exhaustion time within AfriNIC region may be sooner than earlier >>>> predicted. >>>> >>>> Should this region be worried?... maybe: >>>> - More content in those region where v4 is getting exhausted will go v6 >>>> but then v6 deployment in our region is relatively low (someone says there >>>> is translation to the rescue) >>>> - Our region will continue to experience an increase in v4 requests from >>>> organizations that are more domicile in regions with v4 exhaustion. Perhaps >>>> this could be an opportunity to "by policy" improve ISP establishment in >>>> our region? Maybe yes. Should we also "by policy" ensure addresses within >>>> this region are used more within the region.... how do we encourage this as >>>> the region seem to be comfortable with *translation*. Can policy make this >>>> happen? >>>> >>>> Cheers! >>>> PS: My views alone. >>>> sent from Google nexus 4 >>>> kindly excuse brevity and typos. >>>> On 10 Jun 2014 17:23, "Alan Barrett" wrote: >>>> >>>>> Three weeks ago, on 20 May 2014, LACNIC's available pool of IPv4 space >>>>> became less then a /9 equivalent. This triggered the activation of IANA's >>>>> Recovered IPv4 Pool in terms of Global Policy GPP-IPv4-2011. >>>>> >>>>> Today, 10 June 2014, LACNIC's available pool of IPv4 space became less >>>>> than a /10 equivalent (4194302 IPv4 addresses). This triggers LACNIC's >>>>> IPv4 exhaustion policy. >>>>> >>>>> Announcements from 20 May 2014: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Announcement from 10 Jun 2014: >>>>> >>>> direcciones-ipv4-en-lac> >>>>> >>>>> --apb (Alan Barrett) >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> rpd mailing list >>>>> rpd at afrinic.net >>>>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >>>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> rpd mailing list >>>> rpd at afrinic.net >>>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >>>> >>>> >> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> rpd mailing list >>> rpd at afrinic.net >>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >> >> >> -- >> John Hay -- jhay at meraka.csir.co.za / jhay at meraka.org.za >> _______________________________________________ >> rpd mailing list >> rpd at afrinic.net >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd From owen at delong.com Thu Jun 12 13:09:14 2014 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2014 06:09:14 -0700 Subject: [rpd] LACNIC reaches final /10 of IPv4 space In-Reply-To: <20140611174733.GB38136@zibbi.meraka.csir.co.za> References: <20140610161821.GI6306@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> <20140611054813.GB72566@zibbi.meraka.csir.co.za> <20140611174733.GB38136@zibbi.meraka.csir.co.za> Message-ID: <8589463A-73E2-4229-A71F-D704E382F7FA@delong.com> On Jun 11, 2014, at 10:47 AM, John Hay wrote: > On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 05:29:07PM +0300, Jackson Muthili wrote: >> Why big guy like Microsoft, amazon have refused to large scale deploy >> and drive IPv6? > > I cannot speak on behalf of any of them, but microsoft has been working > hard to get their OS and apps working with IPv6. The latest versions > have shipped with IPv6 enabled. You can see their status: > > http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/network/hh994905.aspx With the notable exception of one of their most widely used applications? Skype Owen From owen at delong.com Thu Jun 12 13:15:19 2014 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2014 06:15:19 -0700 Subject: [rpd] LACNIC reaches final /10 of IPv4 space In-Reply-To: References: <20140610161821.GI6306@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> <20140611054813.GB72566@zibbi.meraka.csir.co.za> <20140611174733.GB38136@zibbi.meraka.csir.co.za> <1402511013.3728.6.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> Message-ID: <35C6094D-B818-4D94-A031-A272D5482F5E@delong.com> All, there?s plenty of blame to go around. However, it is far more effective if we fix the problem instead of focusing on who to blame. Bottom line, if you aren?t enabling IPv6 on something today, you?re part of the problem. If you are, you?re part of the solution. Lather, rinse, repeat times 7.1 billion people and 365 days a year and IPv6 will be fully deployed in no time. Owen On Jun 11, 2014, at 11:33 AM, Stephen Wilcox wrote: > Microsoft presented their IPv6 plans at LACNIC, and I know other content providers have enabled v6. I think its a bit harsh to blame them when much of the issue falls to lack of support by ISPs. > > > > > On 11 June 2014 19:23, Mark Elkins wrote: > On Wed, 2014-06-11 at 19:47 +0200, John Hay wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 05:29:07PM +0300, Jackson Muthili wrote: > > > More than a third of our (Meraka) internet traffic is already IPv6. > > > mjelap mje # traceroute6 www.meraka.org.za > traceroute to www.meraka.org.za (2001:4200:7000:8::2) from > 2001:42a0:1000:48:70fe:793f:df62:b169, 30 hops max, 24 byte packets > 1 cispos2-fe0-0.posix.co.za (2001:42a0:1000:48::254) 23.72 ms 1.593 > ms 1.739 ms > 2 cisrb1-cispta2.posix.co.za (2001:42a0:0:ff01::1) 24.719 ms 23.351 > ms 22.207 ms > 3 cisrbc3-fe2-0.posix.co.za (2001:42a0:0:2::3) 23.73 ms 23.658 ms > 23.989 ms > 4 tenet.jinx.net.za (2001:43f8:1f0::33) 31.905 ms 25.065 ms 26.612 > ms > 5 t4-1-jnb1-pe1.tenet.ac.za (2001:4200::4e) 25.662 ms 25.458 ms > 26.108 ms > 6 vl700-jnb2-pe1.tenet.ac.za (2001:4200::4c) 27.983 ms 26.67 ms > 25.723 ms > 7 t0-12-0-0-jnb2-p1.tenet.ac.za (2001:4200::14) 32.886 ms 30.75 ms > 67.219 ms > 8 * * * > 9 te9-4-pta1-pe1.tenet.ac.za (2001:4200::3f) 296.949 ms 51.591 ms > 77.414 ms > 10 mr3.meraka.csir.co.za (2001:4200:7000:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff:f001) > 27.301 ms 37.566 ms 27.071 ms > 11 2001:4200:7000:8::2 (2001:4200:7000:8::2) 27.124 ms 27.476 ms > 30.113 ms > mjelap mje # > > I'm impressed - and feeling a little less lonely... > > > > Regards > > > > John > > -- > Mark James ELKINS - Posix Systems - (South) Africa > mje at posix.co.za Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 > For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: https://ftth.posix.co.za > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > > > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mainanoa at gmail.com Thu Jun 12 13:22:57 2014 From: mainanoa at gmail.com (Noah Maina) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2014 16:22:57 +0300 Subject: [rpd] LACNIC reaches final /10 of IPv4 space In-Reply-To: <1402576288.883.8.camel@mje.posix.co.za> References: <20140610161821.GI6306@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> <20140611054813.GB72566@zibbi.meraka.csir.co.za> <20140611174733.GB38136@zibbi.meraka.csir.co.za> <20140612092433.GA64441@ru.ac.za> <20140612110339.GA31822@zibbi.meraka.csir.co.za> <1402576288.883.8.camel@mje.posix.co.za> Message-ID: On 12 June 2014 15:31, Mark Elkins wrote: > Hi Noah, > > where do you live/work. Can I test my IPv6 connectivity to a site you > run from work please? > Mark, ping6 or traceroute6 www.seacom.mu ... pls let me know the outcome! I don?t just bark, i bite too :-) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mje at posix.co.za Thu Jun 12 13:45:19 2014 From: mje at posix.co.za (Mark Elkins) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2014 15:45:19 +0200 Subject: [rpd] LACNIC reaches final /10 of IPv4 space In-Reply-To: References: <20140610161821.GI6306@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> <20140611054813.GB72566@zibbi.meraka.csir.co.za> <20140611174733.GB38136@zibbi.meraka.csir.co.za> <20140612092433.GA64441@ru.ac.za> <20140612110339.GA31822@zibbi.meraka.csir.co.za> <1402576288.883.8.camel@mje.posix.co.za> Message-ID: <1402580719.883.35.camel@mje.posix.co.za> I hope you do bite. Seacom is at JINX. I have asked for peering from Seacom a few times - even have the session ready to run. traceroute to www.seacom.mu (2c0f:feb0:5:1::3) from 2001:42a0:1:208::32, 30 hops max, 24 byte packets 1 2001:42a0:1:208::254 (2001:42a0:1:208::254) 0.3 ms 0.278 ms 0.157 ms 2 cisldn1-cisrbc1.posix.co.za (2001:42a0:0:ff04::2) 208.013 ms 222.715 ms 213.4 ms 3 30gigabitethernet4-3.core1.fra1.he.net (2001:7f8::1b1b:0:1) 229.994 ms 251.43 ms 315.935 ms 4 100ge3-1.core1.ams1.he.net (2001:470:0:2d4::1) 456.739 ms 227.664 ms 227.341 ms 5 2001:7f8:1::a503:7100:1 (2001:7f8:1::a503:7100:1) 228.154 ms 228.092 ms 228.081 ms 6 xe-1-0-0.lon-201-access-3.mpls.seacomnet.com (2c0f:feb0:0:31::1) 1212.06 ms 1140.68 ms 951.732 ms 7 xe-3-0-0.mba6-201-access-3.mpls.seacomnet.com (2c0f:feb0:0:20::2) 272.57 ms 504.922 ms 272.579 ms 8 web6.seacomnet.com (2c0f:feb0:5:1::3) 258.001 ms 273.535 ms 265.867 ms ... but packets go via London :-( Perhaps you could fix that? http://as6083.peeringdb.com On Thu, 2014-06-12 at 16:22 +0300, Noah Maina wrote: > > On 12 June 2014 15:31, Mark Elkins wrote: > Hi Noah, > > where do you live/work. Can I test my IPv6 connectivity to a > site you > run from work please? > > Mark, > > ping6 or traceroute6 www.seacom.mu ... pls let me know the outcome! > > > I don?t just bark, i bite too :-) > > > > -- Mark James ELKINS - Posix Systems - (South) Africa mje at posix.co.za Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: https://ftth.posix.co.za -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 3832 bytes Desc: not available URL: From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com Thu Jun 12 14:39:35 2014 From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2014 15:39:35 +0100 Subject: [rpd] LACNIC reaches final /10 of IPv4 space In-Reply-To: References: <20140610161821.GI6306@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> <20140611054813.GB72566@zibbi.meraka.csir.co.za> <20140611174733.GB38136@zibbi.meraka.csir.co.za> <20140612092433.GA64441@ru.ac.za> <20140612110339.GA31822@zibbi.meraka.csir.co.za> <1402576288.883.8.camel@mje.posix.co.za> Message-ID: On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 2:22 PM, Noah Maina wrote: > > On 12 June 2014 15:31, Mark Elkins wrote: > >> Hi Noah, >> >> where do you live/work. Can I test my IPv6 connectivity to a site you >> run from work please? >> > > Mark, > > ping6 or traceroute6 www.seacom.mu ... pls let me know the outcome! > Good for you Noah, but if seacom is not v6 who else will in this region ;) > > I don?t just bark, i bite too :-) > > Only wish you could bite as many endsite providers that you serve ;). As for me, it is when end users receive native v6 that i will conclude we have defeated known "translation" culture in this region. Cheers! > > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng * The key to understanding is humility - my view ! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mainanoa at gmail.com Thu Jun 12 14:56:32 2014 From: mainanoa at gmail.com (Noah Maina) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2014 17:56:32 +0300 Subject: [rpd] LACNIC reaches final /10 of IPv4 space In-Reply-To: References: <20140610161821.GI6306@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> <20140611054813.GB72566@zibbi.meraka.csir.co.za> <20140611174733.GB38136@zibbi.meraka.csir.co.za> <20140612092433.GA64441@ru.ac.za> <20140612110339.GA31822@zibbi.meraka.csir.co.za> <1402576288.883.8.camel@mje.posix.co.za> Message-ID: On 12 June 2014 17:39, Seun Ojedeji wrote: > On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 2:22 PM, Noah Maina wrote: >> >> I don?t just bark, i bite too :-) >> >> Only wish you could bite as many endsite providers that you serve ;). As > for me, it is when end users receive native v6 that i will conclude we have > defeated known "translation" culture in this region. > > We proudly v6 with those with v6 allocation :-) ... but for end users, the downstream telecos have to do the needful and make their customers assignments 128 bits longer than the current 32bits :-) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com Thu Jun 12 15:26:41 2014 From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2014 16:26:41 +0100 Subject: [rpd] LACNIC reaches final /10 of IPv4 space In-Reply-To: References: <20140610161821.GI6306@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> <20140611054813.GB72566@zibbi.meraka.csir.co.za> <20140611174733.GB38136@zibbi.meraka.csir.co.za> <20140612092433.GA64441@ru.ac.za> <20140612110339.GA31822@zibbi.meraka.csir.co.za> <1402576288.883.8.camel@mje.posix.co.za> Message-ID: On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 3:56 PM, Noah Maina wrote: > We proudly v6 with those with v6 allocation :-) ... but for end users, the > downstream telecos have to do the needful and make their customers > assignments 128 bits longer than the current 32bits :-) > > Which is the big deal....because even the 32bit they currently assign ain't pure. Unless some extra "biting" and push is applied either through policy or through upstream provider. We may be witnessing NAT444(+/-) + v6 tunnel = NAT666*(+/-) Cheers! -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng * The key to understanding is humility - my view ! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mainanoa at gmail.com Thu Jun 12 16:29:40 2014 From: mainanoa at gmail.com (Noah Maina) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2014 19:29:40 +0300 Subject: [rpd] LACNIC reaches final /10 of IPv4 space In-Reply-To: References: <20140610161821.GI6306@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> <20140611054813.GB72566@zibbi.meraka.csir.co.za> <20140611174733.GB38136@zibbi.meraka.csir.co.za> <20140612092433.GA64441@ru.ac.za> <20140612110339.GA31822@zibbi.meraka.csir.co.za> <1402576288.883.8.camel@mje.posix.co.za> Message-ID: +++ to Policy then, lets draft it :-) Noah On 12 June 2014 18:26, Seun Ojedeji wrote: > On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 3:56 PM, Noah Maina wrote: > >> We proudly v6 with those with v6 allocation :-) ... but for end users, >> the downstream telecos have to do the needful and make their customers >> assignments 128 bits longer than the current 32bits :-) >> >> Which is the big deal....because even the 32bit they currently assign > ain't pure. Unless some extra "biting" and push is applied either through > policy or through upstream provider. We may be witnessing NAT444(+/-) + v6 > tunnel = NAT666*(+/-) > > Cheers! > -- > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > > *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: > http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535**alt > email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng > * > > The key to understanding is humility - my view ! > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ndg at ieee.org Thu Jun 12 22:29:44 2014 From: ndg at ieee.org (Nishal Goburdhan) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2014 00:29:44 +0200 Subject: [rpd] LACNIC reaches final /10 of IPv4 space In-Reply-To: References: <20140610161821.GI6306@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> <20140611054813.GB72566@zibbi.meraka.csir.co.za> <20140611174733.GB38136@zibbi.meraka.csir.co.za> <20140612092433.GA64441@ru.ac.za> <20140612110339.GA31822@zibbi.meraka.csir.co.za> <1402576288.883.8.camel@mje.posix.co.za> Message-ID: <3D83BE0E-4836-4969-9FE1-74CC7C332D63@ieee.org> On 12 Jun 2014, at 6:29 PM, Noah Maina wrote: > +++ to Policy then, lets draft it :-) to paraphrase a wise soul who came to the microphone during the academic policy discussion last thursday: "...don't try to use policy to fix an operational issue..." (my words, not his). it seemed, at the time, that people generally agreed with that sentiment. this idea strikes me as no different. those who see the need for IPv6, will deploy it. AfriNIC is trying to spread the word; let them continue their good work. as for the NAT'ters as such...to paraphrase another wise soul: "i encourage all my competitors to run their businesses that way" using policy, in the loose manner you describe, is not likely to generate the result you want. others have already explained this before. --n. btw, some bits here are seriously OT. the generic IPv6 discussion list is here: https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/afripv6-discuss From adam at varud.com Fri Jun 13 06:54:52 2014 From: adam at varud.com (Adam Nelson) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2014 08:54:52 +0200 Subject: [rpd] LACNIC reaches final /10 of IPv4 space In-Reply-To: <3D83BE0E-4836-4969-9FE1-74CC7C332D63@ieee.org> References: <20140610161821.GI6306@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> <20140611054813.GB72566@zibbi.meraka.csir.co.za> <20140611174733.GB38136@zibbi.meraka.csir.co.za> <20140612092433.GA64441@ru.ac.za> <20140612110339.GA31822@zibbi.meraka.csir.co.za> <1402576288.883.8.camel@mje.posix.co.za> <3D83BE0E-4836-4969-9FE1-74CC7C332D63@ieee.org> Message-ID: There's a third option - diplomacy. The Af* organizations (and AfriNIC in particular, ISOC) can get more of these statistics out into the wider world so that, for instance, a business in Nairobi knows very quickly which ISPs support IPv6 natively. Right now I don't even know where to get that information. -- Kili - Cloud for Africa: kili.io Musings: twitter.com/varud More Musings: varud.com About Adam: www.linkedin.com/in/adamcnelson On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 12:29 AM, Nishal Goburdhan wrote: > > On 12 Jun 2014, at 6:29 PM, Noah Maina wrote: > > > +++ to Policy then, lets draft it :-) > > to paraphrase a wise soul who came to the microphone during the academic > policy discussion last thursday: "...don't try to use policy to fix an > operational issue..." > (my words, not his). it seemed, at the time, that people generally agreed > with that sentiment. this idea strikes me as no different. > > those who see the need for IPv6, will deploy it. AfriNIC is trying to > spread the word; let them continue their good work. > as for the NAT'ters as such...to paraphrase another wise soul: "i > encourage all my competitors to run their businesses that way" > using policy, in the loose manner you describe, is not likely to generate > the result you want. others have already explained this before. > > --n. > > btw, some bits here are seriously OT. the generic IPv6 discussion list is > here: > > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/afripv6-discuss_______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com Fri Jun 13 07:54:29 2014 From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2014 08:54:29 +0100 Subject: [rpd] LACNIC reaches final /10 of IPv4 space In-Reply-To: <3D83BE0E-4836-4969-9FE1-74CC7C332D63@ieee.org> References: <20140610161821.GI6306@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> <20140611054813.GB72566@zibbi.meraka.csir.co.za> <20140611174733.GB38136@zibbi.meraka.csir.co.za> <20140612092433.GA64441@ru.ac.za> <20140612110339.GA31822@zibbi.meraka.csir.co.za> <1402576288.883.8.camel@mje.posix.co.za> <3D83BE0E-4836-4969-9FE1-74CC7C332D63@ieee.org> Message-ID: On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 11:29 PM, Nishal Goburdhan wrote: > > On 12 Jun 2014, at 6:29 PM, Noah Maina wrote: > > > +++ to Policy then, lets draft it :-) > > to paraphrase a wise soul who came to the microphone during the academic > policy discussion last thursday: "...don't try to use policy to fix an > operational issue..." > (my words, not his). it seemed, at the time, that people generally agreed > with that sentiment. this idea strikes me as no different. > I also agree that setting policy on IP resource is not the absolute answer, how about combining setting policies at the national telco regulator end; There is need to bring those regulators to the table to draft policies that will encourage first more native v4 consumption in our region and ultimately improve v6 deployment. Every regulator nowadays sing the cybersecurity song and so preaching the need to go native on IP resource as a way of combating cybercrime should be a good tune to dance to. > > those who see the need for IPv6, will deploy it. AfriNIC is trying to > spread the word; let them continue their good work. > Sure they should but i think it should go beyond training, there is need to be more strategic by getting the regulator's attention. The ISPs are not looking to move and they need to be moved somehow....end users are at the receiving end here. > as for the NAT'ters as such...to paraphrase another wise soul: "i > encourage all my competitors to run their businesses that way" > We were both in Djibouti and i wonder who the competitor is in that country? Also in my country where there is competition, all telco are on NAT and so long as it works no other telco wants to go v4 native. Competition areas is just based on whose service and pricing is better. So whats the incentive that will make them go v6? using policy, in the loose manner you describe, is not likely to generate > the result you want. others have already explained this before. > > I agree; the usage needs to stop being loose but more targeted. I am sure its not news to you that Africa is currently becoming a dumping ground for v4 only equipments, and when they dump those equipments, they follow it up with CGN equipments and trainings (we got a brief of that at AIS). The continent has over 1billion users yet to be reached and i fear that the culture will continue if something drastic is not done! ISP in our region need to stop applying for public IP addresses just because they have setup a new hub, it should rather be because their customer number is increasing. If end-users receive native v4 addresses, then it will take less energy to get ISP to go v6. Perhaps one of the reason why ISPs don't assign public IPs to their users is due to the documentation required by RIR from LIR, if it is then there has to be a way to strike a balance. Cheers! > --n. > > btw, some bits here are seriously OT. the generic IPv6 discussion list is > here: > > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/afripv6-discuss_______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng * The key to understanding is humility - my view ! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From geier at geier.ne.tz Fri Jun 13 08:27:48 2014 From: geier at geier.ne.tz (Frank Habicht) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2014 11:27:48 +0300 Subject: [rpd] LACNIC reaches final /10 of IPv4 space In-Reply-To: References: <20140610161821.GI6306@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> <20140611174733.GB38136@zibbi.meraka.csir.co.za> <20140612092433.GA64441@ru.ac.za> <20140612110339.GA31822@zibbi.meraka.csir.co.za> <1402576288.883.8.camel@mje.posix.co.za> <3D83BE0E-4836-4969-9FE1-74CC7C332D63@ieee.org> Message-ID: <539AB604.5070202@geier.ne.tz> Hi Adam, On 6/13/2014 9:54 AM, Adam Nelson wrote: > There's a third option - diplomacy. > > The Af* organizations (and AfriNIC in particular, ISOC) can get more of > these statistics out into the wider world so that, for instance, a business > in Nairobi knows very quickly which ISPs support IPv6 natively. Right now > I don't even know where to get that information. right now I'd use https://www.vyncke.org/ipv6status/detailed.php?country=ke especially looking for the beating hearts at the last table at the bottom of the page ( = real traffic seen). probably others might know other resources...? Sad that KENIC's block is not globally advertised :-( Frank PS: others can stick different country codes at the end of the URL. From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com Fri Jun 13 08:38:10 2014 From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2014 09:38:10 +0100 Subject: [rpd] LACNIC reaches final /10 of IPv4 space In-Reply-To: <539AB604.5070202@geier.ne.tz> References: <20140610161821.GI6306@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> <20140611174733.GB38136@zibbi.meraka.csir.co.za> <20140612092433.GA64441@ru.ac.za> <20140612110339.GA31822@zibbi.meraka.csir.co.za> <1402576288.883.8.camel@mje.posix.co.za> <3D83BE0E-4836-4969-9FE1-74CC7C332D63@ieee.org> <539AB604.5070202@geier.ne.tz> Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 9:27 AM, Frank Habicht wrote: > Hi Adam, > > On 6/13/2014 9:54 AM, Adam Nelson wrote: > > There's a third option - diplomacy. > > > > The Af* organizations (and AfriNIC in particular, ISOC) can get more of > > these statistics out into the wider world so that, for instance, a > business > > in Nairobi knows very quickly which ISPs support IPv6 natively. Right > now > > I don't even know where to get that information. > > > right now I'd use > https://www.vyncke.org/ipv6status/detailed.php?country=ke > especially looking for the beating hearts at the last table at the bottom > of the page ( = real traffic seen). > > Very very useful ref! Thanks! Cheers! -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng * The key to understanding is humility - my view ! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mainanoa at gmail.com Fri Jun 13 10:09:49 2014 From: mainanoa at gmail.com (Noah Maina) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2014 13:09:49 +0300 Subject: [rpd] LACNIC reaches final /10 of IPv4 space Message-ID: On 13 June 2014 09:54, Adam Nelson wrote: > There's a third option - diplomacy. > > The Af* organizations (and AfriNIC in particular, ISOC) can get more of > these statistics out into the wider world so that, for instance, a business > in Nairobi knows very quickly which ISPs support IPv6 natively. Right now > I don't even know where to get that information. > > Try Owen Delong's http://bgp.he.net/country/KE, that is more specific.... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mark.tinka at seacom.mu Fri Jun 13 10:37:16 2014 From: mark.tinka at seacom.mu (Mark Tinka) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2014 12:37:16 +0200 Subject: [rpd] LACNIC reaches final /10 of IPv4 space In-Reply-To: References: <20140610161821.GI6306@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> <3D83BE0E-4836-4969-9FE1-74CC7C332D63@ieee.org> Message-ID: <201406131237.20086.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> On Friday, June 13, 2014 09:54:29 AM Seun Ojedeji wrote: > Sure they should but i think it should go beyond > training, there is need to be more strategic by getting > the regulator's attention. The ISPs are not looking to > move and they need to be moved somehow....end users are > at the receiving end here. I strongly believe the market will sort itself out here. When there is no more IPv4, ISP's that do not support IPv6 will be staring their going concern in the face. Yes, it's reactive, but history has shown that it is not easy to regulate (much less police) the Internet when it's not your money on the line. > We were both in Djibouti and i wonder who the competitor > is in that country? Also in my country where there is > competition, all telco are on NAT and so long as it > works no other telco wants to go v4 native. Competition > areas is just based on whose service and pricing is > better. So whats the incentive that will make them go > v6? Their competitors doing so. > its not news to you that Africa is currently becoming a > dumping ground for v4 only equipments, and when they > dump those equipments, they follow it up with CGN > equipments and trainings (we got a brief of that at > AIS). The continent has over 1billion users yet to be > reached and i fear that the culture will continue if > something drastic is not done! Mobile carriers the world over still find NAT44 an easier solution than IPv6. It's a universal problem, and millions of $$ are being poured into vendors to continue to support NAT44 LSN's. > ISP in our region need to stop applying for public IP > addresses just because they have setup a new hub, it > should rather be because their customer number is > increasing. But one thing leads to the other, and it's always better to be prepared. I don't think the point is to abandon IPv4 (we have to keep it real). The point is to put IPv6 into all your plans just like you do IPv4. It might feel like double work, but you'll be happier you did it and forgot about it. > If end-users receive native v4 addresses, > then it will take less energy to get ISP to go v6. We, for example, are putting pressure on all our customers to turn-up IPv6 across the interconnects with us (even if this could mean they may not be configuring other parts of their networks with IPv6 - but you have to start from somewhere). In some cases, we are even helping customers apply for IPv6 address space from AFRINIC in case they are not sure how to go about it. Steps taken to increase IPv6 penetration may be unconventional (certainly for us), but one needs to consider all avenues to encourage uptake. We can't keep talking about it forever. And yes, it's a one-on-one exercise that is hard but required. > Perhaps one of the reason why ISPs don't assign public > IPs to their users is due to the documentation required > by RIR from LIR, if it is then there has to be a way to > strike a balance. It is easier to document IPv6 assignments because an IPv6 subnet covers a much broader scope than an IPv4 one. So that is not even an issue. Mark. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. URL: From yaser_djiguir at yahoo.fr Sat Jun 14 14:18:11 2014 From: yaser_djiguir at yahoo.fr (saleh yasser) Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2014 15:18:11 +0100 (BST) Subject: [rpd] LACNIC reaches final /10 of IPv4 space In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <1402755491.74899.YahooMailBasic@web173201.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> Thank you Adam, We talked several times on the IPv6 migration Pan African continent but the ISPs are not trained to follow the inovation technology that makes today the development of NAT remains. Following that impact what ISOC and AFRINIC enreprendrons vision afn popularize the IPV6 protocol. good to you. Yasser Saleh Djiguir IT to SOTEL CHAD -------------------------------------------- En date de?: Ven 13.6.14, Seun Ojedeji a ?crit?: Objet: Re: [rpd] LACNIC reaches final /10 of IPv4 space ?: "Frank Habicht" Cc: "rpd" Date: Vendredi 13 juin 2014, 10h38 On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 9:27 AM, Frank Habicht wrote: Hi Adam, On 6/13/2014 9:54 AM, Adam Nelson wrote: > There's a third option - diplomacy. > > The Af* organizations (and AfriNIC in particular, ISOC) can get more of > these statistics out into the wider world so that, for instance, a business > in Nairobi knows very quickly which ISPs support IPv6 natively. ?Right now > I don't even know where to get that information. right now I'd use https://www.vyncke.org/ipv6status/detailed.php?country=ke especially looking for the beating hearts at the last table at the bottom of the page ( = real traffic seen). Very very useful ref! Thanks! Cheers! ?-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Seun Ojedeji, Federal University Oye-Ekiti web:? ? ? http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535 alt email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng The key to understanding is humility - my view ! -----La pi?ce jointe associ?e suit----- _______________________________________________ rpd mailing list rpd at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd From steve.wilcox at ixreach.com Sat Jun 14 15:09:17 2014 From: steve.wilcox at ixreach.com (Stephen Wilcox) Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2014 16:09:17 +0100 Subject: [rpd] LACNIC reaches final /10 of IPv4 space In-Reply-To: <1402755491.74899.YahooMailBasic@web173201.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> References: <1402755491.74899.YahooMailBasic@web173201.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Hi Saleh, On 14 June 2014 15:18, saleh yasser wrote: > > We talked several times on the IPv6 migration Pan African continent but > the ISPs are not trained to follow the inovation technology that makes > today the development of NAT remains. > Internet Service Providers, by definition exist as Autonomous Systems - independent, not under higher control. There is no "training" in how to operate your own ISP, there is an assumption that anyone building and operating an ISP gains their experience before doing so. Nobody in the world ever received "training", but engineers, corporate managers and governments policies around the world for many years have been urging people to test and implement IPv6 long before IPv4 was running out. If ISPs feel they are not trained, they should begin self-training - read books, online tutorials and attend the many, many conferences around Africa and the world where they can learn from other ISPs. > Following that impact what ISOC and AFRINIC enreprendrons vision afn > popularize the IPV6 protocol. > These are some of the organisations helping to provide training, but it is not their job to tell ISPs how to run their business and how technology needs to be implemented to maintain a modern, sustainable business. At all levels, people can check their knowledge of IPv6, read online resources, and then see if they are doing everything possible within their organisation to implement it. For example, there is no reason ALL ISPs shouldn't already have an IPv6 allocation from the RIR. Almost all core BGP equipment will support IPv6 routing. Everybody can play with this on their home computer, their home network, their office network and their labs. Unfortunately this doesn't appear to be happening as much as it should. We have a phrase which says "you can bring the horse to water, but you can't make it drink" .. this feels a lot like IPv6 implementation right now. Kind regards Steve > > good to you. > > Yasser Saleh Djiguir > > IT to SOTEL CHAD > > -------------------------------------------- > En date de : Ven 13.6.14, Seun Ojedeji a ?crit : > > Objet: Re: [rpd] LACNIC reaches final /10 of IPv4 space > ?: "Frank Habicht" > Cc: "rpd" > Date: Vendredi 13 juin 2014, 10h38 > > On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at > 9:27 AM, Frank Habicht > wrote: > > > Hi > Adam, > > > > On 6/13/2014 9:54 AM, Adam Nelson wrote: > > > There's a third option - diplomacy. > > > > > > The Af* organizations (and AfriNIC in particular, ISOC) > can get more of > > > these statistics out into the wider world so that, for > instance, a business > > > in Nairobi knows very quickly which ISPs support IPv6 > natively. Right now > > > I don't even know where to get that information. > > > > > > right now I'd use > > https://www.vyncke.org/ipv6status/detailed.php?country=ke > > especially looking for the beating hearts at the last table > at the bottom > > of the page ( = real traffic seen). > > > > Very > very useful ref! > > Thanks! > > Cheers! > -- > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > Seun Ojedeji, > Federal University Oye-Ekiti > web: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng > > > > Mobile: +2348035233535 > alt > email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng > > > > The key to understanding > is humility - my view ! > > > > -----La pi?ce jointe associ?e suit----- > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com Sun Jun 15 19:29:37 2014 From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji) Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2014 20:29:37 +0100 Subject: [rpd] A typical conversation with a service provider on v6 Message-ID: Hi, Below is a typical interaction with a well known hosting provider. Cheers! > Customer > Hello, > > I like to know if you now support v6 as i want my server to be reachable > on ipv6 address > > Thanks > Response: > Hello Seun, > > Thank you for contacting "provider" HelpDesk. > > All of our servers are IPv6 ready however almost all of the servers, > routers, network carriers etc. still use IPv4 and we also currently use > IPv4. As soon as IPv6 protocol is launched globally we will also switch our > networks to use IPv6. > > Best Regards, > Customer > Hello "support", > > Why switch, why not run dual stack. There are increasing number of > provider offering v6 and i think "provider" should talk to their upstream > provider to do the same ASAP! > > Thanks Response > I am afraid that at the moment we do not support such dual stack and we > provide IPv4 only. As soon as IPv6 becomes an official protocol we will > switch to it immediately. > > Best Regards, Customer > Hello "support", > > I don't understand what you mean by v6 becoming official protocol? there > are several RFC on v6 and several networks running v6. How much official > does it need to be before "provider" start running it. What makes it > official by the way? > > Regards response: > Seun, > > I spoke with our administrators and they told me that they can try to > setup IPv6 address on yuor server. I am forwarding the case to our system > administrators. Please allow them some time to check the case and try to > setup IPv6 address. > > We will post an reply as soon as we have more information. > > Best Regards, > customer: > Hello "support", > > Thanks and please take note that i am not switching to v6, i want my > server to be accessible on both v4 and v6 > > Regards > response: > Our datacented is in the process of implementing IPv6 but the project is > still ongoing and they can not provide an ETA for the completion. We can > not currently provide IPv6 connectivity to your server. > > If you need any further assistance, please, do not hesitate to contact us > again by posting a new ticket in the appropriate Help Desk category. > > Best Regards, > customer: > Hello "support1", > > I am not sure i understand this response. "support" had indicated that > they may be able to provide me v6 connection. Now you are saying you can't? > kindly note that we have a dedicated server with you. I don't see the > reason why "provider" cannot ensure that our content is accessed on both v4 > and v6 network. > > Regards > response: > The key here is in the "may" that "support" wrote. He checked the case > with our system administrators and they discussed it with the datacenter > technicials. The reason why we can not provide IPv6 connectivity, even > though you are on a Dedicated server is that the entire network > infrastructure should allow IPv6 throughput. As I explained, the datacenter > is working on such a project but they can not provide an ETA for it. > > Best Regards, > Cheers! -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng * The key to understanding is humility - my view ! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ademola at ng.lopworks.com Mon Jun 16 02:07:06 2014 From: ademola at ng.lopworks.com (ademola at ng.lopworks.com) Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2014 03:07:06 +0100 Subject: [rpd] A typical conversation with a service provider on v6 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20140616020706.5324931.77119.13336@ng.lopworks.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ rpd mailing list rpd at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd From mainanoa at gmail.com Mon Jun 16 04:04:05 2014 From: mainanoa at gmail.com (Noah Maina) Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2014 07:04:05 +0300 Subject: [rpd] A typical conversation with a service provider on v6 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Seun LoL.... See hehehehe...tell you what...no need for policy....end customers can influence v6 deployment to a greater extend...the provider wont escape you.... as you can imagine, they seem naive about v6 and the thought that v6 consumes its own throughput is quite interesting from them. Keep pushing ... Noah On 15 Jun 2014 22:34, "Seun Ojedeji" wrote: > Hi, > > Below is a typical interaction with a well known hosting provider. > > Cheers! > > >> Customer >> Hello, >> >> I like to know if you now support v6 as i want my server to be reachable >> on ipv6 address >> >> Thanks >> > > Response: > >> Hello Seun, >> >> Thank you for contacting "provider" HelpDesk. >> >> All of our servers are IPv6 ready however almost all of the servers, >> routers, network carriers etc. still use IPv4 and we also currently use >> IPv4. As soon as IPv6 protocol is launched globally we will also switch our >> networks to use IPv6. >> >> Best Regards, >> > > Customer > >> Hello "support", >> >> Why switch, why not run dual stack. There are increasing number of >> provider offering v6 and i think "provider" should talk to their upstream >> provider to do the same ASAP! >> >> Thanks > > > Response > >> I am afraid that at the moment we do not support such dual stack and we >> provide IPv4 only. As soon as IPv6 becomes an official protocol we will >> switch to it immediately. >> >> Best Regards, > > > Customer > >> Hello "support", >> >> I don't understand what you mean by v6 becoming official protocol? there >> are several RFC on v6 and several networks running v6. How much official >> does it need to be before "provider" start running it. What makes it >> official by the way? >> >> Regards > > > response: > >> Seun, >> >> I spoke with our administrators and they told me that they can try to >> setup IPv6 address on yuor server. I am forwarding the case to our system >> administrators. Please allow them some time to check the case and try to >> setup IPv6 address. >> >> We will post an reply as soon as we have more information. >> >> Best Regards, >> > > customer: > >> Hello "support", >> >> Thanks and please take note that i am not switching to v6, i want my >> server to be accessible on both v4 and v6 >> >> Regards >> > > response: > >> Our datacented is in the process of implementing IPv6 but the project is >> still ongoing and they can not provide an ETA for the completion. We can >> not currently provide IPv6 connectivity to your server. >> >> If you need any further assistance, please, do not hesitate to contact us >> again by posting a new ticket in the appropriate Help Desk category. >> >> Best Regards, >> > > customer: > >> Hello "support1", >> >> I am not sure i understand this response. "support" had indicated that >> they may be able to provide me v6 connection. Now you are saying you can't? >> kindly note that we have a dedicated server with you. I don't see the >> reason why "provider" cannot ensure that our content is accessed on both v4 >> and v6 network. >> >> Regards >> > > response: > >> The key here is in the "may" that "support" wrote. He checked the case >> with our system administrators and they discussed it with the datacenter >> technicials. The reason why we can not provide IPv6 connectivity, even >> though you are on a Dedicated server is that the entire network >> infrastructure should allow IPv6 throughput. As I explained, the datacenter >> is working on such a project but they can not provide an ETA for it. >> >> Best Regards, >> > > Cheers! > -- > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > > *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: > http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535**alt > email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng > * > > The key to understanding is humility - my view ! > > > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From owen at delong.com Mon Jun 16 04:06:03 2014 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2014 21:06:03 -0700 Subject: [rpd] A typical conversation with a service provider on v6 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Perhaps this could help improve that conversation: > Dear other data center customer, > > We would be very happy to host your servers in our datacenter or provide you with the server resources you require. All of our servers and network connections support full native dual-stack IPv4 and IPv6 and all of our backbone network and peering locations are also full dual stack. > > IPv6 is an official protocol and is widely supported. We are happy to help lead in that support and welcome your business. > > A. Concerned Staffer > Better Hosting Company >> Customer >> Hello, >> >> Since I am no longer able to reach the entire internet, but only the old internet using your services, I will be moving my application out of >> your datacenter and onto a platform that can provide me complete dual-stack connectivity. It is my belief that your failure to maintain adequate >> connectivity to the entire modern internet is a material adverse breech of the services promised and therefore, I consider you have voided >> any obligation to my contract term. Please consider this a 30 day notice of my intent to vacate your datacenter due to this breech. >> >> Thanks I'll leave the rest of the conversation to your imagination. Though I don't know specific names of any such companies in Africa, I would hope that they do exist. Globally, I can point to: Hurricane Electric Linode SoftLayer As prominently supporting IPv6 in their datacenters and hosting products. I'm sure there are others, but these are the ones I know directly are definitely supporting IPv6. Apologies if anyone thinks this is a commercial announcement. It is not intended as such. It is intended to help inform the community so that they can vote with their Franks/Dinars/Dollars/Rupies/etc. and their feet. Owen On Jun 15, 2014, at 12:29 , Seun Ojedeji wrote: > Hi, > > Below is a typical interaction with a well known hosting provider. > > Cheers! > > Customer > Hello, > > I like to know if you now support v6 as i want my server to be reachable on ipv6 address > > Thanks > > Response: > Hello Seun, > > Thank you for contacting "provider" HelpDesk. > > All of our servers are IPv6 ready however almost all of the servers, routers, network carriers etc. still use IPv4 and we also currently use IPv4. As soon as IPv6 protocol is launched globally we will also switch our networks to use IPv6. > > Best Regards, > > Customer > Hello "support", > > Why switch, why not run dual stack. There are increasing number of provider offering v6 and i think "provider" should talk to their upstream provider to do the same ASAP! > > Thanks > > Response > I am afraid that at the moment we do not support such dual stack and we provide IPv4 only. As soon as IPv6 becomes an official protocol we will switch to it immediately. > > Best Regards, > > Customer > Hello "support", > > I don't understand what you mean by v6 becoming official protocol? there are several RFC on v6 and several networks running v6. How much official does it need to be before "provider" start running it. What makes it official by the way? > > Regards > > response: > Seun, > > I spoke with our administrators and they told me that they can try to setup IPv6 address on yuor server. I am forwarding the case to our system administrators. Please allow them some time to check the case and try to setup IPv6 address. > > We will post an reply as soon as we have more information. > > Best Regards, > > customer: > Hello "support", > > Thanks and please take note that i am not switching to v6, i want my server to be accessible on both v4 and v6 > > Regards > > response: > Our datacented is in the process of implementing IPv6 but the project is still ongoing and they can not provide an ETA for the completion. We can not currently provide IPv6 connectivity to your server. > > If you need any further assistance, please, do not hesitate to contact us again by posting a new ticket in the appropriate Help Desk category. > > Best Regards, > > customer: > Hello "support1", > > I am not sure i understand this response. "support" had indicated that they may be able to provide me v6 connection. Now you are saying you can't? kindly note that we have a dedicated server with you. I don't see the reason why "provider" cannot ensure that our content is accessed on both v4 and v6 network. > > Regards > > response: > The key here is in the "may" that "support" wrote. He checked the case with our system administrators and they discussed it with the datacenter technicials. The reason why we can not provide IPv6 connectivity, even though you are on a Dedicated server is that the entire network infrastructure should allow IPv6 throughput. As I explained, the datacenter is working on such a project but they can not provide an ETA for it. > > Best Regards, > > Cheers! > -- > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Seun Ojedeji, > Federal University Oye-Ekiti > web: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng > Mobile: +2348035233535 > alt email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng > > The key to understanding is humility - my view ! > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From adam at varud.com Mon Jun 16 06:25:56 2014 From: adam at varud.com (Adam Nelson) Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2014 09:25:56 +0300 Subject: [rpd] A typical conversation with a service provider on v6 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The big problem, and this is not an Afrinic problem but it is an African Internet problem, is that there is no list of ISPs showing which ones run IPv4 only and which are dual stack. Or does one exist? -- Kili - Cloud for Africa: kili.io Musings: twitter.com/varud More Musings: varud.com About Adam: www.linkedin.com/in/adamcnelson On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 7:06 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: > Perhaps this could help improve that conversation: > > Dear other data center customer, > > We would be very happy to host your servers in our datacenter or provide > you with the server resources you require. All of our servers and network > connections support full native dual-stack IPv4 and IPv6 and all of our > backbone network and peering locations are also full dual stack. > > IPv6 is an official protocol and is widely supported. We are happy to help > lead in that support and welcome your business. > > A. Concerned Staffer > Better Hosting Company > > > Customer > Hello, > > Since I am no longer able to reach the entire internet, but only the old > internet using your services, I will be moving my application out of > your datacenter and onto a platform that can provide me complete > dual-stack connectivity. It is my belief that your failure to maintain > adequate > connectivity to the entire modern internet is a material adverse breech of > the services promised and therefore, I consider you have voided > any obligation to my contract term. Please consider this a 30 day notice > of my intent to vacate your datacenter due to this breech. > > Thanks > > > I'll leave the rest of the conversation to your imagination. > > Though I don't know specific names of any such companies in Africa, I > would hope that they do exist. Globally, I can point to: > > Hurricane Electric > Linode > SoftLayer > > As prominently supporting IPv6 in their datacenters and hosting products. > I'm sure there are others, but these are the ones I know directly are > definitely supporting IPv6. > > Apologies if anyone thinks this is a commercial announcement. It is not > intended as such. It is intended to help inform the community so that they > can vote with their Franks/Dinars/Dollars/Rupies/etc. and their feet. > > Owen > > > On Jun 15, 2014, at 12:29 , Seun Ojedeji wrote: > > Hi, > > Below is a typical interaction with a well known hosting provider. > > Cheers! > > >> Customer >> Hello, >> >> I like to know if you now support v6 as i want my server to be reachable >> on ipv6 address >> >> Thanks >> > > Response: > >> Hello Seun, >> >> Thank you for contacting "provider" HelpDesk. >> >> All of our servers are IPv6 ready however almost all of the servers, >> routers, network carriers etc. still use IPv4 and we also currently use >> IPv4. As soon as IPv6 protocol is launched globally we will also switch our >> networks to use IPv6. >> >> Best Regards, >> > > Customer > >> Hello "support", >> >> Why switch, why not run dual stack. There are increasing number of >> provider offering v6 and i think "provider" should talk to their upstream >> provider to do the same ASAP! >> >> Thanks > > > Response > >> I am afraid that at the moment we do not support such dual stack and we >> provide IPv4 only. As soon as IPv6 becomes an official protocol we will >> switch to it immediately. >> >> Best Regards, > > > Customer > >> Hello "support", >> >> I don't understand what you mean by v6 becoming official protocol? there >> are several RFC on v6 and several networks running v6. How much official >> does it need to be before "provider" start running it. What makes it >> official by the way? >> >> Regards > > > response: > >> Seun, >> >> I spoke with our administrators and they told me that they can try to >> setup IPv6 address on yuor server. I am forwarding the case to our system >> administrators. Please allow them some time to check the case and try to >> setup IPv6 address. >> >> We will post an reply as soon as we have more information. >> >> Best Regards, >> > > customer: > >> Hello "support", >> >> Thanks and please take note that i am not switching to v6, i want my >> server to be accessible on both v4 and v6 >> >> Regards >> > > response: > >> Our datacented is in the process of implementing IPv6 but the project is >> still ongoing and they can not provide an ETA for the completion. We can >> not currently provide IPv6 connectivity to your server. >> >> If you need any further assistance, please, do not hesitate to contact us >> again by posting a new ticket in the appropriate Help Desk category. >> >> Best Regards, >> > > customer: > >> Hello "support1", >> >> I am not sure i understand this response. "support" had indicated that >> they may be able to provide me v6 connection. Now you are saying you can't? >> kindly note that we have a dedicated server with you. I don't see the >> reason why "provider" cannot ensure that our content is accessed on both v4 >> and v6 network. >> >> Regards >> > > response: > >> The key here is in the "may" that "support" wrote. He checked the case >> with our system administrators and they discussed it with the datacenter >> technicials. The reason why we can not provide IPv6 connectivity, even >> though you are on a Dedicated server is that the entire network >> infrastructure should allow IPv6 throughput. As I explained, the datacenter >> is working on such a project but they can not provide an ETA for it. >> >> Best Regards, >> > > Cheers! > -- > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > > *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: > http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535**alt > email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng > * > > The key to understanding is humility - my view ! > > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mainanoa at gmail.com Mon Jun 16 06:46:18 2014 From: mainanoa at gmail.com (Noah Maina) Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2014 09:46:18 +0300 Subject: [rpd] A typical conversation with a service provider on v6 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: bgp.he.net/country/MU will show you ones Mauritius change the last letters to UG will show you uganda change again to KE will show you Kenya change to EG will show you the stats in Egypt etc etc Noah On 16 Jun 2014 09:28, "Adam Nelson" wrote: > The big problem, and this is not an Afrinic problem but it is an African > Internet problem, is that there is no list of ISPs showing which ones run > IPv4 only and which are dual stack. Or does one exist? > > > > -- > Kili - Cloud for Africa: kili.io > Musings: twitter.com/varud > More Musings: varud.com > About Adam: www.linkedin.com/in/adamcnelson > > > On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 7:06 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: > >> Perhaps this could help improve that conversation: >> >> Dear other data center customer, >> >> We would be very happy to host your servers in our datacenter or provide >> you with the server resources you require. All of our servers and network >> connections support full native dual-stack IPv4 and IPv6 and all of our >> backbone network and peering locations are also full dual stack. >> >> IPv6 is an official protocol and is widely supported. We are happy to >> help lead in that support and welcome your business. >> >> A. Concerned Staffer >> Better Hosting Company >> >> >> Customer >> Hello, >> >> Since I am no longer able to reach the entire internet, but only the old >> internet using your services, I will be moving my application out of >> your datacenter and onto a platform that can provide me complete >> dual-stack connectivity. It is my belief that your failure to maintain >> adequate >> connectivity to the entire modern internet is a material adverse breech >> of the services promised and therefore, I consider you have voided >> any obligation to my contract term. Please consider this a 30 day notice >> of my intent to vacate your datacenter due to this breech. >> >> Thanks >> >> >> I'll leave the rest of the conversation to your imagination. >> >> Though I don't know specific names of any such companies in Africa, I >> would hope that they do exist. Globally, I can point to: >> >> Hurricane Electric >> Linode >> SoftLayer >> >> As prominently supporting IPv6 in their datacenters and hosting products. >> I'm sure there are others, but these are the ones I know directly are >> definitely supporting IPv6. >> >> Apologies if anyone thinks this is a commercial announcement. It is not >> intended as such. It is intended to help inform the community so that they >> can vote with their Franks/Dinars/Dollars/Rupies/etc. and their feet. >> >> Owen >> >> >> On Jun 15, 2014, at 12:29 , Seun Ojedeji wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> Below is a typical interaction with a well known hosting provider. >> >> Cheers! >> >> >>> Customer >>> Hello, >>> >>> I like to know if you now support v6 as i want my server to be reachable >>> on ipv6 address >>> >>> Thanks >>> >> >> Response: >> >>> Hello Seun, >>> >>> Thank you for contacting "provider" HelpDesk. >>> >>> All of our servers are IPv6 ready however almost all of the servers, >>> routers, network carriers etc. still use IPv4 and we also currently use >>> IPv4. As soon as IPv6 protocol is launched globally we will also switch our >>> networks to use IPv6. >>> >>> Best Regards, >>> >> >> Customer >> >>> Hello "support", >>> >>> Why switch, why not run dual stack. There are increasing number of >>> provider offering v6 and i think "provider" should talk to their upstream >>> provider to do the same ASAP! >>> >>> Thanks >> >> >> Response >> >>> I am afraid that at the moment we do not support such dual stack and we >>> provide IPv4 only. As soon as IPv6 becomes an official protocol we will >>> switch to it immediately. >>> >>> Best Regards, >> >> >> Customer >> >>> Hello "support", >>> >>> I don't understand what you mean by v6 becoming official protocol? there >>> are several RFC on v6 and several networks running v6. How much official >>> does it need to be before "provider" start running it. What makes it >>> official by the way? >>> >>> Regards >> >> >> response: >> >>> Seun, >>> >>> I spoke with our administrators and they told me that they can try to >>> setup IPv6 address on yuor server. I am forwarding the case to our system >>> administrators. Please allow them some time to check the case and try to >>> setup IPv6 address. >>> >>> We will post an reply as soon as we have more information. >>> >>> Best Regards, >>> >> >> customer: >> >>> Hello "support", >>> >>> Thanks and please take note that i am not switching to v6, i want my >>> server to be accessible on both v4 and v6 >>> >>> Regards >>> >> >> response: >> >>> Our datacented is in the process of implementing IPv6 but the project is >>> still ongoing and they can not provide an ETA for the completion. We can >>> not currently provide IPv6 connectivity to your server. >>> >>> If you need any further assistance, please, do not hesitate to contact >>> us again by posting a new ticket in the appropriate Help Desk category. >>> >>> Best Regards, >>> >> >> customer: >> >>> Hello "support1", >>> >>> I am not sure i understand this response. "support" had indicated that >>> they may be able to provide me v6 connection. Now you are saying you can't? >>> kindly note that we have a dedicated server with you. I don't see the >>> reason why "provider" cannot ensure that our content is accessed on both v4 >>> and v6 network. >>> >>> Regards >>> >> >> response: >> >>> The key here is in the "may" that "support" wrote. He checked the case >>> with our system administrators and they discussed it with the datacenter >>> technicials. The reason why we can not provide IPv6 connectivity, even >>> though you are on a Dedicated server is that the entire network >>> infrastructure should allow IPv6 throughput. As I explained, the datacenter >>> is working on such a project but they can not provide an ETA for it. >>> >>> Best Regards, >>> >> >> Cheers! >> -- >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> >> >> >> >> *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: >> http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535**alt >> email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng >> * >> >> The key to understanding is humility - my view ! >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> rpd mailing list >> rpd at afrinic.net >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> rpd mailing list >> rpd at afrinic.net >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com Mon Jun 16 07:14:09 2014 From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji) Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2014 08:14:09 +0100 Subject: [rpd] A typical conversation with a service provider on v6 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 5:04 AM, Noah Maina wrote: > Seun LoL.... > > See hehehehe...tell you what...no need for policy....end customers can > influence v6 deployment to a greater extend... > Yeah "to some extent" it is; because i am just that rare customer that also wants a 128bits even though everything works fine on 32. I doubt end customers will move ISPs as much especially if everything works fine on v4. I think policy and its implementation at regulator's level could expedite some of v6 visibility. > the provider wont escape you.... as you can imagine, they seem naive > about v6 and the thought that v6 consumes its own throughput is quite > interesting from them. > Obviously, it bothers me that a mega hosting provider is still looking for official launch of v6. If that is what they are expecting, how about national regulators formerly lunching v6 and introducing policies that ensure the wind of the launch blows across the provider's gears. Cheers! > Keep pushing ... > > Noah > On 15 Jun 2014 22:34, "Seun Ojedeji" wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Below is a typical interaction with a well known hosting provider. >> >> Cheers! >> >> >>> Customer >>> Hello, >>> >>> I like to know if you now support v6 as i want my server to be reachable >>> on ipv6 address >>> >>> Thanks >>> >> >> Response: >> >>> Hello Seun, >>> >>> Thank you for contacting "provider" HelpDesk. >>> >>> All of our servers are IPv6 ready however almost all of the servers, >>> routers, network carriers etc. still use IPv4 and we also currently use >>> IPv4. As soon as IPv6 protocol is launched globally we will also switch our >>> networks to use IPv6. >>> >>> Best Regards, >>> >> >> Customer >> >>> Hello "support", >>> >>> Why switch, why not run dual stack. There are increasing number of >>> provider offering v6 and i think "provider" should talk to their upstream >>> provider to do the same ASAP! >>> >>> Thanks >> >> >> Response >> >>> I am afraid that at the moment we do not support such dual stack and we >>> provide IPv4 only. As soon as IPv6 becomes an official protocol we will >>> switch to it immediately. >>> >>> Best Regards, >> >> >> Customer >> >>> Hello "support", >>> >>> I don't understand what you mean by v6 becoming official protocol? there >>> are several RFC on v6 and several networks running v6. How much official >>> does it need to be before "provider" start running it. What makes it >>> official by the way? >>> >>> Regards >> >> >> response: >> >>> Seun, >>> >>> I spoke with our administrators and they told me that they can try to >>> setup IPv6 address on yuor server. I am forwarding the case to our system >>> administrators. Please allow them some time to check the case and try to >>> setup IPv6 address. >>> >>> We will post an reply as soon as we have more information. >>> >>> Best Regards, >>> >> >> customer: >> >>> Hello "support", >>> >>> Thanks and please take note that i am not switching to v6, i want my >>> server to be accessible on both v4 and v6 >>> >>> Regards >>> >> >> response: >> >>> Our datacented is in the process of implementing IPv6 but the project is >>> still ongoing and they can not provide an ETA for the completion. We can >>> not currently provide IPv6 connectivity to your server. >>> >>> If you need any further assistance, please, do not hesitate to contact >>> us again by posting a new ticket in the appropriate Help Desk category. >>> >>> Best Regards, >>> >> >> customer: >> >>> Hello "support1", >>> >>> I am not sure i understand this response. "support" had indicated that >>> they may be able to provide me v6 connection. Now you are saying you can't? >>> kindly note that we have a dedicated server with you. I don't see the >>> reason why "provider" cannot ensure that our content is accessed on both v4 >>> and v6 network. >>> >>> Regards >>> >> >> response: >> >>> The key here is in the "may" that "support" wrote. He checked the case >>> with our system administrators and they discussed it with the datacenter >>> technicials. The reason why we can not provide IPv6 connectivity, even >>> though you are on a Dedicated server is that the entire network >>> infrastructure should allow IPv6 throughput. As I explained, the datacenter >>> is working on such a project but they can not provide an ETA for it. >>> >>> Best Regards, >>> >> >> Cheers! >> -- >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> >> >> >> >> *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: >> http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535**alt >> email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng >> * >> >> The key to understanding is humility - my view ! >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> rpd mailing list >> rpd at afrinic.net >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >> >> -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng * The key to understanding is humility - my view ! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ernest at afrinic.net Mon Jun 16 08:12:09 2014 From: ernest at afrinic.net (Ernest) Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2014 11:12:09 +0300 Subject: [rpd] A typical conversation with a service provider on v6 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <539EA6D9.7050008@afrinic.net> Adam Nelson wrote thus on 6/16/14, 9:25 AM: > is that there is no list of ISPs showing which ones run IPv4 only > and which are dual stack. Or does one exist? This could help: https://www.sixxs.net/tools/grh/dfp/afrinic/ regards, ernest. From mark.tinka at seacom.mu Mon Jun 16 08:19:38 2014 From: mark.tinka at seacom.mu (Mark Tinka) Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2014 10:19:38 +0200 Subject: [rpd] A typical conversation with a service provider on v6 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <201406161019.42135.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> On Monday, June 16, 2014 09:14:09 AM Seun Ojedeji wrote: > Yeah "to some extent" it is; because i am just that rare > customer that also wants a 128bits even though > everything works fine on 32. I doubt end customers will > move ISPs as much especially if everything works fine on > v4. I think policy and its implementation at regulator's > level could expedite some of v6 visibility. Customers will go to where they can get service. If a customer is on IPv4 today, and it works, short of any other issues, they won't be looking to move. If an Internet resource is only on IPv6, and the customer's existing ISP only supports IPv4, the customer will experience connectivity issues and will, invariably, start shopping around unless their existing provider turns up IPv6. If new Internet users are signing up to an ISP that is operating in an era where there is no longer any IPv4, the customer still doesn't care what protocol his services are running over provided there is end-to-end connectivity. Again, the customer's ISP (or their competition), will need to provide a solution to the customer that satisfies their connectivity needs (be they native to IPv6 resources, or translated to IPv4-only resources). Ultimately, the customer will go to where they can get service. That's the bottom line. Mark. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. URL: From adam at varud.com Mon Jun 16 08:19:46 2014 From: adam at varud.com (Adam Nelson) Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2014 11:19:46 +0300 Subject: [rpd] A typical conversation with a service provider on v6 In-Reply-To: <539EA6D9.7050008@afrinic.net> References: <539EA6D9.7050008@afrinic.net> Message-ID: The HE.net resource is great and could help shift end-user sentiment. I don't really see much value from the Sixxs site but maybe there is. Now, how do we get this information consolidated, cleaned, and presented in an Africa-wide context that can potentially drive end-users to choose IPv6-capable ISPs over IPv4-only ISPs? -- Kili - Cloud for Africa: kili.io Musings: twitter.com/varud More Musings: varud.com About Adam: www.linkedin.com/in/adamcnelson On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 11:12 AM, Ernest wrote: > Adam Nelson wrote thus on 6/16/14, 9:25 AM: > > is that there is no list of ISPs showing which ones run IPv4 only > > and which are dual stack. Or does one exist? > > This could help: > https://www.sixxs.net/tools/grh/dfp/afrinic/ > > regards, > ernest. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From adam at varud.com Mon Jun 16 08:46:14 2014 From: adam at varud.com (Adam Nelson) Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2014 11:46:14 +0300 Subject: [rpd] A typical conversation with a service provider on v6 In-Reply-To: <201406161019.42135.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> References: <201406161019.42135.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> Message-ID: Mark, There are three uplinks in our building over which about 6 ISPs operate. I get asked all the time which ones are 'best' and which one somebody should use. I'd like to be able to make IPv6 part of that recommendation but I can't because there's no resource to tell me. What you're saying is 'right', but we can also push the needle by at least getting the data public. I'd be happy to refer customers to IPv6 capable stacks even if they don't use IPv6 since the running of a dual stack is also suggestive of the overall quality of the ISP. -Adam -- Kili - Cloud for Africa: kili.io Musings: twitter.com/varud More Musings: varud.com About Adam: www.linkedin.com/in/adamcnelson On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 11:19 AM, Mark Tinka wrote: > On Monday, June 16, 2014 09:14:09 AM Seun Ojedeji wrote: > > > Yeah "to some extent" it is; because i am just that rare > > customer that also wants a 128bits even though > > everything works fine on 32. I doubt end customers will > > move ISPs as much especially if everything works fine on > > v4. I think policy and its implementation at regulator's > > level could expedite some of v6 visibility. > > Customers will go to where they can get service. > > If a customer is on IPv4 today, and it works, short of any > other issues, they won't be looking to move. > > If an Internet resource is only on IPv6, and the customer's > existing ISP only supports IPv4, the customer will > experience connectivity issues and will, invariably, start > shopping around unless their existing provider turns up > IPv6. > > If new Internet users are signing up to an ISP that is > operating in an era where there is no longer any IPv4, the > customer still doesn't care what protocol his services are > running over provided there is end-to-end connectivity. > Again, the customer's ISP (or their competition), will need > to provide a solution to the customer that satisfies their > connectivity needs (be they native to IPv6 resources, or > translated to IPv4-only resources). > > Ultimately, the customer will go to where they can get > service. That's the bottom line. > > Mark. > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ondouglas at gmail.com Mon Jun 16 09:07:12 2014 From: ondouglas at gmail.com (Douglas Onyango) Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2014 10:07:12 +0100 Subject: [rpd] A typical conversation with a service provider on v6 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Seun, On 16 June 2014 08:14, Seun Ojedeji wrote: > I think policy and its implementation at regulator's level could expedite > some of v6 visibility. Championing IPv6 in the way you want here will be difficult for regulators for two reasons: 1. v6 or v-anything is technology, and regulators are generally service oriented. 2. Nothing is broken as yet --- at least from the regulator's view point. packets can still traverse the globe with no loss attributable to the lack of v6. In light of this, I think the regulators' place --- putting policy to encourage v6 is the best that we can hope for at the moment. > Obviously, it bothers me that a mega hosting provider is still looking for > official launch of v6. Perhaps you should tell them they missed the news!! The global launch happened more than a year a go :-) > If that is what they are expecting, how about > national regulators formerly lunching v6 and introducing policies that > ensure the wind of the launch blows across the provider's gears. Regulators can't launch v6 -- at least not on a commercial basis as that would turn them into network operators which is outside their mandate. Regards, From mark.tinka at seacom.mu Mon Jun 16 10:07:05 2014 From: mark.tinka at seacom.mu (Mark Tinka) Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2014 12:07:05 +0200 Subject: [rpd] A typical conversation with a service provider on v6 In-Reply-To: References: <201406161019.42135.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> Message-ID: <201406161207.05495.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> On Monday, June 16, 2014 10:46:14 AM Adam Nelson wrote: > Mark, > > There are three uplinks in our building over which about > 6 ISPs operate. I get asked all the time which ones are > 'best' and which one somebody should use. I'd like to > be able to make IPv6 part of that recommendation but I > can't because there's no resource to tell me. Adam, perhaps this is an opportunity to create and market such a database. We have seen data from SixXS and HE's BGP Toolkit. Renesys (or are they now called Dyn) is a good resource but is not free. But maybe these sources do not currently satisfy you, and others. The data on HE's BGP Toolkit will tell you which ISP's are registered with AFRINIC, and by that extension, which ISP's are available in which countries. There is some margin of error as registered country can differ from operating country, but it's a good place to start. If you can use that data to create a database, it will be easy to fill in the gaps once you have something going. I'm happy to support you personally and professionally in this. Just let me know how. Mark. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. URL: From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com Mon Jun 16 11:19:02 2014 From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji) Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2014 12:19:02 +0100 Subject: [rpd] A typical conversation with a service provider on v6 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 10:07 AM, Douglas Onyango wrote: > Hi Seun, > On 16 June 2014 08:14, Seun Ojedeji wrote: > > I think policy and its implementation at regulator's level could expedite > > some of v6 visibility. > > Championing IPv6 in the way you want here will be difficult for > regulators for two reasons: > 1. v6 or v-anything is technology, and regulators are generally > service oriented. > 2. Nothing is broken as yet --- at least from the regulator's view > point. packets can still traverse the globe with no loss attributable > to the lack of v6. > > In light of this, I think the regulators' place --- putting policy to > encourage v6 is the best that we can hope for at the moment. > Mmm...i agree and i think we are taking different route to same destination. Regulators to set policy to "encourage" implementation. > > Obviously, it bothers me that a mega hosting provider is still looking > for > > official launch of v6. > > Perhaps you should tell them they missed the news!! The global launch > happened more than a year a go :-) > Hahaha....lol or they forgot that even before the global event, there was v6. > > > If that is what they are expecting, how about > > national regulators formerly lunching v6 and introducing policies that > > ensure the wind of the launch blows across the provider's gears. > > Regulators can't launch v6 -- at least not on a commercial basis as that > would turn them into network operators which is outside their mandate. > > Hmm...the launch is not in relation to them deploying, its more of an event. Looking at it from the frequency spectrum launching perspective. Maybe if v6 receives support in that direction then we could witness some progress. Regulators could on the basis of making case for cybersecurity ask providers to ensure that certain percentage of their network are visible on the internet.(this will take care of remaining v4 and ultimately start taking care of v6). Ultimately, those words are easier said than done ;-) Cheers! > > Regards, > -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng * The key to understanding is humility - my view ! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com Mon Jun 16 11:37:00 2014 From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji) Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2014 12:37:00 +0100 Subject: [rpd] A typical conversation with a service provider on v6 In-Reply-To: <201406161019.42135.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> References: <201406161019.42135.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> Message-ID: Hello Mark, On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 9:19 AM, Mark Tinka wrote: > On Monday, June 16, 2014 09:14:09 AM Seun Ojedeji wrote: > > > Yeah "to some extent" it is; because i am just that rare > > customer that also wants a 128bits even though > > everything works fine on 32. I doubt end customers will > > move ISPs as much especially if everything works fine on > > v4. I think policy and its implementation at regulator's > > level could expedite some of v6 visibility. > > Customers will go to where they can get service. > > If a customer is on IPv4 today, and it works, short of any other issues, > they won't be looking to move. > +1 > > If an Internet resource is only on IPv6, and the customer's existing ISP > only supports IPv4, the customer will experience connectivity issues and > will, invariably, start shopping around unless their existing provider > turns up IPv6. > +1 but realistically speaking is there anything like v6 only resource at the moment? > > If new Internet users are signing up to an ISP that is operating in an era > where there is no longer any IPv4, the customer still doesn't care what > protocol his services are running over provided there is end-to-end > connectivity. Again, the customer's ISP (or their competition), will need > to provide a solution to the customer that satisfies their connectivity > needs (be they native to IPv6 resources, or translated to IPv4-only > resources). > > Ultimately, the customer will go to where they can get > service. That's the bottom line. > Sure...this is a final future scenario. Just that at the moment we have few v6 champions. Instead folks are aiming for v4 and since they are aiming for v4 it also mean that v4 will stay longer that we may have presumed. Cheers! > > Mark. > -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng * The key to understanding is humility - my view ! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mark.tinka at seacom.mu Mon Jun 16 11:48:10 2014 From: mark.tinka at seacom.mu (Mark Tinka) Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2014 13:48:10 +0200 Subject: [rpd] A typical conversation with a service provider on v6 In-Reply-To: References: <201406161019.42135.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> Message-ID: <201406161348.10798.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> On Monday, June 16, 2014 01:37:00 PM Seun Ojedeji wrote: > +1 but realistically speaking is there anything like v6 > only resource at the moment? Best to work off the assumption that there will be, and count backwards. > Sure...this is a final future scenario. Just that at the > moment we have few v6 champions. Instead folks are > aiming for v4 and since they are aiming for v4 it also > mean that v4 will stay longer that we may have presumed. As before, customers don't care whether it's IPv4 or IPv6. It is the ISP's that do. Mark. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. URL: From G.halse at ru.ac.za Mon Jun 16 12:15:58 2014 From: G.halse at ru.ac.za (Guy Antony Halse) Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2014 14:15:58 +0200 Subject: [rpd] A typical conversation with a service provider on v6 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20140616121557.GA6441@ru.ac.za> On Sun 2014-06-15 (21:06), Owen DeLong wrote: > It is intended to help inform the community so that > they can vote with their Franks/Dinars/Dollars/Rupies/etc. and their > feet. +1 The problem, I think, is that not enough people are willing to do this, and will accept a second rate service for the sake of expediency (or, more likely, simply don't see the issue). That means, financially at any rate, my foot-vote makes little difference. So if you're going to do this, you need to make sure that the ISP you're leaving knows exactly why. Also this doesn't just apply to ISPs and hosting providers; it also applies to hardware and software vendors too. - Guy -- Manager: Systems, I&TS Division, Rhodes University, Grahamstown, South Africa Email: G.Halse at ru.ac.za Web: http://mombe.org/ IRC: rm-rf at irc.atrum.org *** ANSI Standard Disclaimer *** J.A.P.H From Kivuva at transworldafrica.com Mon Jun 16 12:29:36 2014 From: Kivuva at transworldafrica.com (Mwendwa Kivuva) Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2014 15:29:36 +0300 Subject: [rpd] A typical conversation with a service provider on v6 In-Reply-To: <20140616121557.GA6441@ru.ac.za> References: <20140616121557.GA6441@ru.ac.za> Message-ID: As we have seen, it will take some effort, both time and money to increase v6 footprint. It's inevitable in the long-run. But while our v4 addresses are not depleted, are customers ready to pay more for V6? ______________________ Mwendwa Kivuva, Nairobi, Kenya twitter.com/lordmwesh "There are some men who lift the age they inhabit, till all men walk on higher ground in that lifetime." - Maxwell Anderson On 16 June 2014 15:15, Guy Antony Halse wrote: > On Sun 2014-06-15 (21:06), Owen DeLong wrote: > > It is intended to help inform the community so that > > they can vote with their Franks/Dinars/Dollars/Rupies/etc. and their > > feet. > > +1 > > The problem, I think, is that not enough people are willing to do this, and > will accept a second rate service for the sake of expediency (or, more > likely, simply don't see the issue). That means, financially at any rate, > my > foot-vote makes little difference. So if you're going to do this, you need > to make sure that the ISP you're leaving knows exactly why. > > Also this doesn't just apply to ISPs and hosting providers; it also applies > to hardware and software vendors too. > > - Guy > -- > Manager: Systems, I&TS Division, Rhodes University, Grahamstown, South > Africa > Email: G.Halse at ru.ac.za Web: http://mombe.org/ IRC: > rm-rf at irc.atrum.org > *** ANSI Standard Disclaimer *** > J.A.P.H > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From adam at varud.com Mon Jun 16 12:40:37 2014 From: adam at varud.com (Adam Nelson) Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2014 15:40:37 +0300 Subject: [rpd] A typical conversation with a service provider on v6 In-Reply-To: References: <20140616121557.GA6441@ru.ac.za> Message-ID: I'm not aware of customers having to pay more for v6. As I see it, pricing in Kenya at least is totally unrelated to quality or to v4/v6 capacity. -- Kili - Cloud for Africa: kili.io Musings: twitter.com/varud More Musings: varud.com About Adam: www.linkedin.com/in/adamcnelson On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 3:29 PM, Mwendwa Kivuva wrote: > As we have seen, it will take some effort, both time and money to increase > v6 footprint. It's inevitable in the long-run. But while our v4 addresses > are not depleted, are customers ready to pay more for V6? > > ______________________ > Mwendwa Kivuva, Nairobi, Kenya > twitter.com/lordmwesh > > "There are some men who lift the age they inhabit, till all men walk on > higher ground in that lifetime." - Maxwell Anderson > > > On 16 June 2014 15:15, Guy Antony Halse wrote: > >> On Sun 2014-06-15 (21:06), Owen DeLong wrote: >> > It is intended to help inform the community so that >> > they can vote with their Franks/Dinars/Dollars/Rupies/etc. and their >> > feet. >> >> +1 >> >> The problem, I think, is that not enough people are willing to do this, >> and >> will accept a second rate service for the sake of expediency (or, more >> likely, simply don't see the issue). That means, financially at any >> rate, my >> foot-vote makes little difference. So if you're going to do this, you >> need >> to make sure that the ISP you're leaving knows exactly why. >> >> Also this doesn't just apply to ISPs and hosting providers; it also >> applies >> to hardware and software vendors too. >> >> - Guy >> -- >> Manager: Systems, I&TS Division, Rhodes University, Grahamstown, South >> Africa >> Email: G.Halse at ru.ac.za Web: http://mombe.org/ IRC: >> rm-rf at irc.atrum.org >> *** ANSI Standard Disclaimer *** >> J.A.P.H >> _______________________________________________ >> rpd mailing list >> rpd at afrinic.net >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >> > > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mje at posix.co.za Mon Jun 16 12:44:51 2014 From: mje at posix.co.za (Mark Elkins) Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2014 14:44:51 +0200 Subject: [rpd] A typical conversation with a service provider on v6 In-Reply-To: References: <201406161019.42135.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> Message-ID: <1402922691.883.301.camel@mje.posix.co.za> From a hosting perspective, on a suggestion from Adiel, I added the IPv6 logo to the front end of a number of my systems: vweb.co.za: Virtual Web and DNS system secdns.posix.co.za: where any third party can set up secondary DNS on my systems (for a fee) hosting.posix.co.za: our Machine hosting portal. It honestly never occurred to me to add the IPv6 Logo.... until Adiel suggested to do so. IPv6 was, after a year or two, no longer a biggie.... On Mon, 2014-06-16 at 11:46 +0300, Adam Nelson wrote: > Mark, > > > There are three uplinks in our building over which about 6 ISPs > operate. I get asked all the time which ones are 'best' and which one > somebody should use. I'd like to be able to make IPv6 part of that > recommendation but I can't because there's no resource to tell me. > > > What you're saying is 'right', but we can also push the needle by at > least getting the data public. I'd be happy to refer customers to > IPv6 capable stacks even if they don't use IPv6 since the running of a > dual stack is also suggestive of the overall quality of the ISP. > > > -Adam > > -- > Kili - Cloud for Africa: kili.io > > Musings: twitter.com/varud > More Musings: varud.com > About Adam: www.linkedin.com/in/adamcnelson > > > On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 11:19 AM, Mark Tinka > wrote: > On Monday, June 16, 2014 09:14:09 AM Seun Ojedeji wrote: > > > Yeah "to some extent" it is; because i am just that rare > > customer that also wants a 128bits even though > > everything works fine on 32. I doubt end customers will > > move ISPs as much especially if everything works fine on > > v4. I think policy and its implementation at regulator's > > level could expedite some of v6 visibility. > > > Customers will go to where they can get service. > > If a customer is on IPv4 today, and it works, short of any > other issues, they won't be looking to move. > > If an Internet resource is only on IPv6, and the customer's > existing ISP only supports IPv4, the customer will > experience connectivity issues and will, invariably, start > shopping around unless their existing provider turns up > IPv6. > > If new Internet users are signing up to an ISP that is > operating in an era where there is no longer any IPv4, the > customer still doesn't care what protocol his services are > running over provided there is end-to-end connectivity. > Again, the customer's ISP (or their competition), will need > to provide a solution to the customer that satisfies their > connectivity needs (be they native to IPv6 resources, or > translated to IPv4-only resources). > > Ultimately, the customer will go to where they can get > service. That's the bottom line. > > Mark. > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd -- Mark James ELKINS - Posix Systems - (South) Africa mje at posix.co.za Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: https://ftth.posix.co.za -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 3832 bytes Desc: not available URL: From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com Mon Jun 16 13:03:36 2014 From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji) Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2014 14:03:36 +0100 Subject: [rpd] A typical conversation with a service provider on v6 In-Reply-To: <201406161348.41623.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> References: <201406161348.41623.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> Message-ID: sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 16 Jun 2014 12:48, "Mark Tinka" wrote: > > On Monday, June 16, 2014 01:37:00 PM Seun Ojedeji wrote: > > > +1 but realistically speaking is there anything like v6 > > only resource at the moment? > > Best to work off the assumption that there will be, and > count backwards. > But we are already assuming there is such v6 specific service as that is what is used as a motivation to move. A content provider does not need to worry about moving to v6 because a content provider is just a glorified enduser. > > Sure...this is a final future scenario. Just that at the > > moment we have few v6 champions. Instead folks are > > aiming for v4 and since they are aiming for v4 it also > > mean that v4 will stay longer that we may have presumed. > > As before, customers don't care whether it's IPv4 or IPv6. > It is the ISP's that do. > By folks I meant the ISPs. We are saying customers will move the ISPs however at the same time, we both know that customers don't really care about the numbers but about the service. ;) Maybe v6 does not need the much hype afterall. Cheers! > Mark. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mainanoa at gmail.com Mon Jun 16 13:16:42 2014 From: mainanoa at gmail.com (Noah Maina) Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2014 16:16:42 +0300 Subject: [rpd] A typical conversation with a service provider on v6 In-Reply-To: References: <20140616121557.GA6441@ru.ac.za> Message-ID: On 16 June 2014 15:29, Mwendwa Kivuva wrote: > As we have seen, it will take some effort, both time and money to increase > v6 footprint. It's inevitable in the long-run. But while our v4 addresses > are not depleted, are customers ready to pay more for V6? > v6 just like v4 is a number resource that enables Content, Hosting and Service Providers etc to extend services to their customers.... why do you want them to pay for it, in case, you can charge the customer for the services you offer them, but you dont want to include pricing for IP addresses on the bill, that would be something... > > > Noah -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mark.tinka at seacom.mu Mon Jun 16 11:48:41 2014 From: mark.tinka at seacom.mu (Mark Tinka) Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2014 13:48:41 +0200 Subject: [rpd] A typical conversation with a service provider on v6 Message-ID: <201406161348.41623.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> On Monday, June 16, 2014 01:37:00 PM Seun Ojedeji wrote: > +1 but realistically speaking is there anything like v6 > only resource at the moment? Best to work off the assumption that there will be, and count backwards. > Sure...this is a final future scenario. Just that at the > moment we have few v6 champions. Instead folks are > aiming for v4 and since they are aiming for v4 it also > mean that v4 will stay longer that we may have presumed. As before, customers don't care whether it's IPv4 or IPv6. It is the ISP's that do. Mark. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. URL: From mark.tinka at seacom.mu Mon Jun 16 14:09:10 2014 From: mark.tinka at seacom.mu (Mark Tinka) Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2014 16:09:10 +0200 Subject: [rpd] A typical conversation with a service provider on v6 In-Reply-To: References: <20140616121557.GA6441@ru.ac.za> Message-ID: <201406161609.11265.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> On Monday, June 16, 2014 02:29:36 PM Mwendwa Kivuva wrote: > But while our v4 addresses are not depleted, > are customers ready to pay more for V6? No. Mark. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. URL: From adam at varud.com Mon Jun 16 14:20:40 2014 From: adam at varud.com (Adam Nelson) Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2014 17:20:40 +0300 Subject: [rpd] A typical conversation with a service provider on v6 In-Reply-To: <201406161609.11265.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> References: <20140616121557.GA6441@ru.ac.za> <201406161609.11265.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> Message-ID: Do ISPs charge a premium for v6 traffic? I've never heard of such a thing, but maybe I'm out of the loop? -- Kili - Cloud for Africa: kili.io Musings: twitter.com/varud More Musings: varud.com About Adam: www.linkedin.com/in/adamcnelson On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 5:09 PM, Mark Tinka wrote: > On Monday, June 16, 2014 02:29:36 PM Mwendwa Kivuva wrote: > > > But while our v4 addresses are not depleted, > > are customers ready to pay more for V6? > > No. > > Mark. > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com Mon Jun 16 14:27:45 2014 From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji) Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2014 15:27:45 +0100 Subject: [rpd] A typical conversation with a service provider on v6 In-Reply-To: References: <20140616121557.GA6441@ru.ac.za> Message-ID: sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 16 Jun 2014 14:26, "Noah Maina" wrote: > ..... but you dont want to include pricing for IP addresses on the bill, that would be something... > Not necessarily related to the subject but do you know some ISPs charge for advertising IP and also for giving certain number of addresses. If you are a customer and you experience this, please know that it is wrong ;) Cheers! >> >> >> >> > > > Noah > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mark.tinka at seacom.mu Mon Jun 16 14:29:17 2014 From: mark.tinka at seacom.mu (Mark Tinka) Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2014 16:29:17 +0200 Subject: [rpd] A typical conversation with a service provider on v6 In-Reply-To: References: <201406161609.11265.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> Message-ID: <201406161629.17470.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> On Monday, June 16, 2014 04:20:40 PM Adam Nelson wrote: > Do ISPs charge a premium for v6 traffic? I'd like to say No. But I can't speak for every ISP on the planet :-). > I've never > heard of such a thing, but maybe I'm out of the loop? I wish all my competitors charge for IPv6 :-). Mark. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. URL: From mark.tinka at seacom.mu Mon Jun 16 14:39:12 2014 From: mark.tinka at seacom.mu (Mark Tinka) Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2014 16:39:12 +0200 Subject: [rpd] A typical conversation with a service provider on v6 In-Reply-To: References: <201406161348.41623.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> Message-ID: <201406161639.13398.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> On Monday, June 16, 2014 03:03:36 PM Seun Ojedeji wrote: > But we are already assuming there is such v6 specific > service as that is what is used as a motivation to move. I'm not sure of any IPv6-only services that are not used expressly to encourage IPv6 take-up, but it is feasible to assume that as more and more of the remaining IPv4 space is allocated from RIR's to their members, new online resources are going to be on IPv6 only. > A content provider does not need to worry about moving > to v6 because a content provider is just a glorified > enduser. Think again. If you take Facebook, for example, it is a well-known fact that they have moved nearly 98% of their internal (east-to- west server-to-server communications) to IPv6. > By folks I meant the ISPs. We are saying customers will > move the ISPs however at the same time, we both know > that customers don't really care about the numbers but > about the service. ;) And that is why customers will switch to ISP's who have an IPv6 solution, not because of IPv6, but because they can get connectivity to much (or all) of the Internet. > Maybe v6 does not need the much hype afterall. Yes and no, actually. It matters in the operator community to maintain growth of the Internet. The Internet is still a mesh of autonomous systems, after all. It does not matter much to simple customers (who are the majority) because all their want is Twitter. And make no mistake, they will find someone who can give it to them, one way or the other. Mark. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. URL: From Kivuva at transworldafrica.com Mon Jun 16 15:10:04 2014 From: Kivuva at transworldafrica.com (Mwendwa Kivuva) Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2014 18:10:04 +0300 Subject: [rpd] A typical conversation with a service provider on v6 In-Reply-To: <201406161629.17470.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> References: <201406161609.11265.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> <201406161629.17470.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> Message-ID: I think the argument has been misunderstood or taken out of context. There is a cots of rolling over to a fully supported IPv6 network. Do the ISPs feel they will get Return on Investment in the near future from that effort? So for example, operator X might argue "My ISP is v6 ready, to enjoy the benefits, you will pay $+1 unlike operator Z who charges $ but does not support v6". Remember, outdated network equipment may not support IPv6 and Dual-stacking is not usually possible in such cases. (use tunneling?). Also, non-compliant equipment needs to be replaced because the manufacturer no longer exists or software updates are not possible. My point is, who will foot that cost? Are customers ready to pay more to have that edge? ______________________ Mwendwa Kivuva, Nairobi, Kenya twitter.com/lordmwesh "There are some men who lift the age they inhabit, till all men walk on higher ground in that lifetime." - Maxwell Anderson On 16 June 2014 17:29, Mark Tinka wrote: > On Monday, June 16, 2014 04:20:40 PM Adam Nelson wrote: > > > Do ISPs charge a premium for v6 traffic? > > I'd like to say No. But I can't speak for every ISP on the > planet :-). > > > I've never > > heard of such a thing, but maybe I'm out of the loop? > > I wish all my competitors charge for IPv6 :-). > > Mark. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com Mon Jun 16 15:34:41 2014 From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji) Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2014 16:34:41 +0100 Subject: [rpd] A typical conversation with a service provider on v6 In-Reply-To: <201406161639.13398.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> References: <201406161348.41623.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> <201406161639.13398.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> Message-ID: Hello Mark, On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 3:39 PM, Mark Tinka wrote: > On Monday, June 16, 2014 03:03:36 PM Seun Ojedeji wrote: > > > But we are already assuming there is such v6 specific > > service as that is what is used as a motivation to move. > > I'm not sure of any IPv6-only services that are not used expressly to > encourage IPv6 take-up, but it is feasible to assume that as more and more > of the remaining IPv4 space is allocated from RIR's to their members, new > online resources are going to be on IPv6 only. > I am sure anyone would agree with this, the reality however is that the margin for now is quite wide and ISPs who are meant to reduce the distance to getting to such promise land (where v6 networks is > v4) are not moving. > > > A content provider does not need to worry about moving > > to v6 because a content provider is just a glorified > > enduser. > > Think again. > > If you take Facebook, for example, it is a well-known fact that they have > moved nearly 98% of their internal (east-to- west server-to-server > communications) to IPv6. > And that is my point; end users are ready to receive v4 or v6 (just like facebook servers nodes are ready) and so they don't have anything to worry about. Those who need to worry (and who are actually not) are the "network service providers". What we find now is that end-users are the ones trying to move the ISP which should actually be the other way round. On a lighter note, i also don't see facebook going native v6 soon because no content provider wants to take the frog jump especially when he knows that the landing ground is not as soft with v6 users ;) > > > By folks I meant the ISPs. We are saying customers will > > move the ISPs however at the same time, we both know > > that customers don't really care about the numbers but > > about the service. ;) > > And that is why customers will switch to ISP's who have an IPv6 solution, > not because of IPv6, but because they can get connectivity to much (or all) > of the Internet. > I think we are in sync ;) > > > Maybe v6 does not need the much hype afterall. > > Yes and no, actually. > > It matters in the operator community to maintain growth of > the Internet. The Internet is still a mesh of autonomous > systems, after all. > > Mmm....i think it does, so can you at Seacom decide as a matter of policy not to peer with provider that does not also provide v6? > It does not matter much to simple customers (who are the majority) because > all their want is Twitter. And make no mistake, they will find someone who > can give it to them, one way or the other. > +1 to make it worse, they will even find someone to give v6 content access to them while they still run behind their NATed v4 Cheers! > > Mark. > -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng * The key to understanding is humility - my view ! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mainanoa at gmail.com Mon Jun 16 15:37:02 2014 From: mainanoa at gmail.com (Noah Maina) Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2014 18:37:02 +0300 Subject: [rpd] A typical conversation with a service provider on v6 In-Reply-To: References: <201406161609.11265.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> <201406161629.17470.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> Message-ID: Cost again Mmmmmm ok let me look at it from my perspective. Pretty much most routing boxes today even simple inexpensive soho routers like dlinks and linksys can support v6. For a matter of fact v6 is just a feature within the routing software junos or ios or anyother... all one needs to do is enable or rather activite it... So I really don't follow this cost argument. Noah On 16 Jun 2014 18:13, "Mwendwa Kivuva" wrote: > I think the argument has been misunderstood or taken out of context. > > There is a cots of rolling over to a fully supported IPv6 network. Do the > ISPs feel they will get Return on Investment in the near future from that > effort? So for example, operator X might argue "My ISP is v6 ready, to > enjoy the benefits, you will pay $+1 unlike operator Z who charges $ but > does not support v6". Remember, outdated network equipment may not support > IPv6 and Dual-stacking is not usually possible in such cases. (use > tunneling?). Also, non-compliant equipment needs to be replaced because the > manufacturer no longer exists or software updates are not possible. My > point is, who will foot that cost? Are customers ready to pay more to > have that edge? > > ______________________ > Mwendwa Kivuva, Nairobi, Kenya > twitter.com/lordmwesh > > "There are some men who lift the age they inhabit, till all men walk on > higher ground in that lifetime." - Maxwell Anderson > > > On 16 June 2014 17:29, Mark Tinka wrote: > >> On Monday, June 16, 2014 04:20:40 PM Adam Nelson wrote: >> >> > Do ISPs charge a premium for v6 traffic? >> >> I'd like to say No. But I can't speak for every ISP on the >> planet :-). >> >> > I've never >> > heard of such a thing, but maybe I'm out of the loop? >> >> I wish all my competitors charge for IPv6 :-). >> >> Mark. >> > > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mainanoa at gmail.com Mon Jun 16 15:40:22 2014 From: mainanoa at gmail.com (Noah Maina) Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2014 18:40:22 +0300 Subject: [rpd] A typical conversation with a service provider on v6 In-Reply-To: References: <201406161609.11265.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> <201406161629.17470.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> Message-ID: And to add... outdated ..non compliant aka end of life equipment also means ...you made your returns up until the equipment cant be supported no more... so how about get some of the profits and reinvest...this is technology. On 16 Jun 2014 18:35, mainanoa at gmail.com wrote: > Cost again Mmmmmm ok let me look at it from my perspective. > > Pretty much most routing boxes today even simple inexpensive soho routers > like dlinks and linksys can support v6. > > For a matter of fact v6 is just a feature within the routing software > junos or ios or anyother... all one needs to do is enable or rather > activite it... > > So I really don't follow this cost argument. > > Noah > On 16 Jun 2014 18:13, "Mwendwa Kivuva" > wrote: > >> I think the argument has been misunderstood or taken out of context. >> >> There is a cots of rolling over to a fully supported IPv6 network. Do the >> ISPs feel they will get Return on Investment in the near future from that >> effort? So for example, operator X might argue "My ISP is v6 ready, to >> enjoy the benefits, you will pay $+1 unlike operator Z who charges $ but >> does not support v6". Remember, outdated network equipment may not support >> IPv6 and Dual-stacking is not usually possible in such cases. (use >> tunneling?). Also, non-compliant equipment needs to be replaced because the >> manufacturer no longer exists or software updates are not possible. My >> point is, who will foot that cost? Are customers ready to pay more to >> have that edge? >> >> ______________________ >> Mwendwa Kivuva, Nairobi, Kenya >> twitter.com/lordmwesh >> >> "There are some men who lift the age they inhabit, till all men walk on >> higher ground in that lifetime." - Maxwell Anderson >> >> >> On 16 June 2014 17:29, Mark Tinka wrote: >> >>> On Monday, June 16, 2014 04:20:40 PM Adam Nelson wrote: >>> >>> > Do ISPs charge a premium for v6 traffic? >>> >>> I'd like to say No. But I can't speak for every ISP on the >>> planet :-). >>> >>> > I've never >>> > heard of such a thing, but maybe I'm out of the loop? >>> >>> I wish all my competitors charge for IPv6 :-). >>> >>> Mark. >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> rpd mailing list >> rpd at afrinic.net >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From h.lu at anytimechinese.com Mon Jun 16 19:42:00 2014 From: h.lu at anytimechinese.com (Lu Heng) Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2014 21:42:00 +0200 Subject: [rpd] A typical conversation with a service provider on v6 In-Reply-To: References: <201406161609.11265.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> <201406161629.17470.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> Message-ID: Hi Welcome to be our customer. We are v6 ready but almost nobody ask for it, you can have as many v6 as you want from us as long as you don't mis-config or it or use it for spam(spammer are one of the first v6 ready and use /32 to spam...) On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 5:40 PM, Noah Maina wrote: > And to add... outdated ..non compliant aka end of life equipment also means > ...you made your returns up until the equipment cant be supported no more... > so how about get some of the profits and reinvest...this is technology. > > On 16 Jun 2014 18:35, mainanoa at gmail.com wrote: >> >> Cost again Mmmmmm ok let me look at it from my perspective. >> >> Pretty much most routing boxes today even simple inexpensive soho routers >> like dlinks and linksys can support v6. >> >> For a matter of fact v6 is just a feature within the routing software >> junos or ios or anyother... all one needs to do is enable or rather activite >> it... >> >> So I really don't follow this cost argument. >> >> Noah >> >> On 16 Jun 2014 18:13, "Mwendwa Kivuva" >> wrote: >>> >>> I think the argument has been misunderstood or taken out of context. >>> >>> There is a cots of rolling over to a fully supported IPv6 network. Do the >>> ISPs feel they will get Return on Investment in the near future from that >>> effort? So for example, operator X might argue "My ISP is v6 ready, to enjoy >>> the benefits, you will pay $+1 unlike operator Z who charges $ but does not >>> support v6". Remember, outdated network equipment may not support IPv6 and >>> Dual-stacking is not usually possible in such cases. (use tunneling?). Also, >>> non-compliant equipment needs to be replaced because the manufacturer no >>> longer exists or software updates are not possible. My point is, who will >>> foot that cost? Are customers ready to pay more to have that edge? >>> >>> ______________________ >>> Mwendwa Kivuva, Nairobi, Kenya >>> twitter.com/lordmwesh >>> >>> "There are some men who lift the age they inhabit, till all men walk on >>> higher ground in that lifetime." - Maxwell Anderson >>> >>> >>> On 16 June 2014 17:29, Mark Tinka wrote: >>>> >>>> On Monday, June 16, 2014 04:20:40 PM Adam Nelson wrote: >>>> >>>> > Do ISPs charge a premium for v6 traffic? >>>> >>>> I'd like to say No. But I can't speak for every ISP on the >>>> planet :-). >>>> >>>> > I've never >>>> > heard of such a thing, but maybe I'm out of the loop? >>>> >>>> I wish all my competitors charge for IPv6 :-). >>>> >>>> Mark. >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> rpd mailing list >>> rpd at afrinic.net >>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >>> > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > -- -- Kind regards. Lu This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this message and including the text of the transmission received. From mark.tinka at seacom.mu Mon Jun 16 20:48:11 2014 From: mark.tinka at seacom.mu (Mark Tinka) Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2014 22:48:11 +0200 Subject: [rpd] A typical conversation with a service provider on v6 In-Reply-To: References: <201406161629.17470.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> Message-ID: <201406162248.11468.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> On Monday, June 16, 2014 05:10:04 PM Mwendwa Kivuva wrote: > There is a cots of rolling over to a fully supported IPv6 > network. Do the ISPs feel they will get Return on > Investment in the near future from that effort? So for > example, operator X might argue "My ISP is v6 ready, to > enjoy the benefits, you will pay $+1 unlike operator Z > who charges $ but does not support v6". Remember, > outdated network equipment may not support IPv6 and > Dual-stacking is not usually possible in such cases. > (use tunneling?). Also, non-compliant equipment needs to > be replaced because the manufacturer no longer exists or > software updates are not possible. My point is, who will > foot that cost? Are customers ready to pay more to have > that edge? If you search Google and lots of various mailing list archives, you'll see this point discussed into oblivion. So I won't add to the noise. Mark. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. URL: From mark.tinka at seacom.mu Mon Jun 16 20:56:10 2014 From: mark.tinka at seacom.mu (Mark Tinka) Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2014 22:56:10 +0200 Subject: [rpd] A typical conversation with a service provider on v6 In-Reply-To: References: <201406161348.41623.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> <201406161639.13398.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> Message-ID: <201406162256.10750.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> On Monday, June 16, 2014 05:34:41 PM Seun Ojedeji wrote: > I am sure anyone would agree with this, the reality > however is that the margin for now is quite wide and > ISPs who are meant to reduce the distance to getting to > such promise land (where v6 networks is > v4) are not > moving. Indeed, and what I keep alluding to is that market forces will deal with that gap. Either those ISP's will get the fire on their behinds to close the gap, or the market will force them out of business. > And that is my point; end users are ready to receive v4 > or v6 (just like facebook servers nodes are ready) and > so they don't have anything to worry about. Not quite. A number of mobile phone OS's have various IPv6 issues that still need addressing (no pun intended). But that is beside the point... > Those who > need to worry (and who are actually not) are the > "network service providers". What we find now is that > end-users are the ones trying to move the ISP which > should actually be the other way round. I don't know of markets where basic Internet users are driving demand for IPv6 (power users, like you and I, of course), because they just don't care. > On a lighter > note, i also don't see facebook going native v6 soon > because no content provider wants to take the frog jump > especially when he knows that the landing ground is not > as soft with v6 users ;) [tinka at nms ~]$ traceroute6 -I www.facebook.com traceroute6 to star.c10r.facebook.com (2a03:2880:f00a:501:face:b00c:0:1) from 2c0f:feb0:9:1::2, 64 hops max, 16 byte packets 1 ge-0-1-0-210.jnb6-201-access-1.mpls.seacomnet.com 0.464 ms 0.246 ms 0.202 ms 2 xe-9-0-0.jnb6-201-access-3.mpls.seacomnet.com 0.497 ms 0.236 ms 0.210 ms 3 xe-10-0-0.mtz6-201-access-3.mpls.seacomnet.com 10.637 ms 10.539 ms 10.515 ms 4 xe-11-0-0.mba6-201-access-1.mpls.seacomnet.com 47.353 ms 47.181 ms 47.129 ms 5 xe-0-1-0.mba6-201-access-3.mpls.seacomnet.com 47.437 ms 47.345 ms 47.179 ms 6 xe-3-0-0.lon6-201-access-3.mpls.seacomnet.com 1541.589 ms 2892.580 ms 714.738 ms 7 xe-0-0-1-0.pp6-01-lhr.uk.seacomnet.com 177.241 ms 177.187 ms 177.186 ms 8 2001:7f8:4::80a6:1 177.496 ms 177.492 ms 177.500 ms 9 ae1.bb01.lhr2.tfbnw.net 177.650 ms 177.539 ms 177.528 ms 10 ae0.pr02.lhr2.tfbnw.net 177.703 ms 177.714 ms 178.663 ms 11 po126.msw01.06.lhr2.tfbnw.net 177.958 ms 177.965 ms 177.964 ms 12 edge-star6-shv-06-lhr2.facebook.com 177.452 ms 177.469 ms 177.456 ms [tinka at nms ~]$ Facebook's main web site has been dual-stacked for a while now. They aren't the only ones. > > Mmm....i think it does, so can you at Seacom decide as > > a matter of policy > not to peer with provider that does not also provide v6? No, we can't, because we are a profit-making organization, like the majority of ISP's around the world. We are here to serve our customers, and not use them as examples. A peer's inability to support IPv6 is not my problem. It is theirs. And as I do not know the inner workings of their organization, who am I to judge? Mark. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. URL: From owen at delong.com Mon Jun 16 22:32:50 2014 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2014 15:32:50 -0700 Subject: [rpd] A typical conversation with a service provider on v6 In-Reply-To: References: <20140616121557.GA6441@ru.ac.za> Message-ID: <7B8AE4ED-8AFF-454F-8AF4-CD077D564A6C@delong.com> Why would they have to pay more? If anyone is charging extra for IPv6, that's just bizarre in my opinion. I know there were a couple of hardware vendors that tried this for a little while several years ago, but even Cisco eventually came to their senses on this issue. If you know someone who is charging extra for IPv6, please, let's get the information out to the community so that we can address the issue directly and get it resolved. Owen On Jun 16, 2014, at 05:29 , Mwendwa Kivuva wrote: > As we have seen, it will take some effort, both time and money to increase v6 footprint. It's inevitable in the long-run. But while our v4 addresses are not depleted, are customers ready to pay more for V6? > > ______________________ > Mwendwa Kivuva, Nairobi, Kenya > twitter.com/lordmwesh > > "There are some men who lift the age they inhabit, till all men walk on higher ground in that lifetime." - Maxwell Anderson > > > On 16 June 2014 15:15, Guy Antony Halse wrote: > On Sun 2014-06-15 (21:06), Owen DeLong wrote: > > It is intended to help inform the community so that > > they can vote with their Franks/Dinars/Dollars/Rupies/etc. and their > > feet. > > +1 > > The problem, I think, is that not enough people are willing to do this, and > will accept a second rate service for the sake of expediency (or, more > likely, simply don't see the issue). That means, financially at any rate, my > foot-vote makes little difference. So if you're going to do this, you need > to make sure that the ISP you're leaving knows exactly why. > > Also this doesn't just apply to ISPs and hosting providers; it also applies > to hardware and software vendors too. > > - Guy > -- > Manager: Systems, I&TS Division, Rhodes University, Grahamstown, South Africa > Email: G.Halse at ru.ac.za Web: http://mombe.org/ IRC: rm-rf at irc.atrum.org > *** ANSI Standard Disclaimer *** J.A.P.H > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From owen at delong.com Mon Jun 16 22:41:56 2014 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2014 15:41:56 -0700 Subject: [rpd] A typical conversation with a service provider on v6 In-Reply-To: References: <201406161019.42135.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> Message-ID: <7C7F5FA5-9962-42A0-A17F-9186FAAEA9D0@delong.com> On Jun 16, 2014, at 04:37 , Seun Ojedeji wrote: > Hello Mark, > > On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 9:19 AM, Mark Tinka wrote: > On Monday, June 16, 2014 09:14:09 AM Seun Ojedeji wrote: > > > Yeah "to some extent" it is; because i am just that rare > > customer that also wants a 128bits even though > > everything works fine on 32. I doubt end customers will > > move ISPs as much especially if everything works fine on > > v4. I think policy and its implementation at regulator's > > level could expedite some of v6 visibility. > > Customers will go to where they can get service. > > If a customer is on IPv4 today, and it works, short of any other issues, they won't be looking to move. > > +1 > > If an Internet resource is only on IPv6, and the customer's existing ISP only supports IPv4, the customer will experience connectivity issues and will, invariably, start shopping around unless their existing provider turns up IPv6. > > +1 but realistically speaking is there anything like v6 only resource at the moment? http://thegoodlife.delong.com I really need to put some more meaningful content there, but it's a start. > > > If new Internet users are signing up to an ISP that is operating in an era where there is no longer any IPv4, the customer still doesn't care what protocol his services are running over provided there is end-to-end connectivity. Again, the customer's ISP (or their competition), will need to provide a solution to the customer that satisfies their connectivity needs (be they native to IPv6 resources, or translated to IPv4-only resources). > > Ultimately, the customer will go to where they can get > service. That's the bottom line. > > Sure...this is a final future scenario. Just that at the moment we have few v6 champions. Instead folks are aiming for v4 and since they are aiming for v4 it also mean that v4 will stay longer that we may have presumed. I don't think this is too much of a concern for the following reasons: 1. Continued growth in the IPv4 customer space is going to drive ISP costs in the residential markets in most of the developed world to a point where those providers can no longer support IPv4 without increasing rates. These rate payers tend to be very price sensitive, so there is strong disincentive here. 2. Continued fragmentation of the IPv4 address space as the address transfer market gains momentum in ARIN/RIPE/APNIC regions will drive routing table growth which is already on the brink of breaking several core routers in active use today. This cost of sustaining IPv4 will force changes which will lead to fragmentation and further degradation of the service that can be offered over IPv4. I realize a lot of network engineers and network managers don't get it. That's really unfortunate. However, the simple facts on the ground are that IPv4 has been in critical condition on life support with multiple organ failure for more than 20 years. It's on the verge of the networking equivalent of a condition known as DIC (Diverse Intravascular Coagulopathy) at which point, it will be virtually impossible to keep it meaningfully running. Like it or not, we are now in a race to get IPv6 deployed before IPv4 collapses under any one of several scaling limits all of which exacerbate each other. The IPv4 patient was GORK'd[1] years ago. Now it's an organ donor. The sooner we face that reality, the better off we will all be. Owen [1]GORK -- God Only Really Knows, a crass, but common term in the medical profession for a comatose patient on persistent life support with a low probability of any meaningful recovery. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sfolayan at gmail.com Tue Jun 17 00:56:09 2014 From: sfolayan at gmail.com (Sunday Folayan) Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2014 01:56:09 +0100 Subject: [rpd] Academic IPv4 Policy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <539F9229.9040103@gmail.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Dear Benjamin, Thank you very much for offering to take up the Academic IPV4 policy from here. We are delighted that you will do this. Kindly incorporate all the comments and compromises you and several others proposed at the face to face meeting in Djibouti, and re-submit the updated proposal in your own name. Good luck with the task of promoting the draft policy henceforth. Thanks and Regards, Andrew Alston/Sunday Folayan On 11/06/2014 12:01, Benjamin Eshun wrote: > Hi Guys, > > I don't think we need to start from scratch with a new policy and > even if you did, it would not be too different from the current one > written by Andrew and Sunday. Hence we just need to refine the > current one a little and ensure it has all the elements that would > ensure a consensus from the community. The fact is that IPv4 > depletion in our region is imminent and inevitably, and knowing > this for a fact, we need to ensure our HEIs in the region are > properly placed to have much of these resources for fulfill their > core mandate for teaching, learning and research. As well as > prepare them for the next evolution of the Internet with IPv6. > > In Djibouti, whilst on the floor I suggested the following and I > still believe it should added the policy: 1. The policy for been > targeted at HEIs that currently don't have any allocations from > AFRiNIC or at least some sort of moratorium is place on the HEIs > that have allocations and would still want to apply this policy. 2. > It should a one-time-pass for institutions that would want to use. > And I would even want to add that if an HEI uses this policy to get > resources then the second time around the requirement for > additional resource should be more stringent to ensure maximum > utilization of the first allocation. 3. For an HEI to use this > policy, the application must be approved by the NREN or in the case > when they is no NREN in the country, then is must be approved by > the RREN. > > Sunday, I would happy to take up the policy from here onwards. > > cheers, > > Benjamin > > Ghanaian Academic and Research Network (GARNET) > > > On 11 June 2014 08:55, Omo Oaiya wrote: > >> Seun, >> >> We will propose a new policy. >> >> Omo >> >> On 11 June 2014 09:47, Seun Ojedeji >> wrote: >> >>> Hello Omo, >>> >>> Thanks for your response, >>> >>> On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 9:18 AM, Omo Oaiya >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> We have however taken note of the objections so we will be >>>> proposing a new policy backed with data from REN community. >>>> >>> >>> Can you confirm if your statement above mean you are taking up >>> the IPv4 Academic policy and will henceforth shepherd it? >>> >>> Regards PDWG Co-Chair >>> >>> On 10 June 2014 23:51, Sunday Folayan >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi All, >>>> >>>> With regards to the Academic IPv4 Policy (Policy Draft >>>> AFPUB-2013-GEN-001-DRAFT-03). >>>> >>>> Due to the fact that both authors of the policy have now been >>>> elected to the board, and we are of the opinion that this >>>> represents a severe potential conflict of interest, we would >>>> like to ask the list if there were any individuals who would >>>> like to take over further actions on this policy (changing >>>> it, promoting it, defending it at meetings etc). >>>> >>>> Both authors still strongly believe in the policy and the >>>> sentiments behind it, and still believe the policy is in the >>>> best interest of the African region as a whole, and hence, we >>>> have opted to make this appeal rather than withdrawing the >>>> policy or letting it lapse on the 26th of June. >>>> >>>> Should there be anyone interested in taking over the policy >>>> from here on out, please advise either of the authors. >>>> >>>> Many Thanks >>>> >>>> Sunday Folayan / Andrew Alston >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ rpd mailing >>>> list rpd at afrinic.net >>>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >>>> >>>> >>> >>>> _______________________________________________ rpd mailing >>>> list rpd at afrinic.net >>>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: >>> http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: >>> +2348035233535**alt email: >>> seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng >>> * >>> >>> The key to understanding is humility - my view ! >>> >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ rpd mailing list >> rpd at afrinic.net >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >> >> > - -- - ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sunday Adekunle Folayan blog: http://www.sundayfolayan.name.ng email: sfolayan at skannet.com.ng, sfolayan at gmail.com phone: *234-816-866-7523, +234-802-291-2202 skype: sfolayan fcbk: www.facebook.com/sfolayan tweet: sfolayan linkedin: sfolayan : http://free.lanci.ng - Anyone, Anyjob, Anywhere, Anytime - ------------------------------------------------------------------ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJTn5IoAAoJEH6UvSz6fA25rfgH/1dV1L55b/h+or/JwyatpiDc BZSjodPO84E85n1tlGHe3wyUm0+V+rHPIUpk5bJUdCBiwcRBP4YH3ROKkpIE6Hzt Wdw4baC5NQd3Mockt5KQ5tZXd+9QcjXq3LqvljkK9dOfe9YTg9Hsd4SYzh/qhfd/ EGxGkJEyK5YIdGDh8Jio2NX0FmeyIQvr2XrMBlwVikwxAuulIU9KXTYn4RYSgCFH PUWNDNcBKrZiI01H9nyCisAkorfushEt2I6ARfQtpgHybsnwuFXNoZdBqhRoxXri sye2GIUm8TlSiac8oCWKkpW38OFWDGO7C9tVhAmMmGF2GJZy0CwNknePBUu/bV4= =/xw+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From sfolayan at gmail.com Tue Jun 17 00:59:51 2014 From: sfolayan at gmail.com (Sunday Folayan) Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2014 01:59:51 +0100 Subject: [rpd] Academic IPv4 Policy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <539F9307.9020002@gmail.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Dear Omo and Joe, We do believe in the spirit and letter of the draft we made before, as it is also backed by data. We are glad there is a taker who will not promote it. Good luck with your policy proposal. Thanks and Regards ... Andrew Alston/Sunday Folayan. On 11/06/2014 09:18, Omo Oaiya wrote: > Hello Sunday / Andrew > > Joe Kimaili from Ubuntunet Alliance and I discussed this in > Djibouti. We share some of the sentiments and also have the best > interests of the region at heart. > > We have however taken note of the objections so we will be > proposing a new policy backed with data from REN community. > > Many thanks to both for sensitising the community to our needs. > > Omo > > > > On 10 June 2014 23:51, Sunday Folayan wrote: > >> Hi All, >> >> With regards to the Academic IPv4 Policy (Policy Draft >> AFPUB-2013-GEN-001-DRAFT-03). >> >> Due to the fact that both authors of the policy have now been >> elected to the board, and we are of the opinion that this >> represents a severe potential conflict of interest, we would like >> to ask the list if there were any individuals who would like to >> take over further actions on this policy (changing it, promoting >> it, defending it at meetings etc). >> >> Both authors still strongly believe in the policy and the >> sentiments behind it, and still believe the policy is in the best >> interest of the African region as a whole, and hence, we have >> opted to make this appeal rather than withdrawing the policy or >> letting it lapse on the 26th of June. >> >> Should there be anyone interested in taking over the policy from >> here on out, please advise either of the authors. >> >> Many Thanks >> >> Sunday Folayan / Andrew Alston >> >> _______________________________________________ rpd mailing list >> rpd at afrinic.net >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >> >> > - -- - ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sunday Adekunle Folayan blog: http://www.sundayfolayan.name.ng email: sfolayan at skannet.com.ng, sfolayan at gmail.com phone: *234-816-866-7523, +234-802-291-2202 skype: sfolayan fcbk: www.facebook.com/sfolayan tweet: sfolayan linkedin: sfolayan : http://free.lanci.ng - Anyone, Anyjob, Anywhere, Anytime - ------------------------------------------------------------------ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJTn5MHAAoJEH6UvSz6fA25HFEH/iZBkSAE3Cr4Lb63XYgvfJFM wawv16Fveqn04RAqK7I8gyXGGRAIBLDGXKFy59jzYF1lCvTPAdFRe4eJW3wFsPM+ MNEas0gD4fWiUG/TBTQdHOlKoQLZzCT/uzT42wsiX0016fkJSE8T77r86E5iLoPh 4HskE9CxS90N0BSW+kPF9oVoxd1CzcUgIljkr4ENxu7paMdvQF52j799MkFxfLPp GxbpJnDpYJQdhw805K59cG9FJEsS1Xu7FK/G4I4vfnk6yR4QGIDED2a37qSeBN/r SuFgYfbxSJc1Dm9jGO6A3GU2FY1fFL6MO3bhWCou3mx9FYZxrU0pTRmpGufQqUk= =iqu0 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From mark.tinka at seacom.mu Tue Jun 17 05:36:24 2014 From: mark.tinka at seacom.mu (Mark Tinka) Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2014 07:36:24 +0200 Subject: [rpd] A typical conversation with a service provider on v6 In-Reply-To: <7C7F5FA5-9962-42A0-A17F-9186FAAEA9D0@delong.com> References: <7C7F5FA5-9962-42A0-A17F-9186FAAEA9D0@delong.com> Message-ID: <201406170736.27648.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> On Tuesday, June 17, 2014 12:41:56 AM Owen DeLong wrote: > > +1 but realistically speaking is there anything like v6 > > only resource at the moment? Outside purposes of testing by power users, doubtful. But I assume there will be in the future (which is inevitable, due to the guaranteed rising costs of maintaining an IPv4 Internet), so I build out on that basis. > 1. Continued growth in the IPv4 customer space is going > to drive ISP costs in the residential markets in most of > the developed world to a point where those providers can > no longer support IPv4 without increasing rates. These > rate payers tend to be very price sensitive, so there is > strong disincentive here. Agree. And this is going to impact mobile providers, the world over, who are spending more time investing in NAT44 than IPv6. > 2. Continued fragmentation of the IPv4 address space as > the address transfer market gains momentum in > ARIN/RIPE/APNIC regions will drive routing table growth > which is already on the brink of breaking several core > routers in active use today. This cost of sustaining > IPv4 will force changes which will lead to fragmentation > and further degradation of the service that can be > offered over IPv4. I think we have seen a bunch of operators running Cisco 6500's/7600's that are struggling to keep up, in recent weeks - and this platform has had known issues for scaling its FIB for a while now. This will only get worse. Mark. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. URL: From adam at varud.com Wed Jun 18 07:02:10 2014 From: adam at varud.com (Adam Nelson) Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2014 10:02:10 +0300 Subject: [rpd] Policy Proposals and Minutes of the PDP Meeting in Djibouti - Status Message-ID: Dear Colleagues, Following the face to face discussions in Djibouti during AFRINIC 20, the following proposal did not achieve consensus during the meeting: Proposal ID: AFPUB-2013-GEN-001-DRAFT-03 Title: Academic IPv4 Allocation Authors: Andrew Alston, Sunday Folayan URL: http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposals/842-academic-ipv4-allocation--afpub-2013-gen-001-draft-03--under-discussion Shorturl: http://goo.gl/c0Gzof It was observed during the meeting that comments received from the community about the proposal indicated the need for it to undergo further deliberation and that there was no consensus. The proposal was therefore sent back to the mailing list for further discussion. The following policy was discussed at the same face to face meeting and is still currently under discussion: Proposal ID: AFPUB-2014-GEN-001-DRAFT-01 Ttitle: AFRINIC Whois Database Update Process Author: Jean-Robert Hountomey URL: http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposals/1109-afrinic-whois-database-update-process short url: http://goo.gl/snrso9 Minutes of the meeting: We are still expecting to receive the minutes of the meeting from AFRINIC. However the transcript of the session can be found at the url below: http://internetsummitafrica.org/en/video-archive (navigate to Thursday) Direct url: http://goo.gl/X4iN05 Election of PDWG Co-Chair: One key item of the meeting was the election of Adam Nelson as the PDWG Co-Chair. He replaces the previous PDWG Co-Chair Emile Milandou. Our appreciation to the previous co-chair as well as the new co-chair. To read through the AFRINIC region Policy Development Process, please browse to: http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development Regards, Seun Ojedeji & Adam Nelson PDWG Co-Chairs -- Kili - Cloud for Africa: kili.io Musings: twitter.com/varud More Musings: varud.com About Adam: www.linkedin.com/in/adamcnelson -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com Wed Jun 18 07:48:19 2014 From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji) Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2014 08:48:19 +0100 Subject: [rpd] A typical conversation with a service provider on v6 In-Reply-To: <7C7F5FA5-9962-42A0-A17F-9186FAAEA9D0@delong.com> References: <201406161019.42135.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> <7C7F5FA5-9962-42A0-A17F-9186FAAEA9D0@delong.com> Message-ID: Hello Owen, On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 11:41 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > > On Jun 16, 2014, at 04:37 , Seun Ojedeji wrote: > > +1 but realistically speaking is there anything like v6 only resource at > the moment? > > http://thegoodlife.delong.com > > I really need to put some more meaningful content there, but it's a start. > > Owen you are joking right? because i think its me and you that access that url. I am talking about commercial contents, content that has normally been accessed on v4 which has now become v6 only. > > > <> > > I realize a lot of network engineers and network managers don't get it. > That's really unfortunate. However, the simple facts on the ground are that > IPv4 has been in critical condition on life support with multiple organ > failure for more than 20 years. It's on the verge of the networking > equivalent of a condition known as DIC (Diverse Intravascular Coagulopathy) > at which point, it will be virtually impossible to keep it meaningfully > running. > +1 > > Like it or not, we are now in a race to get IPv6 deployed before IPv4 > collapses under any one of several scaling limits all of which exacerbate > each other. The IPv4 patient was GORK'd[1] years ago. Now it's an organ > donor. The sooner we face that reality, the better off we will all be. > +1 too. However, 3 things remain a fact from this conversation: - IPv4 still got some life to live either by native or dual-stack - IPv6 deployment is increasing not in the "moving" direction for now, but in the integrating direction (dual-stacking) - While we integrate v6 in this region, we should not be distracted of the fact that we still need v4 to dual-stack. So keep an eye on, and grab your required v4 (now that its still available) before non-region v6 evangelists come grabbing your v4 space for export ;) Region based ISPs this is your opportunity to expand to other region because you've got the resources they don't have. Institution, this is your opportunity to grab your own space before your upstream provider start charging you extra for an outdated 32bit number and before they start over NATing their services to you. Finally to the region, this is your opportunity to ensure that those few /8 resource that was assigned to this region gets used in the region as much as possible. While those that are not used in this region remain credited to the region's development. Regards! PS: Personal view with v6 evangelist and v4 patriotism minds. ;) -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng * The key to understanding is humility - my view ! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From owen at delong.com Wed Jun 18 08:42:34 2014 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2014 01:42:34 -0700 Subject: [rpd] A typical conversation with a service provider on v6 In-Reply-To: References: <201406161019.42135.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> <7C7F5FA5-9962-42A0-A17F-9186FAAEA9D0@delong.com> Message-ID: <8998BEAD-E58E-4987-8885-A93F635E2C6F@delong.com> On Jun 18, 2014, at 12:48 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: > Hello Owen, > > On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 11:41 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > > On Jun 16, 2014, at 04:37 , Seun Ojedeji wrote: > > +1 but realistically speaking is there anything like v6 only resource at the moment? > > http://thegoodlife.delong.com > > I really need to put some more meaningful content there, but it's a start. > > Owen you are joking right? because i think its me and you that access that url. I am talking about commercial contents, content that has normally been accessed on v4 which has now become v6 only. No content provider in their right mind would do such a thing. For a while, there was the IPv6 porn experiment, but it appears to have fizzled due to a number of technical and social engineering issues. You weren?t specific, so I provided a URL that met the description you provided. > - IPv4 still got some life to live either by native or dual-stack I?m not sure I would call it life so much as continued existence. (In America, it is a colloquialism to refer to a person living through the miracles of modern medicine with no possibility of restoration of any meaningful quality of life as ?existing, not living?). > - IPv6 deployment is increasing not in the ?moving" direction for now, but in the integrating direction (dual-stacking) True, which is what we really want to do so long as it is possible to do so. IPv6 only really isn?t desirable until IPv4 only systems are no longer relevant (by whatever definition of relevance applies to the set of hosts about to become IPv6 only). > - While we integrate v6 in this region, we should not be distracted of the fact that we still need v4 to dual-stack. So keep an eye on, and grab your required v4 (now that its still available) before non-region v6 evangelists come grabbing your v4 space for export ;) I don?t think it is the v6 evangelists that will be doing the grabbing you describe. If I wanted to plunder Africa?s IPv4 resources, I would have done it years ago. :p > Region based ISPs this is your opportunity to expand to other region because you've got the resources they don't have. Institution, this is your opportunity to grab your own space before your upstream provider start charging you extra for an outdated 32bit number and before they start over NATing their services to you. Providers who are NATing your customers, this is your opportunity to stop doing them such a huge injustice. Owen -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mark.tinka at seacom.mu Wed Jun 18 09:07:40 2014 From: mark.tinka at seacom.mu (Mark Tinka) Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2014 11:07:40 +0200 Subject: [rpd] A typical conversation with a service provider on v6 In-Reply-To: <8998BEAD-E58E-4987-8885-A93F635E2C6F@delong.com> References: <8998BEAD-E58E-4987-8885-A93F635E2C6F@delong.com> Message-ID: <201406181107.40436.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 10:42:34 AM Owen DeLong wrote: > [1]GORK -- God Only Really Knows, a crass, but common term > in the medical profession for a comatose patient on > persistent life support with a low probability of any > meaningful recovery. > (In America, it is a colloquialism to refer to a person > living through the miracles of modern medicine with no > possibility of restoration of any meaningful quality of > life as ?existing, not living?). Your continued explanations of (American medical) colloquialisms/idioms is interesting, if not distracting, Owen :-). Mark. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. URL: From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com Wed Jun 18 09:42:05 2014 From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji) Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2014 10:42:05 +0100 Subject: [rpd] A typical conversation with a service provider on v6 In-Reply-To: <8998BEAD-E58E-4987-8885-A93F635E2C6F@delong.com> References: <201406161019.42135.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> <7C7F5FA5-9962-42A0-A17F-9186FAAEA9D0@delong.com> <8998BEAD-E58E-4987-8885-A93F635E2C6F@delong.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 9:42 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: > > Owen you are joking right? because i think its me and you that access that > url. I am talking about commercial contents, content that has normally been > accessed on v4 which has now become v6 only. > > > No content provider in their right mind would do such a thing. For a > while, there was the IPv6 porn experiment, but it appears to have fizzled > due to a number of technical and social engineering issues. > Okay we are in sync > You weren?t specific, so I provided a URL that met the description you > provided. > Me thought when we talk content, we were talking about content that is accessed by many....apologies for not being specific ;) > > - IPv4 still got some life to live either by native or dual-stack > > > I?m not sure I would call it life so much as continued existence. > Okay better word, at least the point is in sync. > > - IPv6 deployment is increasing not in the ?moving" direction for now, but > in the integrating direction (dual-stacking) > > > True, which is what we really want to do so long as it is possible to do > so. IPv6 only really isn?t desirable until IPv4 only systems are no longer > relevant (by whatever definition of relevance applies to the set of hosts > about to become IPv6 only). > Great! > > - While we integrate v6 in this region, we should not be distracted of the > fact that we still need v4 to dual-stack. So keep an eye on, and grab your > required v4 (now that its still available) before non-region v6 evangelists > come grabbing your v4 space for export ;) > > I don?t think it is the v6 evangelists that will be doing the grabbing you > describe. > Okay +other non-region providers ;) my actual point was that we don't get too swamped with v6 evangelism and lose attention on v4. > If I wanted to plunder Africa?s IPv4 resources, I would have done it years > ago. :p > > Oh no definitely not directed to you Owen, remember i also called myself an IPv6 evangelist ;) you are definitely one of those great contributors to this region and i thank you for that. > Region based ISPs this is your opportunity to expand to other region > because you've got the resources they don't have. Institution, this is your > opportunity to grab your own space before your upstream provider start > charging you extra for an outdated 32bit number and before they start over > NATing their services to you. > > > Providers who are NATing your customers, this is your opportunity to stop > doing them such a huge injustice. > ++1 to this addition Cheers! > > Owen > > -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng * The key to understanding is humility - my view ! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From adiel at afrinic.net Wed Jun 18 18:58:49 2014 From: adiel at afrinic.net (Adiel Akplogan) Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2014 22:58:49 +0400 Subject: [rpd] Re: [members-discuss] Virtual Africa is the logical target for IP address colonists In-Reply-To: References: <53A00EA4.7070503@afrinic.net> <7FF93785BD2D534EA45841A8AAA1D89B2FF76B9747@liquid-exch.liquidtelecom.local> <201406180912.18201.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> <36981172-7E57-4064-A48C-CE30145654DD@afrinic.net> Message-ID: <74C368F5-21D4-4910-84BB-141CAE17B65F@afrinic.net> [I think that the discussion has taken a path which now need it to be moved to the rpd list] On Jun 18, 2014, at 17:13 PM, Douglas Onyango wrote: > On 18 June 2014 12:02, Adiel Akplogan wrote: >> In this discussion I don't think the real challenge is about organisations that already have a well established footprint in the region trying to expend their network out of Africa, but rather about how far an IP Analyst can go using his/her own judgment in cases where a company (new or not) recently decide to enter the IP service business/market and is requesting resources that will obviously be used in majority (up to 5%-90% as we already seen) outside of the region. > > I agree with the problem description. I have said the same thing in a > previous email and also mentioned that the policy I am drafting will > strike a balance between the two interests. Good to hear this. - a. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 313 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From steve.wilcox at ixreach.com Wed Jun 18 19:41:04 2014 From: steve.wilcox at ixreach.com (Stephen Wilcox) Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2014 20:41:04 +0100 Subject: [rpd] Re: [members-discuss] Virtual Africa is the logical target for IP address colonists In-Reply-To: <74C368F5-21D4-4910-84BB-141CAE17B65F@afrinic.net> References: <53A00EA4.7070503@afrinic.net> <7FF93785BD2D534EA45841A8AAA1D89B2FF76B9747@liquid-exch.liquidtelecom.local> <201406180912.18201.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> <36981172-7E57-4064-A48C-CE30145654DD@afrinic.net> <74C368F5-21D4-4910-84BB-141CAE17B65F@afrinic.net> Message-ID: So.. This reminds me of one of the many stories, metaphors, proverbs where people try frantically yet in vain to stop something from happening which is already an inevitability... choose the one that you prefer to relate to the story of AfriNIC's remaining IPv4 address space. First, just a reminder, but AfriNIC has 3x /8s remaining, this compared to other RIRs which each burned 3x /8s in just over a year... so its very much the case of trying to stop a flood which is already underway. Second, remember the general rule of thumb that the more complicated the policy the more holes and exceptions and easier it will be to circumvent. So, if you want the goal to be to preserving space for use in the African region then follow the logical rules to make policy: 1) Address space only be made available to African *owned* companies 2) Address space only justifiable for allocation for African *based* projects 3) A cap on the maximum amount of space an LIR can obtain *regardless of justification* - perhaps one level for now, and a lower level when the final /8 is reached (RIPE implemented a /22 per LIR for example when the final /8 was reached) 4) Consider imposing a requirement on LIRs/end users to demonstrate they are running IPv6 to the extent of their ability (limit of upstream/downstream technology without significant investment) after the initial IPv4 allocation before granting larger IPv4 blocks. Any other twists or turns you make will not be acceptable to some of the parties, and if you try to make individual policies for local business, international business, universities etc you'll just create sufficient complication that the address space will all be gone before you finish debating the wording and plugging the holes. As a curiosity, its interesting that whilst innovation comes traditionally from research and education, it seems to be the special case of RENs that they want more than anyone to have access to more IPv4 addresses. In fact, they are the ones who can lead IPv6, CGNAT and produce trained engineers who later move from education to industry taking their modern technology with them. - my 2 cents :) Steve On 18 June 2014 19:58, Adiel Akplogan wrote: > [I think that the discussion has taken a path which now need it to be > moved to the rpd list] > > On Jun 18, 2014, at 17:13 PM, Douglas Onyango wrote: > > > On 18 June 2014 12:02, Adiel Akplogan wrote: > >> In this discussion I don't think the real challenge is about > organisations that already have a well established footprint in the region > trying to expend their network out of Africa, but rather about how far an > IP Analyst can go using his/her own judgment in cases where a company (new > or not) recently decide to enter the IP service business/market and is > requesting resources that will obviously be used in majority (up to 5%-90% > as we already seen) outside of the region. > > > > I agree with the problem description. I have said the same thing in a > > previous email and also mentioned that the policy I am drafting will > > strike a balance between the two interests. > > Good to hear this. > > - a. > > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com Wed Jun 18 20:18:45 2014 From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji) Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2014 21:18:45 +0100 Subject: [rpd] Re: [members-discuss] Virtual Africa is the logical target for IP address colonists In-Reply-To: References: <53A00EA4.7070503@afrinic.net> <7FF93785BD2D534EA45841A8AAA1D89B2FF76B9747@liquid-exch.liquidtelecom.local> <201406180912.18201.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> <36981172-7E57-4064-A48C-CE30145654DD@afrinic.net> <74C368F5-21D4-4910-84BB-141CAE17B65F@afrinic.net> Message-ID: sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 18 Jun 2014 20:43, "Stephen Wilcox" wrote: > > So.. > > This reminds me of one of the many stories, metaphors, proverbs where people try frantically yet in vain to stop something from happening which is already an inevitability... choose the one that you prefer to relate to the story of AfriNIC's remaining IPv4 address space. > > First, just a reminder, but AfriNIC has 3x /8s remaining, this compared to other RIRs which each burned 3x /8s in just over a year... so its very much the case of trying to stop a flood which is already underway. > I don't think the community is stopping the flood, just that the community wants the flood to flow within it's region as much. Just like it happened in other region. > Second, remember the general rule of thumb that the more complicated the policy the more holes and exceptions and easier it will be to circumvent. > > So, if you want the goal to be to preserving space for use in the African region then follow the logical rules to make policy: > > 1) Address space only be made available to African *owned* companies > > 2) Address space only justifiable for allocation for African *based* projects > > 3) A cap on the maximum amount of space an LIR can obtain *regardless of justification* - perhaps one level for now, and a lower level when the final /8 is reached (RIPE implemented a /22 per LIR for example when the final /8 was reached) > There is a similar final /8 policy for this region. > 4) Consider imposing a requirement on LIRs/end users to demonstrate they are running IPv6 to the extent of their ability (limit of upstream/downstream technology without significant investment) after the initial IPv4 allocation before granting larger IPv4 blocks. > Would you be kind to turn this into policy? > > > As a curiosity, its interesting that whilst innovation comes traditionally from research and education, it seems to be the special case of RENs that they want more than anyone to have access to more IPv4 addresses. > And you don't think those RENs could burn v4 faster by applying them on their networks. Why do you think RENs should not get v4? > In fact, they are the ones who can lead IPv6, CGNAT and produce trained engineers who later move from education to industry taking their modern technology with them. > CGNAT? Maybe not. I guess they already have enough experience in that and may not be a desired transfer skill. Nevertheless I think every institution that apply for v4 also get a v6 so I guess there is/will be room for research on both v4 and v6 as we both know that those two protocol will stay side by side for a while. Cheers! Personal view. > - my 2 cents :) > > Steve > > > > > On 18 June 2014 19:58, Adiel Akplogan wrote: >> >> [I think that the discussion has taken a path which now need it to be moved to the rpd list] >> >> On Jun 18, 2014, at 17:13 PM, Douglas Onyango wrote: >> >> > On 18 June 2014 12:02, Adiel Akplogan wrote: >> >> In this discussion I don't think the real challenge is about organisations that already have a well established footprint in the region trying to expend their network out of Africa, but rather about how far an IP Analyst can go using his/her own judgment in cases where a company (new or not) recently decide to enter the IP service business/market and is requesting resources that will obviously be used in majority (up to 5%-90% as we already seen) outside of the region. >> > >> > I agree with the problem description. I have said the same thing in a >> > previous email and also mentioned that the policy I am drafting will >> > strike a balance between the two interests. >> >> Good to hear this. >> >> - a. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> rpd mailing list >> rpd at afrinic.net >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >> > > > > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kofi.ansa at gmail.com Thu Jun 19 01:30:45 2014 From: kofi.ansa at gmail.com (Kofi ansa akufo) Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2014 05:30:45 +0400 Subject: [rpd] Re: [members-discuss] Virtual Africa is the logical target for IP address colonists In-Reply-To: <74C368F5-21D4-4910-84BB-141CAE17B65F@afrinic.net> References: <53A00EA4.7070503@afrinic.net> <7FF93785BD2D534EA45841A8AAA1D89B2FF76B9747@liquid-exch.liquidtelecom.local> <201406180912.18201.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> <36981172-7E57-4064-A48C-CE30145654DD@afrinic.net> <74C368F5-21D4-4910-84BB-141CAE17B65F@afrinic.net> Message-ID: Hello All It seems for some reason I have missed out on the mail-lists (both members-discuss and rpd) discussions. Perhaps been blocked from the lists due to criticism. It is very obvious the internet will continue to dissolve geographical barriers - which Africa is currently feeling the impact not just only because of exhaustion of IPv4 in other regions but the huge submarine connectivity and carrier capacity on the continent. A country like Ghana is fed by a minimum 5 submarine cables. This is driving retail bandwidth costs down. In Kenya two exchange points are collaborating with a european exchange point to build a robust architecture - which will eventually blur the geographic division more. Talk about South Africa, Egypt, Nigeria, Tanzania, Uganda etc. This will further get worse when packet switching networks and virtual architectures gain much adoption. What I am driving at is to stop drafting "Policies" that will stop prospective business to get our internet resources but rather consider policies that will enable the continent take advantage of the huge backbone capacity to improve infrastructure and education. Policies that will indirectly spark collaborations to address problems such as NOT having enough, cheap and reliable POWER to make new emerging businesses such as data centers to flourish in our region. Those are the major consumers of internet resources in the other regions. "What is the use of a father holding on to funds whilst his kids stay at home not going to school - whilst he ignorantly keeps on telling everyone he is saving for their future welfare" - AFRINIC's struggle to remain as a "relevant" not-for-profit organization will be in vain if we dont adapt an open approach to collaborate to resolve the issues. The organization even faces more challenges especially when it is left at the mercy of few people who are not open to criticism and seek to rather coverup issues rather than address them objectively. IPv4 will inevitably be exhausted so the question is NOT WHAT but How is AfriNIC trainings (especially IPv6) impacting on the adoption of the larger address space by our community members. How many training sessions have been conducted in the past 3 years and how many service provider attendants at these sessions have moved on to deploy v6 on their network? How many of the service providers and carriers who are members of the community have deployed native v6? What are the challenges they face - is it financial? is it technical? We should stop hiding behind "you can force a horse to the river but you cant force it to drink" and rush to develop POLICIES mindsets and do objective assessments to adopt for better strategy to have an impact. I believe the management structure needs to be reviewed right from the top in the organisation - "heads must roll" - if necessary. Cheers K. On 18 June 2014 22:58, Adiel Akplogan wrote: > [I think that the discussion has taken a path which now need it to be moved to the rpd list] > > On Jun 18, 2014, at 17:13 PM, Douglas Onyango wrote: > >> On 18 June 2014 12:02, Adiel Akplogan wrote: >>> In this discussion I don't think the real challenge is about organisations that already have a well established footprint in the region trying to expend their network out of Africa, but rather about how far an IP Analyst can go using his/her own judgment in cases where a company (new or not) recently decide to enter the IP service business/market and is requesting resources that will obviously be used in majority (up to 5%-90% as we already seen) outside of the region. >> >> I agree with the problem description. I have said the same thing in a >> previous email and also mentioned that the policy I am drafting will >> strike a balance between the two interests. > > Good to hear this. > > - a. > > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com Thu Jun 19 08:08:40 2014 From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji) Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2014 09:08:40 +0100 Subject: [rpd] Re: [members-discuss] Virtual Africa is the logical target for IP address colonists In-Reply-To: References: <53A00EA4.7070503@afrinic.net> <7FF93785BD2D534EA45841A8AAA1D89B2FF76B9747@liquid-exch.liquidtelecom.local> <201406180912.18201.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> <36981172-7E57-4064-A48C-CE30145654DD@afrinic.net> <74C368F5-21D4-4910-84BB-141CAE17B65F@afrinic.net> Message-ID: Hello Kofi, On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 2:30 AM, Kofi ansa akufo wrote: > Hello All > > It seems for some reason I have missed out on the mail-lists (both > members-discuss and rpd) discussions. Perhaps been blocked from the lists > due to criticism. > Don't think so because i am receiving this mail through the list. Besides, i don't see why such will be done. Nevertheless it could be worth exploring if you think otherwise. > What I am driving at is to stop drafting "Policies" that will stop > prospective business to get our internet resources > Can you define prospective business in this context? is it a business that intends to use the resources outside of this region OR a business that intends to use it in this region? > but rather consider policies that will enable the continent take advantage > of the huge backbone capacity to improve infrastructure and education. > Policies that will indirectly spark collaborations to address problems such > as NOT having enough, cheap and reliable POWER to make new emerging > businesses such as data centers to flourish in our region. > Me thinks this is what we all have been alluding to...generally creating policies that improves development in our region. > Those are the major consumers of internet resources in the other regions. > > "What is the use of a father holding on to funds whilst his kids stay at > home not going to school - whilst he ignorantly keeps on telling everyone > he is saving for their future welfare" - AFRINIC's struggle to remain as a > "relevant" not-for-profit organization will be in vain if we dont adapt an > open approach to collaborate to resolve the issues. > Do you have a suggestion on other open approach to collaborating apart from the rpd list and public policy meeting? > The organization even faces more challenges especially when it is left at > the mercy of few people who are not open to criticism and seek to rather > coverup issues rather than address them objectively. > Not sure i got this part, are we still talking about proper management of our IP resource? > > IPv4 will inevitably be exhausted so the question is NOT WHAT but How is > AfriNIC trainings (especially IPv6) impacting on the adoption of the larger > address space by our community members. How many training sessions have > been conducted in the past 3 years and how many service provider attendants > at these sessions have moved on to deploy v6 on their network? How many of > the service providers and carriers who are members of the community have > deployed native v6? What are the challenges they face - is it financial? is > it technical? > There is a saying that you can take a horse to the river but you can't force it to drink. Me and you are all concerned that ISPs are not deploying/integrating v6 at a desired rate, however me and you also know that there is a limit of enforcement that the RIR can do. Nevertheless, i agree that it may be good to explore the possible barriers. Although at this point, i doubt its on technical expertise reason. > > We should stop hiding behind "you can force a horse to the river but you > cant force it to drink" > Wow! i had just used this proverb up there ;) > > I believe the management structure needs to be reviewed right from the top > in the organisation - "heads must roll" - if necessary. > This will be up to the AFRINIC members/board to determine. Nevertheless if the larger PDWG thinks some part of the policy is not being adhered to, it will be good to hear those specifics. Thanks > > Cheers > > K. > > > On 18 June 2014 22:58, Adiel Akplogan wrote: > > [I think that the discussion has taken a path which now need it to be > moved to the rpd list] > > > > On Jun 18, 2014, at 17:13 PM, Douglas Onyango > wrote: > > > >> On 18 June 2014 12:02, Adiel Akplogan wrote: > >>> In this discussion I don't think the real challenge is about > organisations that already have a well established footprint in the region > trying to expend their network out of Africa, but rather about how far an > IP Analyst can go using his/her own judgment in cases where a company (new > or not) recently decide to enter the IP service business/market and is > requesting resources that will obviously be used in majority (up to 5%-90% > as we already seen) outside of the region. > >> > >> I agree with the problem description. I have said the same thing in a > >> previous email and also mentioned that the policy I am drafting will > >> strike a balance between the two interests. > > > > Good to hear this. > > > > - a. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > rpd mailing list > > rpd at afrinic.net > > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng * The key to understanding is humility - my view ! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com Sat Jun 21 19:27:28 2014 From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji) Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2014 20:27:28 +0100 Subject: [rpd] =?utf-8?q?Anne-Rachel_Inn=C3=A9_to_the_role_of_VP=2C_Gover?= =?utf-8?q?nment_Engagement_=E2=80=93_Geneva=2E?= Message-ID: A big congratulation to our own Anne-Rachel Inn? as i wish her all the best in her new role. Congratulation also to David. 20 June 2014 ? The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers ( ICANN) today announced that it is has named David Conrad to the newly created position of Chief Technology Officer (CTO), and Anne-Rachel Inn? to the role of VP, Government Engagement ? Geneva. As CTO, Conrad will work closely with internal and external stakeholders to develop a technology roadmap for the Internet identifiers system and coordinate with community. Conrad will assume the role of CTO on 4 August and report to Akram Atallah, president of ICANN's Global Domains Division. "David's extensive experience with domain name system operations, Internet identifier technology, cybersecurity, and IT, coupled with his familiarity with ICANN, makes him the ideal person for this new role," said Atallah. "I am confident that David will quickly make an impact as we continue to focus on improving the efficiency, effectiveness, and security of our business operations." Anne-Rachel Inn? will assume the role on 15 July and report to ICANN's Senior Advisor to the President on Government Engagement, Tarek Kamel. Based in ICANN's Geneva Engagement Center, Anne-Rachel will be responsible for designing a full engagement plan for ICANN's outreach work with the country missions to the UN in Geneva. "The VP Government Engagement role- Geneva is critical in expanding our engagement efforts with governments, intergovernmental organizations and the UN in Geneva," said Kamel. "We are pleased to welcome back Anne-Rachel to ICANN, and are confident she'll bring a lot to the role based on her extensive experience in the ICANN community." https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2014-06-20-en Regards -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng * The key to understanding is humility - my view ! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jbmillogo at gmail.com Sat Jun 21 22:27:21 2014 From: jbmillogo at gmail.com (Jean-Baptiste MILLOGO) Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2014 22:27:21 +0000 Subject: [rpd] =?iso-8859-1?q?Re=3A_=5BFOSSFA_Members=5D_Anne-Rachel_Inn?= =?iso-8859-1?q?=E9_to_the_role_of_VP=2C_Government_Engagement_-_Ge?= =?iso-8859-1?q?neva=2E?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Warm congratulations to David and Anne.. Le 21 juin 2014 19:28, "Seun Ojedeji" a ?crit : > A big congratulation to our own Anne-Rachel Inn? as i wish her all the > best in her new role. Congratulation also to David. > > 20 June 2014 - The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers ( > ICANN) today announced that it is has named David Conrad to the newly > created position of Chief Technology Officer (CTO), and Anne-Rachel Inn? to > the role of VP, Government Engagement - Geneva. > > As CTO, Conrad will work closely with internal and external stakeholders > to develop a technology roadmap for the Internet identifiers system and > coordinate with community. Conrad will assume the role of CTO on 4 August > and report to Akram Atallah, president of ICANN's Global Domains Division. > > "David's extensive experience with domain name system operations, Internet > identifier technology, cybersecurity, and IT, coupled with his familiarity > with ICANN, makes him the ideal person for this new role," said Atallah. > "I am confident that David will quickly make an impact as we continue to > focus on improving the efficiency, effectiveness, and security of our > business operations." > > Anne-Rachel Inn? will assume the role on 15 July and report to ICANN's > Senior Advisor to the President on Government Engagement, Tarek Kamel. > > Based in ICANN's Geneva Engagement Center, Anne-Rachel will be > responsible for designing a full engagement plan for ICANN's outreach > work with the country missions to the UN in Geneva. > > "The VP Government Engagement role- Geneva is critical in expanding our > engagement efforts with governments, intergovernmental organizations and > the UN in Geneva," said Kamel. "We are pleased to welcome back Anne-Rachel > to ICANN, and are confident she'll bring a lot to the role based on her > extensive experience in the ICANN community." > https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2014-06-20-en > > Regards > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > > *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: > http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535**alt > email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng > * > > The key to understanding is humility - my view ! > > > > _______________________________________________ > FOSSFA Members mailing list > Members at mail.fossfa.net > Manage your subscription > http://mail.fossfa.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/members > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From otieno.barrack at gmail.com Sun Jun 22 09:41:34 2014 From: otieno.barrack at gmail.com (Barrack Otieno) Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2014 12:41:34 +0300 Subject: [rpd] =?utf-8?q?Re=3A_=5BAfrICANN-discuss=5D_Re=3A_=5BFOSSFA_Mem?= =?utf-8?q?bers=5D_Anne-Rachel_Inn=C3=A9_to_the_role_of_VP=2C_Gover?= =?utf-8?q?nment_Engagement_-_Geneva=2E?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Congratulations AR, wishing you all the best in the new assignment. Best Regards On 6/22/14, Anne-Rachel Inn? wrote: > Thanks to all of you. > Cheers > ar > > > On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 2:27 AM, Jean-Baptiste MILLOGO > > wrote: > >> Warm congratulations to David and Anne.. >> Le 21 juin 2014 19:28, "Seun Ojedeji" a ?crit : >> >>> A big congratulation to our own Anne-Rachel Inn? as i wish her all the >>> best in her new role. Congratulation also to David. >>> >>> 20 June 2014 ? The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers ( >>> ICANN) today announced that it is has named David Conrad to the newly >>> created position of Chief Technology Officer (CTO), and Anne-Rachel Inn? >>> to >>> the role of VP, Government Engagement ? Geneva. >>> >>> As CTO, Conrad will work closely with internal and external stakeholders >>> to develop a technology roadmap for the Internet identifiers system and >>> coordinate with community. Conrad will assume the role of CTO on 4 >>> August >>> and report to Akram Atallah, president of ICANN's Global Domains >>> Division. >>> >>> "David's extensive experience with domain name system operations, >>> Internet identifier technology, cybersecurity, and IT, coupled with his >>> familiarity with ICANN, makes him the ideal person for this new role," >>> said Atallah. "I am confident that David will quickly make an impact as >>> we >>> continue to focus on improving the efficiency, effectiveness, and >>> security >>> of our business operations." >>> >>> Anne-Rachel Inn? will assume the role on 15 July and report to ICANN's >>> Senior Advisor to the President on Government Engagement, Tarek Kamel. >>> >>> Based in ICANN's Geneva Engagement Center, Anne-Rachel will be >>> responsible for designing a full engagement plan for ICANN's outreach >>> work with the country missions to the UN in Geneva. >>> >>> "The VP Government Engagement role- Geneva is critical in expanding our >>> engagement efforts with governments, intergovernmental organizations and >>> the UN in Geneva," said Kamel. "We are pleased to welcome back >>> Anne-Rachel >>> to ICANN, and are confident she'll bring a lot to the role based on her >>> extensive experience in the ICANN community." >>> https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2014-06-20-en >>> >>> Regards >>> >>> -- >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: >>> http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: >>> +2348035233535**alt >>> email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng >>> * >>> >>> >>> The key to understanding is humility - my view ! >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> FOSSFA Members mailing list >>> Members at mail.fossfa.net >>> Manage your subscription >>> http://mail.fossfa.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/members >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> AfrICANN mailing list >> AfrICANN at afrinic.net >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/africann >> >> > -- Barrack O. Otieno +254721325277 +254-20-2498789 Skype: barrack.otieno http://www.otienobarrack.me.ke/ From ernest at afrinic.net Wed Jun 25 05:52:18 2014 From: ernest at afrinic.net (Ernest) Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2014 08:52:18 +0300 Subject: [rpd] Fwd: [arin-ppml] LAST CALL: Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-13: Reduce All Minimum Allocation/Assignment Units to /24 In-Reply-To: <53A9DCA2.2060907@arin.net> References: <53A9DCA2.2060907@arin.net> Message-ID: <53AA6392.7000500@afrinic.net> FYI - This proposal (now in last call) in the ARIN region aims to set all minimum IPv4 allocation/assignment units to /24. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [arin-ppml] LAST CALL: Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-13: Reduce All Minimum Allocation/Assignment Units to /24 Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2014 16:16:34 -0400 From: ARIN To: arin-ppml at arin.net The ARIN Advisory Council (AC) met on 19 June 2014 and decided to send the following to an extended last call: Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-13: Reduce All Minimum Allocation/Assignment Units to /24 Feedback is encouraged during the last call period. All comments should be provided to the Public Policy Mailing List. This last call will expire on 15 July 2014. After last call the AC will conduct their last call review. The draft policy text is below and available at: https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/ The ARIN Policy Development Process is available at: https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html Regards, Communications and Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) ## * ## Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-13 Reduce All Minimum Allocation/Assignment Units to /24 Date: 20 May 2014 AC's assessment of conformance with the Principles of Internet Number Resource Policy: Draft Policy ARIN-2014-13: Reduce All Minimum Allocation/Assignment Units to /24 - This proposal will lower all allocation(s) and assignment(s) of IPv4 address in section 4.2 and 4.3 to a /24 minimum. The policy would also remove section 4.9 as the allocation and assignment sizes were now larger than 4.2 and 4.3. As noted in the staff report it will also remove the maximum initial allocation that was used with the examples in 4.2.2.2. The changes to the NRPM are fair in that they would treat all resource applicants equally. They are technically sound and have received support from the community. Problem Statement: As we approach runout, more and more end users and smaller ISPs will be unable to obtain space from their upstreams and will be seeking space from ARIN. In order to meet these needs to the extent possible and to make policy more fair to a broader range of the ARIN constituency, we should reduce the minimum assignment and allocation units for IPv4 to /24 across the board. Policy statement: Remove all references to minimum allocations /20 and /22 replacing them with the term allocation or with /24 when referencing minimum size blocks. Change the title of 4.2.2.1 to "ISP Requirements" with revised text stating: All ISP organizations must satisfy the following requirements...thus eliminating the entire Multi-homed section and subsections along with other superfluous example text. Delete the special case allocations/assignments for the Caribbean as the new /24 minimums are an improvement. Comments: a. Timetable for implementation: Immediate b. A red line version has been included Full text version of changes for easy reference: 4.2.1.5. Minimum allocation In general, ARIN allocates /24 and larger IP address prefixes to ISPs. If allocations smaller than /24 are needed, ISPs should request address space from their upstream provider. 4.2.2.1 ISP Requirements All ISP organizations must satisfy the following requirements: 4.2.2.1.1 Use of /24 The efficient utilization of an entire previously allocated /24 from their upstream ISP. This allocation may have been provided by an ISP??s upstream provider(s), and does not have to be contiguous address space. 4.2.2.1.3. Three months Provide detailed information showing specifically how the requested allocation will be utilized within three months. 4.2.2.1.4. Renumber and return ISPs receiving a new allocation may wish to renumber out of their previously allocated space. In this case, an ISP must use the new allocation to renumber out of that previously allocated block of address space and must return the space to its upstream provider. 4.2.2.2. [section number retired] 4.3.2 Minimum assignment 4.3.2.1. [section moved to 4.3.2] The minimum block of IP address space assigned by ARIN to end-users is a /24. If assignments smaller than /24 are needed, end-users should contact their upstream provider. 4.3.2.2 [section number retired] 4.9 [section number retired] _______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From owen at delong.com Wed Jun 25 19:48:24 2014 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2014 12:48:24 -0700 Subject: [rpd] Fwd: [arin-ppml] LAST CALL: Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-13: Reduce All Minimum Allocation/Assignment Units to /24 In-Reply-To: <53AA6392.7000500@afrinic.net> References: <53A9DCA2.2060907@arin.net> <53AA6392.7000500@afrinic.net> Message-ID: <10FE66CC-C3AB-4C26-9C7C-28C562920787@delong.com> That is correct. Owen On Jun 24, 2014, at 22:52 , Ernest wrote: > > FYI - This proposal (now in last call) in the ARIN region aims to > set all minimum IPv4 allocation/assignment units to /24. > > -------- Original Message -------- > > Subject: [arin-ppml] LAST CALL: Recommended Draft Policy > ARIN-2014-13: Reduce All Minimum Allocation/Assignment Units to /24 > Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2014 16:16:34 -0400 > From: ARIN > To: arin-ppml at arin.net > > The ARIN Advisory Council (AC) met on 19 June 2014 and decided to > send the following to an extended last call: > > Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-13: Reduce All Minimum > Allocation/Assignment Units to /24 > > Feedback is encouraged during the last call period. All comments should > be provided to the Public Policy Mailing List. This last call will > expire on 15 July 2014. After last call the AC will conduct their > last call review. > > The draft policy text is below and available at: > https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/ > > The ARIN Policy Development Process is available at: > https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html > > Regards, > > Communications and Member Services > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) > > > ## * ## > > > Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-13 > Reduce All Minimum Allocation/Assignment Units to /24 > > Date: 20 May 2014 > > AC's assessment of conformance with the Principles of Internet Number > Resource Policy: > > Draft Policy ARIN-2014-13: Reduce All Minimum Allocation/Assignment > Units to /24 - This proposal will lower all allocation(s) and > assignment(s) of IPv4 address in section 4.2 and 4.3 to a /24 minimum. > The policy would also remove section 4.9 as the allocation and > assignment sizes were now larger than 4.2 and 4.3. As noted in the > staff > report it will also remove the maximum initial allocation that was used > with the examples in 4.2.2.2. The changes to the NRPM are fair in that > they would treat all resource applicants equally. They are technically > sound and have received support from the community. > > Problem Statement: > > As we approach runout, more and more end users and smaller ISPs will be > unable to obtain space from their upstreams and will be seeking space > from ARIN. In order to meet these needs to the extent possible and to > make policy more fair to a broader range of the ARIN constituency, we > should reduce the minimum assignment and allocation units for IPv4 to > /24 across the board. > > Policy statement: > > Remove all references to minimum allocations /20 and /22 replacing them > with the term allocation or with /24 when referencing minimum size > blocks. > > Change the title of 4.2.2.1 to "ISP Requirements" with revised text > stating: > > All ISP organizations must satisfy the following requirements...thus > eliminating the entire Multi-homed section and subsections along with > other superfluous example text. > > Delete the special case allocations/assignments for the Caribbean as > the > new /24 minimums are an improvement. > > Comments: > a. Timetable for implementation: Immediate b. A red line version has > been included > > Full text version of changes for easy reference: > > 4.2.1.5. Minimum allocation > In general, ARIN allocates /24 and larger IP address prefixes to ISPs. > If allocations smaller than /24 are needed, ISPs should request address > space from their upstream provider. > > 4.2.2.1 ISP Requirements > All ISP organizations must satisfy the following requirements: > > 4.2.2.1.1 Use of /24 > The efficient utilization of an entire previously allocated /24 from > their upstream ISP. This allocation may have been provided by an ISP??s > upstream provider(s), and does not have to be contiguous address space. > > 4.2.2.1.3. Three months > Provide detailed information showing specifically how the requested > allocation will be utilized within three months. > > 4.2.2.1.4. Renumber and return > ISPs receiving a new allocation may wish to renumber out of their > previously allocated space. In this case, an ISP must use the new > allocation to renumber out of that previously allocated block of > address > space and must return the space to its upstream provider. > > 4.2.2.2. [section number retired] > > 4.3.2 Minimum assignment > > 4.3.2.1. [section moved to 4.3.2] > The minimum block of IP address space assigned by ARIN to end-users > is a > /24. If assignments smaller than /24 are needed, end-users should > contact their upstream provider. > > 4.3.2.2 [section number retired] > > 4.9 [section number retired] > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd From list-admin at afrinic.net Tue Jul 1 03:11:11 2014 From: list-admin at afrinic.net (list-admin at afrinic.net) Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2014 05:11:11 +0200 Subject: [rpd] Monthly statistics for mailing-list: rpd@afrinic.net Message-ID: <201407010311.s613BB1k025835@ns1.afrinic.net> Monthly statistics for mailing-list: rpd at afrinic.net (Generated at: Tue Jul 1 03:11:01 UTC 2014) Statistics for month: June 2014 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ***** Authors with the most number of messages posted: +----+-----Author-----------------------------------+--Msg-+-Percent-+ | 1 | seun.ojedeji at gmail.com | 27 | 17.20 % | | 2 | mainanoa at gmail.com | 18 | 11.46 % | | 3 | owen at delong.com | 15 | 9.55 % | | 4 | mark.tinka at seacom.mu | 12 | 7.64 % | | 5 | mje at posix.co.za | 9 | 5.73 % | | 6 | adam at varud.com | 8 | 5.10 % | | 7 | h.lu at anytimechinese.com | 5 | 3.18 % | | 8 | apb at cequrux.com | 4 | 2.55 % | | 9 | geier at geier.ne.tz | 4 | 2.55 % | | 10 | woody at pch.net | 3 | 1.91 % | | 11 | omo at wacren.net | 3 | 1.91 % | | 12 | jacksonmuthi at gmail.com | 3 | 1.91 % | | 13 | jhay at meraka.org.za | 3 | 1.91 % | | 14 | Kivuva at transworldafrica.com | 3 | 1.91 % | | 15 | sfolayan at gmail.com | 3 | 1.91 % | | 16 | steve.wilcox at ixreach.com | 3 | 1.91 % | | 17 | ernest at afrinic.net | 3 | 1.91 % | | 18 | Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com | 2 | 1.27 % | | 19 | seeburn.k at gmail.com | 2 | 1.27 % | | 20 | Ben.Roberts at liquidtelecom.com | 2 | 1.27 % | +----+----------------------------------------------+------+---------+ | | other | 25 | 15.92 % | +----+----------------------------------------------+------+---------+ ***** Authors with the largest total size of messages posted: +----+-----Author-------------------------------------------+-KBytes-+ | 1 | steve.wilcox at ixreach.com | 4419.0 | | 2 | seun.ojedeji at gmail.com | 130.7 | | 3 | badru.ntege at nftconsult.com | 93.2 | | 4 | mainanoa at gmail.com | 74.6 | | 5 | mje at posix.co.za | 71.3 | | 6 | owen at delong.com | 53.6 | | 7 | Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com | 39.8 | | 8 | seeburn.k at gmail.com | 35.7 | | 9 | adam at varud.com | 35.0 | | 10 | Ben.Roberts at liquidtelecom.com | 30.7 | | 11 | kofi.ansa at gmail.com | 22.8 | | 12 | mark.tinka at seacom.mu | 21.8 | | 13 | huahuala222 at 126.com | 14.7 | | 14 | nbyoudienow at 163.com | 14.2 | | 15 | ademola at ng.lopworks.com | 13.7 | | 16 | omo at wacren.net | 10.1 | | 17 | list-admin at afrinic.net | 9.5 | | 18 | h.lu at anytimechinese.com | 7.7 | | 19 | benjamin.eshun at gmail.com | 7.0 | | 20 | Kivuva at transworldafrica.com | 6.5 | +----+------------------------------------------------------+--------+ ***** Authors with the largest average size of messages posted: +----+-----Author--------------------------------------------+-bytes-+ | 1 | steve.wilcox at ixreach.com |1508340 | | 2 | badru.ntege at nftconsult.com | 95481 | | 3 | Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com | 20401 | | 4 | seeburn.k at gmail.com | 18275 | | 5 | Ben.Roberts at liquidtelecom.com | 15726 | | 6 | huahuala222 at 126.com | 15070 | | 7 | nbyoudienow at 163.com | 14562 | | 8 | kofi.ansa at gmail.com | 11688 | | 9 | list-admin at afrinic.net | 9776 | | 10 | mje at posix.co.za | 8109 | | 11 | benjamin.eshun at gmail.com | 7201 | | 12 | ademola at ng.lopworks.com | 7034 | | 13 | dewole at forum.org.ng | 6625 | | 14 | seun.ojedeji at gmail.com | 4956 | | 15 | adam at varud.com | 4484 | | 16 | mainanoa at gmail.com | 4243 | | 17 | jbmillogo at gmail.com | 3815 | | 18 | christianbope at gmail.com | 3811 | | 19 | owen at delong.com | 3661 | | 20 | omo at wacren.net | 3446 | +----+-------------------------------------------------------+-------+ ***** Top subjects by popularity: +----+----Subject-----------------------------------+--Msg-+-Percent-+ | 1 | [rpd] LACNIC reaches final /10 of IPv4 space | 57 | 36.31 % | | 2 | [rpd] A typical conversation with a service | 42 | 26.75 % | | 3 | [rpd] Guessing is not the way to verify info | 16 | 10.19 % | | 4 | [rpd] Academic IPv4 Policy | 11 | 7.01 % | | 5 | [rpd] Unnecessary attachments | 6 | 3.82 % | | 6 | [rpd] AnyCast Address | 5 | 3.18 % | | 7 | [rpd] Re: [members-discuss] Virtual Africa i | 5 | 3.18 % | | 8 | [rpd] Proposal for HEIs | 2 | 1.27 % | | 9 | [rpd] AFPUB-2013-GEN-001, Academic ipv4 allo | 2 | 1.27 % | | 10 | [rpd] Fwd: [arin-ppml] LAST CALL: Recommende | 2 | 1.27 % | | 11 | [rpd] Monthly statistics for mailing-list: r | 1 | 0.64 % | | 12 | [rpd] Re: AFRINIC Board Election 2014 | 1 | 0.64 % | | 13 | [rpd] NomCom according to the Bylaws | 1 | 0.64 % | | 14 | [rpd] [rdp] Reverse delegation | 1 | 0.64 % | | 15 | [rpd] Global Internet Report 2014 - Meeting | 1 | 0.64 % | | 16 | [rpd] Policy Proposals and Minutes of the PD | 1 | 0.64 % | | 17 | [rpd] Anne-Rachel Inn?? to the role of VP, G | 1 | 0.64 % | | 18 | [rpd] Re: [FOSSFA Members] Anne-Rachel Inn | 1 | 0.64 % | | 19 | [rpd] Re: [AfrICANN-discuss] Re: [FOSSFA Mem | 1 | 0.64 % | +----+----------------------------------------------+------+---------+ | | other | 0 | 0.00 % | +----+----------------------------------------------+------+---------+ ***** Graph showing number of messages written during hours of day: 100% -------------------#----------------------------- - 17 90% -------------------#----------------------------- msgs 80% -------------------#----------------------------- 70% -------------------#-----#-#---#----------------- 60% -------------------#-#---#-#---#----------------- 50% -------------------#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#--------------- 40% -----------------#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-------#------- 30% ---------------#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-------#------- 20% -#---------#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#---#-#-#-#-#--- 10% -#-#---#---#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#- * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * hour 0 5 11 17 23 ***** Graph showing number of messages written during days of month: 100% ---------------------#----------------------------------------- - 37 90% ---------------------#---------#------------------------------- msgs 80% ---------------------#---------#------------------------------- 70% ---------------------#---------#------------------------------- 60% ---------------------#-#-------#------------------------------- 50% ---------------------#-#-------#------------------------------- 40% ---------------------#-#-------#------------------------------- 30% -----------#---------#-#-------#------------------------------- 20% ---------#-#---------#-#-------#---#--------------------------- 10% ---------#-#-------#-#-#-#-----#---#--------------------------- * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * day 1 6 12 18 24 31 ***** Graph showing number of messages written during days of week: 100% ---------#------------------- - 48 90% ---------#------------------- msgs 80% ---------#------------------- 70% -#-------#---#--------------- 60% -#-------#---#--------------- 50% -#-------#---#--------------- 40% -#-------#---#---#----------- 30% -#-------#---#---#----------- 20% -#-------#---#---#----------- 10% -#---#---#---#---#----------- * * * * * * * Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun ***** Longest message: Author : steve.wilcox at ixreach.com Subject : [rpd] LACNIC reaches final /10 of IPv4 space Date : Wed, 11 Jun 2014 19:33:41 +0100 Size : 4515006 bytes ***** Most popular subject: Subject : [rpd] LACNIC reaches final /10 of IPv4 space No. of msgs: 57 Total size : 5013985 bytes ***** Final summary: Total number of messages: 157 Total number of different authors: 41 Total number of different subjects: 19 Total size of messages (w/o headers): 5601118 bytes Average size of a message: 35675 bytes -- Regards, AFRINIC _____________________ powered by grepmail and MailListStat From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com Fri Jul 4 14:55:18 2014 From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji) Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2014 15:55:18 +0100 Subject: [rpd] New proposal - "Out-Of-Region Use of AFRINIC Internet Number Resources" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-002-DRAFT-01) Message-ID: Dear members, We have received a new policy Proposal - "Out-Of-Region Use of AFRINIC Internet Number Resources" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-002-DRAFT-01) Draft Policy name: Out-Of-Region Use of AFRINIC Internet Number Resources Unique identifier: AFPUB-2014-GEN-002-DRAFT-01 Status: New Submission Date 03 JULY 2014 Author: Douglas Onyango Url: http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposals/1157-out-of-region-use-of-afrinic-internet-number-resources Short url: http://goo.gl/L6exj7 Text Below: 1) Summary of the Problem Being Addressed by this Policy Proposal Currently, AFRINIC policies do not explicitly allow or disallow Out-Of-Region use of Internet number resources. This silence on an important facet of number resource management jeopardizes administration by leaving staff to arbitrarily decide how to handle Out-Of-Region requests. The imminent exhaustion of IPv4 aggravates the situation because it is anticipated that organizations from other regions will have more incentive to exploit this and any other loophole in AFRINIC polices to acquire resources for sale or use outside the region - a practice that is not in AFRINIC's best interests. 2) Summary of How this Proposal Addresses the Problem This policy allows up to 40% of Internet number resources in use by a member to be outside the region. It also tries to be a disincentive for organizations from other regions that want to acquire resources from AFRINIC for use in ways that are not in line with AFRINIC's best interests. For the avoidance of doubt, the author does not seek to prolong the lifespan of IPv4 with this proposal but rather, to ensure that number resources allocated/assigned by AFRINIC are used by legitimate members from the service region to support their network operations, regardless of physical location. 3) Proposal a. Upon ratification of this proposal, out-of-region use of AFRINIC's number resources shall be permitted as long it is preceded by use within the region. b. Notwithstanding (3.a), the number resources used outside the region at any given point in time shall not exceed 40% of the total space in use by a member. Total space in use shall be calculated as follows: if x be the allocation/assignment size; and x-y the amount of space in use at time z, then 40% of (x-y) shall be the ceiling). c. AFRINIC staff shall at their discretion, and using whatever means are available, assess compliance with 3.a/b. d. This proposal shall forthwith be part of the acceptable use policy for Internet numbers any breaches shall be dealt with in accordance with the RSA other AFRINIC policies. e. This policy shall not be applied in mutual exclusion, but rather complement already existing policies and other eligibility criteria prescribed by AFRINIC. f. This policy shall apply to past, present and future allocations/assignments made by AFRINIC. g. This policy shall remain in effect until: 1. It is mooted by another policy or it is superseded by a board resolution. 2. Until section 3.8 of the IPv4 Soft-landing Policy kicks in. (Use of IPv4 space from the last /8 outside the region shall be only to facilitate connectivity back to the region). History Previous Versions 03/07/2014: Version AFPUB-2014-GEN-001-DRAFT-01 posted to the mailing list. *Useful urls:* Policy proposals: http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposals About the policy development process: http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/pdwg Regards --- Seun Ojedeji & Adam Nelson PDWG Co-Chairs -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dogwallah at gmail.com Fri Jul 4 15:15:59 2014 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2014 10:15:59 -0500 Subject: [rpd] New proposal - "Out-Of-Region Use of AFRINIC Internet Number Resources" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-002-DRAFT-01) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In general, I can get behind this proposal. However: "c. AFRINIC staff shall at their discretion, and using whatever means are available, assess compliance with 3.a/b" is a bit worrisome. I will wait until the impact on NIC staff comes out to make a final declaration of full support. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel On Fri, Jul 4, 2014 at 9:55 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: > Dear members, > > We have received a new policy Proposal - "Out-Of-Region Use of AFRINIC > Internet Number Resources" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-002-DRAFT-01) > > Draft Policy name: Out-Of-Region Use of AFRINIC Internet Number Resources > Unique identifier: AFPUB-2014-GEN-002-DRAFT-01 > Status: New > Submission Date 03 JULY 2014 > Author: Douglas Onyango > Url: > http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposals/1157-out-of-region-use-of-afrinic-internet-number-resources > Short url: http://goo.gl/L6exj7 > > Text Below: > > 1) Summary of the Problem Being Addressed by this Policy Proposal > > Currently, AFRINIC policies do not explicitly allow or disallow > Out-Of-Region use of Internet number resources. This silence on an important > facet of number resource management jeopardizes administration by leaving > staff to arbitrarily decide how to handle Out-Of-Region requests. The > imminent exhaustion of IPv4 aggravates the situation because it is > anticipated that organizations from other regions will have more incentive > to exploit this and any other loophole in AFRINIC polices to acquire > resources for sale or use outside the region - a practice that is not in > AFRINIC's best interests. > > > 2) Summary of How this Proposal Addresses the Problem > > This policy allows up to 40% of Internet number resources in use by a member > to be outside the region. It also tries to be a disincentive for > organizations from other regions that want to acquire resources from AFRINIC > for use in ways that are not in line with AFRINIC's best interests. > > For the avoidance of doubt, the author does not seek to prolong the lifespan > of IPv4 with this proposal but rather, to ensure that number resources > allocated/assigned by AFRINIC are used by legitimate members from the > service region to support their network operations, regardless of physical > location. > > > 3) Proposal > > a. Upon ratification of this proposal, out-of-region use of AFRINIC's number > resources shall be permitted as long it is preceded by use within the > region. > > b. Notwithstanding (3.a), the number resources used outside the region at > any given point in time shall not exceed 40% of the total space in use by a > member. Total space in use shall be calculated as follows: if x be the > allocation/assignment size; and x-y the amount of space in use at time z, > then 40% of (x-y) shall be the ceiling). > > c. AFRINIC staff shall at their discretion, and using whatever means are > available, assess compliance with 3.a/b. > > d. This proposal shall forthwith be part of the acceptable use policy for > Internet numbers any breaches shall be dealt with in accordance with the RSA > other AFRINIC policies. > > e. This policy shall not be applied in mutual exclusion, but rather > complement already existing policies and other eligibility criteria > prescribed by AFRINIC. > > f. This policy shall apply to past, present and future > allocations/assignments made by AFRINIC. > > g. This policy shall remain in effect until: > > 1. It is mooted by another policy or it is superseded by a board resolution. > > 2. Until section 3.8 of the IPv4 Soft-landing Policy kicks in. (Use of IPv4 > space from the last /8 outside the region shall be only to facilitate > connectivity back to the region). > History > Previous Versions > > 03/07/2014: Version AFPUB-2014-GEN-001-DRAFT-01 posted to the mailing list. > > Useful urls: > > Policy proposals: > http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposals > About the policy development process: > http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/pdwg > > Regards > --- > Seun Ojedeji & Adam Nelson > PDWG Co-Chairs > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > From ondouglas at gmail.com Fri Jul 4 16:46:57 2014 From: ondouglas at gmail.com (Douglas Onyango) Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2014 17:46:57 +0100 Subject: [rpd] New proposal - "Out-Of-Region Use of AFRINIC Internet Number Resources" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-002-DRAFT-01) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi McTim, On 4 July 2014 16:15, McTim wrote: > In general, I can get behind this proposal. Thanks. > "c. AFRINIC staff shall at their discretion, and using whatever means > are available, assess compliance with 3.a/b" > > is a bit worrisome. This requirement is not new, so I fail to see how/why it worries you. AFRINIC staff's responsibility to monitor compliance for allocations/assignments is enshrined in out policies and RSA. This policy merely adds one more criteria to the list. > I will wait until the impact on NIC staff comes out to make a final > declaration of full support. Same here. I just don't remember how to formally request one. @co-chairs kindly help with this. Regards, From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com Fri Jul 4 17:16:26 2014 From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji) Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2014 18:16:26 +0100 Subject: [rpd] Proposal update - "AfriNIC Whois Database Update Process" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-001-DRAFT-02) Message-ID: Dear members, There is an update to the "AFRINIC Whois Database Update Process" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-001-DRAFT-02) Policy proposal Draft Policy name: AfriNIC Whois Database Update Process Unique identifier: AFPUB-2014-GEN-001-DRAFT-02 Status: DRAFT-02 Submission Date 16 JUNE 2014 Author:Jean Robert Hountomey Url: http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposals/1109-afrinic-whois-database-update-process Short url: http://goo.gl/2SBu85 Useful urls: Policy proposals: http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposals About the policy development process: http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/pdwg Regards --- Seun Ojedeji & Adam Nelson PDWG Co-Chairs -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mje at posix.co.za Fri Jul 4 17:22:58 2014 From: mje at posix.co.za (Mark Elkins) Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2014 19:22:58 +0200 Subject: [rpd] New proposal - "Out-Of-Region Use of AFRINIC Internet Number Resources" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-002-DRAFT-01) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1404494578.17253.11.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> I like this proposal. Its quite short and to the point. It adds clarity. It deals with things so far unspoken (or perhaps taken for granted), that IPv4 resources distributed by AFRINIC are primarily for use in the AFRINIC service region - yet can be used to a large extent outside the region. We should have had this a long time ago. I think it will make the lives of the Hostmaster staff easier. (For example: A Second or subsequent request will only be possible if the requester can show that previous allocations/assignments are active, the majority of which are in-use within the service region.) Perhaps an Impact Request should be asked for from the Hostmaster staff team? On Fri, 2014-07-04 at 15:55 +0100, Seun Ojedeji wrote: > Dear members, > > We have received a new policy Proposal - "Out-Of-Region Use of AFRINIC > Internet Number Resources" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-002-DRAFT-01) > > Draft Policy name: Out-Of-Region Use of AFRINIC Internet Number > Resources > Unique identifier: AFPUB-2014-GEN-002-DRAFT-01 > Status: New > Submission Date 03 JULY 2014 > Author: Douglas Onyango > Url: > http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposals/1157-out-of-region-use-of-afrinic-internet-number-resources > Short url: http://goo.gl/L6exj7 -- Mark James ELKINS - Posix Systems - (South) Africa mje at posix.co.za Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: https://ftth.posix.co.za -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 5810 bytes Desc: not available URL: From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com Fri Jul 4 17:39:08 2014 From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji) Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2014 18:39:08 +0100 Subject: [rpd] New proposal - "Out-Of-Region Use of AFRINIC Internet Number Resources" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-002-DRAFT-01) In-Reply-To: <1404494578.17253.11.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> References: <1404494578.17253.11.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> Message-ID: On 4 Jul 2014 18:25, "Mark Elkins" wrote: > > Perhaps an Impact Request should be asked for from the Hostmaster staff > team? > Dear members, We have made the necessary request to staff and will revert back soon enough. Regards Seun Ojedeji & Adam Nelson PDWG Co-Chairs > On Fri, 2014-07-04 at 15:55 +0100, Seun Ojedeji wrote: > > Dear members, > > > > We have received a new policy Proposal - "Out-Of-Region Use of AFRINIC > > Internet Number Resources" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-002-DRAFT-01) > > > > Draft Policy name: Out-Of-Region Use of AFRINIC Internet Number > > Resources > > Unique identifier: AFPUB-2014-GEN-002-DRAFT-01 > > Status: New > > Submission Date 03 JULY 2014 > > Author: Douglas Onyango > > Url: > > http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposals/1157-out-of-region-use-of-afrinic-internet-number-resources > > Short url: http://goo.gl/L6exj7 > > > -- > Mark James ELKINS - Posix Systems - (South) Africa > mje at posix.co.za Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 > For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: https://ftth.posix.co.za > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ondouglas at gmail.com Fri Jul 4 19:23:09 2014 From: ondouglas at gmail.com (Douglas Onyango) Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2014 20:23:09 +0100 Subject: [rpd] New proposal - "Out-Of-Region Use of AFRINIC Internet Number Resources" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-002-DRAFT-01) In-Reply-To: <1404494578.17253.11.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> References: <1404494578.17253.11.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> Message-ID: Hi Mark, On 4 July 2014 18:22, Mark Elkins wrote: > I like this proposal. Its quite short and to the point. It adds clarity. > It deals with things so far unspoken (or perhaps taken for granted) Thanks Mark. Regards, From owen at delong.com Fri Jul 4 22:09:16 2014 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2014 15:09:16 -0700 Subject: [rpd] New proposal - "Out-Of-Region Use of AFRINIC Internet Number Resources" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-002-DRAFT-01) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9D153EFE-719D-4374-B7FA-4853D9367746@delong.com> Overall, I like it. I think 40% might be a bit too liberal. Owen On Jul 4, 2014, at 07:55 , Seun Ojedeji wrote: > Dear members, > > We have received a new policy Proposal - "Out-Of-Region Use of AFRINIC Internet Number Resources" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-002-DRAFT-01) > > Draft Policy name: Out-Of-Region Use of AFRINIC Internet Number Resources > Unique identifier: AFPUB-2014-GEN-002-DRAFT-01 > Status: New > Submission Date 03 JULY 2014 > Author: Douglas Onyango > Url: http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposals/1157-out-of-region-use-of-afrinic-internet-number-resources > Short url: http://goo.gl/L6exj7 > > Text Below: > > 1) Summary of the Problem Being Addressed by this Policy Proposal > > Currently, AFRINIC policies do not explicitly allow or disallow Out-Of-Region use of Internet number resources. This silence on an important facet of number resource management jeopardizes administration by leaving staff to arbitrarily decide how to handle Out-Of-Region requests. The imminent exhaustion of IPv4 aggravates the situation because it is anticipated that organizations from other regions will have more incentive to exploit this and any other loophole in AFRINIC polices to acquire resources for sale or use outside the region - a practice that is not in AFRINIC's best interests. > > > 2) Summary of How this Proposal Addresses the Problem > > This policy allows up to 40% of Internet number resources in use by a member to be outside the region. It also tries to be a disincentive for organizations from other regions that want to acquire resources from AFRINIC for use in ways that are not in line with AFRINIC's best interests. > > For the avoidance of doubt, the author does not seek to prolong the lifespan of IPv4 with this proposal but rather, to ensure that number resources allocated/assigned by AFRINIC are used by legitimate members from the service region to support their network operations, regardless of physical location. > > > 3) Proposal > > a. Upon ratification of this proposal, out-of-region use of AFRINIC's number resources shall be permitted as long it is preceded by use within the region. > > b. Notwithstanding (3.a), the number resources used outside the region at any given point in time shall not exceed 40% of the total space in use by a member. Total space in use shall be calculated as follows: if x be the allocation/assignment size; and x-y the amount of space in use at time z, then 40% of (x-y) shall be the ceiling). > > c. AFRINIC staff shall at their discretion, and using whatever means are available, assess compliance with 3.a/b. > > d. This proposal shall forthwith be part of the acceptable use policy for Internet numbers any breaches shall be dealt with in accordance with the RSA other AFRINIC policies. > > e. This policy shall not be applied in mutual exclusion, but rather complement already existing policies and other eligibility criteria prescribed by AFRINIC. > > f. This policy shall apply to past, present and future allocations/assignments made by AFRINIC. > > g. This policy shall remain in effect until: > > 1. It is mooted by another policy or it is superseded by a board resolution. > > 2. Until section 3.8 of the IPv4 Soft-landing Policy kicks in. (Use of IPv4 space from the last /8 outside the region shall be only to facilitate connectivity back to the region). > History > Previous Versions > > 03/07/2014: Version AFPUB-2014-GEN-001-DRAFT-01 posted to the mailing list. > > Useful urls: > > Policy proposals: http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposals > About the policy development process: http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/pdwg > > Regards > --- > Seun Ojedeji & Adam Nelson > PDWG Co-Chairs > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ondouglas at gmail.com Fri Jul 4 22:31:18 2014 From: ondouglas at gmail.com (Douglas Onyango) Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2014 23:31:18 +0100 Subject: [rpd] New proposal - "Out-Of-Region Use of AFRINIC Internet Number Resources" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-002-DRAFT-01) In-Reply-To: <9D153EFE-719D-4374-B7FA-4853D9367746@delong.com> References: <9D153EFE-719D-4374-B7FA-4853D9367746@delong.com> Message-ID: Hi Owen, On 4 July 2014 23:09, Owen DeLong wrote: > Overall, I like it. I think 40% might be a bit too liberal. Thanks....what do you think would be more appropriate? 10, 20,30%?? Regards, From badru.ntege at nftconsult.com Sat Jul 5 04:19:18 2014 From: badru.ntege at nftconsult.com (Badru Ntege) Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2014 04:19:18 +0000 Subject: [rpd] New proposal - "Out-Of-Region Use of AFRINIC Internet Number Resources" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-002-DRAFT-01) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi I like the policy but would suggest an initial ceiling of 20% with extra justification to use upto 40% Badru Ntege Sent from my Mobile On 4 Jul 2014, at 18:01, "Seun Ojedeji" > wrote: Dear members, We have received a new policy Proposal - "Out-Of-Region Use of AFRINIC Internet Number Resources" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-002-DRAFT-01) Draft Policy name: Out-Of-Region Use of AFRINIC Internet Number Resources Unique identifier: AFPUB-2014-GEN-002-DRAFT-01 Status: New Submission Date 03 JULY 2014 Author: Douglas Onyango Url: http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposals/1157-out-of-region-use-of-afrinic-internet-number-resources Short url: http://goo.gl/L6exj7 Text Below: 1) Summary of the Problem Being Addressed by this Policy Proposal Currently, AFRINIC policies do not explicitly allow or disallow Out-Of-Region use of Internet number resources. This silence on an important facet of number resource management jeopardizes administration by leaving staff to arbitrarily decide how to handle Out-Of-Region requests. The imminent exhaustion of IPv4 aggravates the situation because it is anticipated that organizations from other regions will have more incentive to exploit this and any other loophole in AFRINIC polices to acquire resources for sale or use outside the region - a practice that is not in AFRINIC's best interests. 2) Summary of How this Proposal Addresses the Problem This policy allows up to 40% of Internet number resources in use by a member to be outside the region. It also tries to be a disincentive for organizations from other regions that want to acquire resources from AFRINIC for use in ways that are not in line with AFRINIC's best interests. For the avoidance of doubt, the author does not seek to prolong the lifespan of IPv4 with this proposal but rather, to ensure that number resources allocated/assigned by AFRINIC are used by legitimate members from the service region to support their network operations, regardless of physical location. 3) Proposal a. Upon ratification of this proposal, out-of-region use of AFRINIC's number resources shall be permitted as long it is preceded by use within the region. b. Notwithstanding (3.a), the number resources used outside the region at any given point in time shall not exceed 40% of the total space in use by a member. Total space in use shall be calculated as follows: if x be the allocation/assignment size; and x-y the amount of space in use at time z, then 40% of (x-y) shall be the ceiling). c. AFRINIC staff shall at their discretion, and using whatever means are available, assess compliance with 3.a/b. d. This proposal shall forthwith be part of the acceptable use policy for Internet numbers any breaches shall be dealt with in accordance with the RSA other AFRINIC policies. e. This policy shall not be applied in mutual exclusion, but rather complement already existing policies and other eligibility criteria prescribed by AFRINIC. f. This policy shall apply to past, present and future allocations/assignments made by AFRINIC. g. This policy shall remain in effect until: 1. It is mooted by another policy or it is superseded by a board resolution. 2. Until section 3.8 of the IPv4 Soft-landing Policy kicks in. (Use of IPv4 space from the last /8 outside the region shall be only to facilitate connectivity back to the region). History Previous Versions 03/07/2014: Version AFPUB-2014-GEN-001-DRAFT-01 posted to the mailing list. Useful urls: Policy proposals: http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposals About the policy development process: http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/pdwg Regards --- Seun Ojedeji & Adam Nelson PDWG Co-Chairs _______________________________________________ rpd mailing list rpd at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From seeburn.k at gmail.com Sat Jul 5 04:48:00 2014 From: seeburn.k at gmail.com (Krishna Seeburn) Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2014 08:48:00 +0400 Subject: [rpd] New proposal - "Out-Of-Region Use of AFRINIC Internet Number Resources" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-002-DRAFT-01) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5E448257-5879-4844-9F97-47B682EB79D2@gmail.com> I second the idea badru but how about being cautios and allocate in gradients of 10% going up to ceiling of 40%. Based on justifications. This should help both hostmaster and the member as well. This would also help in making sure the justifications are valid as we go up. Kris Seeburn skype: kris_seeburn30 Linkedin:mu.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn > On 5 Jul 2014, at 08:19, Badru Ntege wrote: > > Hi > > I like the policy but would suggest an initial ceiling of 20% with extra justification to use upto 40% > > Badru Ntege > Sent from my Mobile > > On 4 Jul 2014, at 18:01, "Seun Ojedeji" wrote: > >> Dear members, >> >> We have received a new policy Proposal - "Out-Of-Region Use of AFRINIC Internet Number Resources" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-002-DRAFT-01) >> >> Draft Policy name: Out-Of-Region Use of AFRINIC Internet Number Resources >> Unique identifier: AFPUB-2014-GEN-002-DRAFT-01 >> Status: New >> Submission Date 03 JULY 2014 >> Author: Douglas Onyango >> Url: http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposals/1157-out-of-region-use-of-afrinic-internet-number-resources >> Short url: http://goo.gl/L6exj7 >> >> Text Below: >> >> 1) Summary of the Problem Being Addressed by this Policy Proposal >> >> Currently, AFRINIC policies do not explicitly allow or disallow Out-Of-Region use of Internet number resources. This silence on an important facet of number resource management jeopardizes administration by leaving staff to arbitrarily decide how to handle Out-Of-Region requests. The imminent exhaustion of IPv4 aggravates the situation because it is anticipated that organizations from other regions will have more incentive to exploit this and any other loophole in AFRINIC polices to acquire resources for sale or use outside the region - a practice that is not in AFRINIC's best interests. >> >> >> 2) Summary of How this Proposal Addresses the Problem >> >> This policy allows up to 40% of Internet number resources in use by a member to be outside the region. It also tries to be a disincentive for organizations from other regions that want to acquire resources from AFRINIC for use in ways that are not in line with AFRINIC's best interests. >> >> For the avoidance of doubt, the author does not seek to prolong the lifespan of IPv4 with this proposal but rather, to ensure that number resources allocated/assigned by AFRINIC are used by legitimate members from the service region to support their network operations, regardless of physical location. >> >> >> 3) Proposal >> >> a. Upon ratification of this proposal, out-of-region use of AFRINIC's number resources shall be permitted as long it is preceded by use within the region. >> >> b. Notwithstanding (3.a), the number resources used outside the region at any given point in time shall not exceed 40% of the total space in use by a member. Total space in use shall be calculated as follows: if x be the allocation/assignment size; and x-y the amount of space in use at time z, then 40% of (x-y) shall be the ceiling). >> >> c. AFRINIC staff shall at their discretion, and using whatever means are available, assess compliance with 3.a/b. >> >> d. This proposal shall forthwith be part of the acceptable use policy for Internet numbers any breaches shall be dealt with in accordance with the RSA other AFRINIC policies. >> >> e. This policy shall not be applied in mutual exclusion, but rather complement already existing policies and other eligibility criteria prescribed by AFRINIC. >> >> f. This policy shall apply to past, present and future allocations/assignments made by AFRINIC. >> >> g. This policy shall remain in effect until: >> >> 1. It is mooted by another policy or it is superseded by a board resolution. >> >> 2. Until section 3.8 of the IPv4 Soft-landing Policy kicks in. (Use of IPv4 space from the last /8 outside the region shall be only to facilitate connectivity back to the region). >> History >> Previous Versions >> >> 03/07/2014: Version AFPUB-2014-GEN-001-DRAFT-01 posted to the mailing list. >> >> Useful urls: >> >> Policy proposals: http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposals >> About the policy development process: http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/pdwg >> >> Regards >> --- >> Seun Ojedeji & Adam Nelson >> PDWG Co-Chairs >> _______________________________________________ >> rpd mailing list >> rpd at afrinic.net >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com Sat Jul 5 06:14:33 2014 From: Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com (Andrew Alston) Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2014 07:14:33 +0100 Subject: [rpd] New proposal - "Out-Of-Region Use of AFRINIC Internet Number Resources" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-002-DRAFT-01) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi All, Firstly, let me start by saying I write here entirely in my personal capacity and what follows are views that are not necessarily representative of the views of the AfriNIC board or any other organisation or entity to which I am associated or affiliated. I actually discussed this policy with Seun before it was posted, and I have certain areas of concern. 1) Summary of the Problem Being Addressed by this Policy Proposal Currently, AFRINIC policies do not explicitly allow or disallow Out-Of-Region use of Internet number resources. This silence on an important facet of number resource management jeopardizes administration by leaving staff to arbitrarily decide how to handle Out-Of-Region requests. The imminent exhaustion of IPv4 aggravates the situation because it is anticipated that organizations from other regions will have more incentive to exploit this and any other loophole in AFRINIC polices to acquire resources for sale or use outside the region - a practice that is not in AFRINIC's best interests. Firstly, I have stated before, and I will state again, having the amount of space AfriNIC has available and the low allocation rates is equally not in our interests. The financial situation in AfriNIC as highlighted in the last two meetings is also not in our interests. So, while I agree that having the resources used outside of our region may not be in the best interests of the african continent, this is what I would consider a dialectic. Will this policy actually prevent resources flowing out of the region or will it simply encourage fraudulent applications and falsified whois entries and records? I would argue the latter rather than the former. 2) Summary of How this Proposal Addresses the Problem This policy allows up to 40% of Internet number resources in use by a member to be outside the region. It also tries to be a disincentive for organizations from other regions that want to acquire resources from AFRINIC for use in ways that are not in line with AFRINIC's best interests. I do not like the phrasing that says ?ways that are not inline with AFRINIC?s best interests? . AfriNIC?s mandate is to allocate resources to entities in the region who need them. How those organisations utilise that space is immaterial to AfriNIC so long as the space is being used. While I believe I understand the INTENT behind the phrasing, the phrasing itself is rather ambiguous and I would like to see it re-worded. b. Notwithstanding (3.a), the number resources used outside the region at any given point in time shall not exceed 40% of the total space in use by a member. Total space in use shall be calculated as follows: if x be the allocation/assignment size; and x-y the amount of space in use at time z, then 40% of (x-y) shall be the ceiling). Again, my problem with this is the lack of enforceability. Vast stretches of this continent are still served by Satellite, and are also running on high latency low capacity links. It is therefore virtually impossible to determine where the space is actually being used. If I have a satellite hub in Europe with a thousand downstream customers all in central Africa, the hub is uplinked to a european provider, and the hub is originating the space, but the space is being used by the downstream customers in Africa, traceroutes to those customers from Africa are going to go via Europe, the BGP adjacencies are going to show the space being announced entirely to European providers, but the space is still used in Africa and latency to the space in Africa is going to be in the couple of hundred millisecond mark. Conversely, if I state in whois records the space is in Africa but announce it elsewhere in the world and set the right RDNS, how is anyone going to PROVE otherwise? Again, all this does is lead to falsified whois records. c. AFRINIC staff shall at their discretion, and using whatever means are available, assess compliance with 3.a/b. This is far to ambiguous for me, host masters are trained to evaluate the legitimacy of requests. They are NOT network engineers, and as stated in the above example, evaluation of these things can be complex and require a fair amount of skill to figure out where things are being used. If we?re going to pass a policy like this, then how these checks are done and to avoid complex and time consuming fights needs to be clearly spelt out. f. This policy shall apply to past, present and future allocations/assignments made by AFRINIC. I have an issue with this, and there is precedent. Legacy space is not bound by the same rules as new allocations because it was allocated before those rules were implemented. When laws are introduced in a legal system, or penalties for a crime are decreased or increased, it is not applied retroactively. I would argue that applying this policy retroactively on already allocated space cannot be done. In Summary, while I understand the sentiments of the policy and I to do not want to see the African resources stolen and pillaged by outside entities with no gain coming back to the African continent, I do not believe that arbtiary percentages and unenforceable policy are the way to ensure this. I also understand the authors sentiment that the policy does not seek to slow the allocation of space, and this is appreciated, however, I would far rather see policy that actively seeks to drastically INCREASE the allocation of space. Hence at this point, I for one cannot support this policy as it stands right now. Thanks Andrew ________________________________ DISCLAIMER: This email contains proprietary information some or all of which may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this email, please notify the author by replying to this email. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose, copy, print, or rely on this email. We cannot accept liability for any statements made which are clearly the sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of this company or one of its agents. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jacksonmuthi at gmail.com Sat Jul 5 07:14:58 2014 From: jacksonmuthi at gmail.com (Jackson Muthili) Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2014 10:14:58 +0300 Subject: [rpd] New proposal - "Out-Of-Region Use of AFRINIC Internet Number Resources" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-002-DRAFT-01) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sat, Jul 5, 2014 at 9:14 AM, Andrew Alston wrote: > Hi All, > > Firstly, let me start by saying I write here entirely in my personal > capacity and what follows are views that are not necessarily representative > of the views of the AfriNIC board or any other organisation or entity to > which I am associated or affiliated. > > I actually discussed this policy with Seun before it was posted, and I have > certain areas of concern. > > 1) Summary of the Problem Being Addressed by this Policy Proposal > > Currently, AFRINIC policies do not explicitly allow or disallow > Out-Of-Region use of Internet number resources. This silence on an important > facet of number resource management jeopardizes administration by leaving > staff to arbitrarily decide how to handle Out-Of-Region requests. The > imminent exhaustion of IPv4 aggravates the situation because it is > anticipated that organizations from other regions will have more incentive > to exploit this and any other loophole in AFRINIC polices to acquire > resources for sale or use outside the region - a practice that is not in > AFRINIC's best interests. > > Firstly, I have stated before, and I will state again, having the amount of > space AfriNIC has available and the low allocation rates is equally not in > our interests. Your view can be challenged on two grounds. 1. Region internet penetration is still low. Same time potential for growth is still high. Internet still powered by Ipv4 regardless of IPv6 hyperbole. I don't care if western and other world is migrating into Ipv6. Fact is it has not yet happened. Ipv4 is therefore the fuel of Internet now and our region still need it for its internet growth! 2.Like ir or not Ipv6 much as being adopted is still long long way. If those region who run out are still buying Ipv4 all over it tells you the picture of Ipv6 migration state. It is in 100% Africa best interest that we still have large reserve of ipv4 and it is in pour 100% best interest this reserve DOES NOT - MUST NOT be stolen to be use outside Africa. I want policy to tag a ratio of 80-90% of Africa usage where usage means last mile user of the IP located in AFRICA. > f. This policy shall apply to past, present and future > allocations/assignments made by AFRINIC. > > I have an issue with this, and there is precedent. Legacy space is not > bound by the same rules as new allocations because it was allocated before > those rules were implemented. You are right. Therefore let those legacies companies start their own registry and whois services and remove their IPs from the services of Afrinic and use their own? If your answer is no then stop closing your eye to fact that a service received MUST be paid for. Keeping your legacy information in whois services costs registry money but you want it for free I fail to see how you support this??? (specially as board member even if you now speak not as one in your contributions) From ondouglas at gmail.com Sat Jul 5 14:40:47 2014 From: ondouglas at gmail.com (Douglas Onyango) Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2014 15:40:47 +0100 Subject: [rpd] New proposal - "Out-Of-Region Use of AFRINIC Internet Number Resources" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-002-DRAFT-01) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Badru, On 5 July 2014 05:19, Badru Ntege wrote: > I like the policy but would suggest an initial ceiling of 20% with extra > justification to use upto 40% It is my belief that two ceilings would increase the implementation overhead and delay deployments because members would have to return to AFRINIC in the middle of a network deployment when they discover they hit 20.1%. AFRINIC might require time to analyse the situation which a member may not have. For this reason, I am reluctant to go this path, however, I don't have a problem with fixing a middle ground -- 30% perhaps if there is sufficient support for it. let me know. Regards, > > Badru Ntege > Sent from my Mobile > > On 4 Jul 2014, at 18:01, "Seun Ojedeji" wrote: > > Dear members, > > We have received a new policy Proposal - "Out-Of-Region Use of AFRINIC > Internet Number Resources" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-002-DRAFT-01) > > Draft Policy name: Out-Of-Region Use of AFRINIC Internet Number Resources > Unique identifier: AFPUB-2014-GEN-002-DRAFT-01 > Status: New > Submission Date 03 JULY 2014 > Author: Douglas Onyango > Url: > http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposals/1157-out-of-region-use-of-afrinic-internet-number-resources > Short url: http://goo.gl/L6exj7 > > Text Below: > > 1) Summary of the Problem Being Addressed by this Policy Proposal > > Currently, AFRINIC policies do not explicitly allow or disallow > Out-Of-Region use of Internet number resources. This silence on an important > facet of number resource management jeopardizes administration by leaving > staff to arbitrarily decide how to handle Out-Of-Region requests. The > imminent exhaustion of IPv4 aggravates the situation because it is > anticipated that organizations from other regions will have more incentive > to exploit this and any other loophole in AFRINIC polices to acquire > resources for sale or use outside the region - a practice that is not in > AFRINIC's best interests. > > > 2) Summary of How this Proposal Addresses the Problem > > This policy allows up to 40% of Internet number resources in use by a member > to be outside the region. It also tries to be a disincentive for > organizations from other regions that want to acquire resources from AFRINIC > for use in ways that are not in line with AFRINIC's best interests. > > For the avoidance of doubt, the author does not seek to prolong the lifespan > of IPv4 with this proposal but rather, to ensure that number resources > allocated/assigned by AFRINIC are used by legitimate members from the > service region to support their network operations, regardless of physical > location. > > > 3) Proposal > > a. Upon ratification of this proposal, out-of-region use of AFRINIC's number > resources shall be permitted as long it is preceded by use within the > region. > > b. Notwithstanding (3.a), the number resources used outside the region at > any given point in time shall not exceed 40% of the total space in use by a > member. Total space in use shall be calculated as follows: if x be the > allocation/assignment size; and x-y the amount of space in use at time z, > then 40% of (x-y) shall be the ceiling). > > c. AFRINIC staff shall at their discretion, and using whatever means are > available, assess compliance with 3.a/b. > > d. This proposal shall forthwith be part of the acceptable use policy for > Internet numbers any breaches shall be dealt with in accordance with the RSA > other AFRINIC policies. > > e. This policy shall not be applied in mutual exclusion, but rather > complement already existing policies and other eligibility criteria > prescribed by AFRINIC. > > f. This policy shall apply to past, present and future > allocations/assignments made by AFRINIC. > > g. This policy shall remain in effect until: > > 1. It is mooted by another policy or it is superseded by a board resolution. > > 2. Until section 3.8 of the IPv4 Soft-landing Policy kicks in. (Use of IPv4 > space from the last /8 outside the region shall be only to facilitate > connectivity back to the region). > History > Previous Versions > > 03/07/2014: Version AFPUB-2014-GEN-001-DRAFT-01 posted to the mailing list. > > Useful urls: > > Policy proposals: > http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposals > About the policy development process: > http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/pdwg > > Regards > --- > Seun Ojedeji & Adam Nelson > PDWG Co-Chairs > > _______________________________________________ > > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > -- Douglas Onyango, PRINCE 2, ITILv3 UG: +256 776 716 138 | NG: +234 706 202 8375 From owen at delong.com Sat Jul 5 15:09:50 2014 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2014 08:09:50 -0700 Subject: [rpd] New proposal - "Out-Of-Region Use of AFRINIC Internet Number Resources" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-002-DRAFT-01) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B42D12C-B1E8-459A-B9DF-2F01AE1468B2@delong.com> >> 1) Summary of the Problem Being Addressed by this Policy Proposal >> >> Currently, AFRINIC policies do not explicitly allow or disallow Out-Of-Region use of Internet number resources. This silence on an important facet of number resource management jeopardizes administration by leaving staff to arbitrarily decide how to handle Out-Of-Region requests. The imminent exhaustion of IPv4 aggravates the situation because it is anticipated that organizations from other regions will have more incentive to exploit this and any other loophole in AFRINIC polices to acquire resources for sale or use outside the region - a practice that is not in AFRINIC's best interests. > > Firstly, I have stated before, and I will state again, having the amount of space AfriNIC has available and the low allocation rates is equally not in our interests. The financial situation in AfriNIC as highlighted in the last two meetings is also not in our interests. So, while I agree that having the resources used outside of our region may not be in the best interests of the african continent, this is what I would consider a dialectic. Will this policy actually prevent resources flowing out of the region or will it simply encourage fraudulent applications and falsified whois entries and records? I would argue the latter rather than the former. You offer this as a dichotomy where none exists. Instead, there is a very wide range of possibilities between the two. Likely there will be some falsified/fraudulent applications, but this policy provides for AfriNIC to revoke the resources in such cases once they are discovered. OTOH, I do believe it will also prevent resource exodus to some extent. In part, where things fall in the range between no prevention and all fraudulent requests vs. all prevention and no fraudulent requests will depend on the diligence and effectiveness of the AfriNIC staff. While I realize you posted this in your personal capacity, I would expect a board member to show a greater level of confidence in the AfriNIC staff, or, I would expect him to take actions to restore confidence. >> >> 2) Summary of How this Proposal Addresses the Problem >> >> This policy allows up to 40% of Internet number resources in use by a member to be outside the region. It also tries to be a disincentive for organizations from other regions that want to acquire resources from AFRINIC for use in ways that are not in line with AFRINIC's best interests. > > I do not like the phrasing that says ?ways that are not inline with AFRINIC?s best interests? . AfriNIC?s mandate is to allocate resources to entities in the region who need them. How those organisations utilise that space is immaterial to AfriNIC so long as the space is being used. While I believe I understand the INTENT behind the phrasing, the phrasing itself is rather ambiguous and I would like to see it re-worded. I?ll point out that is part of the problem description and not part of the policy itself, so I think it?s a fine statement of intent and getting wrapped around the axle about it is not useful in considering the policy proposal. >> b. Notwithstanding (3.a), the number resources used outside the region at any given point in time shall not exceed 40% of the total space in use by a member. Total space in use shall be calculated as follows: if x be the allocation/assignment size; and x-y the amount of space in use at time z, then 40% of (x-y) shall be the ceiling). > > Again, my problem with this is the lack of enforceability. Vast stretches of this continent are still served by Satellite, and are also running on high latency low capacity links. It is therefore virtually impossible to determine where the space is actually being used. If I have a satellite hub in Europe with a thousand downstream customers all in central Africa, the hub is uplinked to a european provider, and the hub is originating the space, but the space is being used by the downstream customers in Africa, traceroutes to those customers from Africa are going to go via Europe, the BGP adjacencies are going to show the space being announced entirely to European providers, but the space is still used in Africa and latency to the space in Africa is going to be in the couple of hundred millisecond mark. Conversely, if I state in whois records the space is in Africa but announce it elsewhere in the world and set the right RDNS, how is anyone going to PROVE otherwise? Again, all this does is lead to falsified whois records. You?ve actually shown that it?s fairly easy to detect these satellite based links by their latency. I don?t think that the inability to detect all potential cases of fraud is a good reason to avoid implementing good policy. In all cases, RIR policy counts on the generally good actions of the majority of the community and this is no different. No matter what we do with policy, organizations willing to commit fraud are likely to commit fraud. If you have ideas for making this policy less susceptible to fraud, then let?s hear those. Otherwise, I don?t see the potential for fraud as a reason to avoid implementing the policy. >> c. AFRINIC staff shall at their discretion, and using whatever means are available, assess compliance with 3.a/b. > > > This is far to ambiguous for me, host masters are trained to evaluate the legitimacy of requests. They are NOT network engineers, and as stated in the above example, evaluation of these things can be complex and require a fair amount of skill to figure out where things are being used. If we?re going to pass a policy like this, then how these checks are done and to avoid complex and time consuming fights needs to be clearly spelt out. Or perhaps too ambiguous? I don?t see anything in 3a or 3b which would require any real knowledge of network engineering knowledge. I think AfriNIC staff is perfectly capable of developing the necessary procedures and processes and performing the staff training that would be required by this policy. I don?t think that those details belong in the policy text. >> f. This policy shall apply to past, present and future allocations/assignments made by AFRINIC. > > I have an issue with this, and there is precedent. Legacy space is not bound by the same rules as new allocations because it was allocated before those rules were implemented. When laws are introduced in a legal system, or penalties for a crime are decreased or increased, it is not applied retroactively. I would argue that applying this policy retroactively on already allocated space cannot be done. Yes and no. An action that wasn?t illegal when you took it cannot be punished (no laws of ex post facto), however, that?s not what is being addressed here. For example, laws which govern property rights usually apply to existing property owners? continued use of that property. For example, a municipality that passes a law requiring you to maintain your front yard to certain standards cannot prosecute you or fine you for how your yard looked a year before the law was implemented, but they can and will prosecute and/or fine you if your yard does not meet those standards after the law is put into effect. I see no difference between this policy and the above situation with property rights. It remains to be seen whether legacy space is or is not subject to the same rules as new allocations if, as a community, we should happen to choose to apply them. However, legacy space is not covered by the phrase in this policy. It clearly states past/present/future allocations/assignments ?MADE BY AFRINIC? (emphasis added). Legacy assignments/allocations, by definition, were not made by AfriNIC. ?. Further I don?t believe that the way to resolve the low utilization rate in the AfriNIC region is by giving away the resources for out of region use. As you know, resolving the low utilization rate is a complex problem which will take time, educational outreach, and other efforts to resolve. Getting rid of the resources to other utilizations elsewhere will prevent those resources from getting utilized in region when the desire for in-region use develops. Owen -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ondouglas at gmail.com Sat Jul 5 21:16:45 2014 From: ondouglas at gmail.com (Douglas Onyango) Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2014 22:16:45 +0100 Subject: [rpd] New proposal - "Out-Of-Region Use of AFRINIC Internet Number Resources" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-002-DRAFT-01) In-Reply-To: <4B42D12C-B1E8-459A-B9DF-2F01AE1468B2@delong.com> References: <4B42D12C-B1E8-459A-B9DF-2F01AE1468B2@delong.com> Message-ID: Hi Andrew, Sorry my response is coming late, but Owen's response here captures my sentiment accurately. Please consider this the author's views as well. Regards, On 5 July 2014 16:09, Owen DeLong wrote: > 1) Summary of the Problem Being Addressed by this Policy Proposal > > Currently, AFRINIC policies do not explicitly allow or disallow > Out-Of-Region use of Internet number resources. This silence on an important > facet of number resource management jeopardizes administration by leaving > staff to arbitrarily decide how to handle Out-Of-Region requests. The > imminent exhaustion of IPv4 aggravates the situation because it is > anticipated that organizations from other regions will have more incentive > to exploit this and any other loophole in AFRINIC polices to acquire > resources for sale or use outside the region - a practice that is not in > AFRINIC's best interests. > > Firstly, I have stated before, and I will state again, having the amount of > space AfriNIC has available and the low allocation rates is equally not in > our interests. The financial situation in AfriNIC as highlighted in the > last two meetings is also not in our interests. So, while I agree that > having the resources used outside of our region may not be in the best > interests of the african continent, this is what I would consider a > dialectic. Will this policy actually prevent resources flowing out of the > region or will it simply encourage fraudulent applications and falsified > whois entries and records? I would argue the latter rather than the former. > > > You offer this as a dichotomy where none exists. > > Instead, there is a very wide range of possibilities between the two. Likely > there will be some falsified/fraudulent applications, but this policy > provides for AfriNIC to revoke the resources in such cases once they are > discovered. > > OTOH, I do believe it will also prevent resource exodus to some extent. In > part, where things fall in the range between no prevention and all > fraudulent requests vs. all prevention and no fraudulent requests will > depend on the diligence and effectiveness of the AfriNIC staff. > > While I realize you posted this in your personal capacity, I would expect a > board member to show a greater level of confidence in the AfriNIC staff, or, > I would expect him to take actions to restore confidence. > > > 2) Summary of How this Proposal Addresses the Problem > > This policy allows up to 40% of Internet number resources in use by a member > to be outside the region. It also tries to be a disincentive for > organizations from other regions that want to acquire resources from AFRINIC > for use in ways that are not in line with AFRINIC's best interests. > > I do not like the phrasing that says "ways that are not inline with > AFRINIC's best interests" . AfriNIC's mandate is to allocate resources to > entities in the region who need them. How those organisations utilise that > space is immaterial to AfriNIC so long as the space is being used. While I > believe I understand the INTENT behind the phrasing, the phrasing itself is > rather ambiguous and I would like to see it re-worded. > > > I'll point out that is part of the problem description and not part of the > policy itself, so I think it's a fine statement of intent and getting > wrapped around the axle about it is not useful in considering the policy > proposal. > > b. Notwithstanding (3.a), the number resources used outside the region at > any given point in time shall not exceed 40% of the total space in use by a > member. Total space in use shall be calculated as follows: if x be the > allocation/assignment size; and x-y the amount of space in use at time z, > then 40% of (x-y) shall be the ceiling). > > Again, my problem with this is the lack of enforceability. Vast stretches > of this continent are still served by Satellite, and are also running on > high latency low capacity links. It is therefore virtually impossible to > determine where the space is actually being used. If I have a satellite hub > in Europe with a thousand downstream customers all in central Africa, the > hub is uplinked to a european provider, and the hub is originating the > space, but the space is being used by the downstream customers in Africa, > traceroutes to those customers from Africa are going to go via Europe, the > BGP adjacencies are going to show the space being announced entirely to > European providers, but the space is still used in Africa and latency to the > space in Africa is going to be in the couple of hundred millisecond mark. > Conversely, if I state in whois records the space is in Africa but announce > it elsewhere in the world and set the right RDNS, how is anyone going to > PROVE otherwise? Again, all this does is lead to falsified whois records. > > > You've actually shown that it's fairly easy to detect these satellite based > links by their latency. I don't think that the inability to detect all > potential cases of fraud is a good reason to avoid implementing good policy. > In all cases, RIR policy counts on the generally good actions of the > majority of the community and this is no different. No matter what we do > with policy, organizations willing to commit fraud are likely to commit > fraud. If you have ideas for making this policy less susceptible to fraud, > then let's hear those. Otherwise, I don't see the potential for fraud as a > reason to avoid implementing the policy. > > c. AFRINIC staff shall at their discretion, and using whatever means are > available, assess compliance with 3.a/b. > > > This is far to ambiguous for me, host masters are trained to evaluate the > legitimacy of requests. They are NOT network engineers, and as stated in > the above example, evaluation of these things can be complex and require a > fair amount of skill to figure out where things are being used. If we're > going to pass a policy like this, then how these checks are done and to > avoid complex and time consuming fights needs to be clearly spelt out. > > > Or perhaps too ambiguous? > > I don't see anything in 3a or 3b which would require any real knowledge of > network engineering knowledge. I think AfriNIC staff is perfectly capable of > developing the necessary procedures and processes and performing the staff > training that would be required by this policy. I don't think that those > details belong in the policy text. > > f. This policy shall apply to past, present and future > allocations/assignments made by AFRINIC. > > I have an issue with this, and there is precedent. Legacy space is not > bound by the same rules as new allocations because it was allocated before > those rules were implemented. When laws are introduced in a legal system, > or penalties for a crime are decreased or increased, it is not applied > retroactively. I would argue that applying this policy retroactively on > already allocated space cannot be done. > > > Yes and no. An action that wasn't illegal when you took it cannot be > punished (no laws of ex post facto), however, that's not what is being > addressed here. > > For example, laws which govern property rights usually apply to existing > property owners' continued use of that property. For example, a municipality > that passes a law requiring you to maintain your front yard to certain > standards cannot prosecute you or fine you for how your yard looked a year > before the law was implemented, but they can and will prosecute and/or fine > you if your yard does not meet those standards after the law is put into > effect. > > I see no difference between this policy and the above situation with > property rights. It remains to be seen whether legacy space is or is not > subject to the same rules as new allocations if, as a community, we should > happen to choose to apply them. However, legacy space is not covered by the > phrase in this policy. It clearly states past/present/future > allocations/assignments "MADE BY AFRINIC" (emphasis added). Legacy > assignments/allocations, by definition, were not made by AfriNIC. > > .... > > > Further I don't believe that the way to resolve the low utilization rate in > the AfriNIC region is by giving away the resources for out of region use. As > you know, resolving the low utilization rate is a complex problem which will > take time, educational outreach, and other efforts to resolve. Getting rid > of the resources to other utilizations elsewhere will prevent those > resources from getting utilized in region when the desire for in-region use > develops. > > Owen > > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > -- Douglas Onyango, PRINCE 2, ITILv3 UG: +256 776 716 138 | NG: +234 706 202 8375 From mukom.tamon at gmail.com Sun Jul 6 06:15:50 2014 From: mukom.tamon at gmail.com (Mukom Akong T.) Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2014 08:15:50 +0200 Subject: [rpd] New proposal - "Out-Of-Region Use of AFRINIC Internet Number Resources" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-002-DRAFT-01) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, Jul 4, 2014 at 4:55 PM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: > . It also tries to be a disincentive for organizations from other regions > that want to acquire resources from AFRINIC for use in ways that are not in > line with AFRINIC's best interests. * Should it be "Africa's best interests" instead of "AFRINIC's best interests? * It will be good to make distinctions between the AFRINIC community and AFRINIC Ltd where necessary. -- Mukom Akong T. http://about.me/perfexcellence | twitter: @perfexcellent ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ?When you work, you are the FLUTE through whose lungs the whispering of the hours turns to MUSIC" - Kahlil Gibran ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sergekbk at yahoo.fr Sun Jul 6 07:15:48 2014 From: sergekbk at yahoo.fr (Serge ILUNGA) Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2014 08:15:48 +0100 Subject: [rpd] New proposal - "Out-Of-Region Use of AFRINIC Internet Number Resources" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-002-DRAFT-01) In-Reply-To: <5E448257-5879-4844-9F97-47B682EB79D2@gmail.com> References: <5E448257-5879-4844-9F97-47B682EB79D2@gmail.com> Message-ID: Serge ILUNGA KABWIKA Skype: sergekbk Cell: +243814443160 > Le 5 juil. 2014 ? 05:48, Krishna Seeburn a ?crit : > > I second the idea badru but how about being cautios and allocate in gradients of 10% going up to ceiling of 40%. Based on justifications. This should help both hostmaster and the member as well. This would also help in making sure the justifications are valid as we go up. +1 > > Kris Seeburn > skype: kris_seeburn30 > Linkedin:mu.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn > >> On 5 Jul 2014, at 08:19, Badru Ntege wrote: >> >> Hi >> >> I like the policy but would suggest an initial ceiling of 20% with extra justification to use upto 40% >> >> Badru Ntege >> Sent from my Mobile >> >> On 4 Jul 2014, at 18:01, "Seun Ojedeji" wrote: >> >>> Dear members, >>> >>> We have received a new policy Proposal - "Out-Of-Region Use of AFRINIC Internet Number Resources" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-002-DRAFT-01) >>> >>> Draft Policy name: Out-Of-Region Use of AFRINIC Internet Number Resources >>> Unique identifier: AFPUB-2014-GEN-002-DRAFT-01 >>> Status: New >>> Submission Date 03 JULY 2014 >>> Author: Douglas Onyango >>> Url: http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposals/1157-out-of-region-use-of-afrinic-internet-number-resources >>> Short url: http://goo.gl/L6exj7 >>> >>> Text Below: >>> >>> 1) Summary of the Problem Being Addressed by this Policy Proposal >>> >>> Currently, AFRINIC policies do not explicitly allow or disallow Out-Of-Region use of Internet number resources. This silence on an important facet of number resource management jeopardizes administration by leaving staff to arbitrarily decide how to handle Out-Of-Region requests. The imminent exhaustion of IPv4 aggravates the situation because it is anticipated that organizations from other regions will have more incentive to exploit this and any other loophole in AFRINIC polices to acquire resources for sale or use outside the region - a practice that is not in AFRINIC's best interests. >>> >>> >>> 2) Summary of How this Proposal Addresses the Problem >>> >>> This policy allows up to 40% of Internet number resources in use by a member to be outside the region. It also tries to be a disincentive for organizations from other regions that want to acquire resources from AFRINIC for use in ways that are not in line with AFRINIC's best interests. >>> >>> For the avoidance of doubt, the author does not seek to prolong the lifespan of IPv4 with this proposal but rather, to ensure that number resources allocated/assigned by AFRINIC are used by legitimate members from the service region to support their network operations, regardless of physical location. >>> >>> >>> 3) Proposal >>> >>> a. Upon ratification of this proposal, out-of-region use of AFRINIC's number resources shall be permitted as long it is preceded by use within the region. >>> >>> b. Notwithstanding (3.a), the number resources used outside the region at any given point in time shall not exceed 40% of the total space in use by a member. Total space in use shall be calculated as follows: if x be the allocation/assignment size; and x-y the amount of space in use at time z, then 40% of (x-y) shall be the ceiling). >>> >>> c. AFRINIC staff shall at their discretion, and using whatever means are available, assess compliance with 3.a/b. >>> >>> d. This proposal shall forthwith be part of the acceptable use policy for Internet numbers any breaches shall be dealt with in accordance with the RSA other AFRINIC policies. >>> >>> e. This policy shall not be applied in mutual exclusion, but rather complement already existing policies and other eligibility criteria prescribed by AFRINIC. >>> >>> f. This policy shall apply to past, present and future allocations/assignments made by AFRINIC. >>> >>> g. This policy shall remain in effect until: >>> >>> 1. It is mooted by another policy or it is superseded by a board resolution. >>> >>> 2. Until section 3.8 of the IPv4 Soft-landing Policy kicks in. (Use of IPv4 space from the last /8 outside the region shall be only to facilitate connectivity back to the region). >>> History >>> Previous Versions >>> >>> 03/07/2014: Version AFPUB-2014-GEN-001-DRAFT-01 posted to the mailing list. >>> >>> Useful urls: >>> >>> Policy proposals: http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposals >>> About the policy development process: http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/pdwg >>> >>> Regards >>> --- >>> Seun Ojedeji & Adam Nelson >>> PDWG Co-Chairs >>> _______________________________________________ >>> rpd mailing list >>> rpd at afrinic.net >>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >> _______________________________________________ >> rpd mailing list >> rpd at afrinic.net >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From geier at geier.ne.tz Sun Jul 6 09:24:18 2014 From: geier at geier.ne.tz (Frank Habicht) Date: Sun, 06 Jul 2014 12:24:18 +0300 Subject: [rpd] New proposal - "Out-Of-Region Use of AFRINIC Internet Number Resources" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-002-DRAFT-01) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <53B915C2.7010304@geier.ne.tz> Hello, I like the intention, the proposal, and thank Douglas for drafting it. I like the number 40. And I think if we start discussing this number we will never stop discussing the number - what about 34.5% as a compromise? ;-) "AFRINIC's best interests" is mentioned but I think there are quite diverse interpretations for this. (and I believe it shouldn't be "Africa's best interest", because there are even more) I'd also like to see an impact assessment from AfriNIC staff, at least weeks before the next policy meeting. I think it's true that policing it will never work 100%. But that's probably also true for other policies. And with life in general. About > f. This policy shall apply to past, present and future > allocations/assignments made by AFRINIC. past allocations are done, without this condition, and might be used with more than 40% of IPs outside the AfriNIC service region. In my opinion it can and should apply to new allocations/assignments and include (as is intended I am sure) all past allocations/assignments from AfriNIC in the calculations (am sure can't include legacy space if used outside - does anyone think is should include legacy space if used inside Africa?) does it need more word in b. for that? "present allocations/assignments" -- I think there'll be only a handful in the queue when the board ratifies, so I would prefer "... apply to all allocations/assignments made after ratification of this policy by the board." (but we clarify whether old ones will be counted) Regards, Frank On 7/4/2014 5:55 PM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: > Dear members, > > We have received a new policy Proposal - "Out-Of-Region Use of AFRINIC > Internet Number Resources" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-002-DRAFT-01) > > Draft Policy name: Out-Of-Region Use of AFRINIC Internet Number Resources > Unique identifier: AFPUB-2014-GEN-002-DRAFT-01 > Status: New > Submission Date 03 JULY 2014 > Author: Douglas Onyango > Url: > http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposals/1157-out-of-region-use-of-afrinic-internet-number-resources > Short url: http://goo.gl/L6exj7 > > Text Below: > > 1) Summary of the Problem Being Addressed by this Policy Proposal > > Currently, AFRINIC policies do not explicitly allow or disallow > Out-Of-Region use of Internet number resources. This silence on an > important facet of number resource management jeopardizes administration by > leaving staff to arbitrarily decide how to handle Out-Of-Region requests. > The imminent exhaustion of IPv4 aggravates the situation because it is > anticipated that organizations from other regions will have more incentive > to exploit this and any other loophole in AFRINIC polices to acquire > resources for sale or use outside the region - a practice that is not in > AFRINIC's best interests. > > > 2) Summary of How this Proposal Addresses the Problem > > This policy allows up to 40% of Internet number resources in use by a > member to be outside the region. It also tries to be a disincentive for > organizations from other regions that want to acquire resources from > AFRINIC for use in ways that are not in line with AFRINIC's best interests. > > For the avoidance of doubt, the author does not seek to prolong the > lifespan of IPv4 with this proposal but rather, to ensure that number > resources allocated/assigned by AFRINIC are used by legitimate members from > the service region to support their network operations, regardless of > physical location. > > > 3) Proposal > > a. Upon ratification of this proposal, out-of-region use of AFRINIC's > number resources shall be permitted as long it is preceded by use within > the region. > > b. Notwithstanding (3.a), the number resources used outside the region at > any given point in time shall not exceed 40% of the total space in use by a > member. Total space in use shall be calculated as follows: if x be the > allocation/assignment size; and x-y the amount of space in use at time z, > then 40% of (x-y) shall be the ceiling). > > c. AFRINIC staff shall at their discretion, and using whatever means are > available, assess compliance with 3.a/b. > > d. This proposal shall forthwith be part of the acceptable use policy for > Internet numbers any breaches shall be dealt with in accordance with the > RSA other AFRINIC policies. > > e. This policy shall not be applied in mutual exclusion, but rather > complement already existing policies and other eligibility criteria > prescribed by AFRINIC. > > f. This policy shall apply to past, present and future > allocations/assignments made by AFRINIC. > > g. This policy shall remain in effect until: > > 1. It is mooted by another policy or it is superseded by a board resolution. > > 2. Until section 3.8 of the IPv4 Soft-landing Policy kicks in. (Use of IPv4 > space from the last /8 outside the region shall be only to facilitate > connectivity back to the region). > History > Previous Versions > > 03/07/2014: Version AFPUB-2014-GEN-001-DRAFT-01 posted to the mailing list. > > *Useful urls:* > > Policy proposals: > http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposals > About the policy development process: > http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/pdwg > > Regards > --- > Seun Ojedeji & Adam Nelson > PDWG Co-Chairs > > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > From geier at geier.ne.tz Sun Jul 6 11:21:52 2014 From: geier at geier.ne.tz (Frank Habicht) Date: Sun, 06 Jul 2014 14:21:52 +0300 Subject: [rpd] New proposal - "Out-Of-Region Use of AFRINIC Internet Number Resources" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-002-DRAFT-01) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <53B93150.3020808@geier.ne.tz> Hi Jackson, On 7/5/2014 10:14 AM, Jackson Muthili wrote: > Your view can be challenged on two grounds. > 1. Region internet penetration is still low. Same time potential for > growth is still high. Internet still powered by Ipv4 regardless of > IPv6 hyperbole. I don't care if western and other world is migrating > into Ipv6. I wish someone (Owen) would make a much more attractive v6 content service. and: http://v6.geier.ne.tz/4jackson.html > Fact is it has not yet happened. Ipv4 is therefore the fuel > of Internet now and our region still need it for its internet growth! > 2.Like ir or not Ipv6 much as being adopted is still long long way. That could partly be because of certain people's amount of activity in this area. Oh, and certain people's lack of activity. Seems we are in different groups there. > If > those region who run out are still buying Ipv4 all over it tells you > the picture of Ipv6 migration state. they probably only need v4 to access your email or webserver. all else they use v6 for. > It is in 100% Africa best interest that we still have large reserve of > ipv4 so if you're on a nice street and see a bus coming, what do you do? close your eyes? say "this is *my* nice street" ? > and it is in pour 100% best interest this reserve DOES NOT - MUST > NOT be stolen to be use outside Africa. So as of now, is African ISP (LIR) company decides to use all of its IPs in Europe(or Asia), and satys a registered company in Africa... ... that complies with AfriNIC policy, and can not be called "stealing" so: would you agree that the proposed policy is an improvement? In case it doesn't go far enough (for you), let's see if your proposal is better. > I want policy to tag a ratio of 80-90% of Africa usage where usage > means last mile user of the IP located in AFRICA. Do IPs used in Africa from a VSAT hub in Europe count? > You are right. Therefore let those legacies companies start their own > registry and whois services and remove their IPs from the services of > Afrinic and use their own? If your answer is no then stop closing your > eye to fact that a service received MUST be paid for. Then please start paying these companies for doing us the great service of starting up an internet even before you were connected to it. I'm pretty glad they are ok with a mere "thank you" from me and charge me for their time and effort inventing things like DNS etc which I consider pretty useful. > Keeping your > legacy information in whois services costs registry money but you want > it for free I fail to see how you support this??? Starting up something called "AfriNIC" also did cost some money to RIPE NCC and probably others/ Have you seen what they invoiced us? Frank From ondouglas at gmail.com Sun Jul 6 18:37:23 2014 From: ondouglas at gmail.com (Douglas Onyango) Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2014 19:37:23 +0100 Subject: [rpd] New proposal - "Out-Of-Region Use of AFRINIC Internet Number Resources" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-002-DRAFT-01) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Mukom, On 6 July 2014 07:15, Mukom Akong T. wrote: > * Should it be "Africa's best interests" instead of "AFRINIC's best > interests? No. Using Africa in this case would be inaccurate as it precludes areas like the islands which are part of AFRINIC's service region. > * It will be good to make distinctions between the AFRINIC community and > AFRINIC Ltd where necessary. Yes it would. I will endeavour to make this destination in my next draft Regards, From dogwallah at gmail.com Sun Jul 6 18:48:32 2014 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2014 13:48:32 -0500 Subject: [rpd] New proposal - "Out-Of-Region Use of AFRINIC Internet Number Resources" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-002-DRAFT-01) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, Jul 4, 2014 at 11:46 AM, Douglas Onyango wrote: > Hi McTim, > On 4 July 2014 16:15, McTim wrote: >> In general, I can get behind this proposal. > > Thanks. > >> "c. AFRINIC staff shall at their discretion, and using whatever means >> are available, assess compliance with 3.a/b" >> >> is a bit worrisome. > > This requirement is not new, so I fail to see how/why it worries you. It is brand new. Can you show me where in policy staff are directed to ascertain location of resources used? Sure they look in the database to see if, for example 80% is in use, but they don't have to actually do traceroutes to those IPs for that! -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel From ondouglas at gmail.com Sun Jul 6 19:09:32 2014 From: ondouglas at gmail.com (Douglas Onyango) Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2014 20:09:32 +0100 Subject: [rpd] New proposal - "Out-Of-Region Use of AFRINIC Internet Number Resources" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-002-DRAFT-01) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi McTim, On 6 July 2014 19:48, McTim wrote: > It is brand new. Perhaps I should rephrase: You raised a concern about leaving the implementation of policy "at the discretion of AFRINIC staff" and I am saying that determining eligibility and monitoring compliance is current being done at the discretion of staff. There is no NEW cause for alarm here. The requirement might be new, but I believe your query is more about the "how" (staff's discretion) which is not new. Regards, -- Douglas Onyango, PRINCE 2, ITILv3 UG: +256 776 716 138 | NG: +234 706 202 8375 From owen at delong.com Sun Jul 6 23:20:52 2014 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2014 16:20:52 -0700 Subject: [rpd] New proposal - "Out-Of-Region Use of AFRINIC Internet Number Resources" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-002-DRAFT-01) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Jul 5, 2014, at 23:15 , Mukom Akong T. wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 4, 2014 at 4:55 PM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: > . It also tries to be a disincentive for organizations from other regions that want to acquire resources from AFRINIC for use in ways that are not in line with AFRINIC's best interests. > > > * Should it be "Africa's best interests" instead of "AFRINIC's best interests? > * It will be good to make distinctions between the AFRINIC community and AFRINIC Ltd where necessary. > Agreed on the second point. Regarding the first, I would suggest actually "the best interests of the AfriNIC community". Owen -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From owen at delong.com Sun Jul 6 23:32:48 2014 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2014 16:32:48 -0700 Subject: [rpd] New proposal - "Out-Of-Region Use of AFRINIC Internet Number Resources" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-002-DRAFT-01) In-Reply-To: <53B93150.3020808@geier.ne.tz> References: <53B93150.3020808@geier.ne.tz> Message-ID: <444BE1BA-8AD0-4134-8114-E8E9223B300E@delong.com> On Jul 6, 2014, at 04:21 , Frank Habicht wrote: > Hi Jackson, > > On 7/5/2014 10:14 AM, Jackson Muthili wrote: >> Your view can be challenged on two grounds. >> 1. Region internet penetration is still low. Same time potential for >> growth is still high. Internet still powered by Ipv4 regardless of >> IPv6 hyperbole. I don't care if western and other world is migrating >> into Ipv6. > > I wish someone (Owen) would make a much more attractive v6 content service. > and: http://v6.geier.ne.tz/4jackson.html Such as? >> If >> those region who run out are still buying Ipv4 all over it tells you >> the picture of Ipv6 migration state. > > they probably only need v4 to access your email or webserver. all else they > use v6 for. Almost all of the IPv4 purchases I am aware of have been by organizations that have adopted IPv6, but are trying to cope with the need to connect with other organizations that have not yet done so. This is the "tragedy of the commons" that is currently afflicting IPv6. Implementing it on your network doesn't benefit you as much as it benefits others who implement IPv6. For you to benefit, you need the others to all implement IPv6. However, the good news is that if we all implement IPv6, then we all benefit from it. Eventually, this will happen. When was the last time you bought a pre-recorded cassette tape in a store (instead of a CD)? Right now, we still have cassettes (IPv4) and CDs (IPv6) on the shelves in most stores. Soon, the cassettes will sell out. There are no more cassettes being made. Yes, there is a market starting to develop in used cassettes, but used cassettes are costing more than new cassettes do today and will continue to increase in price. CDs, OTOH, are virtually free. There is no valid case to be made that buying used cassettes will allow you to avoid buying a CD player. There is good evidence to suggest that waiting much longer to start buying CD players will cost a lot more than buying them now. >> You are right. Therefore let those legacies companies start their own >> registry and whois services and remove their IPs from the services of >> Afrinic and use their own? If your answer is no then stop closing your >> eye to fact that a service received MUST be paid for. > > Then please start paying these companies for doing us the great service of > starting up an internet even before you were connected to it. > I'm pretty glad they are ok with a mere "thank you" from me and charge me > for their time and effort inventing things like DNS etc which I consider > pretty useful. In reality there is so little legacy space actually in AfriNIC region that I think this argument is beyond pointless. >> Keeping your >> legacy information in whois services costs registry money but you want >> it for free I fail to see how you support this??? > > Starting up something called "AfriNIC" also did cost some money to RIPE NCC > and probably others/ Have you seen what they invoiced us? Can we focus on the actual policy issues and move away from reductio ad absurdum regarding trying to extort money from a small number of people getting a very tiny free ride? Owen From ondouglas at gmail.com Mon Jul 7 00:01:37 2014 From: ondouglas at gmail.com (Douglas Onyango) Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2014 01:01:37 +0100 Subject: [rpd] New proposal - "Out-Of-Region Use of AFRINIC Internet Number Resources" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-002-DRAFT-01) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 7 July 2014 00:20, Owen DeLong wrote: > Agreed on the second point. Regarding the first, I would suggest actually > "the best interests of the AfriNIC community". +1; I have updated my draft with this....it will be available in the next draft. Regards, -- Douglas Onyango, PRINCE 2, ITILv3 UG: +256 776 716 138 | NG: +234 706 202 8375 From mukom.tamon at gmail.com Mon Jul 7 03:44:40 2014 From: mukom.tamon at gmail.com (Mukom Akong T.) Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2014 05:44:40 +0200 Subject: [rpd] New proposal - "Out-Of-Region Use of AFRINIC Internet Number Resources" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-002-DRAFT-01) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, Jul 6, 2014 at 8:37 PM, Douglas Onyango wrote: > No. Using Africa in this case would be inaccurate as it precludes > areas like the islands which are part of AFRINIC's service region. > In that case then, why not use "AFRINIC service region". My point is that - the policy should serve the interests of the service region rather than the company. With the assumption that those two interests are aligned. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mukom.tamon at gmail.com Mon Jul 7 03:48:55 2014 From: mukom.tamon at gmail.com (Mukom Akong T.) Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2014 05:48:55 +0200 Subject: [rpd] New proposal - "Out-Of-Region Use of AFRINIC Internet Number Resources" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-002-DRAFT-01) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 1:20 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: > Agreed on the second point. Regarding the first, I would suggest actually > "the best interests of the AfriNIC community". +1 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jacksonmuthi at gmail.com Mon Jul 7 08:38:24 2014 From: jacksonmuthi at gmail.com (Jackson Muthili) Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2014 11:38:24 +0300 Subject: [rpd] New proposal - "Out-Of-Region Use of AFRINIC Internet Number Resources" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-002-DRAFT-01) In-Reply-To: <444BE1BA-8AD0-4134-8114-E8E9223B300E@delong.com> References: <53B93150.3020808@geier.ne.tz> <444BE1BA-8AD0-4134-8114-E8E9223B300E@delong.com> Message-ID: On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 2:32 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: > > On Jul 6, 2014, at 04:21 , Frank Habicht wrote: > >> Hi Jackson, >> >> On 7/5/2014 10:14 AM, Jackson Muthili wrote: >>> Your view can be challenged on two grounds. >>> 1. Region internet penetration is still low. Same time potential for >>> growth is still high. Internet still powered by Ipv4 regardless of >>> IPv6 hyperbole. I don't care if western and other world is migrating >>> into Ipv6. >> >> I wish someone (Owen) would make a much more attractive v6 content service. >> and: http://v6.geier.ne.tz/4jackson.html > > Such as? > >>> If >>> those region who run out are still buying Ipv4 all over it tells you >>> the picture of Ipv6 migration state. >> >> they probably only need v4 to access your email or webserver. all else they >> use v6 for. > > Almost all of the IPv4 purchases I am aware of have been by organizations that have adopted IPv6, but are trying to cope with the need to connect with other organizations that have not yet done so. This is the "tragedy of the commons" that is currently afflicting IPv6. Implementing it on your network doesn't benefit you as much as it benefits others who implement IPv6. For you to benefit, you need the others to all implement IPv6. > > However, the good news is that if we all implement IPv6, then we all benefit from it. Eventually, this will happen. When was the last time you bought a pre-recorded cassette tape in a store (instead of a CD)? Right now, we still have cassettes (IPv4) and CDs (IPv6) on the shelves in most stores. Soon, the cassettes will sell out. There are no more cassettes being made. Yes, there is a market starting to develop in used cassettes, but used cassettes are costing more than new cassettes do today and will continue to increase in price. CDs, OTOH, are virtually free. There is no valid case to be made that buying used cassettes will allow you to avoid buying a CD player. There is good evidence to suggest that waiting much longer to start buying CD players will cost a lot more than buying them now. > >>> You are right. Therefore let those legacies companies start their own >>> registry and whois services and remove their IPs from the services of >>> Afrinic and use their own? If your answer is no then stop closing your >>> eye to fact that a service received MUST be paid for. >> >> Then please start paying these companies for doing us the great service of >> starting up an internet even before you were connected to it. >> I'm pretty glad they are ok with a mere "thank you" from me and charge me >> for their time and effort inventing things like DNS etc which I consider >> pretty useful. > > In reality there is so little legacy space actually in AfriNIC region that I think this argument is beyond pointless. In relative term it is not little from context of Afrinic scale given what numbers I saw before. >>> Keeping your >>> legacy information in whois services costs registry money but you want >>> it for free I fail to see how you support this??? >> >> Starting up something called "AfriNIC" also did cost some money to RIPE NCC >> and probably others/ Have you seen what they invoiced us? > > Can we focus on the actual policy issues and move away from reductio ad absurdum regarding trying to extort money from a small number of people getting a very tiny free ride? It is not extortion. A service need to be paied for. If number of those legacies is small no problem. How many are they can Afrinic say the number of them? From jacksonmuthi at gmail.com Mon Jul 7 08:50:19 2014 From: jacksonmuthi at gmail.com (Jackson Muthili) Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2014 11:50:19 +0300 Subject: [rpd] New proposal - "Out-Of-Region Use of AFRINIC Internet Number Resources" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-002-DRAFT-01) In-Reply-To: <4B42D12C-B1E8-459A-B9DF-2F01AE1468B2@delong.com> References: <4B42D12C-B1E8-459A-B9DF-2F01AE1468B2@delong.com> Message-ID: On Sat, Jul 5, 2014 at 6:09 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > 1) Summary of the Problem Being Addressed by this Policy Proposal > > Currently, AFRINIC policies do not explicitly allow or disallow > Out-Of-Region use of Internet number resources. This silence on an important > facet of number resource management jeopardizes administration by leaving > staff to arbitrarily decide how to handle Out-Of-Region requests. The > imminent exhaustion of IPv4 aggravates the situation because it is > anticipated that organizations from other regions will have more incentive > to exploit this and any other loophole in AFRINIC polices to acquire > resources for sale or use outside the region - a practice that is not in > AFRINIC's best interests. > > Firstly, I have stated before, and I will state again, having the amount of > space AfriNIC has available and the low allocation rates is equally not in > our interests. The financial situation in AfriNIC as highlighted in the > last two meetings is also not in our interests. So, while I agree that > having the resources used outside of our region may not be in the best > interests of the african continent, this is what I would consider a > dialectic. Will this policy actually prevent resources flowing out of the > region or will it simply encourage fraudulent applications and falsified > whois entries and records? I would argue the latter rather than the former. > > You offer this as a dichotomy where none exists. > > Instead, there is a very wide range of possibilities between the two. Likely > there will be some falsified/fraudulent applications, but this policy > provides for AfriNIC to revoke the resources in such cases once they are > discovered. > > OTOH, I do believe it will also prevent resource exodus to some extent. In > part, where things fall in the range between no prevention and all > fraudulent requests vs. all prevention and no fraudulent requests will > depend on the diligence and effectiveness of the AfriNIC staff. > > While I realize you posted this in your personal capacity, I would expect a > board member to show a greater level of confidence in the AfriNIC staff, or, > I would expect him to take actions to restore confidence. I agree with Owen I am very disturbed by board member to show such little confidence in his staff on public forum. From mukom.tamon at gmail.com Mon Jul 7 09:07:59 2014 From: mukom.tamon at gmail.com (Mukom Akong T.) Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2014 11:07:59 +0200 Subject: [rpd] New proposal - "Out-Of-Region Use of AFRINIC Internet Number Resources" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-002-DRAFT-01) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sat, Jul 5, 2014 at 8:14 AM, Andrew Alston < Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com> wrote: > This is far to ambiguous for me, host masters are trained to evaluate the > legitimacy of requests. They are NOT network engineers, and as stated in > the above example, evaluation of these things can be complex and require a > fair amount of skill to figure out where things are being used. If we?re > going to pass a policy like this, then how these checks are done and to > avoid complex and time consuming fights needs to be clearly spelt out. actually some/most of the hostmasters have been networking engineers. What will be useful would be to list what specific skills you think are required to properly evaluate these things and then if the hostmasters don't have that skill, relevant training can be arranged. -- Mukom Akong T. http://about.me/perfexcellence | twitter: @perfexcellent ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ?When you work, you are the FLUTE through whose lungs the whispering of the hours turns to MUSIC" - Kahlil Gibran ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com Tue Jul 8 14:19:51 2014 From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji) Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2014 15:19:51 +0100 Subject: [rpd] Fwd: [IANAtransition] Transition from mailing list to web-based platform In-Reply-To: References: <53BBC24E.6020305@cs.tcd.ie> Message-ID: Hello Adiel, As you are a member of the IANA stewardship coordinating group (an behalf of NRO). May i ask that you kindly ensure that this act by ICANN is discussed within the group and perhaps repelled. There are things that ICANN does not necessarily need to be told, this is a very minor issue that they seem to want to be blowing beyond proportion. On another note, at the last AFRINIC public meeting, there was an agreement to create a list dedicated to discuss IANA stewards transition issues locally. Whats the status of creating that list? Regards 1. https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/coordination-group-2014-06-17-en ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Seun Ojedeji Date: Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 12:02 PM Subject: Re: [IANAtransition] Transition from mailing list to web-based platform To: Stephen Farrell Cc: Stewardship Questions , ianatransition at icann.org +1. As a matter of respecting process released by ICANN; the call of deciding on what tools to use should be done by the coordinating team which is in formation. I wonder why ICANN is trying to do the work of the coordinating team. I hope ICANN will rethink this act before shutting down the list. Regards sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 8 Jul 2014 11:16, "Stephen Farrell" wrote: > > Spectacular non-listening and ineptitude dealing with > reasonable comments from ICANN. Sigh. > > S. > > > On 08/07/14 09:16, Stewardship Questions wrote: > > Dear all, > > This is to inform you that per our initial note (see below) the > ianatransition at icann.org mailing-list will be closed today. Archives< > http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ianatransition/2014/> < > http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ianatransition/2014/> will remain publicly > available. > > We invite you to continue the dialogue on the microsite< > https://www.icann.org/stewardship> > for NTIA?s IANA Functions Stewardship Transition ? more information is > available below. > > Thank you, > > Best regards > > ICANN staff > > From: Stewardship Questions stewardship-questions at icann.org>> > > Date: Tuesday, June 24, 2014 4:54 PM > > To: "ianatransition at icann.org" < > ianatransition at icann.org> > > Subject: [IANAtransition] Transition from mailing list to web-based > platform starting July 7 > > > > Dear all, > > > > This is to kindly inform you that we are re-directing the conversation > from this mailing list to the newly launched microsite< > https://www.icann.org/stewardship> > for NTIA?s IANA Functions Stewardship Transition. > > > > The microsite includes a web-based forum< > http://discuss-stewardship.icann.org/> to help facilitate and advance > community discussions. > > > > This platform is public, transparent and allows for easier tracking of > the different themes and conversations taking place. > > > > We encourage you to participate in the forum, which uses your existing > ICANN.org sign in, to make for a better user experience. If you do not have > an account, please go here to > sign-up. > > > > The mailing list will close on Monday, 7 July 2014 (23:59 UTC). Archives< > http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ianatransition/2014/> < > http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ianatransition/2014/> will remain publicly > available. > > > > We look forward to your continued participation and future contributions > to these important discussions. > > > > Best regards, > > > > ICANN staff > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > ianatransition mailing list > > ianatransition at icann.org > > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ianatransition > > > _______________________________________________ > ianatransition mailing list > ianatransition at icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ianatransition > -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng * The key to understanding is humility - my view ! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From omo at wacren.net Wed Jul 9 03:14:47 2014 From: omo at wacren.net (Omo Oaiya) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2014 04:14:47 +0100 Subject: [rpd] New proposal - "Out-Of-Region Use of AFRINIC Internet Number Resources" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-002-DRAFT-01) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Douglas / members On 4 July 2014 15:55, Seun Ojedeji wrote: > Dear members, > > We have received a new policy Proposal - "Out-Of-Region Use of AFRINIC > Internet Number Resources" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-002-DRAFT-01) > > Draft Policy name: Out-Of-Region Use of AFRINIC Internet Number Resources > Unique identifier: AFPUB-2014-GEN-002-DRAFT-01 > Status: New > Submission Date 03 JULY 2014 > Author: Douglas Onyango > Url: > http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposals/1157-out-of-region-use-of-afrinic-internet-number-resources > Short url: http://goo.gl/L6exj7 > > Text Below: > > 1) Summary of the Problem Being Addressed by this Policy Proposal > > Currently, AFRINIC policies do not explicitly allow or disallow > Out-Of-Region use of Internet number resources. This silence on an > important facet of number resource management jeopardizes administration by > leaving staff to arbitrarily decide how to handle Out-Of-Region requests. > I sought clarity on this in Djibouti and got fobbed off in my opinion but another opportunity for some answers here. What are Out-Of-Region requests and how many have occurred and at what frequency? > The imminent exhaustion of IPv4 aggravates the situation because it is > anticipated that organizations from other regions will have more incentive > to exploit this and any other loophole in AFRINIC polices to acquire > resources for sale or use outside the region - a practice that is not in > AFRINIC's best interests. > Is there any evidence of this? If there is, what is the current procedure for such > > > 2) Summary of How this Proposal Addresses the Problem > > This policy allows up to 40% of Internet number resources in use by a > member to be outside the region. It also tries to be a disincentive for > organizations from other regions that want to acquire resources from > AFRINIC for use in ways that are not in line with AFRINIC's best interests. > > Would this require every request to state % of out-of-region usage and show it in network? > For the avoidance of doubt, the author does not seek to prolong the > lifespan of IPv4 with this proposal but rather, to ensure that number > resources allocated/assigned by AFRINIC are used by legitimate members from > the service region to support their network operations, regardless of > physical location. > Is there any precedence of such a policy at any of the other RIRs? Is this going to create an issue of RIRs competing with each other globally? Best wishes - Omo -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From vymala at afrinic.net Wed Jul 9 05:32:35 2014 From: vymala at afrinic.net (Thuron Vymala) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2014 09:32:35 +0400 Subject: [rpd] Fwd: [IANAtransition] Transition from mailing list to web-based platform In-Reply-To: References: <53BBC24E.6020305@cs.tcd.ie> Message-ID: <676EEB7B-B159-44BA-8534-D7C205DD8A83@afrinic.net> Hello Seun > On another note, at the last AFRINIC public meeting, there was an agreement to create a list dedicated to discuss IANA stewards transition issues locally. Whats the status of creating that list? I am forwarding the mail (see below) that was sent on some mailing list regarding the IANA Oversight Transition. You will have all information pertaining to the page that has been created on the AFRINIC website on the IANA Stewardship Transition and the dedicated mailing list. Best regards vymala Vymala Thuron Communication, Marketing and PR Manager, AFRINIC Ltd. t: +230 403 5128 | f: +230 466 6758 | tt: @afrinic | w: www.afrinic.net facebook.com/afrinic | flickr.com/afrinic | youtube.com/afrinicmedia Skype: vymala.thuron ------------------------------------------------------------ See you in Mauritius for AFRINIC-21November 22 to 28, 2014 Begin forwarded message: > From: Ashil Oogarah > Date: July 4, 2014 5:18:30 PM GMT+04:00 > To: announce at afrinic.net, members-discuss at afrinic.net, africann at afrinic.net > Subject: [AFRINIC-announce] IANA Stewardship Transition Discussions List > > Dear Colleagues, > > As followup to our consultation in Djibouti during AIS?2014 we are launching a discussion online related the IANA stewardship transition. This mailing list provides a place for the African Internet community to discuss all matters relating to the IANA Oversight Transition process. > > On 14 March 2014, the US Department of Commerce?s National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) announced the intention to transition the oversight of key Internet functions, including the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA), to the global Internet multi-stakeholder community. > > http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2014/ntia-announces-intent-transition-key-internet-domain-name-functions > > The NTIA has asked ICANN to convene all stakeholders to develop a proposal to transition the current role played by NTIA in the coordination of the Internet?s domain name and number system. As one of IANA's key stakeholders, it is crucial that the AFRINIC community discusses and formulates effective input for submission into the oversight transition proposal in order to ensure that Africa and the Indian Ocean region's unique needs are taken into consideration. > > You can find out more information about the oversight transition process, community consultations taking place throughout the region and beyond, and important dates and deadlines in our dedicated section on the AFRINIC website: > > www.afrinic.net/en/community/iana-oversight-transition > > All the 4 other RIRs will run a similar process and our hope is to be able to converge toward a common proposal that will be submitted to the ICANN process. > > To participate in the discussions, please subscribe to the IANA Oversight mailing list at https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/ianaoversight > > I am looking forward to discussing this important milestone in the development of the global Internet with you all. > > Thanks, > > Adiel Akplogan > __________________________ > See you in Mauritius for AFRINIC-21 > November 22 to 28, 2014 > > _______________________________________________ > announce mailing list > announce at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/announce ------------------------------------------------------------ On Jul 8, 2014, at 6:19 PM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: > Hello Adiel, > > As you are a member of the IANA stewardship coordinating group (an behalf of NRO). May i ask that you kindly ensure that this act by ICANN is discussed within the group and perhaps repelled. There are things that ICANN does not necessarily need to be told, this is a very minor issue that they seem to want to be blowing beyond proportion. > > On another note, at the last AFRINIC public meeting, there was an agreement to create a list dedicated to discuss IANA stewards transition issues locally. Whats the status of creating that list? > > Regards > 1. https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/coordination-group-2014-06-17-en > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Seun Ojedeji > Date: Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 12:02 PM > Subject: Re: [IANAtransition] Transition from mailing list to web-based platform > To: Stephen Farrell > Cc: Stewardship Questions , ianatransition at icann.org > > > +1. As a matter of respecting process released by ICANN; the call of deciding on what tools to use should be done by the coordinating team which is in formation. I wonder why ICANN is trying to do the work of the coordinating team. > > I hope ICANN will rethink this act before shutting down the list. > > Regards > sent from Google nexus 4 > kindly excuse brevity and typos. > > On 8 Jul 2014 11:16, "Stephen Farrell" wrote: > > Spectacular non-listening and ineptitude dealing with > reasonable comments from ICANN. Sigh. > > S. > > > On 08/07/14 09:16, Stewardship Questions wrote: > > Dear all, > > This is to inform you that per our initial note (see below) the ianatransition at icann.org mailing-list will be closed today. Archives will remain publicly available. > > We invite you to continue the dialogue on the microsite for NTIA?s IANA Functions Stewardship Transition ? more information is available below. > > Thank you, > > Best regards > > ICANN staff > > From: Stewardship Questions > > > Date: Tuesday, June 24, 2014 4:54 PM > > To: "ianatransition at icann.org" > > > Subject: [IANAtransition] Transition from mailing list to web-based platform starting July 7 > > > > Dear all, > > > > This is to kindly inform you that we are re-directing the conversation from this mailing list to the newly launched microsite for NTIA?s IANA Functions Stewardship Transition. > > > > The microsite includes a web-based forum to help facilitate and advance community discussions. > > > > This platform is public, transparent and allows for easier tracking of the different themes and conversations taking place. > > > > We encourage you to participate in the forum, which uses your existing ICANN.org sign in, to make for a better user experience. If you do not have an account, please go here to sign-up. > > > > The mailing list will close on Monday, 7 July 2014 (23:59 UTC). Archives will remain publicly available. > > > > We look forward to your continued participation and future contributions to these important discussions. > > > > Best regards, > > > > ICANN staff > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > ianatransition mailing list > > ianatransition at icann.org > > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ianatransition > > > _______________________________________________ > ianatransition mailing list > ianatransition at icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ianatransition > > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Seun Ojedeji, > Federal University Oye-Ekiti > web: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng > Mobile: +2348035233535 > alt email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng > > The key to understanding is humility - my view ! > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com Wed Jul 9 06:13:55 2014 From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2014 07:13:55 +0100 Subject: [rpd] Fwd: [IANAtransition] Transition from mailing list to web-based platform In-Reply-To: <676EEB7B-B159-44BA-8534-D7C205DD8A83@afrinic.net> References: <53BBC24E.6020305@cs.tcd.ie> <676EEB7B-B159-44BA-8534-D7C205DD8A83@afrinic.net> Message-ID: Thanks Thuron, somehow I missed that particular mail. Thanks again. Regards sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 9 Jul 2014 06:32, "Thuron Vymala" wrote: > Hello Seun > > On another note, at the last AFRINIC public meeting, there was an > agreement to create a list dedicated to discuss IANA stewards transition > issues locally. Whats the status of creating that list? > > > I am forwarding the mail (see below) that was sent on some mailing list > regarding the IANA Oversight Transition. > > You will have all information pertaining to the page that has been created > on the AFRINIC website on the *IANA Stewardship Transition and the* > *dedicated mailing list.* > > Best regards > vymala > > Vymala Thuron > Communication, Marketing and PR Manager, AFRINIC Ltd. > t: +230 403 5128 | f: +230 466 6758 | tt: @afrinic | w: www.afrinic.net > facebook.com/afrinic | flickr.com/afrinic | youtube.com/afrinicmedia > Skype: vymala.thuron > ------------------------------------------------------------ > See you in Mauritius for AFRINIC-21November 22 to 28, 2014 > > Begin forwarded message: > > *From: *Ashil Oogarah > *Date: *July 4, 2014 5:18:30 PM GMT+04:00 > *To: *announce at afrinic.net, members-discuss at afrinic.net, > africann at afrinic.net > *Subject: **[AFRINIC-announce] IANA Stewardship Transition Discussions > List* > > Dear Colleagues, > > As followup to our consultation in Djibouti during AIS?2014 we are > launching a discussion online related the IANA stewardship transition. This > mailing list provides a place for the African Internet community to discuss > all matters relating to the IANA Oversight Transition process. > > On 14 March 2014, the US Department of Commerce?s National > Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) announced the > intention to transition the oversight of key Internet functions, including > the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA), to the global Internet > multi-stakeholder community. > > > http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2014/ntia-announces-intent-transition-key-internet-domain-name-functions > > The NTIA has asked ICANN to convene all stakeholders to develop a proposal > to transition the current role played by NTIA in the coordination of the > Internet?s domain name and number system. As one of IANA's key > stakeholders, it is crucial that the AFRINIC community discusses and > formulates effective input for submission into the oversight transition > proposal in order to ensure that Africa and the Indian Ocean region's > unique needs are taken into consideration. > > You can find out more information about the oversight transition process, > community consultations taking place throughout the region and beyond, and > important dates and deadlines in our dedicated section on the AFRINIC > website: > > www.afrinic.net/en/community/iana-oversight-transition > > All the 4 other RIRs will run a similar process and our hope is to be able > to converge toward a common proposal that will be submitted to the ICANN > process. > > To participate in the discussions, please subscribe to the IANA Oversight > mailing list at > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/ianaoversight > > I am looking forward to discussing this important milestone in the > development of the global Internet with you all. > > Thanks, > > Adiel Akplogan > __________________________ > See you in Mauritius for AFRINIC-21 > November 22 to 28, 2014 > > _______________________________________________ > announce mailing list > announce at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/announce > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > On Jul 8, 2014, at 6:19 PM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: > > Hello Adiel, > > As you are a member of the IANA stewardship coordinating group (an behalf > of NRO). May i ask that you kindly ensure that this act by ICANN is > discussed within the group and perhaps repelled. There are things that > ICANN does not necessarily need to be told, this is a very minor issue that > they seem to want to be blowing beyond proportion. > > On another note, at the last AFRINIC public meeting, there was an > agreement to create a list dedicated to discuss IANA stewards transition > issues locally. Whats the status of creating that list? > > Regards > 1. https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/coordination-group-2014-06-17-en > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Seun Ojedeji > Date: Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 12:02 PM > Subject: Re: [IANAtransition] Transition from mailing list to web-based > platform > To: Stephen Farrell > Cc: Stewardship Questions , > ianatransition at icann.org > > > +1. As a matter of respecting process released by ICANN; the call of > deciding on what tools to use should be done by the coordinating team which > is in formation. I wonder why ICANN is trying to do the work of the > coordinating team. > > I hope ICANN will rethink this act before shutting down the list. > > Regards > sent from Google nexus 4 > kindly excuse brevity and typos. > On 8 Jul 2014 11:16, "Stephen Farrell" wrote: > >> >> Spectacular non-listening and ineptitude dealing with >> reasonable comments from ICANN. Sigh. >> >> S. >> >> >> On 08/07/14 09:16, Stewardship Questions wrote: >> > Dear all, >> > This is to inform you that per our initial note (see below) the >> ianatransition at icann.org mailing-list will be closed today. Archives< >> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ianatransition/2014/> < >> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ianatransition/2014/> will remain publicly >> available. >> > We invite you to continue the dialogue on the microsite< >> https://www.icann.org/stewardship> >> for NTIA?s IANA Functions Stewardship Transition ? more information is >> available below. >> > Thank you, >> > Best regards >> > ICANN staff >> > From: Stewardship Questions > stewardship-questions at icann.org>> >> > Date: Tuesday, June 24, 2014 4:54 PM >> > To: "ianatransition at icann.org" < >> ianatransition at icann.org> >> > Subject: [IANAtransition] Transition from mailing list to web-based >> platform starting July 7 >> > >> > Dear all, >> > >> > This is to kindly inform you that we are re-directing the conversation >> from this mailing list to the newly launched microsite< >> https://www.icann.org/stewardship> >> for NTIA?s IANA Functions Stewardship Transition. >> > >> > The microsite includes a web-based forum< >> http://discuss-stewardship.icann.org/> to help facilitate and advance >> community discussions. >> > >> > This platform is public, transparent and allows for easier tracking of >> the different themes and conversations taking place. >> > >> > We encourage you to participate in the forum, which uses your existing >> ICANN.org sign in, to make for a better user experience. If you do not >> have an account, please go here to >> sign-up. >> > >> > The mailing list will close on Monday, 7 July 2014 (23:59 UTC). >> Archives < >> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ianatransition/2014/> will remain publicly >> available. >> > >> > We look forward to your continued participation and future >> contributions to these important discussions. >> > >> > Best regards, >> > >> > ICANN staff >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > ianatransition mailing list >> > ianatransition at icann.org >> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ianatransition >> > >> _______________________________________________ >> ianatransition mailing list >> ianatransition at icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ianatransition >> > > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > > *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: > http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535**alt > email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng > * > > The key to understanding is humility - my view ! > > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ondouglas at gmail.com Wed Jul 9 08:02:22 2014 From: ondouglas at gmail.com (Douglas Onyango) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2014 09:02:22 +0100 Subject: [rpd] New proposal - "Out-Of-Region Use of AFRINIC Internet Number Resources" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-002-DRAFT-01) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Omo, On 9 July 2014 04:14, Omo Oaiya wrote: > What are Out-Of-Region requests and how many have occurred and at what > frequency? The RIR system was built on the principle of decentralizing administration of Internet number resources. This means each RIR is expected to operate within the boundaries of the regions they serve. Against this backdrop when space from one RIR is used Outside of that RIR [Out-of-region], it is generally considered to be at odds with this general principle. There are multiple exceptions/intricacies with this principle, but I hope you get the general point. Because of the many exceptions, and other reasons, I can't begin to quantify how many. I hope AFRINIC will have a better answer. > Is there any evidence of this? If there is, what is the current procedure > for such Perhaps staff can provide a more authoritative answer to this. > Would this require every request to state % of out-of-region usage and show > it in network? Staff is again better placed to response to this as they will be responsible for the implementation/enforcement. > Is there any precedence of such a policy at any of the other RIRs? I know that a draft was introduced in ARIN in Jan and is currently under discussion. > Is this going to create an issue of RIRs competing with each other globally? Complex question. All I can say is that this Policy will formalize and draw the rules for a game that is already in play... Regards, From tespok at tespok.co.ke Thu Jul 10 09:13:29 2014 From: tespok at tespok.co.ke (Fiona Asonga) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2014 12:13:29 +0300 (EAT) Subject: [rpd] New proposal - "Out-Of-Region Use of AFRINIC Internet Number Resources" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-002-DRAFT-01) In-Reply-To: <5E448257-5879-4844-9F97-47B682EB79D2@gmail.com> Message-ID: <26015762.1259.1404984216284.JavaMail.User@CEO> Hallo Kris, I would prefer a fixed % so as not to delay requests for increase during deployment. The staff will have to be very responsive in order to efficiently work with a gradient model. My personal experience is they are not as responsive as they should be which becomes an implementation problem...... regards Fiona Asonga Chief Executive Officer Telecommunications Service Providers Association of Kenya/ Kenya Internet Exchange Point Member Strategic Committee of the Africa Computer Emergency Response Team NRO Number Council http://www.nro.net/about/number-council.html ASO Address Council http://aso.icann.org/ac/ 14 th Floor, Bruce House Standard Street Tel: +254 20 2245 036 Cell: +254 721 713 504 Website: www.tespok.or.ke ?Industry voice in Telecommunications, Providing Policy and Direction within the Industry and Government? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Krishna Seeburn" To: "Badru Ntege" Cc: "rpd" Sent: Saturday, July 5, 2014 7:48:00 AM Subject: Re: [rpd] New proposal - "Out-Of-Region Use of AFRINIC Internet Number Resources" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-002-DRAFT-01) I second the idea badru but how about being cautios and allocate in gradients of 10% going up to ceiling of 40%. Based on justifications. This should help both hostmaster and the member as well. This would also help in making sure the justifications are valid as we go up. Kris Seeburn skype: kris_seeburn30 Linkedin:mu.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn On 5 Jul 2014, at 08:19, Badru Ntege < badru.ntege at nftconsult.com > wrote: Hi I like the policy but would suggest an initial ceiling of 20% with extra justification to use upto 40% Badru Ntege Sent from my Mobile On 4 Jul 2014, at 18:01, "Seun Ojedeji" < seun.ojedeji at gmail.com > wrote: Dear members, We have received a new policy Proposal - "Out-Of-Region Use of AFRINIC Internet Number Resources" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-002-DRAFT-01) Draft Policy name: Out-Of-Region Use of AFRINIC Internet Number Resources Unique identifier: AFPUB-2014-GEN-002-DRAFT-01 Status: New Submission Date 03 JULY 2014 Author: Douglas Onyango Url: http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposals/1157-out-of-region-use-of-afrinic-internet-number-resources Short url: http://goo.gl/L6exj7 Text Below: 1) Summary of the Problem Being Addressed by this Policy Proposal Currently, AFRINIC policies do not explicitly allow or disallow Out-Of-Region use of Internet number resources. This silence on an important facet of number resource management jeopardizes administration by leaving staff to arbitrarily decide how to handle Out-Of-Region requests. The imminent exhaustion of IPv4 aggravates the situation because it is anticipated that organizations from other regions will have more incentive to exploit this and any other loophole in AFRINIC polices to acquire resources for sale or use outside the region - a practice that is not in AFRINIC's best interests. 2) Summary of How this Proposal Addresses the Problem This policy allows up to 40% of Internet number resources in use by a member to be outside the region. It also tries to be a disincentive for organizations from other regions that want to acquire resources from AFRINIC for use in ways that are not in line with AFRINIC's best interests. For the avoidance of doubt, the author does not seek to prolong the lifespan of IPv4 with this proposal but rather, to ensure that number resources allocated/assigned by AFRINIC are used by legitimate members from the service region to support their network operations, regardless of physical location. 3) Proposal a. Upon ratification of this proposal, out-of-region use of AFRINIC's number resources shall be permitted as long it is preceded by use within the region. b. Notwithstanding (3.a), the number resources used outside the region at any given point in time shall not exceed 40% of the total space in use by a member. Total space in use shall be calculated as follows: if x be the allocation/assignment size; and x-y the amount of space in use at time z, then 40% of (x-y) shall be the ceiling). c. AFRINIC staff shall at their discretion, and using whatever means are available, assess compliance with 3.a/b. d. This proposal shall forthwith be part of the acceptable use policy for Internet numbers any breaches shall be dealt with in accordance with the RSA other AFRINIC policies. e. This policy shall not be applied in mutual exclusion, but rather complement already existing policies and other eligibility criteria prescribed by AFRINIC. f. This policy shall apply to past, present and future allocations/assignments made by AFRINIC. g. This policy shall remain in effect until: 1. It is mooted by another policy or it is superseded by a board resolution. 2. Until section 3.8 of the IPv4 Soft-landing Policy kicks in. (Use of IPv4 space from the last /8 outside the region shall be only to facilitate connectivity back to the region). History Previous Versions 03/07/2014: Version AFPUB-2014-GEN-001-DRAFT-01 posted to the mailing list. Useful urls: Policy proposals: http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposals About the policy development process: http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/pdwg Regards --- Seun Ojedeji & Adam Nelson PDWG Co-Chairs _______________________________________________ rpd mailing list rpd at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd _______________________________________________ rpd mailing list rpd at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd _______________________________________________ rpd mailing list rpd at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd From tespok at tespok.co.ke Thu Jul 10 09:27:29 2014 From: tespok at tespok.co.ke (Fiona Asonga) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2014 12:27:29 +0300 (EAT) Subject: [rpd] New proposal - "Out-Of-Region Use of AFRINIC Internet Number Resources" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-002-DRAFT-01) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <25282784.1274.1404985056221.JavaMail.User@CEO> Hallo Douglas, I think it is a good proposal in as far as it ensures resources for the AFRINIC service region are used in as much as possible in the region. I agree with Mark,Frank,Owen postings so far. The policy is filling a loophole that can be exploited to the region's disadvantage. I would exercise caution on the % deployment ceiling bearing in mind that the process of confirming allocation use takes some time. Andrew I think we need as a region to do two things which may not be covered in one proposal and require multi-faceted approaches to solving: 1. Protect resources assigned for use in the Afrinic Service Region 2. To get a way of increasing utilization on the resources within the AFRINIC Service region. We need a clear guide on both and it may be a bit difficult to have one policy solving both issues. I support this policy proposal. kind regards Fiona Asonga Chief Executive Officer Telecommunications Service Providers Association of Kenya/ Kenya Internet Exchange Point Member Strategic Committee of the Africa Computer Emergency Response Team NRO Number Council http://www.nro.net/about/number-council.html ASO Address Council http://aso.icann.org/ac/ 14 th Floor, Bruce House Standard Street Tel: +254 20 2245 036 Cell: +254 721 713 504 Website: www.tespok.or.ke ?Industry voice in Telecommunications, Providing Policy and Direction within the Industry and Government? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mukom Akong T." To: "Andrew Alston" Cc: "rpd" Sent: Monday, July 7, 2014 12:07:59 PM Subject: Re: [rpd] New proposal - "Out-Of-Region Use of AFRINIC Internet Number Resources" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-002-DRAFT-01) On Sat, Jul 5, 2014 at 8:14 AM, Andrew Alston < Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com > wrote: This is far to ambiguous for me, host masters are trained to evaluate the legitimacy of requests. They are NOT network engineers, and as stated in the above example, evaluation of these things can be complex and require a fair amount of skill to figure out where things are being used. If we?re going to pass a policy like this, then how these checks are done and to avoid complex and time consuming fights needs to be clearly spelt out. actually some/most of the hostmasters have been networking engineers. What will be useful would be to list what specific skills you think are required to properly evaluate these things and then if the hostmasters don't have that skill, relevant training can be arranged. -- Mukom Akong T. http://about.me/perfexcellence | twitter: @perfexcellent ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ?When you work, you are the FLUTE through whose lungs the whispering of the hours turns to MUSIC" - Kahlil Gibran ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ rpd mailing list rpd at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd From ondouglas at gmail.com Thu Jul 10 09:54:06 2014 From: ondouglas at gmail.com (Douglas Onyango) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2014 10:54:06 +0100 Subject: [rpd] New proposal - "Out-Of-Region Use of AFRINIC Internet Number Resources" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-002-DRAFT-01) In-Reply-To: <25282784.1274.1404985056221.JavaMail.User@CEO> References: <25282784.1274.1404985056221.JavaMail.User@CEO> Message-ID: Hello Fiona, On 10 July 2014 10:27, Fiona Asonga wrote: > I think it is a good proposal in as far as it ensures resources for the AFRINIC service region are used in as much as possible in the region. I agree with Mark,Frank,Owen postings so far. The policy is filling a loophole that can be exploited to the region's disadvantage. Thanks. > I would exercise caution on the % deployment ceiling bearing in mind that the process of confirming >allocation use takes some time. I suppose this means you have concerns about the 40% as it stands. Do you have a different preference?. Is the preference leaning toward like the others on the list have mentioned....30% perhaps? > I support this policy proposal. Thanks. Regards, From seeburn.k at gmail.com Thu Jul 10 10:18:02 2014 From: seeburn.k at gmail.com (Kris Seeburn) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2014 14:18:02 +0400 Subject: [rpd] New proposal - "Out-Of-Region Use of AFRINIC Internet Number Resources" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-002-DRAFT-01) In-Reply-To: References: <25282784.1274.1404985056221.JavaMail.User@CEO> Message-ID: Hi Douglas, I think even i would not mind it being caped to 30% or 40 %. What is important is the due diligence in making sure it does not completely go out of the region without the proper controls in place. That is why i suggested we go slow with the out of region allocation. We can start with 5-10 % initial and then move in the allocation space with caution and since review of before allocation will take some time so moving cautiously in gradients as i suggested would make it more cautious in our allocation and if in doubt and if the allocation is not done within set rules, we should be able to revoke the space if needs be. So in continuity to this proposal which i support but allocation in gradients we should be able to ensure and perhaps that may well be another policy is how do we ensure or give the Afrinic staff the tools and support required to be able to check in some cases of doubt on how to audit or ensure the allocation is being done in the way we wanted it to be. We may not be able to control all of it, as we know but we should be able to still be to some extent in control and when in doubt of an allocation being wrongful a supporting argument to revoke is also important. Within AFRINIC agreement there is a clause of "information should be correct at all times" we may perhaps need to revisit some of the clauses which is administrative but we should also ensure that we can tighten them as well with the new policy if accepted. We should not also completely forget the aspect of "PROXY" ip addressing by PROXY which is a big running business today by all means. But food for further thought. On Jul 10, 2014, at 1:54 PM, Douglas Onyango wrote: > Hello Fiona, > On 10 July 2014 10:27, Fiona Asonga wrote: >> I think it is a good proposal in as far as it ensures resources for the AFRINIC service region are used in as much as possible in the region. I agree with Mark,Frank,Owen postings so far. The policy is filling a loophole that can be exploited to the region's disadvantage. > > Thanks. > >> I would exercise caution on the % deployment ceiling bearing in mind that the process of confirming >allocation use takes some time. > > I suppose this means you have concerns about the 40% as it stands. Do > you have a different preference?. Is the preference leaning toward > like the others on the list have mentioned....30% perhaps? > >> I support this policy proposal. > > Thanks. > > > Regards, > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd Kris Seeburn seeburn.k at gmail.com www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 496 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From seeburn.k at gmail.com Thu Jul 10 10:23:25 2014 From: seeburn.k at gmail.com (Kris Seeburn) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2014 14:23:25 +0400 Subject: [rpd] New proposal - "Out-Of-Region Use of AFRINIC Internet Number Resources" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-002-DRAFT-01) In-Reply-To: <26015762.1259.1404984216284.JavaMail.User@CEO> References: <26015762.1259.1404984216284.JavaMail.User@CEO> Message-ID: <5214F632-AC5F-4DA8-83DA-1E2FBB9036AF@gmail.com> Sorry fiona i missed this email. I would like to catch up on this one. Thanks for the note. Gradients could be perhaps worked out i think giving out a whole % in first shot may be too opened. Then i would perhaps go with Badru's sugggestion an initial cap and then max of 40% or 35%. As we are all seeing the 40% as too much and 30% keeps coming back then let's just say 33% will be good allocation and a s a cap. On Jul 10, 2014, at 1:13 PM, Fiona Asonga wrote: > Hallo Kris, > > I would prefer a fixed % so as not to delay requests for increase during deployment. The staff will have to be very responsive in order to efficiently work with a gradient model. My personal experience is they are not as responsive as they should be which becomes an implementation problem...... > > regards > > Fiona Asonga > Chief Executive Officer > Telecommunications Service Providers Association of Kenya/ Kenya Internet Exchange Point > Member Strategic Committee of the Africa Computer Emergency Response Team > > NRO Number Council http://www.nro.net/about/number-council.html > > ASO Address Council http://aso.icann.org/ac/ > > > 14 th Floor, Bruce House > Standard Street > > Tel: +254 20 2245 036 > Cell: +254 721 713 504 > > Website: www.tespok.or.ke > > > > ?Industry voice in Telecommunications, Providing Policy and Direction > within the Industry and Government? > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Krishna Seeburn" > To: "Badru Ntege" > Cc: "rpd" > Sent: Saturday, July 5, 2014 7:48:00 AM > Subject: Re: [rpd] New proposal - "Out-Of-Region Use of AFRINIC Internet Number Resources" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-002-DRAFT-01) > > > > I second the idea badru but how about being cautios and allocate in gradients of 10% going up to ceiling of 40%. Based on justifications. This should help both hostmaster and the member as well. This would also help in making sure the justifications are valid as we go up. > > Kris Seeburn > skype: kris_seeburn30 > Linkedin:mu.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn > > On 5 Jul 2014, at 08:19, Badru Ntege < badru.ntege at nftconsult.com > wrote: > > > > > > Hi > > > I like the policy but would suggest an initial ceiling of 20% with extra justification to use upto 40% > > > Badru Ntege > Sent from my Mobile > > On 4 Jul 2014, at 18:01, "Seun Ojedeji" < seun.ojedeji at gmail.com > wrote: > > > > > > Dear members, > > We have received a new policy Proposal - "Out-Of-Region Use of AFRINIC Internet Number Resources" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-002-DRAFT-01) > > Draft Policy name: Out-Of-Region Use of AFRINIC Internet Number Resources > Unique identifier: AFPUB-2014-GEN-002-DRAFT-01 > Status: New > Submission Date 03 JULY 2014 > Author: Douglas Onyango > Url: http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposals/1157-out-of-region-use-of-afrinic-internet-number-resources > Short url: http://goo.gl/L6exj7 > > Text Below: > > 1) Summary of the Problem Being Addressed by this Policy Proposal > > Currently, AFRINIC policies do not explicitly allow or disallow Out-Of-Region use of Internet number resources. This silence on an important facet of number resource management jeopardizes administration by leaving staff to arbitrarily decide how to handle Out-Of-Region requests. The imminent exhaustion of IPv4 aggravates the situation because it is anticipated that organizations from other regions will have more incentive to exploit this and any other loophole in AFRINIC polices to acquire resources for sale or use outside the region - a practice that is not in AFRINIC's best interests. > > > 2) Summary of How this Proposal Addresses the Problem > > This policy allows up to 40% of Internet number resources in use by a member to be outside the region. It also tries to be a disincentive for organizations from other regions that want to acquire resources from AFRINIC for use in ways that are not in line with AFRINIC's best interests. > > For the avoidance of doubt, the author does not seek to prolong the lifespan of IPv4 with this proposal but rather, to ensure that number resources allocated/assigned by AFRINIC are used by legitimate members from the service region to support their network operations, regardless of physical location. > > > 3) Proposal > > a. Upon ratification of this proposal, out-of-region use of AFRINIC's number resources shall be permitted as long it is preceded by use within the region. > > b. Notwithstanding (3.a), the number resources used outside the region at any given point in time shall not exceed 40% of the total space in use by a member. Total space in use shall be calculated as follows: if x be the allocation/assignment size; and x-y the amount of space in use at time z, then 40% of (x-y) shall be the ceiling). > > c. AFRINIC staff shall at their discretion, and using whatever means are available, assess compliance with 3.a/b. > > d. This proposal shall forthwith be part of the acceptable use policy for Internet numbers any breaches shall be dealt with in accordance with the RSA other AFRINIC policies. > > e. This policy shall not be applied in mutual exclusion, but rather complement already existing policies and other eligibility criteria prescribed by AFRINIC. > > f. This policy shall apply to past, present and future allocations/assignments made by AFRINIC. > > g. This policy shall remain in effect until: > > 1. It is mooted by another policy or it is superseded by a board resolution. > > 2. Until section 3.8 of the IPv4 Soft-landing Policy kicks in. (Use of IPv4 space from the last /8 outside the region shall be only to facilitate connectivity back to the region). > History > Previous Versions > > 03/07/2014: Version AFPUB-2014-GEN-001-DRAFT-01 posted to the mailing list. > > Useful urls: > > Policy proposals: http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposals > About the policy development process: http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/pdwg > > > > Regards > --- > > Seun Ojedeji & Adam Nelson > PDWG Co-Chairs > > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd Kris Seeburn seeburn.k at gmail.com www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 496 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From dogwallah at gmail.com Thu Jul 10 10:27:49 2014 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2014 06:27:49 -0400 Subject: [rpd] New proposal - "Out-Of-Region Use of AFRINIC Internet Number Resources" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-002-DRAFT-01) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi, On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 11:14 PM, Omo Oaiya wrote: > > Is there any precedence of such a policy at any of the other RIRs? ARIN is debating a similar question, but the "precedent" issue is a red-herring. We make our own policies. We have recently ratified an unprecedented policy regarding reverse delegation and the sky hasn't fallen yet. > > Is this going to create an issue of RIRs competing with each other globally? No. How can a Registry with no more (for some value of "no more" ) v4 resources compete with one which has resources which will last for several more years?. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel From mainanoa at gmail.com Thu Jul 10 10:35:01 2014 From: mainanoa at gmail.com (Noah Maina) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2014 13:35:01 +0300 Subject: [rpd] New proposal - "Out-Of-Region Use of AFRINIC Internet Number Resources" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-002-DRAFT-01) In-Reply-To: <25282784.1274.1404985056221.JavaMail.User@CEO> References: <25282784.1274.1404985056221.JavaMail.User@CEO> Message-ID: On 10 July 2014 12:27, Fiona Asonga wrote: > > 1. Protect resources assigned for use in the Afrinic Service Region > Policy would try to do that to a certain extend... > 2. To get a way of increasing utilization on the resources within the > AFRINIC Service region. > > 1. More business models that require IP Number resources as an asset across the continent...more to do with good regulatory environments ..so basically investment in IP network... 2. And what is already allocated should get used up....players in the market stopping seating on IP addresses!... Noah -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From omo at wacren.net Thu Jul 10 16:04:01 2014 From: omo at wacren.net (Omo Oaiya) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2014 17:04:01 +0100 Subject: [rpd] New proposal - "Out-Of-Region Use of AFRINIC Internet Number Resources" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-002-DRAFT-01) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Douglas, On 9 July 2014 09:02, Douglas Onyango wrote: > Hi Omo, > On 9 July 2014 04:14, Omo Oaiya wrote: > > What are Out-Of-Region requests and how many have occurred and at what > > frequency? > > The RIR system was built on the principle of decentralizing > administration of Internet number resources. This means each RIR is > expected to operate within the boundaries of the regions they serve. > Against this backdrop when space from one RIR is used Outside of that > RIR [Out-of-region], it is generally considered to be at odds with > this general principle. Would you elaborate and clarify the principle because the Internet is not geographic. (The regional or continental administration coverage of LIRs would say little about the network) > There are multiple exceptions/intricacies with > this principle, but I hope you get the general point. > A bit hazy. Please explain concisely > > Because of the many exceptions, and other reasons, I can't begin to > quantify how many. I hope AFRINIC will have a better answer. > So what is the proposal based on if we don't know even if this is a problem, an operational or real policy need > > > Is there any evidence of this? If there is, what is the current > procedure > > for such > Evidence based proposal would be preferred > Perhaps staff can provide a more authoritative answer to this. > > > Would this require every request to state % of out-of-region usage and > show > > it in network? > > Staff is again better placed to response to this as they will be > responsible for the implementation/enforcement. > > In that case, perhaps better for the policy to be formulated working with the actual networks/plans and /s instead of %? > > > Is there any precedence of such a policy at any of the other RIRs? > I know that a draft was introduced in ARIN in Jan and is currently > under discussion. > > Could you share the document and/or an opinion on the draft? > > Is this going to create an issue of RIRs competing with each other > globally? > > Complex question. All I can say is that this Policy will formalize and > draw the rules for a game that is already in play... > Is this then on a global policy track? best wishes -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ndg at ieee.org Thu Jul 10 16:19:16 2014 From: ndg at ieee.org (Nishal Goburdhan) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2014 18:19:16 +0200 Subject: [rpd] New proposal - "Out-Of-Region Use of AFRINIC Internet Number Resources" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-002-DRAFT-01) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 09 Jul 2014, at 10:02 AM, Douglas Onyango wrote: > Hi Omo, > On 9 July 2014 04:14, Omo Oaiya wrote: [snip] > This means each RIR is expected to operate within the boundaries of the regions they serve. > Against this backdrop when space from one RIR is used Outside of that > RIR [Out-of-region], it is generally considered to be at odds with > this general principle. bzzt. no, not really, and no sane operator world-wide will attest to this. when i was an operator, i routed space from at least three different other regions for customers of mine, that were operating infrastructure _inside_ africa - as long as they could show legitimate right to use this space. large mulitnationals often operate like this. where the multinational obtains the space from, was not my (operator) concern. that my client could show the right to use it, was. when i was an operator, i used address space that i had received to build my (african based) network, in at least three other continents. the internet police have yet to come knocking on my door... RIRs allocate resources to _organisations_ in their region. if i look at some of the prefixes that i see at african exchange points, i see a fair chunk of "international" space. good for them, i say. > There are multiple exceptions/intricacies with this principle, but I hope you get the general point. i don't think you've answered Omo's question. but i'll leave that to Omo to decide. > Because of the many exceptions, and other reasons, I can't begin to > quantify how many. I hope AFRINIC will have a better answer. > >> Is there any evidence of this? If there is, what is the current procedure >> for such > > Perhaps staff can provide a more authoritative answer to this. > >> Would this require every request to state % of out-of-region usage and show >> it in network? > > Staff is again better placed to response to this as they will be > responsible for the implementation/enforcement. so perhaps then, it would be prudent to get an indication of exactly _how_ much of a nuisance this is, _before_ trying to fit policy, eh? there are many other forums that bemoan the growth of behemoth ISPs/carriers in africa. as a result, africa has come to rely on non-african carries to manage her connectivity, and we've seen how that's traditionally worked out. i suggest you spend the time necessary to consider how your proposed policy affects africa's ability to grow and sustain these giants of our own. i would hate to think that one of the large operators from here, that was looking to expand their global network into another region suddenly can't .. haven't we just shot ourselves in the foot? frankly, i wish those carriers would speak up for themselves, since it seems that very few actual operators have spoken up in this thread, thusfar. imho, if you truly want better uptake of resources in africa, you should be making it easier for bona-fida african organisations to get those resources. and note: i haven't mentioned anything about verifying resource usage in a policy appropriate location, because, i believe that's largely unenforceable, and would welcome _sound_ evidence to the contrary. like most of you, i guess, i'll wait for the staff analysis on how they see this being done. the sooner folks accept that an IP address is really just about routability, the fewer issues you'll have, and, i predict, the more time you'll have to spend on things that matter for the future - like IPv6/DNSSEC/... :-) shalom, --n. From omo at wacren.net Thu Jul 10 16:19:47 2014 From: omo at wacren.net (Omo Oaiya) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2014 17:19:47 +0100 Subject: [rpd] New proposal - "Out-Of-Region Use of AFRINIC Internet Number Resources" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-002-DRAFT-01) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 10 July 2014 11:27, McTim wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 11:14 PM, Omo Oaiya wrote: > > > > > > > > Is there any precedence of such a policy at any of the other RIRs? > > ARIN is debating a similar question, but the "precedent" issue is a > red-herring. > > We make our own policies. Indeed ... especially when there is strong community support. > We have recently ratified an unprecedented > policy regarding reverse delegation and the sky hasn't fallen yet. > Policies are however usually developed from principles so not often established without precedent Omo -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From woody at pch.net Thu Jul 10 16:47:55 2014 From: woody at pch.net (Bill Woodcock) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2014 09:47:55 -0700 Subject: [rpd] New proposal - "Out-Of-Region Use of AFRINIC Internet Number Resources" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-002-DRAFT-01) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Jul 10, 2014, at 9:19 AM, Nishal Goburdhan wrote: > RIRs allocate resources to _organisations_ in their region. > if i look at some of the prefixes that i see at african exchange points, i see a fair chunk of "international" space. good for them, i say. Well, not really? We have an area of policy inconsistency between RIRs here, and I think it?s going to cause a problem. Looking at ARIN policy, ARIN allocates space for use in the ARIN region. If you take ARIN-allocated space and use it out-of-region, you can?t use it in a justification for more space. That effectively means that using it out-of-region means you?re cutting yourself off from further allocations, which effectively precludes doing it in any meaningful volume. What I believe I?m hearing about AfriNIC policy is that it allocates space to organizations that are incorporated in Africa, but not to networks that operate in Africa. That leaves a gap in policy, that fails to address the needs of networks that operate in Africa. That in turn disincentivizes deployment in Africa. If I can?t get addresses from other RIRs to deploy in Africa, and I can?t get addresses from AfriNIC to deploy in Africa, how do I deploy in Africa, other than by giving up my ability to request more addresses in a different region, which isn?t sustainable either? Yes, all this becomes somewhat moot in an IPv6-only future economy-of-plenty, but that?s a ways out, yet. -Bill -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 841 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From mainanoa at gmail.com Thu Jul 10 16:52:04 2014 From: mainanoa at gmail.com (Noah Maina) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2014 19:52:04 +0300 Subject: [rpd] New proposal - "Out-Of-Region Use of AFRINIC Internet Number Resources" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-002-DRAFT-01) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 10 July 2014 19:19, Nishal Goburdhan wrote: > On 09 Jul 2014, at 10:02 AM, Douglas Onyango wrote: > > > Hi Omo, > > On 9 July 2014 04:14, Omo Oaiya wrote: > > [snip] > > > This means each RIR is expected to operate within the boundaries of the > regions they serve. > > Against this backdrop when space from one RIR is used Outside of that > > RIR [Out-of-region], it is generally considered to be at odds with > > this general principle. > > bzzt. no, not really, and no sane operator world-wide will attest to > this. when i was an operator, i routed space from at least three different > other regions for customers of mine, that were operating infrastructure > _inside_ africa - as long as they could show legitimate right to use this > space. large mulitnationals often operate like this. where the > multinational obtains the space from, was not my (operator) concern. that > my client could show the right to use it, was. > > when i was an operator, i used address space that i had received to build > my (african based) network, in at least three other continents. the > internet police have yet to come knocking on my door... > > RIRs allocate resources to _organisations_ in their region. > if i look at some of the prefixes that i see at african exchange points, i > see a fair chunk of "international" space. good for them, i say. > > > > There are multiple exceptions/intricacies with this principle, but I > hope you get the general point. > > i don't think you've answered Omo's question. but i'll leave that to Omo > to decide. > > > > Because of the many exceptions, and other reasons, I can't begin to > > quantify how many. I hope AFRINIC will have a better answer. > > > >> Is there any evidence of this? If there is, what is the current > procedure > >> for such > > > > Perhaps staff can provide a more authoritative answer to this. > > > >> Would this require every request to state % of out-of-region usage and > show > >> it in network? > > > > Staff is again better placed to response to this as they will be > > responsible for the implementation/enforcement. > > so perhaps then, it would be prudent to get an indication of exactly _how_ > much of a nuisance this is, _before_ trying to fit policy, eh? > > there are many other forums that bemoan the growth of behemoth > ISPs/carriers in africa. as a result, africa has come to rely on > non-african carries to manage her connectivity, and we've seen how that's > traditionally worked out. i suggest you spend the time necessary to > consider how your proposed policy affects africa's ability to grow and > sustain these giants of our own. i would hate to think that one of the > large operators from here, that was looking to expand their global network > into another region suddenly can't .. haven't we just shot ourselves in the > foot? > > frankly, i wish those carriers would speak up for themselves, since it > seems that very few actual operators have spoken up in this thread, thusfar. > > imho, if you truly want better uptake of resources in africa, you should > be making it easier for bona-fida african organisations to get those > resources. > > and note: i haven't mentioned anything about verifying resource usage in > a policy appropriate location, because, i believe that's largely > unenforceable, and would welcome _sound_ evidence to the contrary. like > most of you, i guess, i'll wait for the staff analysis on how they see this > being done. > > the sooner folks accept that an IP address is really just about > routability, the fewer issues you'll have, and, i predict, the more time > you'll have to spend on things that matter for the future - like > IPv6/DNSSEC/... :-) > > +++++1, and to build the African Internet, IP's will have to cross the boarders definitely.... That is the "Internet" for you!...no boundaries but the filters on that Ethernet port. > shalom, > --n._______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com Thu Jul 10 19:18:40 2014 From: Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com (Andrew Alston) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2014 20:18:40 +0100 Subject: [rpd] New proposal - "Out-Of-Region Use of AFRINIC Internet Number Resources" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-002-DRAFT-01) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: +1 to what Nishal said. Particularly about not being able to actually verify or police where space was/is used. Further more, representing a LARGE African operator who is expanding both inwards and outwards, I would want the ability to use the space assigned to us where I see fit, without limitation and without policy that could potentially hurt my employer hanging over my head. Speaking this time as an employee of a large African operator, and stating clearly that what I say does not necessarily represent the views of the AfriNIC board, I once again stand opposed to this policy. Thanks Andrew On 7/10/14, 7:19 PM, "Nishal Goburdhan" wrote: >On 09 Jul 2014, at 10:02 AM, Douglas Onyango wrote: > >> Hi Omo, >> On 9 July 2014 04:14, Omo Oaiya wrote: > >[snip] > >> This means each RIR is expected to operate within the boundaries of the >>regions they serve. >> Against this backdrop when space from one RIR is used Outside of that >> RIR [Out-of-region], it is generally considered to be at odds with >> this general principle. > >bzzt. no, not really, and no sane operator world-wide will attest to >this. when i was an operator, i routed space from at least three >different other regions for customers of mine, that were operating >infrastructure _inside_ africa - as long as they could show legitimate >right to use this space. large mulitnationals often operate like this. >where the multinational obtains the space from, was not my (operator) >concern. that my client could show the right to use it, was. > >when i was an operator, i used address space that i had received to build >my (african based) network, in at least three other continents. the >internet police have yet to come knocking on my door... > >RIRs allocate resources to _organisations_ in their region. >if i look at some of the prefixes that i see at african exchange points, >i see a fair chunk of "international" space. good for them, i say. > > >> There are multiple exceptions/intricacies with this principle, but I >>hope you get the general point. > >i don't think you've answered Omo's question. but i'll leave that to Omo >to decide. > > >> Because of the many exceptions, and other reasons, I can't begin to >> quantify how many. I hope AFRINIC will have a better answer. >> >>> Is there any evidence of this? If there is, what is the current >>>procedure >>> for such >> >> Perhaps staff can provide a more authoritative answer to this. >> >>> Would this require every request to state % of out-of-region usage and >>>show >>> it in network? >> >> Staff is again better placed to response to this as they will be >> responsible for the implementation/enforcement. > >so perhaps then, it would be prudent to get an indication of exactly >_how_ much of a nuisance this is, _before_ trying to fit policy, eh? > >there are many other forums that bemoan the growth of behemoth >ISPs/carriers in africa. as a result, africa has come to rely on >non-african carries to manage her connectivity, and we've seen how that's >traditionally worked out. i suggest you spend the time necessary to >consider how your proposed policy affects africa's ability to grow and >sustain these giants of our own. i would hate to think that one of the >large operators from here, that was looking to expand their global >network into another region suddenly can't .. haven't we just shot >ourselves in the foot? > >frankly, i wish those carriers would speak up for themselves, since it >seems that very few actual operators have spoken up in this thread, >thusfar. > >imho, if you truly want better uptake of resources in africa, you should >be making it easier for bona-fida african organisations to get those >resources. > >and note: i haven't mentioned anything about verifying resource usage in >a policy appropriate location, because, i believe that's largely >unenforceable, and would welcome _sound_ evidence to the contrary. like >most of you, i guess, i'll wait for the staff analysis on how they see >this being done. > >the sooner folks accept that an IP address is really just about >routability, the fewer issues you'll have, and, i predict, the more time >you'll have to spend on things that matter for the future - like >IPv6/DNSSEC/... :-) > >shalom, >--n._______________________________________________ >rpd mailing list >rpd at afrinic.net >https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd DISCLAIMER: This email contains proprietary information some or all of which may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this email, please notify the author by replying to this email. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose, copy, print, or rely on this email. We cannot accept liability for any statements made which are clearly the sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of this company or one of its agents. From Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com Thu Jul 10 19:26:26 2014 From: Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com (Andrew Alston) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2014 20:26:26 +0100 Subject: [rpd] New proposal - "Out-Of-Region Use of AFRINIC Internet Number Resources" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-002-DRAFT-01) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Bill, Except for the fact that there are massive African organisations that are expanding both inwards and outwards. I use Liquid (my employer as an example). We operate the largest cross border fiber network in Africa, and operate our own infrastructure in: Zimbabwe Zambia Uganda Rwanda Tanzania Burundi Botswana South Africa Kenya And are expanding all the time. That being said, we also operate points of presence in London and the UAE, and are growing both inwards and outwards. I cannot get space from RIPE, I cannot get space from APNIC, so pray tell, how is the organisation meant to grow if we cannot use legitimately applied for AfriNIC space off continent as we continue to grow a massive multi-national network? And for the record, everything we do is IPv6 enabled all the way to the edge - so we make sure we?re doing our part there as well! Andrew On 7/10/14, 7:47 PM, "Bill Woodcock" wrote: > >On Jul 10, 2014, at 9:19 AM, Nishal Goburdhan wrote: >> RIRs allocate resources to _organisations_ in their region. >> if i look at some of the prefixes that i see at african exchange >>points, i see a fair chunk of "international" space. good for them, i >>say. > >Well, not really? We have an area of policy inconsistency between RIRs >here, and I think it?s going to cause a problem. > >Looking at ARIN policy, ARIN allocates space for use in the ARIN region. >If you take ARIN-allocated space and use it out-of-region, you can?t use >it in a justification for more space. That effectively means that using >it out-of-region means you?re cutting yourself off from further >allocations, which effectively precludes doing it in any meaningful >volume. > >What I believe I?m hearing about AfriNIC policy is that it allocates >space to organizations that are incorporated in Africa, but not to >networks that operate in Africa. That leaves a gap in policy, that fails >to address the needs of networks that operate in Africa. That in turn >disincentivizes deployment in Africa. If I can?t get addresses from >other RIRs to deploy in Africa, and I can?t get addresses from AfriNIC to >deploy in Africa, how do I deploy in Africa, other than by giving up my >ability to request more addresses in a different region, which isn?t >sustainable either? > >Yes, all this becomes somewhat moot in an IPv6-only future >economy-of-plenty, but that?s a ways out, yet. > > -Bill > > > > DISCLAIMER: This email contains proprietary information some or all of which may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this email, please notify the author by replying to this email. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose, copy, print, or rely on this email. We cannot accept liability for any statements made which are clearly the sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of this company or one of its agents. From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com Thu Jul 10 20:49:14 2014 From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2014 21:49:14 +0100 Subject: [rpd] New proposal - "Out-Of-Region Use of AFRINIC Internet Number Resources" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-002-DRAFT-01) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hello Andrew, all Perhaps Andrew has provided a typical scenario/data to work with. There are a few things that seem to be in contention and I will attempt to give a brief PERSONAL opinion: - Difficult to monitor defaulter of outside region vs inside region usage: I think we may be viewing the policy from the operation side alone. We should also look at it from the execution side.[1] In passing a law of death sentence for anyone who steal, how to catch the thief OR the difficulty in catching a thief is not important than the fact that there is a law to apply to anyone caught. So perhaps discussing whether the sentence should be death is more helpful. - Limiting may restrict expansion: There is already existing process indicating that to get resource from AfriNIC region you need to have a company registered in the region. Inview of that, the understanding below may be valid about the intent of the legitimate org: 1. Such organisation registered to setup (one way or the other) and operate it's infrastructure within the region 2. That the infrastructure setup could be servicing either in region OR both in-region and out-region (no out-region only) If we agree with the points above then we perhaps agree that some level of in-region service is required by any organisation. The point however is how much in-region is expected and this is where Andrew's raw data comes in handy. His company at the moment has a ratio of say 5:1, the question we then need to answer is if such organisation maintains it's ratio of 5 in-region but increases it's ratio of 1out-region to say 10 would we still say AFRINIC as a regional RIR is servicing it's region? Regards 1. Reading that sentence again and I am wondering whether the difference between operating and executing is obvious. I hope you put it in context of the stealing law scenario. ;) sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 10 Jul 2014 20:28, "Andrew Alston" wrote: > Hi Bill, > > Except for the fact that there are massive African organisations that are > expanding both inwards and outwards. > > I use Liquid (my employer as an example). > > We operate the largest cross border fiber network in Africa, and operate > our own infrastructure in: > > Zimbabwe > Zambia > Uganda > Rwanda > Tanzania > Burundi > Botswana > South Africa > Kenya > > And are expanding all the time. That being said, we also operate points > of presence in London and the UAE, and are growing both inwards and > outwards. I cannot get space from RIPE, I cannot get space from APNIC, so > pray tell, how is the organisation meant to grow if we cannot use > legitimately applied for AfriNIC space off continent as we continue to > grow a massive multi-national network? > > And for the record, everything we do is IPv6 enabled all the way to the > edge - so we make sure we?re doing our part there as well! > > Andrew > > > > On 7/10/14, 7:47 PM, "Bill Woodcock" wrote: > > > > >On Jul 10, 2014, at 9:19 AM, Nishal Goburdhan wrote: > >> RIRs allocate resources to _organisations_ in their region. > >> if i look at some of the prefixes that i see at african exchange > >>points, i see a fair chunk of "international" space. good for them, i > >>say. > > > >Well, not really? We have an area of policy inconsistency between RIRs > >here, and I think it?s going to cause a problem. > > > >Looking at ARIN policy, ARIN allocates space for use in the ARIN region. > >If you take ARIN-allocated space and use it out-of-region, you can?t use > >it in a justification for more space. That effectively means that using > >it out-of-region means you?re cutting yourself off from further > >allocations, which effectively precludes doing it in any meaningful > >volume. > > > >What I believe I?m hearing about AfriNIC policy is that it allocates > >space to organizations that are incorporated in Africa, but not to > >networks that operate in Africa. That leaves a gap in policy, that fails > >to address the needs of networks that operate in Africa. That in turn > >disincentivizes deployment in Africa. If I can?t get addresses from > >other RIRs to deploy in Africa, and I can?t get addresses from AfriNIC to > >deploy in Africa, how do I deploy in Africa, other than by giving up my > >ability to request more addresses in a different region, which isn?t > >sustainable either? > > > >Yes, all this becomes somewhat moot in an IPv6-only future > >economy-of-plenty, but that?s a ways out, yet. > > > > -Bill > > > > > > > > > > > DISCLAIMER: This email contains proprietary information some or all of > which may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. If > an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this email, please > notify the author by replying to this email. If you are not the intended > recipient, you must not use, disclose, copy, print, or rely on this email. > We cannot accept liability for any statements made which are clearly the > sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of this company or one of its > agents. > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From owen at delong.com Thu Jul 10 21:30:31 2014 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2014 14:30:31 -0700 Subject: [rpd] New proposal - "Out-Of-Region Use of AFRINIC Internet Number Resources" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-002-DRAFT-01) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Jul 10, 2014, at 09:47 , Bill Woodcock wrote: > > On Jul 10, 2014, at 9:19 AM, Nishal Goburdhan wrote: >> RIRs allocate resources to _organisations_ in their region. >> if i look at some of the prefixes that i see at african exchange points, i see a fair chunk of "international" space. good for them, i say. > > Well, not really? We have an area of policy inconsistency between RIRs here, and I think it?s going to cause a problem. > > Looking at ARIN policy, ARIN allocates space for use in the ARIN region. If you take ARIN-allocated space and use it out-of-region, you can?t use it in a justification for more space. That effectively means that using it out-of-region means you?re cutting yourself off from further allocations, which effectively precludes doing it in any meaningful volume. [Speaking only as myself and not representing ARIN, the ARIN AC, my employer, any municipality, county, state, country, or other government, or even the local dog catcher, strictly my own personal opinion, and likely one that will not be popular among my peers]: That's what ARIN currently does. It's not actually what ARIN policy currently says. The only part of the NRPM I could find which actually covers this is section 2.2 which states: 2.2. Regional Internet Registry (RIR) Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) are established and authorized by respective regional communities, and recognized by the IANA to serve and represent large geographical regions. The primary role of RIRs is to manage and distribute public Internet address space within their respective regions. Nowhere in the NRPM is there any discussion (favorable or prohibitive) of allocations to entities outside of the ARIN region, nor is there discussion of allocations or assignments to entities in the region for use outside of the region. ARIN Policy is moot on the subject and it has been the source of some significant consternation within our region and there is at least one policy proposal currently under discussion to clarify this in policy. There was, in fact, a time when ARIN readily and often issued space to ARIN members and end-user organizations headquartered in the ARIN region and operating global networks such that they were able to number all of their global infrastructure while still dealing with a single RIR. I believe that this was the original intent of the design of the RIR system and I believe we should strive to be as close to this as possible. Unfortunately, scarcity of IPv4 addresses has created unique and tragic circumstances which require more rigorous policy in a newfound environment where the good will and community spirit of operators can no longer be counted upon. (without shortage, there was no real benefit to being a bad actor, so we mostly had good actors and the bad actors were below the noise floor). > What I believe I?m hearing about AfriNIC policy is that it allocates space to organizations that are incorporated in Africa, but not to networks that operate in Africa. That leaves a gap in policy, that fails to address the needs of networks that operate in Africa. That in turn disincentivizes deployment in Africa. If I can?t get addresses from other RIRs to deploy in Africa, and I can?t get addresses from AfriNIC to deploy in Africa, how do I deploy in Africa, other than by giving up my ability to request more addresses in a different region, which isn?t sustainable either? I believe this is less of a gap than perceived because incorporated in Africa doesn't necessarily mean headquartered in Africa and I think that the actual AfriNIC requirements are "registered" in Africa, similar to ARIN's requirements that the business have a legal presence in the ARIN region. > Yes, all this becomes somewhat moot in an IPv6-only future economy-of-plenty, but that?s a ways out, yet. Indeed Owen -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From owen at delong.com Thu Jul 10 21:39:10 2014 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2014 14:39:10 -0700 Subject: [rpd] New proposal - "Out-Of-Region Use of AFRINIC Internet Number Resources" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-002-DRAFT-01) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Jul 10, 2014, at 12:26 , Andrew Alston wrote: > Hi Bill, > > Except for the fact that there are massive African organisations that are > expanding both inwards and outwards. > > I use Liquid (my employer as an example). > > We operate the largest cross border fiber network in Africa, and operate > our own infrastructure in: > > Zimbabwe > Zambia > Uganda > Rwanda > Tanzania > Burundi > Botswana > South Africa > Kenya > > And are expanding all the time. That being said, we also operate points > of presence in London and the UAE, and are growing both inwards and > outwards. I cannot get space from RIPE, I cannot get space from APNIC, so Why not? All you need to do is apply. This claim is patently false. Both of them have plenty of space available in modern internet numbers. As to IPv4, yes, those regions are exhausted. In the case of APNIC, you can transfer numbers from a willing provider to your presence in the AP region from either APNIC or ARIN regions under existing policy. In RIPE, you can also transfer numbers from a willing provider within the RIPE region. RIPE has chosen in their policy process to opt out of being able to transfer numbers from the ARIN region. I don't know if APNIC will transfer numbers to RIPE or not. I have not done the necessary comparison and correlation of the APNIC and RIPE policies. This is the post exhaustion environment in each of the exhausted regions and that will soon apply to LACNIC and ARIN too. If the AfriNIC community allows expansion into other regions to be fueled by use of resources delegated to AfriNIC to manage, then that will reduce the resources available for deployment within the region. It is up to the AfriNIC community to decide whether it wants to use its resources to increase the ability of organizations to expand outside of Africa or whether it wants to preserve its resources for the betterment of the population living within the region. Personally, I tend to favor the latter, but I don't live within the region, so my voice in this regard can be taken with a grain of salt. I realize your employer stands to have a competitive advantage against the natives if it is allowed to take resources from AfriNIC and use them to provide services over IPv4 in those regions while their more local competitors have no IPv4 addresses available to provide additional services, but I fail to see how that serves the interests of the AfriNIC community at large vs. the more narrow interests of your employer and to some extent, the people employed by your employer. > pray tell, how is the organisation meant to grow if we cannot use > legitimately applied for AfriNIC space off continent as we continue to > grow a massive multi-national network? You can use legitimately acquired addresses from those regions. > And for the record, everything we do is IPv6 enabled all the way to the > edge - so we make sure we?re doing our part there as well! This is a very good thing, and I applaud it. Generally, Liquid strikes me as a good organization trying to do good things. However, what you have said above seems to me to depart from this down a road of self-interest at the potential expense of the AfriNIC community. Owen > > Andrew > > > > On 7/10/14, 7:47 PM, "Bill Woodcock" wrote: > >> >> On Jul 10, 2014, at 9:19 AM, Nishal Goburdhan wrote: >>> RIRs allocate resources to _organisations_ in their region. >>> if i look at some of the prefixes that i see at african exchange >>> points, i see a fair chunk of "international" space. good for them, i >>> say. >> >> Well, not really? We have an area of policy inconsistency between RIRs >> here, and I think it?s going to cause a problem. >> >> Looking at ARIN policy, ARIN allocates space for use in the ARIN region. >> If you take ARIN-allocated space and use it out-of-region, you can?t use >> it in a justification for more space. That effectively means that using >> it out-of-region means you?re cutting yourself off from further >> allocations, which effectively precludes doing it in any meaningful >> volume. >> >> What I believe I?m hearing about AfriNIC policy is that it allocates >> space to organizations that are incorporated in Africa, but not to >> networks that operate in Africa. That leaves a gap in policy, that fails >> to address the needs of networks that operate in Africa. That in turn >> disincentivizes deployment in Africa. If I can?t get addresses from >> other RIRs to deploy in Africa, and I can?t get addresses from AfriNIC to >> deploy in Africa, how do I deploy in Africa, other than by giving up my >> ability to request more addresses in a different region, which isn?t >> sustainable either? >> >> Yes, all this becomes somewhat moot in an IPv6-only future >> economy-of-plenty, but that?s a ways out, yet. >> >> -Bill >> >> >> >> > > > DISCLAIMER: This email contains proprietary information some or all of which may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this email, please notify the author by replying to this email. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose, copy, print, or rely on this email. We cannot accept liability for any statements made which are clearly the sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of this company or one of its agents. > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd From Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com Thu Jul 10 21:49:51 2014 From: Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com (Andrew Alston) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2014 22:49:51 +0100 Subject: [rpd] New proposal - "Out-Of-Region Use of AFRINIC Internet Number Resources" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-002-DRAFT-01) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Errr, Owen, for the record. My employer is an African multi-national. How do African companies expanding outwards help Africa? Lets stop for a second and think about this. Firstly, we need infrastructure in foreign countries for peering, for transit routers, for providing circuits to people on the African continent who want to reach foreign entities. Without infrastructure off the continent, how exactly do we provide end to end service to other African companies looking for things like EoMPLS circuits with the A side in Africa and the B side outside of Africa? Or would you rather that we played the half circuit game at additional expense to the African consumer? Would you rather than African multi-national ISP?s didn?t have international points of presence where they could peer off their traffic at exchanges internationally and reduce the cost of service provision to their african customers? Would your rather we wait for people to bring the content to us at inflated prices rather than going to the source and fetching it ourselves? All of these things require international infrastructure, it has to be numbered, and as you yourself have admitted, V4 is still a major part of this. Of course I can get V6 resources out of region, but the V4 resources are still necessary and getting those for international infrastructure without using AfriNIC resources is not possible right now. I might also point out, there are vast tracts of the African continent still only served by Satellite, if the Satellite hub is in Europe and the customers themselves are in Africa, if I am routing the space to the Satellite hub in Europe, where are the resources being used? Its ambigious. I might also point out, that large African multi-nationals that are expanding also provide a LOT of employment on the continent and the expansion off continent helps drive the employment ON the continent (for example, NOC?s based in Africa for international networks, that employ large numbers of people in Africa, for the betterment of the African community) Think it through for a second? Andrew On 7/11/14, 12:39 AM, "Owen DeLong" wrote: > >On Jul 10, 2014, at 12:26 , Andrew Alston > wrote: > >> Hi Bill, >> >> Except for the fact that there are massive African organisations that >>are >> expanding both inwards and outwards. >> >> I use Liquid (my employer as an example). >> >> We operate the largest cross border fiber network in Africa, and operate >> our own infrastructure in: >> >> Zimbabwe >> Zambia >> Uganda >> Rwanda >> Tanzania >> Burundi >> Botswana >> South Africa >> Kenya >> >> And are expanding all the time. That being said, we also operate points >> of presence in London and the UAE, and are growing both inwards and >> outwards. I cannot get space from RIPE, I cannot get space from APNIC, >>so > >Why not? All you need to do is apply. This claim is patently false. > >Both of them have plenty of space available in modern internet numbers. > >As to IPv4, yes, those regions are exhausted. In the case of APNIC, you >can transfer >numbers from a willing provider to your presence in the AP region from >either APNIC >or ARIN regions under existing policy. In RIPE, you can also transfer >numbers from a >willing provider within the RIPE region. RIPE has chosen in their policy >process to opt >out of being able to transfer numbers from the ARIN region. I don't know >if APNIC >will transfer numbers to RIPE or not. I have not done the necessary >comparison and >correlation of the APNIC and RIPE policies. This is the post exhaustion >environment >in each of the exhausted regions and that will soon apply to LACNIC and >ARIN too. > >If the AfriNIC community allows expansion into other regions to be fueled >by use of >resources delegated to AfriNIC to manage, then that will reduce the >resources available >for deployment within the region. > >It is up to the AfriNIC community to decide whether it wants to use its >resources to >increase the ability of organizations to expand outside of Africa or >whether it wants >to preserve its resources for the betterment of the population living >within the region. > >Personally, I tend to favor the latter, but I don't live within the >region, so my voice in >this regard can be taken with a grain of salt. > >I realize your employer stands to have a competitive advantage against >the natives >if it is allowed to take resources from AfriNIC and use them to provide >services over >IPv4 in those regions while their more local competitors have no IPv4 >addresses >available to provide additional services, but I fail to see how that >serves the interests >of the AfriNIC community at large vs. the more narrow interests of your >employer >and to some extent, the people employed by your employer. > >> pray tell, how is the organisation meant to grow if we cannot use >> legitimately applied for AfriNIC space off continent as we continue to >> grow a massive multi-national network? > >You can use legitimately acquired addresses from those regions. > >> And for the record, everything we do is IPv6 enabled all the way to the >> edge - so we make sure we?re doing our part there as well! > >This is a very good thing, and I applaud it. Generally, Liquid strikes me >as a good >organization trying to do good things. However, what you have said above >seems >to me to depart from this down a road of self-interest at the potential >expense of the >AfriNIC community. > >Owen > >> >> Andrew >> >> >> >> On 7/10/14, 7:47 PM, "Bill Woodcock" wrote: >> >>> >>> On Jul 10, 2014, at 9:19 AM, Nishal Goburdhan wrote: >>>> RIRs allocate resources to _organisations_ in their region. >>>> if i look at some of the prefixes that i see at african exchange >>>> points, i see a fair chunk of "international" space. good for them, i >>>> say. >>> >>> Well, not really? We have an area of policy inconsistency between RIRs >>> here, and I think it?s going to cause a problem. >>> >>> Looking at ARIN policy, ARIN allocates space for use in the ARIN >>>region. >>> If you take ARIN-allocated space and use it out-of-region, you can?t >>>use >>> it in a justification for more space. That effectively means that >>>using >>> it out-of-region means you?re cutting yourself off from further >>> allocations, which effectively precludes doing it in any meaningful >>> volume. >>> >>> What I believe I?m hearing about AfriNIC policy is that it allocates >>> space to organizations that are incorporated in Africa, but not to >>> networks that operate in Africa. That leaves a gap in policy, that >>>fails >>> to address the needs of networks that operate in Africa. That in turn >>> disincentivizes deployment in Africa. If I can?t get addresses from >>> other RIRs to deploy in Africa, and I can?t get addresses from AfriNIC >>>to >>> deploy in Africa, how do I deploy in Africa, other than by giving up my >>> ability to request more addresses in a different region, which isn?t >>> sustainable either? >>> >>> Yes, all this becomes somewhat moot in an IPv6-only future >>> economy-of-plenty, but that?s a ways out, yet. >>> >>> -Bill >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> DISCLAIMER: This email contains proprietary information some or all of >>which may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. >>If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this email, >>please notify the author by replying to this email. If you are not the >>intended recipient, you must not use, disclose, copy, print, or rely on >>this email. We cannot accept liability for any statements made which >>are clearly the sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of this >>company or one of its agents. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> rpd mailing list >> rpd at afrinic.net >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > DISCLAIMER: This email contains proprietary information some or all of which may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this email, please notify the author by replying to this email. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose, copy, print, or rely on this email. We cannot accept liability for any statements made which are clearly the sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of this company or one of its agents. From mainanoa at gmail.com Thu Jul 10 22:35:59 2014 From: mainanoa at gmail.com (Noah Maina) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 01:35:59 +0300 Subject: [rpd] New proposal - "Out-Of-Region Use of AFRINIC Internet Number Resources" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-002-DRAFT-01) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 11 July 2014 00:49, Andrew Alston wrote: > Errr, > > Owen, for the record. > > My employer is an African multi-national. How do African companies > expanding outwards help Africa? Lets stop for a second and think about > this. > > Firstly, we need infrastructure in foreign countries for peering, for > transit routers, for providing circuits to people on the African continent > who want to reach foreign entities. Without infrastructure off the > continent, how exactly do we provide end to end service to other African > companies looking for things like EoMPLS circuits with the A side in > Africa and the B side outside of Africa? Or would you rather that we > played the half circuit game at additional expense to the African consumer? > > Would you rather than African multi-national ISP?s didn?t have > international points of presence where they could peer off their traffic > at exchanges internationally and reduce the cost of service provision to > their african customers? Would your rather we wait for people to bring > the content to us at inflated prices rather than going to the source and > fetching it ourselves? > > All of these things require international infrastructure, it has to be > numbered, and as you yourself have admitted, V4 is still a major part of > this. Of course I can get V6 resources out of region, but the V4 > resources are still necessary and getting those for international > infrastructure without using AfriNIC resources is not possible right now. > > I might also point out, there are vast tracts of the African continent > still only served by Satellite, if the Satellite hub is in Europe and the > customers themselves are in Africa, if I am routing the space to the > Satellite hub in Europe, where are the resources being used? Its > ambigious. > > I might also point out, that large African multi-nationals that are > expanding also provide a LOT of employment on the continent and the > expansion off continent helps drive the employment ON the continent (for > example, NOC?s based in Africa for international networks, that employ > large numbers of people in Africa, for the betterment of the African > community) > > @Andrew +++++++1 x1000. Rest your case, you need not to say more :-) ...I raise a glass. > > > Andrew > > IMHO, I don?t support this policy even a bit since it doesn't even take into consideration the operational reality on the ground. Besides, hardly 20% of the resources obtained from Afrinic are used outside Africa by entities registering in Africa with operations in Africa mainly for infrastructure seated outside Africa.... Naked truth, the biggest market for IP now is in Africa and she continues to develop her Internet!!!! So if this policy is for restricting number resource usage to a certain % outside Africa, then where exactly are you going to use them v4 IP's, In Europe, North America, Asia, where the internet is already developed and folks are already getting used to v6, not a chance. Noah -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From owen at delong.com Thu Jul 10 23:17:15 2014 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2014 16:17:15 -0700 Subject: [rpd] New proposal - "Out-Of-Region Use of AFRINIC Internet Number Resources" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-002-DRAFT-01) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Jul 10, 2014, at 15:35 , Noah Maina wrote: > > > > On 11 July 2014 00:49, Andrew Alston wrote: > Errr, > > Owen, for the record. > > My employer is an African multi-national. How do African companies > expanding outwards help Africa? Lets stop for a second and think about > this. I did not say or mean to imply that African companies expanding outwards did not help Africa. However, I would argue that if they do so by gaining a competitive advantage over the "natives" in other regions using resources intended to serve the AfriNIC community, they are doing a larger disservice to the AfriNIC community than any potential benefit achieved for that same community. > Firstly, we need infrastructure in foreign countries for peering, for > transit routers, for providing circuits to people on the African continent > who want to reach foreign entities. Without infrastructure off the > continent, how exactly do we provide end to end service to other African > companies looking for things like EoMPLS circuits with the A side in > Africa and the B side outside of Africa? Or would you rather that we > played the half circuit game at additional expense to the African consumer? The proposed policy provide for more than enough address space use outside of the AfriNIC service region to cover this. Nobody is disputing the need for this. What I was talking about (and what Andrew stated, or at the very least implied) was using AfriNIC issued resources to expand services sold to customers outside of the AfriNIC service region. > Would you rather than African multi-national ISP?s didn?t have > international points of presence where they could peer off their traffic > at exchanges internationally and reduce the cost of service provision to > their african customers? Would your rather we wait for people to bring > the content to us at inflated prices rather than going to the source and > fetching it ourselves? Of course not and I would never support a policy that prevented this. However, that's got nothing to do with the discussion at hand. The policy being discussed allows more than sufficient extra-regional resource utilization to accommodate this. Andrew's stated opposition implied a much larger need for out-of-region resource utilization and a complaint about being unable to obtain that space from the other regions. If we're strictly talking about peering infrastructure, then, as a matter of fact, you can obtain a /22 from RIPE and a /22 from APNIC for that purpose and I believe that would more than cover most such needs. Especially since peering at IXPs usually involves obtaining the IXP address from the IXP itself and doesn't consume your resources. > All of these things require international infrastructure, it has to be > numbered, and as you yourself have admitted, V4 is still a major part of > this. Of course I can get V6 resources out of region, but the V4 > resources are still necessary and getting those for international > infrastructure without using AfriNIC resources is not possible right now. And all of this is a red herring compared to the discussion that led to my comments. > I might also point out, there are vast tracts of the African continent > still only served by Satellite, if the Satellite hub is in Europe and the > customers themselves are in Africa, if I am routing the space to the > Satellite hub in Europe, where are the resources being used? Its > ambigious. And everyone has stated that this policy should not be interpreted as to prevent that. The consideration should be based on the location of the end customer using the resources, not the media translation gateways in between. > I might also point out, that large African multi-nationals that are > expanding also provide a LOT of employment on the continent and the > expansion off continent helps drive the employment ON the continent (for > example, NOC?s based in Africa for international networks, that employ > large numbers of people in Africa, for the betterment of the African > community) And here we hit the first point which is actually relevant to the ongoing policy discussion and not a red herring. Rather than repeat my first paragraph here, I will simply incorporate it by reference. > @Andrew +++++++1 x1000. Rest your case, you need not to say more :-) ...I raise a glass. I wish you the best of luck in this regard. > IMHO, I don?t support this policy even a bit since it doesn't even take into consideration the operational reality on the ground. Besides, hardly 20% of the resources obtained from Afrinic are used outside Africa by entities registering in Africa with operations in Africa mainly for infrastructure seated outside Africa.... Um, for most organizations, this is true. However, open your eyes to what is happening in the larger world. There is at least one (and I suspect several more are already there, but if not, they will be watching and follow closely if possible) which is consuming AfriNIC resources (and as many resources as they can get from other regions) for use in other regions through a rather interesting VPN-based dodge to the policy. > Naked truth, the biggest market for IP now is in Africa and she continues to develop her Internet!!!! Naked truth, bigger or smaller doesn't matter. There's enough demand and enough money in the other regions to bleed Africa's IPv4 number resources dry rather quickly. > So if this policy is for restricting number resource usage to a certain % outside Africa, then where exactly are you going to use them v4 IP's, In Europe, North America, Asia, where the internet is already developed and folks are already getting used to v6, not a chance. You bet. Address consumption and trading is continuing in those regions and the internet continues to grow in those regions. Used to IPv6? I wish. Progress is being made, but it's still nowhere near where it needs to be. http://www.delong.com/ipv6_fortune500.html http://www.delong.com/ipv6_alexa500.html Owen -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mainanoa at gmail.com Fri Jul 11 00:43:52 2014 From: mainanoa at gmail.com (Noah Maina) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 03:43:52 +0300 Subject: [rpd] New proposal - "Out-Of-Region Use of AFRINIC Internet Number Resources" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-002-DRAFT-01) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 11 July 2014 02:17, Owen DeLong wrote: > > On Jul 10, 2014, at 15:35 , Noah Maina wrote: > > > > > On 11 July 2014 00:49, Andrew Alston > wrote: > >> Errr, >> >> Owen, for the record. >> >> My employer is an African multi-national. How do African companies >> expanding outwards help Africa? Lets stop for a second and think about >> this. >> > > I did not say or mean to imply that African companies expanding outwards > did not help Africa. > > However, I would argue that if they do so by gaining a competitive > advantage > over the "natives" in other regions using resources intended to serve the > AfriNIC > community, they are doing a larger disservice to the AfriNIC community than > any potential benefit achieved for that same community. > > Firstly, we need infrastructure in foreign countries for peering, for >> transit routers, for providing circuits to people on the African continent >> who want to reach foreign entities. Without infrastructure off the >> continent, how exactly do we provide end to end service to other African >> companies looking for things like EoMPLS circuits with the A side in >> Africa and the B side outside of Africa? Or would you rather that we >> played the half circuit game at additional expense to the African >> consumer? >> > > The proposed policy provide for more than enough address space use outside > of the AfriNIC service region to cover this. Nobody is disputing the need > for this. > > What I was talking about (and what Andrew stated, or at the very least > implied) > was using AfriNIC issued resources to expand services sold to customers > outside > of the AfriNIC service region. > > Would you rather than African multi-national ISP?s didn?t have >> international points of presence where they could peer off their traffic >> at exchanges internationally and reduce the cost of service provision to >> their african customers? Would your rather we wait for people to bring >> the content to us at inflated prices rather than going to the source and >> fetching it ourselves? >> > > Of course not and I would never support a policy that prevented this. > However, > that's got nothing to do with the discussion at hand. The policy being > discussed > allows more than sufficient extra-regional resource utilization to > accommodate > this. Andrew's stated opposition implied a much larger need for > out-of-region > resource utilization and a complaint about being unable to obtain that > space > from the other regions. > > If we're strictly talking about peering infrastructure, then, as a matter > of fact, > you can obtain a /22 from RIPE and a /22 from APNIC for that purpose and > I believe that would more than cover most such needs. Especially since > peering > at IXPs usually involves obtaining the IXP address from the IXP itself and > doesn't > consume your resources. > > All of these things require international infrastructure, it has to be >> numbered, and as you yourself have admitted, V4 is still a major part of >> this. Of course I can get V6 resources out of region, but the V4 >> resources are still necessary and getting those for international >> infrastructure without using AfriNIC resources is not possible right now. >> > > And all of this is a red herring compared to the discussion that led to my > comments. > > I might also point out, there are vast tracts of the African continent >> still only served by Satellite, if the Satellite hub is in Europe and the >> customers themselves are in Africa, if I am routing the space to the >> Satellite hub in Europe, where are the resources being used? Its >> ambigious. >> > > And everyone has stated that this policy should not be interpreted as to > prevent > that. The consideration should be based on the location of the end > customer using > the resources, not the media translation gateways in between. > > I might also point out, that large African multi-nationals that are >> expanding also provide a LOT of employment on the continent and the >> expansion off continent helps drive the employment ON the continent (for >> example, NOC?s based in Africa for international networks, that employ >> large numbers of people in Africa, for the betterment of the African >> community) >> > > And here we hit the first point which is actually relevant to the ongoing > policy > discussion and not a red herring. Rather than repeat my first paragraph > here, > I will simply incorporate it by reference. > > @Andrew +++++++1 x1000. Rest your case, you need not to say more :-) >> ...I raise a glass. > > > I wish you the best of luck in this regard. > > Yeah LoL > IMHO, I don?t support this policy even a bit since it doesn't even take > into consideration the operational reality on the ground. Besides, hardly > 20% of the resources obtained from Afrinic are used outside Africa by > entities registering in Africa with operations in Africa mainly for > infrastructure seated outside Africa.... > > > use in other regions through a rather interesting VPN-based dodge to the > policy. > > How many would go that far, lets be realistic.... Naked truth, the biggest market for IP now is in Africa and she continues > to develop her Internet!!!! > > > Naked truth, bigger or smaller doesn't matter. There's enough demand and > enough money in the other regions to bleed Africa's IPv4 number resources > dry rather quickly. > > That is besides the point and folks at AfriNIC are not sleeping, they work!!!....This resources shall be used here and by operators in Africa to expand both within and outside. > So if this policy is for restricting number resource usage to a certain % > outside Africa, then where exactly are you going to use them v4 IP's, In > Europe, North America, Asia, where the internet is already developed and > folks are already getting used to v6, not a chance. > > > You bet. Address consumption and trading is continuing in those regions > and the internet continues to grow in those regions. Used to IPv6? I wish. > Progress is being made, but it's still nowhere near where it needs to be. > > There is somewhat compelling evidence vs our region....that is not nothing...Facebook, Google are a good example, end users always catch up since they dont run the network, they consume the service... > http://www.delong.com/ipv6_fortune500.html > http://www.delong.com/ipv6_alexa500.html > > Owen > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mark.tinka at seacom.mu Fri Jul 11 08:26:29 2014 From: mark.tinka at seacom.mu (Mark Tinka) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 10:26:29 +0200 Subject: [rpd] New proposal - "Out-Of-Region Use of AFRINIC Internet Number Resources" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-002-DRAFT-01) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <201407111026.33156.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> On Friday, July 11, 2014 01:17:15 AM Owen DeLong wrote: > If we're strictly talking about peering infrastructure, > then, as a matter of fact, you can obtain a /22 from > RIPE and a /22 from APNIC for that purpose and I believe > that would more than cover most such needs. Especially > since peering at IXPs usually involves obtaining the IXP > address from the IXP itself and doesn't consume your > resources. As this appears to be concern, it might be useful to have language in the policy that provides a reasonable distinction between address space used for numbering devices vs. address space used for provisioning customers. In many markets, expansion into new territories (not covered by the provider's home service region) may not necessarily infer anything beyond mere backbone expansion, i.e., selling to customers located out-of-region may be atypical. How long this remains the case I can't say, as I can't read the future. Whether the policy allows for this (which, in my view, might be nit-picking, but hey...) or not, perhaps it is something worth thinking about, as, obviously, it is a concern for some of the membership. Mark. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. URL: From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com Fri Jul 11 11:53:29 2014 From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 12:53:29 +0100 Subject: [rpd] Fwd: [Internetgovtech] update to discussion on Transition to the web In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: This is good to read afterall Cheers! sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Theresa Swinehart" Date: 11 Jul 2014 12:12 Subject: [Internetgovtech] update to discussion on Transition to the web To: "internetgovtech at iab.org" Cc: All, Further to my note -- Thank you for your raising some important issues in relation to the migration of the IANA Transition mailing list to a web forum. We were trying to serve the broadest community we could as efficiently, transparently and as accessibly as we could, but recognize that the migration raised some concerns, which was not at all the intention, and I apologize for this. To address the feedback we have received, we are reinstating the mailing list and we are looking into the points raised around the terms of service. Further we apologize for instituting the previous changes without discussion or further feedback. While we are restoring the mailing list, there was - and still is - a purpose in setting up the forum, and though it's after the fact, it's nonetheless appropriate to share with you what motivated the change. We had input that some prospective participants are uncomfortable using email lists. We also had input that many people wanted additional functionality or different ways to manage communications. Specifically, the migration sought to provide a tool to those also less familiar with using only email lists. The forum was set up to provide the functionality expected from a mailing list, including that participants can send and receive posts via email just like the mailing list. It also some additional aspects some may find easier to manage via, including: ? Ability to choose what they want to see (rather than have to set up email rules to filter out what they don't want). They can mute or follow specific threads. ? Ability to sign up for digests (full or topic specific) on a schedule of their choosing. ? Ability for search engines to search posts. ? Ability to view and respond to specific topics. ? Ability for participants to identify the most valuable contributions by 'liking' them. ? It can be easier for some less familiar with email lists to see new topics and to navigate to different topics. ? Questions can be made and answered and referred to, saving repetition. ? Future options include such as user selectable machine translation of posts, thereby allowing multiple language participation in the same discussion, without the conversation fragmenting by language or locality. We appreciate that a forum only option raised other concerns, including many don?t like to use discussion forums or manage communications that way. Given the interests expressed to retain the mailing list it will be reopened shortly. Thank you again for your continued feedback and suggestions for improvements, they are important to continue to improve the mechanisms and engagement in these important discussions. Kind regards, Theresa _______________________________________________ Internetgovtech mailing list Internetgovtech at iab.org https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/internetgovtech -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5096 bytes Desc: not available URL: From owen at delong.com Fri Jul 11 16:09:05 2014 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 09:09:05 -0700 Subject: [rpd] New proposal - "Out-Of-Region Use of AFRINIC Internet Number Resources" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-002-DRAFT-01) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: >> IMHO, I don?t support this policy even a bit since it doesn't even take into consideration the operational reality on the ground. Besides, hardly 20% of the resources obtained from Afrinic are used outside Africa by entities registering in Africa with operations in Africa mainly for infrastructure seated outside Africa.... > > use in other regions through a rather interesting VPN-based dodge to the policy. > > > How many would go that far, lets be realistic.... > The address situation is not yet desperate and there are at least three companies already pursuing this strategy. I believe across all regions at least a /12 (and likely closer to a /9) has been consumed by users of this strategy to date. Is it really so hard to think that 3 /8s could get consumed in this way? Realistically, I think it would go well beyond that if there were more than 3 /8s left to consume. That is me being realistic. That is the current reality on the ground. >> Naked truth, the biggest market for IP now is in Africa and she continues to develop her Internet!!!! > > Naked truth, bigger or smaller doesn't matter. There's enough demand and enough money in the other regions to bleed Africa's IPv4 number resources dry rather quickly. > > > That is besides the point and folks at AfriNIC are not sleeping, they work!!!....This resources shall be used here and by operators in Africa to expand both within and outside. Let?s hope so, but absent this proposal or something similar, I think you will only get a small fraction of those resources because the rest will go to out-of-region organizations that are pretending to be in region. >> So if this policy is for restricting number resource usage to a certain % outside Africa, then where exactly are you going to use them v4 IP's, In Europe, North America, Asia, where the internet is already developed and folks are already getting used to v6, not a chance. > > You bet. Address consumption and trading is continuing in those regions and the internet continues to grow in those regions. Used to IPv6? I wish. Progress is being made, but it's still nowhere near where it needs to be. > > > There is somewhat compelling evidence vs our region....that is not nothing...Facebook, Google are a good example, end users always catch up since they dont run the network, they consume the service... Look at the URLs below. Yes, there is compelling evidence. I think you know I am one of the strongest IPv6 proponents out there. End users aren?t the ones playing catch up. Yes, Facebook, Google, Yahoo, Netflix and some others are good examples of organizations that have deployed IPv6. However, of the Alexa 500, only 16% have IPv6. Even in the top 20 web sites, it?s less than 50%. The numbers for the Fortune 500 are even worse. Of the Fortune500 web sites tested, less than 3% have IPv6. Yes, IPv6 deployment is progressing everywhere, but by no means has it yet become anywhere near the lingua franca of the internet. Not even in the regions where you claimed folks are ?already getting used to v6?. IPv4 demand remains strong in all regions, even the ones that don?t have any numbers left. Owen -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From leo.vegoda at icann.org Fri Jul 18 21:58:57 2014 From: leo.vegoda at icann.org (Leo Vegoda) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 21:58:57 +0000 Subject: [rpd] New proposal - "Out-Of-Region Use of AFRINIC Internet Number Resources" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-002-DRAFT-01) In-Reply-To: References: <25282784.1274.1404985056221.JavaMail.User@CEO> Message-ID: Hi, Noah Maina wrote: [...] > 2. And what is already allocated should get used up....players in the > market stopping seating on IP addresses!... Is this really a significant problem? Do businesses really pay AFRINIC's fees and then leave the addresses unused? Regards, Leo Vegoda From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com Sat Jul 19 04:47:29 2014 From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji) Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2014 05:47:29 +0100 Subject: [rpd] New proposal - "Out-Of-Region Use of AFRINIC Internet Number Resources" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-002-DRAFT-01) In-Reply-To: References: <25282784.1274.1404985056221.JavaMail.User@CEO> Message-ID: sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 18 Jul 2014 23:02, "Leo Vegoda" wrote: > > Hi, > > Noah Maina wrote: > > [...] > > > 2. And what is already allocated should get used up....players in the > > market stopping seating on IP addresses!... > > Is this really a significant problem? Do businesses really pay AFRINIC's fees and then leave the addresses unused? > There are quite a number of members who are yet to deploy any subnet of the resource allocated to them. There are reasons why this can happen; for example, the upstream provider of a member (which I am contact) attach a recurring fee to block advertisement. This to me was quite surprising and we are still trying to avoid that cost either through convincing the current provider or moving on to another! Nevertheless, I don't think there is any member in that category that will successfully get additional allocation. On a lighter note, this could raise a question on usage and whether a policy is required to "ensure" usage ;) Regards > Regards, > > Leo Vegoda > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jacksonmuthi at gmail.com Sat Jul 19 05:02:56 2014 From: jacksonmuthi at gmail.com (Jackson Muthili) Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2014 08:02:56 +0300 Subject: [rpd] New proposal - "Out-Of-Region Use of AFRINIC Internet Number Resources" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-002-DRAFT-01) In-Reply-To: References: <25282784.1274.1404985056221.JavaMail.User@CEO> Message-ID: On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 7:47 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: > sent from Google nexus 4 > kindly excuse brevity and typos. > On 18 Jul 2014 23:02, "Leo Vegoda" wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> Noah Maina wrote: >> >> [...] >> >> > 2. And what is already allocated should get used up....players in the >> > market stopping seating on IP addresses!... >> >> Is this really a significant problem? Do businesses really pay AFRINIC's >> fees and then leave the addresses unused? >> > There are quite a number of members who are yet to deploy any subnet of the > resource allocated to them. There are reasons why this can happen; for > example, the upstream provider of a member (which I am contact) attach a > recurring fee to block advertisement. This to me was quite surprising and > we are still trying to avoid that cost either through convincing the current > provider or moving on to another! > Nevertheless, I don't think there is any member in that category that will > successfully get additional allocation. > On a lighter note, this could raise a question on usage and whether a policy > is required to "ensure" usage ;) A good idea! What you think about Afrinic to take back resource that was not used (by used example can be resource was not advertised for 6 month after getting it) with exempt of internet exchange point? Jack > > Regards >> Regards, >> >> Leo Vegoda >> >> _______________________________________________ >> rpd mailing list >> rpd at afrinic.net >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >> > > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > From Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com Sat Jul 19 06:02:49 2014 From: Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com (Andrew Alston) Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2014 07:02:49 +0100 Subject: [rpd] New proposal - "Out-Of-Region Use of AFRINIC Internet Number Resources" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-002-DRAFT-01) In-Reply-To: References: <25282784.1274.1404985056221.JavaMail.User@CEO> Message-ID: There are quite a number of members who are yet to deploy any subnet of the resource allocated to them. There are reasons why this can happen; for example, the upstream provider of a member (which I am contact) attach a recurring fee to block advertisement. This to me was quite surprising and we are still trying to avoid that cost either through convincing the current provider or moving on to another! Nevertheless, I don't think there is any member in that category that will successfully get additional allocation. On a lighter note, this could raise a question on usage and whether a policy is required to "ensure" usage ;) That?s about the most bizarre thing I?ve read in quite a while? as a provider I want my members to advertise every block of space they possibly have to me ? the more they advertise to me, the more traffic flows via me to them, the more transit I sell them. I really don?t understand the logic behind some providers. Let?s face facts, IF a provider has customers that have their own space and their own ASN, its in the providers interests to encourage as much advertisement as possible. However, on the converse, it is in a providers interests to have customers on space assigned by them and not running BGP at all (in the latter case, it means the customer probably isn?t multi-homed, and for the customer to churn the customer will have to renumber, which can be a MAJOR headache, meaning the customer is far less likely to move on). It?s an interested dialectic, it is in AfriNIC?s (and hence it could be argued the communities) interests to have as many people as possible with their own space and their own ASN?s. However, it is in the interests of providers to encourage the uptake of space out of their own blocks assigned by AfriNIC and discourage this behaviour. At the same time, what amazes me about Africa and the substantive use of NAT, it is NOT in a providers interests to have customers behind NAT, and I wonder if this isn?t something we could use to promote the uptake of IPv4 on the continent. The simple reality is, a customer behind NAT can churn in an instant, the changes required on the customer side are minimal. However, a customer on a providers space that is NOT running NAT and has the space all over the place has to renumber which could be a downtime and OPEX intensive activity. (I?ve actually seen research that shows that non-NAT customers are FAR less likely to churn, it reduces the churn rate by double digit percentage points). Thanks Andrew ________________________________ DISCLAIMER: This email contains proprietary information some or all of which may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this email, please notify the author by replying to this email. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose, copy, print, or rely on this email. We cannot accept liability for any statements made which are clearly the sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of this company or one of its agents. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mainanoa at gmail.com Sat Jul 19 10:36:45 2014 From: mainanoa at gmail.com (Noah Maina) Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2014 13:36:45 +0300 Subject: [rpd] New proposal - "Out-Of-Region Use of AFRINIC Internet Number Resources" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-002-DRAFT-01) In-Reply-To: References: <25282784.1274.1404985056221.JavaMail.User@CEO> Message-ID: Which is why I was arguing that LIRs shouldn't seat on the space allocated but use it extensively. If customers want ips give it to them. There is one thing announcing an aggregate to ones upstream! Then there is another thing ensuring that a good percentage of that same aggregate has been utilised well downstream....whose business is that? For the internet to develop allocations have to be somewhat utilised IMHO and more acquired. We have no problems assigning our customers ip addresses. They get amazed by it because to us its more business and confidence from our customers. We also encourage our customers to send us everything I mean everything especially those with their own allocation and ASN. As for Saun's experience that is outa this world. ..eish...that provider sounds old school but thats wats up! !! And for the old NAT, its here to stay. ..you wanna kick out out....start from its inception which is collage and academys where Fundamentals of Routing are taught lol...NAT/PAT is like a 1st time ideology embibe onto any aspiring network engineer...then there is the believe that NAT offers some sort of security lol. Cheers. Noah On 19 Jul 2014 09:12, "Andrew Alston" wrote: > *There are quite a number of members who are yet to deploy any subnet of > the resource allocated to them. There are reasons why this can happen; for > example, the upstream provider of a member (which I am contact) attach a > recurring fee to block advertisement. This to me was quite surprising and > we are still trying to avoid that cost either through convincing the > current provider or moving on to another!* > > > *Nevertheless, I don't think there is any member in that category that > will successfully get additional allocation. On a lighter note, this could > raise a question on usage and whether a policy is required to "ensure" > usage ;)* > > That?s about the most bizarre thing I?ve read in quite a while? as a > provider I want my members to advertise every block of space they possibly > have to me ? the more they advertise to me, the more traffic flows via me > to them, the more transit I sell them. I really don?t understand the logic > behind some providers. > Let?s face facts, IF a provider has customers that have their own space > and their own ASN, its in the providers interests to encourage as much > advertisement as possible. However, on the converse, it is in a providers > interests to have customers on space assigned by them and not running BGP > at all (in the latter case, it means the customer probably isn?t > multi-homed, and for the customer to churn the customer will have to > renumber, which can be a MAJOR headache, meaning the customer is far less > likely to move on). > > It?s an interested dialectic, it is in AfriNIC?s (and hence it could be > argued the communities) interests to have as many people as possible with > their own space and their own ASN?s. However, it is in the interests of > providers to encourage the uptake of space out of their own blocks assigned > by AfriNIC and discourage this behaviour. At the same time, what amazes me > about Africa and the substantive use of NAT, it is NOT in a providers > interests to have customers behind NAT, and I wonder if this isn?t > something we could use to promote the uptake of IPv4 on the continent. The > simple reality is, a customer behind NAT can churn in an instant, the > changes required on the customer side are minimal. However, a customer on > a providers space that is NOT running NAT and has the space all over the > place has to renumber which could be a downtime and OPEX intensive > activity. (I?ve actually seen research that shows that non-NAT customers > are FAR less likely to churn, it reduces the churn rate by double digit > percentage points). > > Thanks > > Andrew > > > ------------------------------ > DISCLAIMER: This email contains proprietary information some or all of > which may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. If > an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this email, please > notify the author by replying to this email. If you are not the intended > recipient, you must not use, disclose, copy, print, or rely on this email. > We cannot accept liability for any statements made which are clearly the > sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of this company or one of its > agents. > > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com Sat Jul 19 11:31:58 2014 From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji) Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2014 12:31:58 +0100 Subject: [rpd] Re: Factors affecting in-region utilization - way forward? Message-ID: Hello Noah "changing the subject line to allow for proper followup" On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 11:36 AM, Noah Maina wrote: > Which is why I was arguing that LIRs shouldn't seat on the space allocated > but use it extensively. If customers want ips give it to them. > Lots of LIR don't practice this, they kind-of encourage NATing by giving their users a few public IP and when the user ask for more, they attach a fee to it. A typical ISP gives max of a /28 for free and everything beyond attracts an extra fee. You can imagine a typical institution with over 40,000 users assigned a /28 for use. > There is one thing announcing an aggregate to ones upstream! Then there is > another thing ensuring that a good percentage of that same aggregate has > been utilised well downstream....whose business is that? For the internet > to develop allocations have to be somewhat utilised IMHO and more acquired. > You made a valid point, an scenario is having a /16 advertised and using 1 for NATing and say another 4 as DSNAT to internal server running private IP. This has become normal practice that is almost turning to a culture. > We have no problems assigning our customers ip addresses. They get amazed > by it because to us its more business and confidence from our customers. We > also encourage our customers to send us everything I mean everything > especially those with their own allocation and ASN. > +1 and good for you by doing that. Just to ask, do you in anyway check to confirm if your customers are indeed utilizing the requested block? > As for Saun's experience that is outa this world. ..eish...that provider > sounds old school but thats wats up! !! > You can say that again, it may shock you to know that the provide is a major ISP in the continent! > And for the old NAT, its here to stay. ..you wanna kick out out....start > from its inception which is collage and academys where Fundamentals of > Routing are taught lol...NAT/PAT is like a 1st time ideology embibe onto > any aspiring network engineer...then there is the believe that NAT offers > some sort of security lol. > > Hopefully v6 will kick-it out finally, in generation to come though ;) Cheers! > > Cheers. > > Noah > On 19 Jul 2014 09:12, "Andrew Alston" > wrote: > >> *There are quite a number of members who are yet to deploy any subnet >> of the resource allocated to them. There are reasons why this can happen; >> for example, the upstream provider of a member (which I am contact) attach >> a recurring fee to block advertisement. This to me was quite surprising >> and we are still trying to avoid that cost either through convincing the >> current provider or moving on to another!* >> >> >> *Nevertheless, I don't think there is any member in that category that >> will successfully get additional allocation. On a lighter note, this could >> raise a question on usage and whether a policy is required to "ensure" >> usage ;)* >> >> That?s about the most bizarre thing I?ve read in quite a while? as a >> provider I want my members to advertise every block of space they possibly >> have to me ? the more they advertise to me, the more traffic flows via me >> to them, the more transit I sell them. I really don?t understand the logic >> behind some providers. >> Let?s face facts, IF a provider has customers that have their own space >> and their own ASN, its in the providers interests to encourage as much >> advertisement as possible. However, on the converse, it is in a providers >> interests to have customers on space assigned by them and not running BGP >> at all (in the latter case, it means the customer probably isn?t >> multi-homed, and for the customer to churn the customer will have to >> renumber, which can be a MAJOR headache, meaning the customer is far less >> likely to move on). >> >> It?s an interested dialectic, it is in AfriNIC?s (and hence it could be >> argued the communities) interests to have as many people as possible with >> their own space and their own ASN?s. However, it is in the interests of >> providers to encourage the uptake of space out of their own blocks assigned >> by AfriNIC and discourage this behaviour. At the same time, what amazes me >> about Africa and the substantive use of NAT, it is NOT in a providers >> interests to have customers behind NAT, and I wonder if this isn?t >> something we could use to promote the uptake of IPv4 on the continent. The >> simple reality is, a customer behind NAT can churn in an instant, the >> changes required on the customer side are minimal. However, a customer on >> a providers space that is NOT running NAT and has the space all over the >> place has to renumber which could be a downtime and OPEX intensive >> activity. (I?ve actually seen research that shows that non-NAT customers >> are FAR less likely to churn, it reduces the churn rate by double digit >> percentage points). >> >> Thanks >> >> Andrew >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> DISCLAIMER: This email contains proprietary information some or all of >> which may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. If >> an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this email, please >> notify the author by replying to this email. If you are not the intended >> recipient, you must not use, disclose, copy, print, or rely on this email. >> We cannot accept liability for any statements made which are clearly the >> sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of this company or one of its >> agents. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> rpd mailing list >> rpd at afrinic.net >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >> >> -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng * The key to understanding is humility - my view ! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mukom.tamon at gmail.com Sat Jul 19 12:48:13 2014 From: mukom.tamon at gmail.com (Mukom Akong T.) Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2014 16:48:13 +0400 Subject: [rpd] Re: Factors affecting in-region utilization - way forward? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: *** speaking as mysefl i.e. no hats *** On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 3:31 PM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: > > > "changing the subject line to allow for proper followup" > On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 11:36 AM, Noah Maina wrote: > >> Which is why I was arguing that LIRs shouldn't seat on the space >> allocated but use it extensively. If customers want ips give it to them. >> > Lots of LIR don't practice this, they kind-of encourage NATing by giving > their users a few public IP and when the user ask for more, they attach a > fee to it. A typical ISP gives max of a /28 for free and everything beyond > attracts an extra fee. You can imagine a typical institution with over > 40,000 users assigned a /28 for use. > I'd say a good engineer would do the math of "get my own space from AFRINIC" vs "pay for more IPs from the provider". A very important point is that moment when the contract is being negotiated - engineers should give input in to this. I'd say two important points need to be made: a) The institutions is paying for a circuit and transit b) The institution should connect via BGP if they so wish do This should counter that default position from some providers where a connection means a CPE with a /28 and a NAT configuration. > As for Saun's experience that is outa this world. ..eish...that provider >> sounds old school but thats wats up! !! >> > You can say that again, it may shock you to know that the provide is a > major ISP in the continent! > Use the power of community to name and shame. I'm sure your institution is not the only one at the receiving end of such policy, when multiple client institutions collectively demanded the proper thing am sure they'll take notice. If the university is part of the BWC in Nigeria, that is a good platform. I've also seen a REN try to stop its member university from having and advertising their own space. Fortunately, I did tell them that wasn't the purpose of a REN and backed up by some universities which had their own space and the REN seems to have backed off from that position. > And for the old NAT, its here to stay. ..you wanna kick out out....start >> from its inception which is collage and academys where Fundamentals of >> Routing are taught lol...NAT/PAT is like a 1st time ideology embibe onto >> any aspiring network engineer...then there is the believe that NAT >> offers some sort of security lol. >> > :-) such has to be particularly BAD class. Every Cisco course (ICND, CCNA) and I'm sure the AFNOG courses teach Routing First and only later teaches NAT as a way to deal with insufficiency of IPv4 addresses. Sure they are engineers who never had those fundamentals straight and somehow ended up running networks - they quickly used NAPT where they should have routed (because it is quite easy to set up NAT than configure routing) > >> Hopefully v6 will kick-it out finally, in generation to come though ;) > The required change from the training perspective is to now say ... "The sustainable solution to IPv4 insufficiency is IPv6" as well as have a session teaching the contrary consequences of using NAT. > > Cheers! > >> >> Cheers. >> >> Noah >> On 19 Jul 2014 09:12, "Andrew Alston" >> wrote: >> >>> *There are quite a number of members who are yet to deploy any subnet >>> of the resource allocated to them. There are reasons why this can happen; >>> for example, the upstream provider of a member (which I am contact) attach >>> a recurring fee to block advertisement. This to me was quite surprising >>> and we are still trying to avoid that cost either through convincing the >>> current provider or moving on to another!* >>> >>> >>> *Nevertheless, I don't think there is any member in that category that >>> will successfully get additional allocation. On a lighter note, this could >>> raise a question on usage and whether a policy is required to "ensure" >>> usage ;)* >>> >>> That?s about the most bizarre thing I?ve read in quite a while? as a >>> provider I want my members to advertise every block of space they possibly >>> have to me ? the more they advertise to me, the more traffic flows via me >>> to them, the more transit I sell them. I really don?t understand the logic >>> behind some providers. >>> Let?s face facts, IF a provider has customers that have their own >>> space and their own ASN, its in the providers interests to encourage as >>> much advertisement as possible. However, on the converse, it is in a >>> providers interests to have customers on space assigned by them and not >>> running BGP at all (in the latter case, it means the customer probably >>> isn?t multi-homed, and for the customer to churn the customer will have to >>> renumber, which can be a MAJOR headache, meaning the customer is far less >>> likely to move on). >>> >>> It?s an interested dialectic, it is in AfriNIC?s (and hence it could >>> be argued the communities) interests to have as many people as possible >>> with their own space and their own ASN?s. However, it is in the interests >>> of providers to encourage the uptake of space out of their own blocks >>> assigned by AfriNIC and discourage this behaviour. At the same time, >>> what amazes me about Africa and the substantive use of NAT, it is NOT in a >>> providers interests to have customers behind NAT, and I wonder if this >>> isn?t something we could use to promote the uptake of IPv4 on the >>> continent. The simple reality is, a customer behind NAT can churn in an >>> instant, the changes required on the customer side are minimal. However, a >>> customer on a providers space that is NOT running NAT and has the space >>> all over the place has to renumber which could be a downtime and OPEX >>> intensive activity. (I?ve actually seen research that shows that non-NAT >>> customers are FAR less likely to churn, it reduces the churn rate by >>> double digit percentage points). >>> >>> Thanks >>> >>> Andrew >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> DISCLAIMER: This email contains proprietary information some or all of >>> which may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. If >>> an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this email, please >>> notify the author by replying to this email. If you are not the intended >>> recipient, you must not use, disclose, copy, print, or rely on this email. >>> We cannot accept liability for any statements made which are clearly the >>> sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of this company or one of its >>> agents. >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> rpd mailing list >>> rpd at afrinic.net >>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >>> >>> > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > > *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: > http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535**alt > email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng > * > > The key to understanding is humility - my view ! > > > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > -- Mukom Akong T. http://about.me/perfexcellence | twitter: @perfexcellent ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ?When you work, you are the FLUTE through whose lungs the whispering of the hours turns to MUSIC" - Kahlil Gibran ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mark.tinka at seacom.mu Sat Jul 19 14:14:40 2014 From: mark.tinka at seacom.mu (Mark Tinka) Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2014 16:14:40 +0200 Subject: [rpd] New proposal - "Out-Of-Region Use of AFRINIC Internet Number Resources" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-002-DRAFT-01) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <201407191614.40813.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> On Saturday, July 19, 2014 06:47:29 AM Seun Ojedeji wrote: > There are quite a number of members who are yet to deploy > any subnet of the resource allocated to them. There are > reasons why this can happen; for example, the upstream > provider of a member (which I am contact) attach a > recurring fee to block advertisement. I'd be curious to know which provider this is, that is charging for BGP announcements. Mark. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. URL: From mark.tinka at seacom.mu Sat Jul 19 14:15:51 2014 From: mark.tinka at seacom.mu (Mark Tinka) Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2014 16:15:51 +0200 Subject: [rpd] New proposal - "Out-Of-Region Use of AFRINIC Internet Number Resources" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-002-DRAFT-01) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <201407191615.51759.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> On Saturday, July 19, 2014 07:02:56 AM Jackson Muthili wrote: > A good idea! > What you think about Afrinic to take back resource that > was not used (by used example can be resource was not > advertised for 6 month after getting it) with exempt of > internet exchange point? This is a slippery slope. Address space utilization is tied to business activities. AFRINIC cannot be involved in its member's business activities, as long as AFRINIC are still being paid for their services rendered. Mark. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. URL: From mark.tinka at seacom.mu Sat Jul 19 14:19:00 2014 From: mark.tinka at seacom.mu (Mark Tinka) Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2014 16:19:00 +0200 Subject: [rpd] New proposal - "Out-Of-Region Use of AFRINIC Internet Number Resources" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-002-DRAFT-01) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <201407191619.00624.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> On Saturday, July 19, 2014 08:02:49 AM Andrew Alston wrote: > That?s about the most bizarre thing I?ve read in quite a > while? as a provider I want my members to advertise > every block of space they possibly have to me ? the more > they advertise to me, the more traffic flows via me to > them, the more transit I sell them. I really don?t > understand the logic behind some providers. Andrew, the idea is not that bizarre, really :-). There have been quite a number of discussions in the industry in past years about service providers charging downstreams to accept routes (typically longer than a /24, or even longer than a /20) as a way to mitigate the costs the exploding IPv4 BGP table is placing on router FIB's. If an American service provider were doing this, I wouldn't be surprised. I'd be surprised if an African service provider is doing this, however. Mark. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. URL: From kofi.ansa at gmail.com Sat Jul 19 14:24:00 2014 From: kofi.ansa at gmail.com (Kofi ansa akufo) Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2014 18:24:00 +0400 Subject: [rpd] Re: Factors affecting in-region utilization - way forward? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: well On 19 July 2014 16:48, Mukom Akong T. wrote: > *** speaking as mysefl i.e. no hats *** > > > On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 3:31 PM, Seun Ojedeji > wrote: >> >> >> "changing the subject line to allow for proper followup" >> On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 11:36 AM, Noah Maina wrote: >> >>> Which is why I was arguing that LIRs shouldn't seat on the space >>> allocated but use it extensively. If customers want ips give it to them. >>> >> Lots of LIR don't practice this, they kind-of encourage NATing by giving >> their users a few public IP and when the user ask for more, they attach >> a fee to it. A typical ISP gives max of a /28 for free and everything >> beyond attracts an extra fee. You can imagine a typical institution with >> over 40,000 users assigned a /28 for use. >> > > > I'd say a good engineer would do the math of "get my own space from > AFRINIC" vs "pay for more IPs from the provider". A very important point > is that moment when the contract is being negotiated - engineers should > give input in to this. I'd say two important points need to be made: > > a) The institutions is paying for a circuit and transit > b) The institution should connect via BGP if they so wish do > > This should counter that default position from some providers where a > connection means a CPE with a /28 and a NAT configuration. > > > Service Providers - typically have different internet service packages which are mostly delivered using different access technologies to target different markets. For example a service provider may have a package which assigns /29 IPv4 addresses to a 2048 / 512 kbps down/up shared internet connection delivered over ADSL. Thats normal :) because such services are designed for home users. They assume the service will be used by not more than 4 - 10 connected workstations. This is also mostly programmed with the provisioning systems and seen more as a business policy or rule. If an institution should go for such a service they should not expect a /24 IPv4 or higher to be assigned to them. It only becomes an issue when institutions purchase dedicated circuits and they are not assigned enough IPv4 (e.g. /24). It will surprise you that service providers mostly assign /24 to their corporate customers but these customers only use about 5 - 8 IPs and just NAT the rest of their network even though the service provider routes the /24 to their demarcation point. Lesson: most internet users are only concerned about being connected and how fast their internet connection is. Only a few care to know whether they are NATed or have a direct transparent IP connection. This is universal. The bitter truth is the chunk of the IPv4 addresses in general are consumed by data centers and hosting companies worldwide. Lets think about how to get more of such consumers established in our region and stop brooding over IPs and double standard policies. > As for Saun's experience that is outa this world. ..eish...that provider >>> sounds old school but thats wats up! !! >>> >> You can say that again, it may shock you to know that the provide is a >> major ISP in the continent! >> > > > Use the power of community to name and shame. I'm sure your institution is > not the only one at the receiving end of such policy, when multiple client > institutions collectively demanded the proper thing am sure they'll take > notice. If the university is part of the BWC in Nigeria, that is a good > platform. > > > I've also seen a REN try to stop its member university from having and > advertising their own space. Fortunately, I did tell them that wasn't the > purpose of a REN and backed up by some universities which had their own > space and the REN seems to have backed off from that position. > > > >> And for the old NAT, its here to stay. ..you wanna kick out out....start >>> from its inception which is collage and academys where Fundamentals of >>> Routing are taught lol...NAT/PAT is like a 1st time ideology embibe onto >>> any aspiring network engineer...then there is the believe that NAT >>> offers some sort of security lol. >>> >> > :-) such has to be particularly BAD class. Every Cisco course (ICND, > CCNA) and I'm sure the AFNOG courses teach Routing First and only later > teaches NAT as a way to deal with insufficiency of IPv4 addresses. > > Sure they are engineers who never had those fundamentals straight and > somehow ended up running networks - they quickly used NAPT where they > should have routed (because it is quite easy to set up NAT than configure > routing) > > >> >>> Hopefully v6 will kick-it out finally, in generation to come though ;) >> > > The required change from the training perspective is to now say ... "The > sustainable solution to IPv4 insufficiency is IPv6" as well as have a > session teaching the contrary consequences of using NAT. > > >> >> Cheers! >> >>> >>> Cheers. >>> >>> Noah >>> On 19 Jul 2014 09:12, "Andrew Alston" >>> wrote: >>> >>>> *There are quite a number of members who are yet to deploy any subnet >>>> of the resource allocated to them. There are reasons why this can happen; >>>> for example, the upstream provider of a member (which I am contact) attach >>>> a recurring fee to block advertisement. This to me was quite surprising >>>> and we are still trying to avoid that cost either through convincing the >>>> current provider or moving on to another!* >>>> >>>> >>>> *Nevertheless, I don't think there is any member in that category that >>>> will successfully get additional allocation. On a lighter note, this could >>>> raise a question on usage and whether a policy is required to "ensure" >>>> usage ;)* >>>> >>>> That?s about the most bizarre thing I?ve read in quite a while? as a >>>> provider I want my members to advertise every block of space they possibly >>>> have to me ? the more they advertise to me, the more traffic flows via me >>>> to them, the more transit I sell them. I really don?t understand the logic >>>> behind some providers. >>>> Let?s face facts, IF a provider has customers that have their own >>>> space and their own ASN, its in the providers interests to encourage >>>> as much advertisement as possible. However, on the converse, it is in a >>>> providers interests to have customers on space assigned by them and >>>> not running BGP at all (in the latter case, it means the customer probably >>>> isn?t multi-homed, and for the customer to churn the customer will have to >>>> renumber, which can be a MAJOR headache, meaning the customer is far less >>>> likely to move on). >>>> >>>> It?s an interested dialectic, it is in AfriNIC?s (and hence it could >>>> be argued the communities) interests to have as many people as possible >>>> with their own space and their own ASN?s. However, it is in the interests >>>> of providers to encourage the uptake of space out of their own blocks >>>> assigned by AfriNIC and discourage this behaviour. At the same time, >>>> what amazes me about Africa and the substantive use of NAT, it is NOT in a >>>> providers interests to have customers behind NAT, and I wonder if this >>>> isn?t something we could use to promote the uptake of IPv4 on the >>>> continent. The simple reality is, a customer behind NAT can churn in an >>>> instant, the changes required on the customer side are minimal. However, a >>>> customer on a providers space that is NOT running NAT and has the >>>> space all over the place has to renumber which could be a downtime and OPEX >>>> intensive activity. (I?ve actually seen research that shows that non-NAT >>>> customers are FAR less likely to churn, it reduces the churn rate by >>>> double digit percentage points). >>>> >>>> Thanks >>>> >>>> Andrew >>>> >>>> >>>> ------------------------------ >>>> DISCLAIMER: This email contains proprietary information some or all of >>>> which may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. If >>>> an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this email, please >>>> notify the author by replying to this email. If you are not the intended >>>> recipient, you must not use, disclose, copy, print, or rely on this email. >>>> We cannot accept liability for any statements made which are clearly the >>>> sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of this company or one of its >>>> agents. >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> rpd mailing list >>>> rpd at afrinic.net >>>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >>>> >>>> >> >> >> -- >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> >> >> >> >> *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: >> http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535**alt >> email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng >> * >> >> The key to understanding is humility - my view ! >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> rpd mailing list >> rpd at afrinic.net >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >> >> > > > -- > > Mukom Akong T. > > http://about.me/perfexcellence | twitter: @perfexcellent > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > ?When you work, you are the FLUTE through whose lungs the whispering of > the hours turns to MUSIC" - Kahlil Gibran > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mark.tinka at seacom.mu Sat Jul 19 14:27:30 2014 From: mark.tinka at seacom.mu (Mark Tinka) Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2014 16:27:30 +0200 Subject: [rpd] New proposal - "Out-Of-Region Use of AFRINIC Internet Number Resources" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-002-DRAFT-01) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <201407191627.30985.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> On Saturday, July 19, 2014 08:02:49 AM Andrew Alston wrote: > It?s an interested dialectic, it is in AfriNIC?s (and > hence it could be argued the communities) interests to > have as many people as possible with their own space and > their own ASN?s. However, it is in the interests of > providers to encourage the uptake of space out of their > own blocks assigned by AfriNIC and discourage this > behaviour. Personally, I prefer not to get in my customers' way. I'd much rather rely on other methods of keeping customers than holding them hostage due to renumbering nightmare. But that's just me. Sure, I understand the motivation behind providers pushing customers into their own PA space, but things happen, and if a customer gets their own PI or PA space, it can become a problem if their sole reason for doing so is to break free of you :-). That said, this typically applies to if your customers are service providers or large enterprises. If your customers are broadband or SOHO users, then it's typical to have them under your PA space. > At the same time, what amazes me about > Africa and the substantive use of NAT, it is NOT in a > providers interests to have customers behind NAT, and I > wonder if this isn?t something we could use to promote > the uptake of IPv4 on the continent. The simple reality > is, a customer behind NAT can churn in an instant, the > changes required on the customer side are minimal. > However, a customer on a providers space that is NOT > running NAT and has the space all over the place has to > renumber which could be a downtime and OPEX intensive > activity. (I?ve actually seen research that shows that > non-NAT customers are FAR less likely to churn, it > reduces the churn rate by double digit percentage > points). I agree, we should discourage NAT as much as possible. We see NAT mostly in use by mobile operators (for obvious reasons). But unless AFRINIC have run out of space to allocate to them, I think they should be looking at using less NAT and more public space. Practically, it's only a matter of time before AFRINIC run out of space and these mobile providers are forced to NAT anyway, unless they start getting aggressive about IPv6. Mark. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. URL: From Boubakar.Barry at wacren.net Sat Jul 19 14:28:17 2014 From: Boubakar.Barry at wacren.net (Boubakar Barry) Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2014 14:28:17 +0000 Subject: [rpd] New proposal - "Out-Of-Region Use of AFRINIC Internet Number Resources" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-002-DRAFT-01) In-Reply-To: <201407191614.40813.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> References: <201407191614.40813.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> Message-ID: On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 2:14 PM, Mark Tinka wrote: > On Saturday, July 19, 2014 06:47:29 AM Seun Ojedeji wrote: > > > There are quite a number of members who are yet to deploy > > any subnet of the resource allocated to them. There are > > reasons why this can happen; for example, the upstream > > provider of a member (which I am contact) attach a > > recurring fee to block advertisement. > > I'd be curious to know which provider this is, that is > charging for BGP announcements. > > ++1 Would be very interesting to know who is/are applying such a policy. The more we know and share, the better we move forward on this. Best practices are good to share; experienced bad practices as well, so that they can be addressed. B. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mark.tinka at seacom.mu Sat Jul 19 14:36:59 2014 From: mark.tinka at seacom.mu (Mark Tinka) Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2014 16:36:59 +0200 Subject: [rpd] Re: Factors affecting in-region utilization - way forward? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <201407191636.59484.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> On Saturday, July 19, 2014 01:31:58 PM Seun Ojedeji wrote: > Lots of LIR don't practice this, they kind-of encourage > NATing by giving their users a few public IP and when > the user ask for more, they attach a fee to it. A > typical ISP gives max of a /28 for free and everything > beyond attracts an extra fee. You can imagine a typical > institution with over 40,000 users assigned a /28 for > use. I (and by extension, SEACOM, which both Noah and myself work for) do not charge for IP space taken out of our own PA blocks that is assigned to downstream customers, be it IPv4 or IPv6. This is a position I've held with every ISP I've worked for since getting into the business, because that places the wrong energy into, perhaps, the right intention - the intention being, save as much precious IPv4 space as you can; but using $$ as a deterrent against customers asking for IP space has the negative effect of costing you business. In addition to pushing IPv6 heavily, a service provider should explore and evaluate internal policies that allow it to support the business of its customers, while still managing its own problems. But I can't speak for any other service providers out there, let alone Africa. Mark. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. URL: From owen at delong.com Sat Jul 19 22:32:34 2014 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2014 15:32:34 -0700 Subject: [rpd] New proposal - "Out-Of-Region Use of AFRINIC Internet Number Resources" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-002-DRAFT-01) In-Reply-To: <201407191619.00624.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> References: <201407191619.00624.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> Message-ID: On Jul 19, 2014, at 07:19 , Mark Tinka wrote: > On Saturday, July 19, 2014 08:02:49 AM Andrew Alston wrote: > >> That?s about the most bizarre thing I?ve read in quite a >> while? as a provider I want my members to advertise >> every block of space they possibly have to me ? the more >> they advertise to me, the more traffic flows via me to >> them, the more transit I sell them. I really don?t >> understand the logic behind some providers. > > Andrew, the idea is not that bizarre, really :-). > > There have been quite a number of discussions in the > industry in past years about service providers charging > downstreams to accept routes (typically longer than a /24, > or even longer than a /20) as a way to mitigate the costs > the exploding IPv4 BGP table is placing on router FIB's. It's been bandied about, but at least in America, there's enough competition that won't that it's usually seen as a losing proposition from a business perspective and doesn't actually get implemented. I don't know of any American ISPs that are doing this. > If an American service provider were doing this, I wouldn't > be surprised. I'd be surprised if an African service > provider is doing this, however. Really? My perspective is quite the reverse. Such an action can only really work in an environment of limited or no competition. For circuit- based connections and BGP, I would think that far more likely in the AfriNIC service region. Owen From mark.tinka at seacom.mu Sat Jul 19 22:43:31 2014 From: mark.tinka at seacom.mu (Mark Tinka) Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2014 00:43:31 +0200 Subject: [rpd] New proposal - "Out-Of-Region Use of AFRINIC Internet Number Resources" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-002-DRAFT-01) In-Reply-To: References: <201407191619.00624.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> Message-ID: <201407200043.35452.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> On Sunday, July 20, 2014 12:32:34 AM Owen DeLong wrote: > Really? My perspective is quite the reverse. Such an > action can only really work in an environment of limited > or no competition. For circuit- based connections and > BGP, I would think that far more likely in the AfriNIC > service region. The reason I posited that this is more likely in America is because over the last years, the ideas about this have generally originated from there. To add, in my experience, the majority of BGP operators in Africa have not been battling with the reason the idea has come up in the first place; perhaps due to use of software routers which have enough RAM to handle the routing table, but don't need to be fast because bandwidth is still expensive, or use of hardware-based routers that have higher FIB limits than those in the global wild (young nations, less legacy). Naturally, this will change, but from what I've seen and heard from so far, few or no ISP's in Africa are hitting FIB walls that make this an idea worth considering at this point in time. As always, I stand to be corrected. Mark. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. URL: From kofi.ansa at gmail.com Sat Jul 19 23:49:42 2014 From: kofi.ansa at gmail.com (Kofi ansa akufo) Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2014 03:49:42 +0400 Subject: [rpd] New proposal - "Out-Of-Region Use of AFRINIC Internet Number Resources" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-002-DRAFT-01) In-Reply-To: <201407200043.35452.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> References: <201407191619.00624.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> <201407200043.35452.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> Message-ID: On 20 July 2014 02:43, Mark Tinka wrote: > On Sunday, July 20, 2014 12:32:34 AM Owen DeLong wrote: > > > Really? My perspective is quite the reverse. Such an > > action can only really work in an environment of limited > > or no competition. For circuit- based connections and > > BGP, I would think that far more likely in the AfriNIC > > service region. > > The reason I posited that this is more likely in America is > because over the last years, the ideas about this have > generally originated from there. > > To add, in my experience, the majority of BGP operators in > Africa have not been battling with the reason the idea has > come up in the first place; perhaps due to use of software > routers which have enough RAM to handle the routing table, > but don't need to be fast because bandwidth is still > expensive, or use of hardware-based routers that have higher > FIB limits than those in the global wild (young nations, > less legacy). > > Mark most small to medium ISPs in our region have only one upstream provider. As you know, in most cases of such peering the sub ISPs just receive a default route and not the global table. What I have seen is upstream ISPs and international carriers charging fees when the sub ISPs request receiving the global routing table. There have also been numerous occasions where such fees are charged given reasons like "we also have to contact our upstreams to allow your prefixes". Others also simply dont have well designed core networks to tunnel huge global BGP table to their clients. Anyways these days many ISPs have routing gears which could handle enough traffic than where fast FIB becomes a problem as you pointed out. I do agree with you tough that having routing gears with distributed FIBs implemented on ASICs (which are expensive to own) for speed might be a better reason to charge the clients - BUT in many cases as you stated it is not warranted. > Naturally, this will change, but from what I've seen and > heard from so far, few or no ISP's in Africa are hitting FIB > walls that make this an idea worth considering at this point > in time. > > As always, I stand to be corrected. > > Mark. > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com Sun Jul 20 12:17:53 2014 From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji) Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2014 13:17:53 +0100 Subject: [rpd] Re: Factors affecting in-region utilization - way forward? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 19 Jul 2014 13:48, "Mukom Akong T." wrote: > > *** speaking as mysefl i.e. no hats *** > > > On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 3:31 PM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: >>. > >>> >>> As for Saun's experience that is outa this world. ..eish...that provider sounds old school but thats wats up! !! >> >> You can say that again, it may shock you to know that the provide is a major ISP in the continent! > > > > Use the power of community to name and shame. I'm sure your institution is not the only one at the receiving end of such policy, when multiple client institutions collectively demanded the proper thing am sure they'll take notice. If the university is part of the BWC in Nigeria, that is a good platform. > This practice was done by MTN and I am sure they are not alone in such practices. The other thing to note however is that ISP tend to have quite varying policy on this issue because I am also contact for another institution that get serviced by the same MTN and are not paying such an amount. Using that has a proof to them has not yet convinced them in anyway. As to Kofi; the institution I refer does not fall in the category of <30mb. > > I've also seen a REN try to stop its member university from having and advertising their own space. Fortunately, I did tell them that wasn't the purpose of a REN and backed up by some universities which had their own space and the REN seems to have backed off from that position. > And I hope they yielded to your advice; the best REN should do is to help institutions through the process of applying. Cheers! > >>> >>> Cheers. >>> >>> Noah >>> >>> On 19 Jul 2014 09:12, "Andrew Alston" wrote: >>>> >>>> There are quite a number of members who are yet to deploy any subnet of the resource allocated to them. There are reasons why this can happen; for example, the upstream provider of a member (which I am contact) attach a recurring fee to block advertisement. This to me was quite surprising and we are still trying to avoid that cost either through convincing the current provider or moving on to another! >>>> >>>> Nevertheless, I don't think there is any member in that category that will successfully get additional allocation. >>>> On a lighter note, this could raise a question on usage and whether a policy is required to "ensure" usage ;) >>>> >>>> That?s about the most bizarre thing I?ve read in quite a while? as a provider I want my members to advertise every block of space they possibly have to me ? the more they advertise to me, the more traffic flows via me to them, the more transit I sell them. I really don?t understand the logic behind some providers. >>>> >>>> Let?s face facts, IF a provider has customers that have their own space and their own ASN, its in the providers interests to encourage as much advertisement as possible. However, on the converse, it is in a providers interests to have customers on space assigned by them and not running BGP at all (in the latter case, it means the customer probably isn?t multi-homed, and for the customer to churn the customer will have to renumber, which can be a MAJOR headache, meaning the customer is far less likely to move on). >>>> >>>> It?s an interested dialectic, it is in AfriNIC?s (and hence it could be argued the communities) interests to have as many people as possible with their own space and their own ASN?s. However, it is in the interests of providers to encourage the uptake of space out of their own blocks assigned by AfriNIC and discourage this behaviour. At the same time, what amazes me about Africa and the substantive use of NAT, it is NOT in a providers interests to have customers behind NAT, and I wonder if this isn?t something we could use to promote the uptake of IPv4 on the continent. The simple reality is, a customer behind NAT can churn in an instant, the changes required on the customer side are minimal. However, a customer on a providers space that is NOT running NAT and has the space all over the place has to renumber which could be a downtime and OPEX intensive activity. (I?ve actually seen research that shows that non-NAT customers are FAR less likely to churn, it reduces the churn rate by double digit percentage points). >>>> >>>> Thanks >>>> >>>> Andrew >>>> >>>> >>>> ________________________________ >>>> DISCLAIMER: This email contains proprietary information some or all of which may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this email, please notify the author by replying to this email. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose, copy, print, or rely on this email. We cannot accept liability for any statements made which are clearly the sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of this company or one of its agents. >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> rpd mailing list >>>> rpd at afrinic.net >>>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >>>> >> >> >> >> -- >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> >>> Seun Ojedeji, >>> Federal University Oye-Ekiti >>> web: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng >>> Mobile: +2348035233535 >>> alt email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng >>> >>>> The key to understanding is humility - my view ! >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> rpd mailing list >> rpd at afrinic.net >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >> > > > > -- > > Mukom Akong T. > > http://about.me/perfexcellence | twitter: @perfexcellent > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > ?When you work, you are the FLUTE through whose lungs the whispering of the hours turns to MUSIC" - Kahlil Gibran > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mark.tinka at seacom.mu Sun Jul 20 16:01:08 2014 From: mark.tinka at seacom.mu (Mark Tinka) Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2014 18:01:08 +0200 Subject: [rpd] Re: Factors affecting in-region utilization - way forward? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <201407201801.12504.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> On Saturday, July 19, 2014 04:24:00 PM Kofi ansa akufo wrote: > If an institution should go for such a service they > should not expect a /24 IPv4 or higher to be assigned to > them. I don't believe in promoting old stereotypic situations, even though they may be typical. Things are changing a lot faster than we've been accustomed to, and our industry has suffered a great deal because we like to keep things the way they've always been. > Lesson: most internet users are only concerned about > being connected and how fast their internet connection > is. Only a few care to know whether they are NATed or > have a direct transparent IP connection. This is > universal. What is interesting is that NAT has the potential to slow down your performance, as you scale up bandwidth. Mark. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. URL: From mark.tinka at seacom.mu Sun Jul 20 16:07:41 2014 From: mark.tinka at seacom.mu (Mark Tinka) Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2014 18:07:41 +0200 Subject: [rpd] New proposal - "Out-Of-Region Use of AFRINIC Internet Number Resources" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-002-DRAFT-01) In-Reply-To: References: <201407200043.35452.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> Message-ID: <201407201807.41778.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> On Sunday, July 20, 2014 01:49:42 AM Kofi ansa akufo wrote: > > Mark most small to medium ISPs in our region have only > > one upstream > > provider. As you know, in most cases of such peering the > sub ISPs just receive a default route and not the global > table. Which is not a bad thing. In fact, when I teach BGP Routing workshops together with Philip Smith and others, we always say that if you are single-homed, don't waste too much time and effort on BGP if you have bigger fish to fry. And even when you're multi-homed, you can survive quite nicely with partial routing. > What I have seen is upstream ISPs and international > carriers charging fees when the sub ISPs request > receiving the global routing table. Again, curious to know who these are. I haven't yet been in a position to meet any such providers, but it wouldn't surprise me that they exist. > There have also been > numerous occasions where such fees are charged given > reasons like "we also have to contact our upstreams to > allow your prefixes". Well, that is a given. If your service provider does not organize their filters and co-ordinate that with their peers or upstreams, your chances of full Internet access are compromised. Service providers are welcome to charge for whatever they want. Heck, they can charge for the typing they have to do when pinging your router to troubleshoot a connectivity issue during turn-up. I encourage my competitors to do this :-). > Others also simply dont have well designed core networks > to tunnel huge global BGP table to their clients. > Anyways these days many ISPs have routing gears which > could handle enough traffic than where fast FIB becomes > a problem as you pointed out. I do agree with you tough > that having routing gears with distributed FIBs > implemented on ASICs (which are expensive to own) for > speed might be a better reason to charge the clients - > BUT in many cases as you stated it is not warranted. The problem is if one service providers charges you "extra" for enhancing their hardware while another one doesn't, what do you think is going to happen? That's a rhetorical question :-)... Mark. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. URL: From steve.wilcox at ixreach.com Sun Jul 20 17:00:13 2014 From: steve.wilcox at ixreach.com (Stephen Wilcox) Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2014 21:00:13 +0400 Subject: [rpd] Re: Factors affecting in-region utilization - way forward? In-Reply-To: <201407201801.12504.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> References: <201407201801.12504.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> Message-ID: On 20 July 2014 20:01, Mark Tinka wrote: > On Saturday, July 19, 2014 04:24:00 PM Kofi ansa akufo > wrote: > > > If an institution should go for such a service they > > should not expect a /24 IPv4 or higher to be assigned to > > them. > > I don't believe in promoting old stereotypic situations, > even though they may be typical. > > Things are changing a lot faster than we've been accustomed > to, and our industry has suffered a great deal because we > like to keep things the way they've always been. > We are also scaling a system that was designed 30 years ago not to do what it does today. Breaking the stereotypes could prove to be problematic - core routers handling more than a few Mbps will switch in hardware and rapid growth in the number of routes in the global table could quickly overwhelm certain in service devices. Its okay to understand your 500k FIB limited box has a lifetime of 3yrs when you buy it but if you see irresponsible deaggregation or sudden announcement of small blocks you might cause people's equipment to become EOL faster than they can cope. > > > Lesson: most internet users are only concerned about > > being connected and how fast their internet connection > > is. Only a few care to know whether they are NATed or > > have a direct transparent IP connection. This is > > universal. > > What is interesting is that NAT has the potential to slow > down your performance, as you scale up bandwidth. > Is there data on this (I am not doubting you just that I haven't heard this being stated before) Steve > > Mark. > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mark.tinka at seacom.mu Sun Jul 20 17:16:04 2014 From: mark.tinka at seacom.mu (Mark Tinka) Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2014 19:16:04 +0200 Subject: [rpd] Re: Factors affecting in-region utilization - way forward? In-Reply-To: References: <201407201801.12504.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> Message-ID: <201407201916.09396.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> On Sunday, July 20, 2014 07:00:13 PM Stephen Wilcox wrote: > We are also scaling a system that was designed 30 years > ago not to do what it does today. Breaking the > stereotypes could prove to be problematic - core routers > handling more than a few Mbps will switch in hardware > and rapid growth in the number of routes in the global > table could quickly overwhelm certain in service > devices. Its okay to understand your 500k FIB limited > box has a lifetime of 3yrs when you buy it but if you > see irresponsible deaggregation or sudden announcement > of small blocks you might cause people's equipment to > become EOL faster than they can cope. Which is true, but the problem is this issue is not equally widespread. So if a service provider takes action against de-aggregates (either by blocking them off or charging for them), it puts them at a disadvantage with their competitors. > Is there data on this (I am not doubting you just that I > haven't heard this being stated before) As a function of implementation and hardware capability - not so much the protocol itself. Mark. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. URL: From steve.wilcox at ixreach.com Sun Jul 20 17:25:37 2014 From: steve.wilcox at ixreach.com (Stephen Wilcox) Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2014 21:25:37 +0400 Subject: [rpd] Re: Factors affecting in-region utilization - way forward? In-Reply-To: <201407201916.09396.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> References: <201407201801.12504.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> <201407201916.09396.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> Message-ID: On 20 July 2014 21:16, Mark Tinka wrote: > On Sunday, July 20, 2014 07:00:13 PM Stephen Wilcox wrote: > > > We are also scaling a system that was designed 30 years > > ago not to do what it does today. Breaking the > > stereotypes could prove to be problematic - core routers > > handling more than a few Mbps will switch in hardware > > and rapid growth in the number of routes in the global > > table could quickly overwhelm certain in service > > devices. Its okay to understand your 500k FIB limited > > box has a lifetime of 3yrs when you buy it but if you > > see irresponsible deaggregation or sudden announcement > > of small blocks you might cause people's equipment to > > become EOL faster than they can cope. > > Which is true, but the problem is this issue is not equally > widespread. > > So if a service provider takes action against de-aggregates > (either by blocking them off or charging for them), it puts > them at a disadvantage with their competitors. > This has always been the case, but so far its not made a difference... > > Is there data on this (I am not doubting you just that I > > haven't heard this being stated before) > > As a function of implementation and hardware capability - > not so much the protocol itself. > > Mark. > Steve -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mark.tinka at seacom.mu Sun Jul 20 17:34:05 2014 From: mark.tinka at seacom.mu (Mark Tinka) Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2014 19:34:05 +0200 Subject: [rpd] Re: Factors affecting in-region utilization - way forward? In-Reply-To: References: <201407201916.09396.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> Message-ID: <201407201934.06110.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> On Sunday, July 20, 2014 07:25:37 PM Stephen Wilcox wrote: > This has always been the case, but so far its not made a > difference... For this method to work, all service providers the world over would need to implement it, i.e., not likely to happen. I suppose service providers are still relatively happier to keep throwing money at this issue, resort to partial routing or limit what they can offer their customers. It's not like the industry haven't come up with solutions. It's just that they've seemed more complicated than throwing money at the issue - case in point, LISP. Mark. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. URL: From owen at delong.com Sun Jul 20 17:46:21 2014 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2014 10:46:21 -0700 Subject: [rpd] Re: Factors affecting in-region utilization - way forward? In-Reply-To: References: <201407201801.12504.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> <201407201916.09396.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> Message-ID: <265216AF-7ED4-4C89-BAF2-420CC1445F91@delong.com> > So if a service provider takes action against de-aggregates > (either by blocking them off or charging for them), it puts > them at a disadvantage with their competitors. > > This has always been the case, but so far its not made a difference? 1. You don?t actually know that. 2. Are you certain it isn?t the primary reason nobody is doing this (yet)? I would argue that it is very likely the the primary reason and thus has, so far, made all the difference. Owen -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kofi.ansa at gmail.com Sun Jul 20 17:56:23 2014 From: kofi.ansa at gmail.com (Kofi ansa akufo) Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2014 21:56:23 +0400 Subject: [rpd] Re: Factors affecting in-region utilization - way forward? In-Reply-To: <201407201916.09396.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> References: <201407201801.12504.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> <201407201916.09396.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> Message-ID: well On 20 July 2014 21:16, Mark Tinka wrote: > On Sunday, July 20, 2014 07:00:13 PM Stephen Wilcox wrote: > > > We are also scaling a system that was designed 30 years > > ago not to do what it does today. Breaking the > > stereotypes could prove to be problematic - core routers > > handling more than a few Mbps will switch in hardware > > and rapid growth in the number of routes in the global > > table could quickly overwhelm certain in service > > devices. Its okay to understand your 500k FIB limited > > box has a lifetime of 3yrs when you buy it but if you > > see irresponsible deaggregation or sudden announcement > > of small blocks you might cause people's equipment to > > become EOL faster than they can cope. > > Which is true, but the problem is this issue is not equally > widespread. > > So if a service provider takes action against de-aggregates > (either by blocking them off or charging for them), it puts > them at a disadvantage with their competitors. > > > Is there data on this (I am not doubting you just that I > > haven't heard this being stated before) > > As a function of implementation and hardware capability - > not so much the protocol itself. > > As much as I discourage the use of NAT in networks, I believe address translation has its niche in the ecosystem. Its has played a key role in scaling a system that was born over 30 years ago. What I see stereotypical is people condemning NAT based on trivial negatives. Needless to say most of us run networks and know the reality on the ground. I would rather like to see solid arguments such as how NAT affects the battle against Cyber Threats. Issues like "function of implementation and hardware capability" seem far fetched if I understand the semantics :) I stand to be corrected. Mark. > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mark.tinka at seacom.mu Sun Jul 20 18:01:48 2014 From: mark.tinka at seacom.mu (Mark Tinka) Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2014 20:01:48 +0200 Subject: [rpd] Re: Factors affecting in-region utilization - way forward? In-Reply-To: References: <201407201916.09396.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> Message-ID: <201407202001.55058.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> On Sunday, July 20, 2014 07:56:23 PM Kofi ansa akufo wrote: > What I see stereotypical is people condemning NAT based > on trivial negatives. Needless to say most of us run > networks and know the reality on the ground. NAT, like PPP and DHCP, had its place in a period when it seemed like IPv4 was going to run out sooner than planned. The problem is that NAT has been abused. That does not mean it is useless. Mark. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. URL: From owen at delong.com Sun Jul 20 18:11:29 2014 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2014 11:11:29 -0700 Subject: [rpd] Factors affecting in-region utilization - way forward? In-Reply-To: References: <201407201801.12504.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> <201407201916.09396.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> Message-ID: > As much as I discourage the use of NAT in networks, I believe address translation has its niche in the ecosystem. Its has played a key role in scaling a system that was born over 30 years ago. No question NAT _WAS_ a useful stop-gap while we were waiting for the development of IPv6. Unfortunately, it devolved from a necessary evil and useful stopgap to an accepted norm and an excuse for procrastinating IPv6 deployment. Worse, it's become so endemic in some people's mindsets that there is now substantial confusion over it's security aspects. Some are even so completely and thoroughly confused as to think that NAT is not harmful to security. Some go so far as to vehemently and religiously insist that it improves security. > What I see stereotypical is people condemning NAT based on trivial negatives. Needless to say most of us run networks and know the reality on the ground. I would argue that condemning NAT over its trivial negatives is silly, when it has so many non-trivial negatives: 1. It forces users into a second-class-citizen role on the network. 2. It removes some of the democratization of communications that the internet promises. 3. It breaks the end-to-end model of the internet. 4. It stifles innovation and the development of new applications. 5. It has facilitated and encouraged wide-spread codification of erroneous assumptions about the nature of home networks. 6. It has all but decimated the ability to create real peer-to-peer applications. The list goes on. None of those are "trivial" negatives in my opinion. Instead, they are problems which strike at the very heart of the true promise of the internet. > I would rather like to see solid arguments such as how NAT affects the battle against Cyber Threats. Issues like "function of implementation and hardware capability" seem far fetched if I understand the semantics :) NAT is a fantastic tool in the battle for Cyber Threats. It provides tremendous resources and assistance to attackers and helps obfuscate the true sources of many problems and malefactors. Having said that, I think we are starting to stray from the topic at hand, and, indeed the scope of the RPD list. Owen From mainanoa at gmail.com Sun Jul 20 18:32:12 2014 From: mainanoa at gmail.com (Noah Maina) Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2014 21:32:12 +0300 Subject: [rpd] Factors affecting in-region utilization - way forward? In-Reply-To: References: <201407201801.12504.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> <201407201916.09396.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> Message-ID: On 20 Jul 2014 21:17, "Owen DeLong" wrote: > > > As much as I discourage the use of NAT in networks, I believe address translation has its niche in the ecosystem. Its has played a key role in scaling a system that was born over 30 years ago. > > No question NAT _WAS_ a useful Some are even so completely and thoroughly confused as to think that NAT is not harmful to security. Some go so far as to vehemently and religiously insist that it improves security. LoL...I was arguing the same 2 days ago...how the heck does NAT improve security. If one wants to attack a web server for instance, they could do it from an application level (layer 7)...in fact most publicly accessible application which are natively using seated rfc1918 addresses and are seated behind some perimeter fw are still port mapped to some public IP lol...and those who were affected by heart-bleed never saw that coming..did they? NAT ain't defence ever! > > Owen Noah _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mukom.tamon at gmail.com Sun Jul 20 18:52:54 2014 From: mukom.tamon at gmail.com (Mukom Akong T.) Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2014 22:52:54 +0400 Subject: [rpd] Re: Factors affecting in-region utilization - way forward? In-Reply-To: References: <201407201801.12504.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> Message-ID: On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 9:00 PM, Stephen Wilcox wrote: > >> What is interesting is that NAT has the potential to slow >> down your performance, as you scale up bandwidth. >> > > Is there data on this (I am not doubting you just that I haven't heard > this being stated before) > Not sure about data but I have experienced this and have heard lots of others share similar experience. The Internet suddenly becomes slow and unusable Checks on how much traffic is being pulled down indicated the bandwidth pipe is still largely unfilled. Reboot router, Internet becomes fast and then gradually slows down. We also faced this big time on a very large university network. We inherited it with multiple layers of NAT, 4Mbps satellite bandwidth and hundreds of sophisticated end-users. As user-base grew and their 'sophistication' (think Youtube video streaming not just checking email and browsing web pages) grew, we ran smack into this problem. a) Every system has a constraint (Systems Thinking 101). b) When you fix the constraint, another one pops up ... probably in a different part of the system. In Africa, I think bandwidth used to be THE constraint in many countries. As that's been solved in some places, the constraint has now shifted to number of ports available for doing NAPT. -- Mukom Akong T. http://about.me/perfexcellence | twitter: @perfexcellent ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ?When you work, you are the FLUTE through whose lungs the whispering of the hours turns to MUSIC" - Kahlil Gibran ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mukom.tamon at gmail.com Sun Jul 20 18:57:01 2014 From: mukom.tamon at gmail.com (Mukom Akong T.) Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2014 22:57:01 +0400 Subject: [rpd] Factors affecting in-region utilization - way forward? In-Reply-To: References: <201407201801.12504.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> <201407201916.09396.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> Message-ID: On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 10:11 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > Having said that, I think we are starting to stray from the topic at hand, > and, indeed the scope of the RPD list. +1. Back to the topic - "Factors affecting in-region utilization", I think it is beneficial to look at two types of factors a) Factors directly attributable to AFRINIC: These ones if negative can be addressed through policy and processes. b) Factors over which AFRINIC has no control The items on list a) are candidates for a fruitful discussion. The items on list b) are to be addressed in another forum. Nope I don't know which one ... am just sure it is not this one. ./shalom -- Mukom Akong T. http://about.me/perfexcellence | twitter: @perfexcellent ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ?When you work, you are the FLUTE through whose lungs the whispering of the hours turns to MUSIC" - Kahlil Gibran ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mark.tinka at seacom.mu Sun Jul 20 19:31:42 2014 From: mark.tinka at seacom.mu (Mark Tinka) Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2014 21:31:42 +0200 Subject: [rpd] Re: Factors affecting in-region utilization - way forward? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <201407202131.45834.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> On Sunday, July 20, 2014 08:52:54 PM Mukom Akong T. wrote: > In Africa, I think bandwidth used to be THE constraint in > many countries. As that's been solved in some places, > the constraint has now shifted to number of ports > available for doing NAPT. Don't encourage CGN's :-). Mark. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. URL: From mukom.tamon at gmail.com Sun Jul 20 20:01:12 2014 From: mukom.tamon at gmail.com (Mukom Akong T.) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 00:01:12 +0400 Subject: [rpd] Re: Factors affecting in-region utilization - way forward? In-Reply-To: <201407202131.45834.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> References: <201407202131.45834.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> Message-ID: On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 11:31 PM, Mark Tinka wrote: > On Sunday, July 20, 2014 08:52:54 PM Mukom Akong T. wrote: > > > In Africa, I think bandwidth used to be THE constraint in > > many countries. As that's been solved in some places, > > the constraint has now shifted to number of ports > > available for doing NAPT. > > Don't encourage CGN's :-). lol! I thought the first paragraph already clarified that how NAT and its relatives fail as a way to deal with the system constraint. I guess I do have to be careful to make that explicitly clear when using this analogy. Thanks for pointing this out. -- Mukom Akong T. http://about.me/perfexcellence | twitter: @perfexcellent ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ?When you work, you are the FLUTE through whose lungs the whispering of the hours turns to MUSIC" - Kahlil Gibran ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com Sun Jul 20 20:04:19 2014 From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji) Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2014 21:04:19 +0100 Subject: [rpd] Re: Factors affecting in-region utilization - way forward? In-Reply-To: References: <201407201801.12504.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> Message-ID: I think there are 2 scenarios here: - NAT affecting performance on bandwidth increase: I have not noticed this quite much - NAT affecting performance on concurrent user increase: This is quite valid and one of the downsides of a NATed network Cheers! sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 20 Jul 2014 20:56, "Mukom Akong T." wrote: > > On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 9:00 PM, Stephen Wilcox > wrote: > >> >>> What is interesting is that NAT has the potential to slow >>> down your performance, as you scale up bandwidth. >>> >> >> Is there data on this (I am not doubting you just that I haven't heard >> this being stated before) >> > > > Not sure about data but I have experienced this and have heard lots of > others share similar experience. The Internet suddenly becomes slow and > unusable Checks on how much traffic is being pulled down indicated the > bandwidth pipe is still largely unfilled. Reboot router, Internet becomes > fast and then gradually slows down. > > > We also faced this big time on a very large university network. We > inherited it with multiple layers of NAT, 4Mbps satellite bandwidth and > hundreds of sophisticated end-users. As user-base grew and their > 'sophistication' (think Youtube video streaming not just checking email > and browsing web pages) grew, we ran smack into this problem. > > a) Every system has a constraint (Systems Thinking 101). > b) When you fix the constraint, another one pops up ... probably in a > different part of the system. > > In Africa, I think bandwidth used to be THE constraint in many countries. > As that's been solved in some places, the constraint has now shifted to > number of ports available for doing NAPT. > > > > > -- > > Mukom Akong T. > > http://about.me/perfexcellence | twitter: @perfexcellent > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > ?When you work, you are the FLUTE through whose lungs the whispering of > the hours turns to MUSIC" - Kahlil Gibran > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mukom.tamon at gmail.com Sun Jul 20 20:19:04 2014 From: mukom.tamon at gmail.com (Mukom Akong T.) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 00:19:04 +0400 Subject: [rpd] Re: Factors affecting in-region utilization - way forward? In-Reply-To: References: <201407201801.12504.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> Message-ID: On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 12:04 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: > > - NAT affecting performance on bandwidth increase: I have not noticed this > quite much > This isn't a valid scenario. It's merely a factor that feeds into the second scenario. It goes something like this a) A few NATed uses exist at a given bandwidth. Performance isn't great so the users tend to do 'light' and essential stuff b) More bandwidth is provisioned c) Users suddenly become more sophisticated and find ways to use the extra bandwidth (that's when they discover streaming video and audio) d) Due to (c), performance degrades. This is essentially your second scenario. > - NAT affecting performance on concurrent user increase: This is quite > valid and one of the downsides of a NATed network > > Cheers! > > sent from Google nexus 4 > kindly excuse brevity and typos. > On 20 Jul 2014 20:56, "Mukom Akong T." wrote: > >> >> On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 9:00 PM, Stephen Wilcox > > wrote: >> >>> >>>> What is interesting is that NAT has the potential to slow >>>> down your performance, as you scale up bandwidth. >>>> >>> >>> Is there data on this (I am not doubting you just that I haven't heard >>> this being stated before) >>> >> >> >> Not sure about data but I have experienced this and have heard lots of >> others share similar experience. The Internet suddenly becomes slow and >> unusable Checks on how much traffic is being pulled down indicated the >> bandwidth pipe is still largely unfilled. Reboot router, Internet becomes >> fast and then gradually slows down. >> >> >> We also faced this big time on a very large university network. We >> inherited it with multiple layers of NAT, 4Mbps satellite bandwidth and >> hundreds of sophisticated end-users. As user-base grew and their >> 'sophistication' (think Youtube video streaming not just checking email >> and browsing web pages) grew, we ran smack into this problem. >> >> a) Every system has a constraint (Systems Thinking 101). >> b) When you fix the constraint, another one pops up ... probably in a >> different part of the system. >> >> In Africa, I think bandwidth used to be THE constraint in many countries. >> As that's been solved in some places, the constraint has now shifted to >> number of ports available for doing NAPT. >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Mukom Akong T. >> >> http://about.me/perfexcellence | twitter: @perfexcellent >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> ?When you work, you are the FLUTE through whose lungs the whispering of >> the hours turns to MUSIC" - Kahlil Gibran >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> _______________________________________________ >> rpd mailing list >> rpd at afrinic.net >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >> >> -- Mukom Akong T. http://about.me/perfexcellence | twitter: @perfexcellent ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ?When you work, you are the FLUTE through whose lungs the whispering of the hours turns to MUSIC" - Kahlil Gibran ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kofi.ansa at gmail.com Sun Jul 20 20:24:34 2014 From: kofi.ansa at gmail.com (Kofi ansa akufo) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 00:24:34 +0400 Subject: [rpd] Re: Factors affecting in-region utilization - way forward? In-Reply-To: References: <201407201801.12504.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> Message-ID: On Jul 20, 2014 11:56 PM, "Mukom Akong T." wrote: > > > On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 9:00 PM, Stephen Wilcox wrote: >>> >>> >>> What is interesting is that NAT has the potential to slow >>> down your performance, as you scale up bandwidth. >> >> >> Is there data on this (I am not doubting you just that I haven't heard this being stated before) > > > > Not sure about data but I have experienced this and have heard lots of others share similar experience. The Internet suddenly becomes slow and unusable Checks on how much traffic is being pulled down indicated the bandwidth pipe is still largely unfilled. Reboot router, Internet becomes fast and then gradually slows down. I do agree the abuse of NAT - in this case on a campus network can hog network resources (huge translation tables lookup etc). So are we saying the cause is Service Providers are not willing to issue enough IPs to such institutions that is why such campus networks exist? Or people handling such networks may not be aware of alternatives of getting their own PI space from AFRINIC? As to upstreams charging for announcement of prefixes I guess its their business policy? > > > We also faced this big time on a very large university network. We inherited it with multiple layers of NAT, 4Mbps satellite bandwidth and hundreds of sophisticated end-users. As user-base grew and their 'sophistication' (think Youtube video streaming not just checking email and browsing web pages) grew, we ran smack into this problem. > > a) Every system has a constraint (Systems Thinking 101). > b) When you fix the constraint, another one pops up ... probably in a different part of the system. > > In Africa, I think bandwidth used to be THE constraint in many countries. As that's been solved in some places, the constraint has now shifted to number of ports available for doing NAPT. > > > > > -- > > Mukom Akong T. > > http://about.me/perfexcellence | twitter: @perfexcellent > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > ?When you work, you are the FLUTE through whose lungs the whispering of the hours turns to MUSIC" - Kahlil Gibran > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mark.tinka at seacom.mu Sun Jul 20 20:38:07 2014 From: mark.tinka at seacom.mu (Mark Tinka) Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2014 22:38:07 +0200 Subject: [rpd] Re: Factors affecting in-region utilization - way forward? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <201407202238.11584.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> On Sunday, July 20, 2014 10:19:04 PM Mukom Akong T. wrote: > This isn't a valid scenario. It's merely a factor that > feeds into the second scenario. Maintaining translation state on a device that cannot scale to handle that state will crash due to lack of memory. NAT'ing the software path will increase CPU utilization, which will slow down performance. These are real problems. Mark. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. URL: From mukom.tamon at gmail.com Sun Jul 20 20:39:46 2014 From: mukom.tamon at gmail.com (Mukom Akong T.) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 00:39:46 +0400 Subject: [rpd] Re: Factors affecting in-region utilization - way forward? In-Reply-To: References: <201407201801.12504.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> Message-ID: On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 12:24 AM, Kofi ansa akufo wrote: > So are we saying the cause is Service Providers are not willing to issue > enough IPs to such institutions that is why such campus networks exist? > > Or people handling such networks may not be aware of alternatives of > getting their own PI space from AFRINIC? > BOTH actually. Some SP providing service to a client e.g. university they KNOW will have more than 500 conccurent users and still giving them a /28 (or worse no) block of address space. But it's also the people handling such networks don't know any better to a) challenge the ISP about the amount of address space and/or b) start the process of getting their own space. When I was in this situation (having inherited the network and couldn't do anything about the contract with the provider) - I didn't really know about AFRINIC and even if I did, the management of the university would not likely have thought seriously about 'buying' IP addresses. My point here is that at least for a newish educational institution coming up, there are two phases a) phase 1: Try and get sufficient space from the provider - beyond the default /28 or smaller. Some amount of internal NAT is usually inevitable b) about 2 - 3 years later, as the value of the Internet sinks in, make the case for getting your own space from the RIR. > As to upstreams charging for announcement of prefixes I guess its their > business policy? > Yep and about which an RIR has no business. -- Mukom Akong T. http://about.me/perfexcellence | twitter: @perfexcellent ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ?When you work, you are the FLUTE through whose lungs the whispering of the hours turns to MUSIC" - Kahlil Gibran ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From steve.wilcox at ixreach.com Sun Jul 20 20:45:35 2014 From: steve.wilcox at ixreach.com (Stephen Wilcox) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 00:45:35 +0400 Subject: [rpd] Re: Factors affecting in-region utilization - way forward? In-Reply-To: <265216AF-7ED4-4C89-BAF2-420CC1445F91@delong.com> References: <201407201801.12504.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> <201407201916.09396.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> <265216AF-7ED4-4C89-BAF2-420CC1445F91@delong.com> Message-ID: On 20 July 2014 21:46, Owen DeLong wrote: > So if a service provider takes action against de-aggregates >> (either by blocking them off or charging for them), it puts >> them at a disadvantage with their competitors. >> > > This has always been the case, but so far its not made a difference? > > > 1. You don?t actually know that. > 2. Are you certain it isn?t the primary reason nobody is doing this (yet)? > > I would argue that it is very likely the the primary reason and thus has, > so far, made all the difference. > I mean, that providers have always either refused to accept small address blocks (/24 has been the "limit" for many years, before that it was RIR allocation boundaries or classful addressing). Those that reluctantly accept blocks smaller than /24 usually caveat that it won't actually work on the global Internet. This seems to have held back routing of small blocks despite there always been a subset of demand, typically from corporates for routing small blocks. And I'd say that I do know it - there are no /25-32 addresses routable across a majority of the global internet. Steve > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mukom.tamon at gmail.com Sun Jul 20 20:45:02 2014 From: mukom.tamon at gmail.com (Mukom Akong T.) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 00:45:02 +0400 Subject: [rpd] Re: Factors affecting in-region utilization - way forward? In-Reply-To: <201407202238.11584.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> References: <201407202238.11584.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> Message-ID: On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 12:38 AM, Mark Tinka wrote: > On Sunday, July 20, 2014 10:19:04 PM Mukom Akong T. wrote: > > > This isn't a valid scenario. It's merely a factor that > > feeds into the second scenario. > > Maintaining translation state on a device that cannot scale > to handle that state will crash due to lack of memory. > > NAT'ing the software path will increase CPU utilization, > which will slow down performance. > > These are real problems. > Correct. And these are scenario b related. I read Seun's statement "...NAT affecting performance on bandwidth increase" to mean that bandwidth increase in itself will somehow worsen NAT performance. My response was to the fact that it doesn't directly do so, instead it influences users behavior so that they start doing more 'sophisticated' things what require more ports and thus more entries in translation table which is the scenario you quite correctly describe above. > > Mark. > -- Mukom Akong T. http://about.me/perfexcellence | twitter: @perfexcellent ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ?When you work, you are the FLUTE through whose lungs the whispering of the hours turns to MUSIC" - Kahlil Gibran ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com Sun Jul 20 21:31:13 2014 From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji) Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2014 22:31:13 +0100 Subject: [rpd] Re: Factors affecting in-region utilization - way forward? In-Reply-To: References: <201407202238.11584.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> Message-ID: Well as per first scenario, I was only interpreting mark by his statement below: "What is interesting is that NAT has the potential to slow down your performance, as you scale up bandwidth." As indicated, the first scenario is indeed a factor from the second. The users ultimately affects performance in a NATing world Cheers! sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 20 Jul 2014 21:45, "Mukom Akong T." wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 12:38 AM, Mark Tinka wrote: > >> On Sunday, July 20, 2014 10:19:04 PM Mukom Akong T. wrote: >> >> > This isn't a valid scenario. It's merely a factor that >> > feeds into the second scenario. >> >> Maintaining translation state on a device that cannot scale >> to handle that state will crash due to lack of memory. >> >> NAT'ing the software path will increase CPU utilization, >> which will slow down performance. >> >> These are real problems. >> > > > Correct. And these are scenario b related. I read Seun's statement "...NAT > affecting performance on bandwidth increase" to mean that bandwidth > increase in itself will somehow worsen NAT performance. My response was to > the fact that it doesn't directly do so, instead it influences users > behavior so that they start doing more 'sophisticated' things what require > more ports and thus more entries in translation table which is the scenario > you quite correctly describe above. > > > >> >> Mark. >> > > > > -- > > Mukom Akong T. > > http://about.me/perfexcellence | twitter: @perfexcellent > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > ?When you work, you are the FLUTE through whose lungs the whispering of > the hours turns to MUSIC" - Kahlil Gibran > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From owen at delong.com Sun Jul 20 22:00:50 2014 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2014 15:00:50 -0700 Subject: [rpd] Factors affecting in-region utilization - way forward? In-Reply-To: References: <201407201801.12504.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> <201407201916.09396.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> <265216AF-7ED4-4C89-BAF2-420CC1445F91@delong.com> Message-ID: On Jul 20, 2014, at 13:45 , Stephen Wilcox wrote: > > > > On 20 July 2014 21:46, Owen DeLong wrote: >> So if a service provider takes action against de-aggregates >> (either by blocking them off or charging for them), it puts >> them at a disadvantage with their competitors. >> >> This has always been the case, but so far its not made a difference? > > 1. You don?t actually know that. > 2. Are you certain it isn?t the primary reason nobody is doing this (yet)? > > I would argue that it is very likely the the primary reason and thus has, so far, made all the difference. > > I mean, that providers have always either refused to accept small address blocks (/24 has been the "limit" for many years, before that it was RIR allocation boundaries or classful addressing). Those that reluctantly accept blocks smaller than /24 usually caveat that it won't actually work on the global Internet. This seems to have held back routing of small blocks despite there always been a subset of demand, typically from corporates for routing small blocks. Route Views contradicts you: route-views>sh ip bgp | inc /2[56789] *> 1.9.56.0/25 202.249.2.86 0 7500 2516 4788 i *> 1.9.56.128/25 202.249.2.86 0 7500 2516 4788 i *> 1.209.11.240/28 194.85.102.33 0 3277 39710 9002 4766 38668 i *> 4.31.236.64/29 128.223.253.10 0 3582 4600 11537 1 i * 4.78.192.96/27 202.249.2.86 0 7500 2516 12989 26769 i * 5.44.72.0/25 193.0.0.56 0 3333 51088 i * 5.44.73.0/25 193.0.0.56 0 3333 51088 i * 5.45.254.0/25 129.250.0.11 386 0 2914 9002 13238 i *> 5.254.117.128/25 194.85.102.33 0 3277 39710 9002 39743 i *> 8.13.224.0/27 128.223.253.10 0 3582 4600 11537 1 i *> 8.13.224.32/27 128.223.253.10 0 3582 4600 11537 1 i *> 8.13.224.64/27 128.223.253.10 0 3582 4600 11537 1 i *> 8.13.224.96/27 128.223.253.10 0 3582 4600 11537 1 i *> 8.13.224.128/27 128.223.253.10 0 3582 4600 11537 1 i *> 8.13.225.64/27 128.223.253.10 0 3582 4600 11537 1 i *> 8.13.226.0/27 128.223.253.10 0 3582 4600 11537 1 i *> 8.13.226.32/27 128.223.253.10 0 3582 4600 11537 1 i *> 8.13.226.64/27 128.223.253.10 0 3582 4600 11537 1 i *> 8.13.226.96/27 128.223.253.10 0 3582 4600 11537 1 i *> 8.13.226.128/27 128.223.253.10 0 3582 4600 11537 1 i *> 8.13.226.160/27 128.223.253.10 0 3582 4600 11537 1 i *> 8.13.226.192/27 128.223.253.10 0 3582 4600 11537 1 i *> 8.13.228.0/27 128.223.253.10 0 3582 4600 11537 1 i *> 8.13.228.32/27 128.223.253.10 0 3582 4600 11537 1 i *> 8.13.228.64/27 128.223.253.10 0 3582 4600 11537 1 i *> 8.13.228.96/27 128.223.253.10 0 3582 4600 11537 1 i *> 8.13.228.128/27 128.223.253.10 0 3582 4600 11537 1 i *> 8.13.228.160/27 128.223.253.10 0 3582 4600 11537 1 i *> 8.13.228.192/27 128.223.253.10 0 3582 4600 11537 1 i *> 8.13.229.0/27 128.223.253.10 0 3582 4600 11537 1 i *> 8.13.230.0/27 128.223.253.10 0 3582 4600 11537 1 i *> 8.13.230.32/27 128.223.253.10 0 3582 4600 11537 1 i *> 8.13.230.64/27 128.223.253.10 0 3582 4600 11537 1 i *> 8.13.230.96/27 128.223.253.10 0 3582 4600 11537 1 i *> 8.13.230.128/27 128.223.253.10 0 3582 4600 11537 1 i *> 8.13.230.160/27 128.223.253.10 0 3582 4600 11537 1 i *> 8.13.231.224/27 128.223.253.10 0 3582 4600 11537 1 i *> 8.13.232.0/27 128.223.253.10 0 3582 4600 11537 1 i *> 8.13.232.32/27 128.223.253.10 0 3582 4600 11537 1 i *> 8.13.232.64/27 128.223.253.10 0 3582 4600 11537 1 i *> 8.13.232.192/27 128.223.253.10 0 3582 4600 11537 1 i *> 8.13.234.0/27 128.223.253.10 0 3582 4600 11537 1 i *> 8.13.234.32/27 128.223.253.10 0 3582 4600 11537 1 i *> 8.13.234.64/27 128.223.253.10 0 3582 4600 11537 1 i *> 8.13.234.96/27 128.223.253.10 0 3582 4600 11537 1 i *> 8.13.234.128/27 128.223.253.10 0 3582 4600 11537 1 i * 12.219.55.0/26 202.249.2.86 0 7500 2516 3549 19015 ? *> 14.33.166.40/29 194.85.102.33 0 3277 39710 9002 4766 23564 i *> 14.34.221.72/29 194.85.102.33 0 3277 39710 9002 4766 i *> 14.48.1.128/27 202.249.2.86 0 7500 2516 4766 i *> 14.48.1.192/27 202.249.2.86 0 7500 2516 4766 i *> 14.48.11.128/27 202.249.2.86 0 7500 2516 4766 i *> 14.48.199.208/29 194.85.102.33 0 3277 39710 9002 4766 i *> 14.63.70.8/29 194.85.102.33 0 3277 39710 9002 4766 i * 14.129.224.0/25 203.181.248.168 0 7660 2516 4766 9457 38676 ? *> 14.137.188.0/27 203.62.252.186 0 1221 9482 i *> 14.137.188.32/28 203.62.252.186 0 1221 9482 i * 20.132.2.64/26 202.249.2.86 0 7500 2516 3549 21877 i * 23.61.246.0/25 202.249.2.86 0 7500 2516 3462 i * 24.229.95.0/25 128.223.253.10 0 3582 4600 11537 10466 32162 53913 i *> 27.124.36.32/28 194.85.102.33 0 3277 39710 9002 9498 ? *> 27.124.36.64/27 194.85.102.33 0 3277 39710 9002 9498 9730 ? *> 27.124.36.96/28 194.85.102.33 0 3277 39710 9002 9498 9730 ? *> 27.124.37.0/28 194.85.102.33 0 3277 39710 9002 9498 ? *> 27.124.37.16/28 194.85.102.33 0 3277 39710 9002 9498 i *> 27.124.37.40/29 194.85.102.33 0 3277 39710 9002 9498 ? *> 27.124.37.88/29 194.85.102.33 0 3277 39710 9002 9498 ? *> 27.124.37.104/29 194.85.102.33 0 3277 39710 9002 9498 ? *> 27.124.37.128/28 194.85.102.33 0 3277 39710 9002 9498 ? *> 27.124.37.160/27 194.85.102.33 0 3277 39710 9002 9498 ? *> 27.124.37.240/28 194.85.102.33 0 3277 39710 9002 9498 9730 ? * 27.125.159.128/26 * 27.125.159.192/26 *> 27.255.66.32/27 202.249.2.86 0 7500 2516 4766 i *> 27.255.66.64/28 194.85.102.33 0 3277 39710 9002 4766 i *> 27.255.66.80/28 194.85.102.33 0 3277 39710 9002 4766 i *> 27.255.66.96/28 194.85.102.33 0 3277 39710 9002 4766 i *> 27.255.66.128/28 194.85.102.33 0 3277 39710 9002 4766 i *> 27.255.77.128/25 202.249.2.86 0 7500 2516 4766 i *> 31.169.50.24/29 193.0.0.56 0 3333 1103 50304 60717 i *> 31.172.136.0/28 193.0.0.56 0 3333 1103 15772 24685 i *> 31.172.136.16/28 193.0.0.56 0 3333 1103 15772 24685 i *> 31.172.136.32/28 193.0.0.56 0 3333 1103 15772 24685 i *> 31.172.136.48/28 193.0.0.56 0 3333 1103 15772 24685 i *> 31.172.136.96/28 193.0.0.56 0 3333 1103 15772 24685 i *> 31.172.136.112/28 *> 31.172.136.160/27 *> 31.172.136.192/27 *> 31.172.137.0/25 193.0.0.56 0 3333 1103 15772 24685 i *> 31.172.137.128/25 *> 31.172.141.0/25 193.0.0.56 0 3333 1103 15772 24685 i *> 31.172.141.128/25 * 31.186.234.0/26 202.249.2.86 0 7500 2516 3549 15570 i * 31.186.234.64/26 202.249.2.86 0 7500 2516 3549 15570 i --More-- And that's just the first screen full, which gets us less than 1/5th of the way through the address space. It also doesn't include /30-/32 size prefixes as I wasn't that creative with my regex foo. > And I'd say that I do know it - there are no /25-32 addresses routable across a majority of the global internet. I lack adequate perspective to say for certain that these prefixes are our would be visible on enough routers to comprise "a majority of the global internet" (and so do you or anyone else, in actual fact). My point is that nobody is dropping /24s and I would be pretty surprised to see anyone start doing. I would argue that the primary reason that static situation has persisted is that doing so would put one at a competitive disadvantage. Otherwise, I know for a fact that there are a number of providers that would love to shrink their routing tables by dropping /21-/24 routes, for example. (Or at least several have expressed a desire to do so at one time or another). Owen -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From G.halse at ru.ac.za Mon Jul 21 06:33:51 2014 From: G.halse at ru.ac.za (Guy Antony Halse) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 08:33:51 +0200 Subject: [rpd] Re: Factors affecting in-region utilization - way forward? In-Reply-To: References: <201407201801.12504.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> Message-ID: <20140721063351.GA41359@ru.ac.za> On Mon 2014-07-21 (00:39), Mukom Akong T. wrote: > But it's also the people handling such networks don't know any better to > a) challenge the ISP about the amount of address space and/or b) start the > process of getting their own space. So how do we fix this? My experience with organisations like this is that you can explain why NAT is bad and why they can/should apply for address space, and you almost inevitably get one of the following responses: 1) it is too much work to change/we don't have the {time,staff,budget} for that; 2) our ISP won't do that; 3) our management will never buy into that; or 4) our auditors will never allow that! The first two I can work with. However, the last two are particularly damaging :(. And the fact that (external) auditors can and do intimidate organisations into using NAT "for security reasons" distresses me. About two years ago, I watched a fairly large university give up the equivelent of a /19 of real world address space in favour of NAT primarily because of 4), and its subsequent impact via an internal audit & risk committee on 3). - Guy -- Manager: Systems, I&TS Division, Rhodes University, Grahamstown, South Africa Email: G.Halse at ru.ac.za Web: http://mombe.org/ IRC: rm-rf at irc.atrum.org *** ANSI Standard Disclaimer *** J.A.P.H From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com Mon Jul 21 07:42:59 2014 From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 08:42:59 +0100 Subject: [rpd] Re: Factors affecting in-region utilization - way forward? In-Reply-To: <20140721063351.GA41359@ru.ac.za> References: <201407201801.12504.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> <20140721063351.GA41359@ru.ac.za> Message-ID: On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 7:33 AM, Guy Antony Halse wrote: > > 3) our management will never buy into that; or > > 4) our auditors will never allow that! > > The first two I can work with. However, the last two are particularly > damaging :(. And the fact that (external) auditors can and do intimidate > organisations into using NAT "for security reasons" distresses me. About > two years ago, I watched a fairly large university give up the equivelent > of a /19 of real world address space in favour of NAT primarily because of > 4), and its subsequent impact via an internal audit & risk committee on 3). > > As someone who has served in a number of institution, I must say item 4 is quite new to me (and that view is perhaps applicable to many universities in my country). Item 3 is usually what is on the list for institution from my localty. Below is the order that is experienced 1) We don't think its necessary to change - Infact this is mostly the case and when ICT directorate of an institution don't think there is any benefit/need to run native v4 every other item below get stalled! 2) We understand the need to change but scare of security implications 3) Our ISP is hindering our change due to extra recurring charges 4) Our management may not approve extra cost of internet (its not something to feel and touch like classrooms :)) Regards > - Guy > -- > Manager: Systems, I&TS Division, Rhodes University, Grahamstown, South > Africa > Email: G.Halse at ru.ac.za Web: http://mombe.org/ IRC: > rm-rf at irc.atrum.org > *** ANSI Standard Disclaimer *** > J.A.P.H > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng * The key to understanding is humility - my view ! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From steve.wilcox at ixreach.com Mon Jul 21 08:42:20 2014 From: steve.wilcox at ixreach.com (Stephen Wilcox) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 12:42:20 +0400 Subject: [rpd] Factors affecting in-region utilization - way forward? In-Reply-To: References: <201407201801.12504.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> <201407201916.09396.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> <265216AF-7ED4-4C89-BAF2-420CC1445F91@delong.com> Message-ID: On 21 July 2014 02:00, Owen DeLong wrote: > > On Jul 20, 2014, at 13:45 , Stephen Wilcox > wrote: > > > > > On 20 July 2014 21:46, Owen DeLong wrote: > >> So if a service provider takes action against de-aggregates >>> (either by blocking them off or charging for them), it puts >>> them at a disadvantage with their competitors. >>> >> >> This has always been the case, but so far its not made a difference? >> >> >> 1. You don?t actually know that. >> 2. Are you certain it isn?t the primary reason nobody is doing this (yet)? >> >> I would argue that it is very likely the the primary reason and thus has, >> so far, made all the difference. >> > > I mean, that providers have always either refused to accept small address > blocks (/24 has been the "limit" for many years, before that it was RIR > allocation boundaries or classful addressing). Those that reluctantly > accept blocks smaller than /24 usually caveat that it won't actually work > on the global Internet. This seems to have held back routing of small > blocks despite there always been a subset of demand, typically from > corporates for routing small blocks. > > > Route Views contradicts you: > > route-views>sh ip bgp | inc /2[56789] > *> 1.9.56.0/25 202.249.2.86 0 7500 2516 > 4788 i > *> 1.9.56.128/25 202.249.2.86 0 7500 2516 > 4788 i > *> 1.209.11.240/28 194.85.102.33 0 3277 39710 > 9002 4766 38668 i > *> 4.31.236.64/29 128.223.253.10 0 3582 4600 > 11537 1 i > * 4.78.192.96/27 202.249.2.86 0 7500 2516 > 12989 26769 i > * 5.44.72.0/25 193.0.0.56 0 3333 51088 i > * 5.44.73.0/25 193.0.0.56 0 3333 51088 i > * 5.45.254.0/25 129.250.0.11 386 0 2914 9002 > 13238 i > *> 5.254.117.128/25 194.85.102.33 0 3277 39710 > 9002 39743 i > *> 8.13.224.0/27 128.223.253.10 0 3582 4600 > 11537 1 i > *> 8.13.224.32/27 128.223.253.10 0 3582 4600 > 11537 1 i > *> 8.13.224.64/27 128.223.253.10 0 3582 4600 > 11537 1 i > *> 8.13.224.96/27 128.223.253.10 0 3582 4600 > 11537 1 i > *> 8.13.224.128/27 128.223.253.10 0 3582 4600 > 11537 1 i > *> 8.13.225.64/27 128.223.253.10 0 3582 4600 > 11537 1 i > *> 8.13.226.0/27 128.223.253.10 0 3582 4600 > 11537 1 i > *> 8.13.226.32/27 128.223.253.10 0 3582 4600 > 11537 1 i > *> 8.13.226.64/27 128.223.253.10 0 3582 4600 > 11537 1 i > *> 8.13.226.96/27 128.223.253.10 0 3582 4600 > 11537 1 i > *> 8.13.226.128/27 128.223.253.10 0 3582 4600 > 11537 1 i > *> 8.13.226.160/27 128.223.253.10 0 3582 4600 > 11537 1 i > *> 8.13.226.192/27 128.223.253.10 0 3582 4600 > 11537 1 i > *> 8.13.228.0/27 128.223.253.10 0 3582 4600 > 11537 1 i > *> 8.13.228.32/27 128.223.253.10 0 3582 4600 > 11537 1 i > *> 8.13.228.64/27 128.223.253.10 0 3582 4600 > 11537 1 i > *> 8.13.228.96/27 128.223.253.10 0 3582 4600 > 11537 1 i > *> 8.13.228.128/27 128.223.253.10 0 3582 4600 > 11537 1 i > *> 8.13.228.160/27 128.223.253.10 0 3582 4600 > 11537 1 i > *> 8.13.228.192/27 128.223.253.10 0 3582 4600 > 11537 1 i > *> 8.13.229.0/27 128.223.253.10 0 3582 4600 > 11537 1 i > *> 8.13.230.0/27 128.223.253.10 0 3582 4600 > 11537 1 i > *> 8.13.230.32/27 128.223.253.10 0 3582 4600 > 11537 1 i > *> 8.13.230.64/27 128.223.253.10 0 3582 4600 > 11537 1 i > *> 8.13.230.96/27 128.223.253.10 0 3582 4600 > 11537 1 i > *> 8.13.230.128/27 128.223.253.10 0 3582 4600 > 11537 1 i > *> 8.13.230.160/27 128.223.253.10 0 3582 4600 > 11537 1 i > *> 8.13.231.224/27 128.223.253.10 0 3582 4600 > 11537 1 i > *> 8.13.232.0/27 128.223.253.10 0 3582 4600 > 11537 1 i > *> 8.13.232.32/27 128.223.253.10 0 3582 4600 > 11537 1 i > *> 8.13.232.64/27 128.223.253.10 0 3582 4600 > 11537 1 i > *> 8.13.232.192/27 128.223.253.10 0 3582 4600 > 11537 1 i > *> 8.13.234.0/27 128.223.253.10 0 3582 4600 > 11537 1 i > *> 8.13.234.32/27 128.223.253.10 0 3582 4600 > 11537 1 i > *> 8.13.234.64/27 128.223.253.10 0 3582 4600 > 11537 1 i > *> 8.13.234.96/27 128.223.253.10 0 3582 4600 > 11537 1 i > *> 8.13.234.128/27 128.223.253.10 0 3582 4600 > 11537 1 i > * 12.219.55.0/26 202.249.2.86 0 7500 2516 > 3549 19015 ? > *> 14.33.166.40/29 194.85.102.33 0 3277 39710 > 9002 4766 23564 i > *> 14.34.221.72/29 194.85.102.33 0 3277 39710 > 9002 4766 i > *> 14.48.1.128/27 202.249.2.86 0 7500 2516 > 4766 i > *> 14.48.1.192/27 202.249.2.86 0 7500 2516 > 4766 i > *> 14.48.11.128/27 202.249.2.86 0 7500 2516 > 4766 i > *> 14.48.199.208/29 194.85.102.33 0 3277 39710 > 9002 4766 i > *> 14.63.70.8/29 194.85.102.33 0 3277 39710 > 9002 4766 i > * 14.129.224.0/25 203.181.248.168 0 7660 2516 > 4766 9457 38676 ? > *> 14.137.188.0/27 203.62.252.186 0 1221 9482 i > *> 14.137.188.32/28 203.62.252.186 0 1221 9482 i > * 20.132.2.64/26 202.249.2.86 0 7500 2516 > 3549 21877 i > * 23.61.246.0/25 202.249.2.86 0 7500 2516 > 3462 i > * 24.229.95.0/25 128.223.253.10 0 3582 4600 > 11537 10466 32162 53913 i > *> 27.124.36.32/28 194.85.102.33 0 3277 39710 > 9002 9498 ? > *> 27.124.36.64/27 194.85.102.33 0 3277 39710 > 9002 9498 9730 ? > *> 27.124.36.96/28 194.85.102.33 0 3277 39710 > 9002 9498 9730 ? > *> 27.124.37.0/28 194.85.102.33 0 3277 39710 > 9002 9498 ? > *> 27.124.37.16/28 194.85.102.33 0 3277 39710 > 9002 9498 i > *> 27.124.37.40/29 194.85.102.33 0 3277 39710 > 9002 9498 ? > *> 27.124.37.88/29 194.85.102.33 0 3277 39710 > 9002 9498 ? > *> 27.124.37.104/29 194.85.102.33 0 3277 39710 > 9002 9498 ? > *> 27.124.37.128/28 194.85.102.33 0 3277 39710 > 9002 9498 ? > *> 27.124.37.160/27 194.85.102.33 0 3277 39710 > 9002 9498 ? > *> 27.124.37.240/28 194.85.102.33 0 3277 39710 > 9002 9498 9730 ? > * 27.125.159.128/26 > * 27.125.159.192/26 > *> 27.255.66.32/27 202.249.2.86 0 7500 2516 > 4766 i > *> 27.255.66.64/28 194.85.102.33 0 3277 39710 > 9002 4766 i > *> 27.255.66.80/28 194.85.102.33 0 3277 39710 > 9002 4766 i > *> 27.255.66.96/28 194.85.102.33 0 3277 39710 > 9002 4766 i > *> 27.255.66.128/28 194.85.102.33 0 3277 39710 > 9002 4766 i > *> 27.255.77.128/25 202.249.2.86 0 7500 2516 > 4766 i > *> 31.169.50.24/29 193.0.0.56 0 3333 1103 > 50304 60717 i > *> 31.172.136.0/28 193.0.0.56 0 3333 1103 > 15772 24685 i > *> 31.172.136.16/28 193.0.0.56 0 3333 1103 > 15772 24685 i > *> 31.172.136.32/28 193.0.0.56 0 3333 1103 > 15772 24685 i > *> 31.172.136.48/28 193.0.0.56 0 3333 1103 > 15772 24685 i > *> 31.172.136.96/28 193.0.0.56 0 3333 1103 > 15772 24685 i > *> 31.172.136.112/28 > *> 31.172.136.160/27 > *> 31.172.136.192/27 > *> 31.172.137.0/25 193.0.0.56 0 3333 1103 > 15772 24685 i > *> 31.172.137.128/25 > *> 31.172.141.0/25 193.0.0.56 0 3333 1103 > 15772 24685 i > *> 31.172.141.128/25 > * 31.186.234.0/26 202.249.2.86 0 7500 2516 > 3549 15570 i > * 31.186.234.64/26 202.249.2.86 0 7500 2516 > 3549 15570 i > --More-- > > And that's just the first screen full, which gets us less than 1/5th of > the way through the address space. It also doesn't > include /30-/32 size prefixes as I wasn't that creative with my regex foo. > > And I'd say that I do know it - there are no /25-32 addresses routable > across a majority of the global internet. > > > I lack adequate perspective to say for certain that these prefixes are our > would be visible on enough routers to comprise "a majority of the global > internet" (and so do you or anyone else, in actual fact). > Seriously? Owen, I know you're better than that! Troll bait perhaps but I'll respond. There's 30-40 full BGP feeds sent to route-views often reflecting internal views from each ASN and not what they would necessarily propagate downstream, each of those prefixes in your screen grab are seen behind a single obscure path, there should be another 30-40 route entries *per prefix* .. there's not a single tier-1 in there, not even your employer AS6939! You know full well these are not even remotely globally routable by themselves. Why assert they are or might be?! My point is that nobody is dropping /24s and I would be pretty surprised to > see anyone start doing. I would argue that the primary reason that static > situation has persisted is that doing so would put one at a competitive > disadvantage. Otherwise, I know for a fact that there are a number of > providers that would love to shrink their routing tables by dropping > /21-/24 routes, for example. (Or at least several have expressed a desire > to do so at one time or another). > /24s have been acceptable since the late 1990s. I'm sorry but prefixes longer than /24 simply will not work on the global Internet of 2014, you are welcome to sell transit to a customer with a small block but we all know unless you are holding the aggregate that its come from that its not going to work for what anyone would consider "global internet access". There is a possible place for longer prefixes which is for TE or connecting separate sites through a single upstream but neither of these is the scenario on the table. Steve -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mukom.tamon at gmail.com Mon Jul 21 08:44:18 2014 From: mukom.tamon at gmail.com (Mukom Akong T.) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 12:44:18 +0400 Subject: [rpd] Re: Factors affecting in-region utilization - way forward? In-Reply-To: References: <201407201801.12504.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> <20140721063351.GA41359@ru.ac.za> Message-ID: On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 11:42 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: > Below is the order that is experienced > > 1) We don't think its necessary to change - Infact this is mostly the > case and when ICT directorate of an institution don't think there is any > benefit/need to run native v4 every other item below get stalled! > [Counter] a) So long as we are using NAT, the more users we worse performance will get. Show the IT director graphs that show that even though Internet is slow, we are still within our bandwidth usage. (The pain here which they feel is poor performance. Yes I've used this before ...successfully) b) Let's start with the network engineers, eliminate NATs internally! Route your RFC1918 space to and NAPT at the the edge. This has two implications * You get visibility into your own internal nework * You make it easier to see that NAT is the bottleneck because your NAT kludge is not distributed everywhere on the network. c) It should be easy to make the case for a larger block of public IPv4 space for services. (and hint, if you work on some cool internal services that the management and users love but suddenly can't use them when they are not in the office on campus, then you have one more reason to justify what that service should be on a public IP address.) > > 2) We understand the need to change but scare of security implications > [Counter] "What security implications are those?". Education is the first weapon against fear. "Look your fear in the eye and it will lose its power over you" a) User behavior (clicking strange links, visiting hostile sites etc) already by-pass whateve security they think NAT provides. b) SPI whence from the perceived benefits of NAPT come from isn't an inherent part of NAPT - it just happens to be often co-exist with a NAPT service. If for some reason you really want to do that with a public IP address, it is possible to do. > > 3) Our ISP is hindering our change due to extra recurring charges > Specify your requirements that will work for you in your new RFP and put your ISP on notice. Only in rare cases does an institution not have options in ISP for a whole 3 years > > 4) Our management may not approve extra cost of internet (its not > something to feel and touch like classrooms :)) > Most universities actually do highly value ICT as an investment to better the institution. The question is that does the ICT Director and his team know what the elements of effective ICTs are? So long as ICT infrastructure becomes another word for "Internet access" on campus, then of course while there is some Internet ... there's no need to improve. Effective ICTs for the service of education is quite a lot about putting in place infrastructure that helps students, staff and administration both on-campus and off campus. These services should be available on campus but also when people move off campus. Things like - MOOC or e-Learning services hosted on campus but that can be accessed off campus - Online registrations systems - Transcript application services - Time-tables - etc etc I have a philosphy that one uses responsibility to buy freedom and credibility. I doubt that there's a university where the network and sys admin team have worked hard to put in place a routed internal RFC1918 network with useful services and still fail to make the case of a large block of public space. If there are, I'm offering to help guide them how to make the case to their suits. And no, a simple request to management of let's get public IPv4 space for every user will most likely get ignored and ridiculed because of the mere size. If the top 10 universities on this continent decided to give each network user 1 public IP address, your favourite RIR's v4 space won't last a year. -- Mukom Akong T. http://about.me/perfexcellence | twitter: @perfexcellent ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ?When you work, you are the FLUTE through whose lungs the whispering of the hours turns to MUSIC" - Kahlil Gibran ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com Mon Jul 21 08:59:34 2014 From: Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com (Andrew Alston) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 09:59:34 +0100 Subject: [rpd] Re: Factors affecting in-region utilization - way forward? In-Reply-To: References: <201407201801.12504.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> <20140721063351.GA41359@ru.ac.za> Message-ID: <7FF93785BD2D534EA45841A8AAA1D89B5131316928@liquid-exch.liquidtelecom.local> As an interesting note, When I requested the removal of NAT from an internal office network, it wasn?t the management that resisted so much as the technical staff and the IT department. The question about security was brought up over and over again, as well as the amount of work to migrate away from RFC1918 space. Eventually the problem was solved by stating this wasn?t a request anymore, get it done. Not an ideal approach but sometimes it?s the only way to get things done. But what this highlights is the fact that you need management buy in sometimes to overcome stubborn resistance from technical people to the same. Sad but true. Andrew From: rpd-bounces at afrinic.net [mailto:rpd-bounces at afrinic.net] On Behalf Of Mukom Akong T. Sent: Monday, July 21, 2014 11:44 AM To: Seun Ojedeji Cc: Guy Antony Halse; rpd List Subject: Re: [rpd] Re: Factors affecting in-region utilization - way forward? On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 11:42 AM, Seun Ojedeji > wrote: Below is the order that is experienced 1) We don't think its necessary to change - Infact this is mostly the case and when ICT directorate of an institution don't think there is any benefit/need to run native v4 every other item below get stalled! [Counter] a) So long as we are using NAT, the more users we worse performance will get. Show the IT director graphs that show that even though Internet is slow, we are still within our bandwidth usage. (The pain here which they feel is poor performance. Yes I've used this before ...successfully) b) Let's start with the network engineers, eliminate NATs internally! Route your RFC1918 space to and NAPT at the the edge. This has two implications * You get visibility into your own internal nework * You make it easier to see that NAT is the bottleneck because your NAT kludge is not distributed everywhere on the network. c) It should be easy to make the case for a larger block of public IPv4 space for services. (and hint, if you work on some cool internal services that the management and users love but suddenly can't use them when they are not in the office on campus, then you have one more reason to justify what that service should be on a public IP address.) 2) We understand the need to change but scare of security implications [Counter] "What security implications are those?". Education is the first weapon against fear. "Look your fear in the eye and it will lose its power over you" a) User behavior (clicking strange links, visiting hostile sites etc) already by-pass whateve security they think NAT provides. b) SPI whence from the perceived benefits of NAPT come from isn't an inherent part of NAPT - it just happens to be often co-exist with a NAPT service. If for some reason you really want to do that with a public IP address, it is possible to do. 3) Our ISP is hindering our change due to extra recurring charges Specify your requirements that will work for you in your new RFP and put your ISP on notice. Only in rare cases does an institution not have options in ISP for a whole 3 years 4) Our management may not approve extra cost of internet (its not something to feel and touch like classrooms :)) Most universities actually do highly value ICT as an investment to better the institution. The question is that does the ICT Director and his team know what the elements of effective ICTs are? So long as ICT infrastructure becomes another word for "Internet access" on campus, then of course while there is some Internet ... there's no need to improve. Effective ICTs for the service of education is quite a lot about putting in place infrastructure that helps students, staff and administration both on-campus and off campus. These services should be available on campus but also when people move off campus. Things like - MOOC or e-Learning services hosted on campus but that can be accessed off campus - Online registrations systems - Transcript application services - Time-tables - etc etc I have a philosphy that one uses responsibility to buy freedom and credibility. I doubt that there's a university where the network and sys admin team have worked hard to put in place a routed internal RFC1918 network with useful services and still fail to make the case of a large block of public space. If there are, I'm offering to help guide them how to make the case to their suits. And no, a simple request to management of let's get public IPv4 space for every user will most likely get ignored and ridiculed because of the mere size. If the top 10 universities on this continent decided to give each network user 1 public IP address, your favourite RIR's v4 space won't last a year. -- Mukom Akong T. http://about.me/perfexcellence | twitter: @perfexcellent ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ?When you work, you are the FLUTE through whose lungs the whispering of the hours turns to MUSIC" - Kahlil Gibran ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ________________________________ DISCLAIMER: This email contains proprietary information some or all of which may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this email, please notify the author by replying to this email. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose, copy, print, or rely on this email. We cannot accept liability for any statements made which are clearly the sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of this company or one of its agents. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kofi.ansa at gmail.com Mon Jul 21 09:11:23 2014 From: kofi.ansa at gmail.com (Kofi ansa akufo) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 13:11:23 +0400 Subject: [rpd] Re: Factors affecting in-region utilization - way forward? In-Reply-To: References: <201407201801.12504.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> <20140721063351.GA41359@ru.ac.za> Message-ID: So in short ICT directorate and or IT departments must learn to back their case to management - for NAT free networks with SOLID FACTS. On 21 July 2014 12:44, Mukom Akong T. wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 11:42 AM, Seun Ojedeji > wrote: > >> Below is the order that is experienced >> >> 1) We don't think its necessary to change - Infact this is mostly the >> case and when ICT directorate of an institution don't think there is any >> benefit/need to run native v4 every other item below get stalled! >> > > > [Counter] > > a) So long as we are using NAT, the more users we worse performance will > get. Show the IT director graphs that show that even though Internet is > slow, we are still within our bandwidth usage. (The pain here which they > feel is poor performance. Yes I've used this before ...successfully) > > b) Let's start with the network engineers, eliminate NATs internally! > Route your RFC1918 space to and NAPT at the the edge. This has two > implications > > * You get visibility into your own internal nework > * You make it easier to see that NAT is the bottleneck because your > NAT kludge is not distributed everywhere on the network. > > c) It should be easy to make the case for a larger block of public IPv4 > space for services. (and hint, if you work on some cool internal services > that the management and users love but suddenly can't use them when they > are not in the office on campus, then you have one more reason to justify > what that service should be on a public IP address.) > > >> >> 2) We understand the need to change but scare of security implications >> > > > [Counter] "What security implications are those?". Education is the first > weapon against fear. "Look your fear in the eye and it will lose its power > over you" > > a) User behavior (clicking strange links, visiting hostile sites etc) > already by-pass whateve security they think NAT provides. > > b) SPI whence from the perceived benefits of NAPT come from isn't an > inherent part of NAPT - it just happens to be often co-exist with a NAPT > service. If for some reason you really want to do that with a public IP > address, it is possible to do. > > > >> >> 3) Our ISP is hindering our change due to extra recurring charges >> > > > Specify your requirements that will work for you in your new RFP and put > your ISP on notice. Only in rare cases does an institution not have options > in ISP for a whole 3 years > > >> >> 4) Our management may not approve extra cost of internet (its not >> something to feel and touch like classrooms :)) >> > > > Most universities actually do highly value ICT as an investment to better > the institution. The question is that does the ICT Director and his team > know what the elements of effective ICTs are? So long as ICT infrastructure > becomes another word for "Internet access" on campus, then of course while > there is some Internet ... there's no need to improve. > > Effective ICTs for the service of education is quite a lot about putting > in place infrastructure that helps students, staff and administration both > on-campus and off campus. These services should be available on campus but > also when people move off campus. Things like > > - MOOC or e-Learning services hosted on campus but that can be accessed > off campus > - Online registrations systems > - Transcript application services > - Time-tables > - etc etc > > > I have a philosphy that one uses responsibility to buy freedom and > credibility. I doubt that there's a university where the network and sys > admin team have worked hard to put in place a routed internal RFC1918 > network with useful services and still fail to make the case of a large > block of public space. If there are, I'm offering to help guide them how to > make the case to their suits. > > And no, a simple request to management of let's get public IPv4 space for > every user will most likely get ignored and ridiculed because of the mere > size. If the top 10 universities on this continent decided to give each > network user 1 public IP address, your favourite RIR's v4 space won't > last a year. > > > > > -- > > Mukom Akong T. > > http://about.me/perfexcellence | twitter: @perfexcellent > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > ?When you work, you are the FLUTE through whose lungs the whispering of > the hours turns to MUSIC" - Kahlil Gibran > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com Mon Jul 21 09:13:08 2014 From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 10:13:08 +0100 Subject: [rpd] Re: Factors affecting in-region utilization - way forward? In-Reply-To: References: <201407201801.12504.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> <20140721063351.GA41359@ru.ac.za> Message-ID: Good and useful tips from Mukom for institutions finding themselves lacking in any of the 4 areas listed. I hope you understand the "we" i used in the scenarios i posted is just me thinking for the institutions on any possible scenarios, usually it will be rare for the whole 4 scenarios to happen to a single institution. Overall the first item on the list is the major part; With a capable and determined ICT directorate, every other bridge can be crossed overtime. Cheers! On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 9:44 AM, Mukom Akong T. wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 11:42 AM, Seun Ojedeji > wrote: > >> Below is the order that is experienced >> >> 1) We don't think its necessary to change - Infact this is mostly the >> case and when ICT directorate of an institution don't think there is any >> benefit/need to run native v4 every other item below get stalled! >> > > > [Counter] > > a) So long as we are using NAT, the more users we worse performance will > get. Show the IT director graphs that show that even though Internet is > slow, we are still within our bandwidth usage. (The pain here which they > feel is poor performance. Yes I've used this before ...successfully) > > b) Let's start with the network engineers, eliminate NATs internally! > Route your RFC1918 space to and NAPT at the the edge. This has two > implications > > * You get visibility into your own internal nework > * You make it easier to see that NAT is the bottleneck because your > NAT kludge is not distributed everywhere on the network. > > c) It should be easy to make the case for a larger block of public IPv4 > space for services. (and hint, if you work on some cool internal services > that the management and users love but suddenly can't use them when they > are not in the office on campus, then you have one more reason to justify > what that service should be on a public IP address.) > > >> >> 2) We understand the need to change but scare of security implications >> > > > [Counter] "What security implications are those?". Education is the first > weapon against fear. "Look your fear in the eye and it will lose its power > over you" > > a) User behavior (clicking strange links, visiting hostile sites etc) > already by-pass whateve security they think NAT provides. > > b) SPI whence from the perceived benefits of NAPT come from isn't an > inherent part of NAPT - it just happens to be often co-exist with a NAPT > service. If for some reason you really want to do that with a public IP > address, it is possible to do. > > > >> >> 3) Our ISP is hindering our change due to extra recurring charges >> > > > Specify your requirements that will work for you in your new RFP and put > your ISP on notice. Only in rare cases does an institution not have options > in ISP for a whole 3 years > > >> >> 4) Our management may not approve extra cost of internet (its not >> something to feel and touch like classrooms :)) >> > > > Most universities actually do highly value ICT as an investment to better > the institution. The question is that does the ICT Director and his team > know what the elements of effective ICTs are? So long as ICT infrastructure > becomes another word for "Internet access" on campus, then of course while > there is some Internet ... there's no need to improve. > > Effective ICTs for the service of education is quite a lot about putting > in place infrastructure that helps students, staff and administration both > on-campus and off campus. These services should be available on campus but > also when people move off campus. Things like > > - MOOC or e-Learning services hosted on campus but that can be accessed > off campus > - Online registrations systems > - Transcript application services > - Time-tables > - etc etc > > > I have a philosphy that one uses responsibility to buy freedom and > credibility. I doubt that there's a university where the network and sys > admin team have worked hard to put in place a routed internal RFC1918 > network with useful services and still fail to make the case of a large > block of public space. If there are, I'm offering to help guide them how to > make the case to their suits. > > And no, a simple request to management of let's get public IPv4 space for > every user will most likely get ignored and ridiculed because of the mere > size. If the top 10 universities on this continent decided to give each > network user 1 public IP address, your favourite RIR's v4 space won't > last a year. > > > > > -- > > Mukom Akong T. > > http://about.me/perfexcellence | twitter: @perfexcellent > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > ?When you work, you are the FLUTE through whose lungs the whispering of > the hours turns to MUSIC" - Kahlil Gibran > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng * The key to understanding is humility - my view ! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mark.tinka at seacom.mu Mon Jul 21 11:57:30 2014 From: mark.tinka at seacom.mu (Mark Tinka) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 13:57:30 +0200 Subject: [rpd] Factors affecting in-region utilization - way forward? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <201407211357.31049.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> On Monday, July 21, 2014 12:00:50 AM Owen DeLong wrote: > My point is that nobody is dropping /24s and I would be > pretty surprised to see anyone start doing. I would > argue that the primary reason that static situation has > persisted is that doing so would put one at a > competitive disadvantage. Otherwise, I know for a fact > that there are a number of providers that would love to > shrink their routing tables by dropping /21-/24 routes, > for example. (Or at least several have expressed a > desire to do so at one time or another). There are quite a few global carriers that actually accept IPv4 longer than /24 and IPv6 longer than /48. For many of them, as long as there is an IRR entry, they accept it :-). But yes, I'd be hard-pressed to find any operators out there dropping /24's, /48's. Mark. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. URL: From steve.wilcox at ixreach.com Mon Jul 21 12:34:31 2014 From: steve.wilcox at ixreach.com (Stephen Wilcox) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 16:34:31 +0400 Subject: [rpd] Factors affecting in-region utilization - way forward? In-Reply-To: <201407211357.31049.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> References: <201407211357.31049.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> Message-ID: On 21 July 2014 15:57, Mark Tinka wrote: > On Monday, July 21, 2014 12:00:50 AM Owen DeLong wrote: > > > My point is that nobody is dropping /24s and I would be > > pretty surprised to see anyone start doing. I would > > argue that the primary reason that static situation has > > persisted is that doing so would put one at a > > competitive disadvantage. Otherwise, I know for a fact > > that there are a number of providers that would love to > > shrink their routing tables by dropping /21-/24 routes, > > for example. (Or at least several have expressed a > > desire to do so at one time or another). > > There are quite a few global carriers that actually accept > IPv4 longer than /24 and IPv6 longer than /48. For many of > them, as long as there is an IRR entry, they accept it :-). > Whether or not prefixes longer than > /24 are globally routable will play a significant factor in the development of allocation policies now that most RIRs have exhausted large blocks and providers are reluctant to hand /24s to clients purely to allow them to multihome. My point is being accepted by an upstream != globally routable. And internal use of long prefixes (which is what I think you are seeing in route-views) doesn't count. What I see is a lot of examples of (very bad netiquette) deaggregation being performed by the same handful of ASNs... Can you find an example in the global table or a single prefix /25-/32 that is globally routable (that is can be seen behind all "tier1s")? Steve > > But yes, I'd be hard-pressed to find any operators out there > dropping /24's, /48's. > > Mark. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From owen at delong.com Mon Jul 21 19:47:09 2014 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 12:47:09 -0700 Subject: [rpd] Factors affecting in-region utilization - way forward? In-Reply-To: References: <201407201801.12504.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> <201407201916.09396.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> <265216AF-7ED4-4C89-BAF2-420CC1445F91@delong.com> Message-ID: <8DF492FB-5B91-4785-907F-B685BBA2AD90@delong.com> On Jul 21, 2014, at 01:42 , Stephen Wilcox wrote: > > > > On 21 July 2014 02:00, Owen DeLong wrote: > > On Jul 20, 2014, at 13:45 , Stephen Wilcox wrote: > >> >> >> >> On 20 July 2014 21:46, Owen DeLong wrote: >>> So if a service provider takes action against de-aggregates >>> (either by blocking them off or charging for them), it puts >>> them at a disadvantage with their competitors. >>> >>> This has always been the case, but so far its not made a difference? >> >> 1. You don?t actually know that. >> 2. Are you certain it isn?t the primary reason nobody is doing this (yet)? >> >> I would argue that it is very likely the the primary reason and thus has, so far, made all the difference. >> >> I mean, that providers have always either refused to accept small address blocks (/24 has been the "limit" for many years, before that it was RIR allocation boundaries or classful addressing). Those that reluctantly accept blocks smaller than /24 usually caveat that it won't actually work on the global Internet. This seems to have held back routing of small blocks despite there always been a subset of demand, typically from corporates for routing small blocks. > > Route Views contradicts you: > > route-views>sh ip bgp | inc /2[56789] > *> 1.9.56.0/25 202.249.2.86 0 7500 2516 4788 i > *> 1.9.56.128/25 202.249.2.86 0 7500 2516 4788 i > *> 1.209.11.240/28 194.85.102.33 0 3277 39710 9002 4766 38668 i > *> 4.31.236.64/29 128.223.253.10 0 3582 4600 11537 1 i > * 4.78.192.96/27 202.249.2.86 0 7500 2516 12989 26769 i > * 5.44.72.0/25 193.0.0.56 0 3333 51088 i > * 5.44.73.0/25 193.0.0.56 0 3333 51088 i > * 5.45.254.0/25 129.250.0.11 386 0 2914 9002 13238 i > *> 5.254.117.128/25 194.85.102.33 0 3277 39710 9002 39743 i > *> 8.13.224.0/27 128.223.253.10 0 3582 4600 11537 1 i > *> 8.13.224.32/27 128.223.253.10 0 3582 4600 11537 1 i > *> 8.13.224.64/27 128.223.253.10 0 3582 4600 11537 1 i > *> 8.13.224.96/27 128.223.253.10 0 3582 4600 11537 1 i > *> 8.13.224.128/27 128.223.253.10 0 3582 4600 11537 1 i > *> 8.13.225.64/27 128.223.253.10 0 3582 4600 11537 1 i > *> 8.13.226.0/27 128.223.253.10 0 3582 4600 11537 1 i > *> 8.13.226.32/27 128.223.253.10 0 3582 4600 11537 1 i > *> 8.13.226.64/27 128.223.253.10 0 3582 4600 11537 1 i > *> 8.13.226.96/27 128.223.253.10 0 3582 4600 11537 1 i > *> 8.13.226.128/27 128.223.253.10 0 3582 4600 11537 1 i > *> 8.13.226.160/27 128.223.253.10 0 3582 4600 11537 1 i > *> 8.13.226.192/27 128.223.253.10 0 3582 4600 11537 1 i > *> 8.13.228.0/27 128.223.253.10 0 3582 4600 11537 1 i > *> 8.13.228.32/27 128.223.253.10 0 3582 4600 11537 1 i > *> 8.13.228.64/27 128.223.253.10 0 3582 4600 11537 1 i > *> 8.13.228.96/27 128.223.253.10 0 3582 4600 11537 1 i > *> 8.13.228.128/27 128.223.253.10 0 3582 4600 11537 1 i > *> 8.13.228.160/27 128.223.253.10 0 3582 4600 11537 1 i > *> 8.13.228.192/27 128.223.253.10 0 3582 4600 11537 1 i > *> 8.13.229.0/27 128.223.253.10 0 3582 4600 11537 1 i > *> 8.13.230.0/27 128.223.253.10 0 3582 4600 11537 1 i > *> 8.13.230.32/27 128.223.253.10 0 3582 4600 11537 1 i > *> 8.13.230.64/27 128.223.253.10 0 3582 4600 11537 1 i > *> 8.13.230.96/27 128.223.253.10 0 3582 4600 11537 1 i > *> 8.13.230.128/27 128.223.253.10 0 3582 4600 11537 1 i > *> 8.13.230.160/27 128.223.253.10 0 3582 4600 11537 1 i > *> 8.13.231.224/27 128.223.253.10 0 3582 4600 11537 1 i > *> 8.13.232.0/27 128.223.253.10 0 3582 4600 11537 1 i > *> 8.13.232.32/27 128.223.253.10 0 3582 4600 11537 1 i > *> 8.13.232.64/27 128.223.253.10 0 3582 4600 11537 1 i > *> 8.13.232.192/27 128.223.253.10 0 3582 4600 11537 1 i > *> 8.13.234.0/27 128.223.253.10 0 3582 4600 11537 1 i > *> 8.13.234.32/27 128.223.253.10 0 3582 4600 11537 1 i > *> 8.13.234.64/27 128.223.253.10 0 3582 4600 11537 1 i > *> 8.13.234.96/27 128.223.253.10 0 3582 4600 11537 1 i > *> 8.13.234.128/27 128.223.253.10 0 3582 4600 11537 1 i > * 12.219.55.0/26 202.249.2.86 0 7500 2516 3549 19015 ? > *> 14.33.166.40/29 194.85.102.33 0 3277 39710 9002 4766 23564 i > *> 14.34.221.72/29 194.85.102.33 0 3277 39710 9002 4766 i > *> 14.48.1.128/27 202.249.2.86 0 7500 2516 4766 i > *> 14.48.1.192/27 202.249.2.86 0 7500 2516 4766 i > *> 14.48.11.128/27 202.249.2.86 0 7500 2516 4766 i > *> 14.48.199.208/29 194.85.102.33 0 3277 39710 9002 4766 i > *> 14.63.70.8/29 194.85.102.33 0 3277 39710 9002 4766 i > * 14.129.224.0/25 203.181.248.168 0 7660 2516 4766 9457 38676 ? > *> 14.137.188.0/27 203.62.252.186 0 1221 9482 i > *> 14.137.188.32/28 203.62.252.186 0 1221 9482 i > * 20.132.2.64/26 202.249.2.86 0 7500 2516 3549 21877 i > * 23.61.246.0/25 202.249.2.86 0 7500 2516 3462 i > * 24.229.95.0/25 128.223.253.10 0 3582 4600 11537 10466 32162 53913 i > *> 27.124.36.32/28 194.85.102.33 0 3277 39710 9002 9498 ? > *> 27.124.36.64/27 194.85.102.33 0 3277 39710 9002 9498 9730 ? > *> 27.124.36.96/28 194.85.102.33 0 3277 39710 9002 9498 9730 ? > *> 27.124.37.0/28 194.85.102.33 0 3277 39710 9002 9498 ? > *> 27.124.37.16/28 194.85.102.33 0 3277 39710 9002 9498 i > *> 27.124.37.40/29 194.85.102.33 0 3277 39710 9002 9498 ? > *> 27.124.37.88/29 194.85.102.33 0 3277 39710 9002 9498 ? > *> 27.124.37.104/29 194.85.102.33 0 3277 39710 9002 9498 ? > *> 27.124.37.128/28 194.85.102.33 0 3277 39710 9002 9498 ? > *> 27.124.37.160/27 194.85.102.33 0 3277 39710 9002 9498 ? > *> 27.124.37.240/28 194.85.102.33 0 3277 39710 9002 9498 9730 ? > * 27.125.159.128/26 > * 27.125.159.192/26 > *> 27.255.66.32/27 202.249.2.86 0 7500 2516 4766 i > *> 27.255.66.64/28 194.85.102.33 0 3277 39710 9002 4766 i > *> 27.255.66.80/28 194.85.102.33 0 3277 39710 9002 4766 i > *> 27.255.66.96/28 194.85.102.33 0 3277 39710 9002 4766 i > *> 27.255.66.128/28 194.85.102.33 0 3277 39710 9002 4766 i > *> 27.255.77.128/25 202.249.2.86 0 7500 2516 4766 i > *> 31.169.50.24/29 193.0.0.56 0 3333 1103 50304 60717 i > *> 31.172.136.0/28 193.0.0.56 0 3333 1103 15772 24685 i > *> 31.172.136.16/28 193.0.0.56 0 3333 1103 15772 24685 i > *> 31.172.136.32/28 193.0.0.56 0 3333 1103 15772 24685 i > *> 31.172.136.48/28 193.0.0.56 0 3333 1103 15772 24685 i > *> 31.172.136.96/28 193.0.0.56 0 3333 1103 15772 24685 i > *> 31.172.136.112/28 > *> 31.172.136.160/27 > *> 31.172.136.192/27 > *> 31.172.137.0/25 193.0.0.56 0 3333 1103 15772 24685 i > *> 31.172.137.128/25 > *> 31.172.141.0/25 193.0.0.56 0 3333 1103 15772 24685 i > *> 31.172.141.128/25 > * 31.186.234.0/26 202.249.2.86 0 7500 2516 3549 15570 i > * 31.186.234.64/26 202.249.2.86 0 7500 2516 3549 15570 i > --More-- > > And that's just the first screen full, which gets us less than 1/5th of the way through the address space. It also doesn't > include /30-/32 size prefixes as I wasn't that creative with my regex foo. > >> And I'd say that I do know it - there are no /25-32 addresses routable across a majority of the global internet. > > I lack adequate perspective to say for certain that these prefixes are our would be visible on enough routers to comprise "a majority of the global internet" (and so do you or anyone else, in actual fact). > > Seriously? Owen, I know you're better than that! Troll bait perhaps but I'll respond. > > There's 30-40 full BGP feeds sent to route-views often reflecting internal views from each ASN and not what they would necessarily propagate downstream, each of those prefixes in your screen grab are seen behind a single obscure path, there should be another 30-40 route entries *per prefix* .. there's not a single tier-1 in there, not even your employer AS6939! Um, no. The | include regexp construct I used prevented the additional paths from being displayed, but, they are not, in fact, all single-paths. At random: route-views>sh ip bgp 27.125.159.128 BGP routing table entry for 27.125.159.128/26, version 2028363256 Paths: (3 available, best #2, table Default-IP-Routing-Table) Flag: 0x820 Not advertised to any peer 7500 2516 3549 38861 55430 202.249.2.86 from 202.249.2.86 (202.249.2.86) Origin IGP, localpref 100, valid, external 7660 2516 3549 38861 55430 203.181.248.168 from 203.181.248.168 (203.181.248.168) Origin IGP, localpref 100, valid, external, best Community: 2516:1030 3549 38861 55430 208.51.134.254 (inaccessible) from 208.51.134.254 (67.17.81.150) Origin IGP, metric 2593, localpref 100, valid, external Sure, this all ends at the same origin and even two of its upstreams are identical, but 2516 is also accepting it from 3549 and 7500 is taking it from them and passing it along. I suppose you can argue that these are all cases of "unintended leakage", but whether intentional or through leakage, longer prefixes go farther than you would like to believe. > You know full well these are not even remotely globally routable by themselves. Why assert they are or might be?! That depends on your definition of "remotely globally routable". > > My point is that nobody is dropping /24s and I would be pretty surprised to see anyone start doing. I would argue that the primary reason that static situation has persisted is that doing so would put one at a competitive disadvantage. Otherwise, I know for a fact that there are a number of providers that would love to shrink their routing tables by dropping /21-/24 routes, for example. (Or at least several have expressed a desire to do so at one time or another). > > /24s have been acceptable since the late 1990s. Yes. > I'm sorry but prefixes longer than /24 simply will not work on the global Internet of 2014, you are welcome to sell transit to a customer with a small block but we all know unless you are holding the aggregate that its come from that its not going to work for what anyone would consider "global internet access". They're definitely sub-optimal, to be sure, but "will not work" hasn't born out in my experience or in that of some of my clients who refused to listen to me. > There is a possible place for longer prefixes which is for TE or connecting separate sites through a single upstream but neither of these is the scenario on the table. On this we at least agree. Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating for longer than /24 IPv4 prefixes. I actually believe that the coming disaster in the IPv4 routing table is going to be the primary driver for IPv6 adoption well surpassing the IPv4 address shortage in the next few years. (Though I believe that the address shortage will be one of the primary drivers in the coming fragmentation of the IPv4 routing table). I'm just saying that what is coming will hit much harder than most people predict and that longer prefixes are out there, are being distributed, and when they start multiplying, it's going to get very interesting trying to keep the IPv4 internet running. Owen -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From steve.wilcox at ixreach.com Mon Jul 21 21:30:19 2014 From: steve.wilcox at ixreach.com (Stephen Wilcox) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 01:30:19 +0400 Subject: [rpd] Factors affecting in-region utilization - way forward? In-Reply-To: <8DF492FB-5B91-4785-907F-B685BBA2AD90@delong.com> References: <201407201801.12504.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> <201407201916.09396.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> <265216AF-7ED4-4C89-BAF2-420CC1445F91@delong.com> <8DF492FB-5B91-4785-907F-B685BBA2AD90@delong.com> Message-ID: On 21 July 2014 23:47, Owen DeLong wrote: > > On Jul 21, 2014, at 01:42 , Stephen Wilcox > wrote: > > > > > On 21 July 2014 02:00, Owen DeLong wrote: > >> >> On Jul 20, 2014, at 13:45 , Stephen Wilcox >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> On 20 July 2014 21:46, Owen DeLong wrote: >> >>> So if a service provider takes action against de-aggregates >>>> (either by blocking them off or charging for them), it puts >>>> them at a disadvantage with their competitors. >>>> >>> >>> This has always been the case, but so far its not made a difference? >>> >>> >>> 1. You don?t actually know that. >>> 2. Are you certain it isn?t the primary reason nobody is doing this >>> (yet)? >>> >>> I would argue that it is very likely the the primary reason and thus >>> has, so far, made all the difference. >>> >> >> I mean, that providers have always either refused to accept small address >> blocks (/24 has been the "limit" for many years, before that it was RIR >> allocation boundaries or classful addressing). Those that reluctantly >> accept blocks smaller than /24 usually caveat that it won't actually work >> on the global Internet. This seems to have held back routing of small >> blocks despite there always been a subset of demand, typically from >> corporates for routing small blocks. >> >> >> Route Views contradicts you: >> >> route-views>sh ip bgp | inc /2[56789] >> *> 1.9.56.0/25 202.249.2.86 0 7500 2516 >> 4788 i >> *> 1.9.56.128/25 202.249.2.86 0 7500 2516 >> 4788 i >> *> 1.209.11.240/28 194.85.102.33 0 3277 39710 >> 9002 4766 38668 i >> *> 4.31.236.64/29 128.223.253.10 0 3582 4600 >> 11537 1 i >> * 4.78.192.96/27 202.249.2.86 0 7500 2516 >> 12989 26769 i >> * 5.44.72.0/25 193.0.0.56 0 3333 51088 i >> * 5.44.73.0/25 193.0.0.56 0 3333 51088 i >> * 5.45.254.0/25 129.250.0.11 386 0 2914 9002 >> 13238 i >> *> 5.254.117.128/25 194.85.102.33 0 3277 39710 >> 9002 39743 i >> *> 8.13.224.0/27 128.223.253.10 0 3582 4600 >> 11537 1 i >> *> 8.13.224.32/27 128.223.253.10 0 3582 4600 >> 11537 1 i >> *> 8.13.224.64/27 128.223.253.10 0 3582 4600 >> 11537 1 i >> *> 8.13.224.96/27 128.223.253.10 0 3582 4600 >> 11537 1 i >> *> 8.13.224.128/27 128.223.253.10 0 3582 4600 >> 11537 1 i >> *> 8.13.225.64/27 128.223.253.10 0 3582 4600 >> 11537 1 i >> *> 8.13.226.0/27 128.223.253.10 0 3582 4600 >> 11537 1 i >> *> 8.13.226.32/27 128.223.253.10 0 3582 4600 >> 11537 1 i >> *> 8.13.226.64/27 128.223.253.10 0 3582 4600 >> 11537 1 i >> *> 8.13.226.96/27 128.223.253.10 0 3582 4600 >> 11537 1 i >> *> 8.13.226.128/27 128.223.253.10 0 3582 4600 >> 11537 1 i >> *> 8.13.226.160/27 128.223.253.10 0 3582 4600 >> 11537 1 i >> *> 8.13.226.192/27 128.223.253.10 0 3582 4600 >> 11537 1 i >> *> 8.13.228.0/27 128.223.253.10 0 3582 4600 >> 11537 1 i >> *> 8.13.228.32/27 128.223.253.10 0 3582 4600 >> 11537 1 i >> *> 8.13.228.64/27 128.223.253.10 0 3582 4600 >> 11537 1 i >> *> 8.13.228.96/27 128.223.253.10 0 3582 4600 >> 11537 1 i >> *> 8.13.228.128/27 128.223.253.10 0 3582 4600 >> 11537 1 i >> *> 8.13.228.160/27 128.223.253.10 0 3582 4600 >> 11537 1 i >> *> 8.13.228.192/27 128.223.253.10 0 3582 4600 >> 11537 1 i >> *> 8.13.229.0/27 128.223.253.10 0 3582 4600 >> 11537 1 i >> *> 8.13.230.0/27 128.223.253.10 0 3582 4600 >> 11537 1 i >> *> 8.13.230.32/27 128.223.253.10 0 3582 4600 >> 11537 1 i >> *> 8.13.230.64/27 128.223.253.10 0 3582 4600 >> 11537 1 i >> *> 8.13.230.96/27 128.223.253.10 0 3582 4600 >> 11537 1 i >> *> 8.13.230.128/27 128.223.253.10 0 3582 4600 >> 11537 1 i >> *> 8.13.230.160/27 128.223.253.10 0 3582 4600 >> 11537 1 i >> *> 8.13.231.224/27 128.223.253.10 0 3582 4600 >> 11537 1 i >> *> 8.13.232.0/27 128.223.253.10 0 3582 4600 >> 11537 1 i >> *> 8.13.232.32/27 128.223.253.10 0 3582 4600 >> 11537 1 i >> *> 8.13.232.64/27 128.223.253.10 0 3582 4600 >> 11537 1 i >> *> 8.13.232.192/27 128.223.253.10 0 3582 4600 >> 11537 1 i >> *> 8.13.234.0/27 128.223.253.10 0 3582 4600 >> 11537 1 i >> *> 8.13.234.32/27 128.223.253.10 0 3582 4600 >> 11537 1 i >> *> 8.13.234.64/27 128.223.253.10 0 3582 4600 >> 11537 1 i >> *> 8.13.234.96/27 128.223.253.10 0 3582 4600 >> 11537 1 i >> *> 8.13.234.128/27 128.223.253.10 0 3582 4600 >> 11537 1 i >> * 12.219.55.0/26 202.249.2.86 0 7500 2516 >> 3549 19015 ? >> *> 14.33.166.40/29 194.85.102.33 0 3277 39710 >> 9002 4766 23564 i >> *> 14.34.221.72/29 194.85.102.33 0 3277 39710 >> 9002 4766 i >> *> 14.48.1.128/27 202.249.2.86 0 7500 2516 >> 4766 i >> *> 14.48.1.192/27 202.249.2.86 0 7500 2516 >> 4766 i >> *> 14.48.11.128/27 202.249.2.86 0 7500 2516 >> 4766 i >> *> 14.48.199.208/29 194.85.102.33 0 3277 39710 >> 9002 4766 i >> *> 14.63.70.8/29 194.85.102.33 0 3277 39710 >> 9002 4766 i >> * 14.129.224.0/25 203.181.248.168 0 7660 2516 >> 4766 9457 38676 ? >> *> 14.137.188.0/27 203.62.252.186 0 1221 9482 i >> *> 14.137.188.32/28 203.62.252.186 0 1221 9482 i >> * 20.132.2.64/26 202.249.2.86 0 7500 2516 >> 3549 21877 i >> * 23.61.246.0/25 202.249.2.86 0 7500 2516 >> 3462 i >> * 24.229.95.0/25 128.223.253.10 0 3582 4600 >> 11537 10466 32162 53913 i >> *> 27.124.36.32/28 194.85.102.33 0 3277 39710 >> 9002 9498 ? >> *> 27.124.36.64/27 194.85.102.33 0 3277 39710 >> 9002 9498 9730 ? >> *> 27.124.36.96/28 194.85.102.33 0 3277 39710 >> 9002 9498 9730 ? >> *> 27.124.37.0/28 194.85.102.33 0 3277 39710 >> 9002 9498 ? >> *> 27.124.37.16/28 194.85.102.33 0 3277 39710 >> 9002 9498 i >> *> 27.124.37.40/29 194.85.102.33 0 3277 39710 >> 9002 9498 ? >> *> 27.124.37.88/29 194.85.102.33 0 3277 39710 >> 9002 9498 ? >> *> 27.124.37.104/29 194.85.102.33 0 3277 39710 >> 9002 9498 ? >> *> 27.124.37.128/28 194.85.102.33 0 3277 39710 >> 9002 9498 ? >> *> 27.124.37.160/27 194.85.102.33 0 3277 39710 >> 9002 9498 ? >> *> 27.124.37.240/28 194.85.102.33 0 3277 39710 >> 9002 9498 9730 ? >> * 27.125.159.128/26 >> * 27.125.159.192/26 >> *> 27.255.66.32/27 202.249.2.86 0 7500 2516 >> 4766 i >> *> 27.255.66.64/28 194.85.102.33 0 3277 39710 >> 9002 4766 i >> *> 27.255.66.80/28 194.85.102.33 0 3277 39710 >> 9002 4766 i >> *> 27.255.66.96/28 194.85.102.33 0 3277 39710 >> 9002 4766 i >> *> 27.255.66.128/28 194.85.102.33 0 3277 39710 >> 9002 4766 i >> *> 27.255.77.128/25 202.249.2.86 0 7500 2516 >> 4766 i >> *> 31.169.50.24/29 193.0.0.56 0 3333 1103 >> 50304 60717 i >> *> 31.172.136.0/28 193.0.0.56 0 3333 1103 >> 15772 24685 i >> *> 31.172.136.16/28 193.0.0.56 0 3333 1103 >> 15772 24685 i >> *> 31.172.136.32/28 193.0.0.56 0 3333 1103 >> 15772 24685 i >> *> 31.172.136.48/28 193.0.0.56 0 3333 1103 >> 15772 24685 i >> *> 31.172.136.96/28 193.0.0.56 0 3333 1103 >> 15772 24685 i >> *> 31.172.136.112/28 >> *> 31.172.136.160/27 >> *> 31.172.136.192/27 >> *> 31.172.137.0/25 193.0.0.56 0 3333 1103 >> 15772 24685 i >> *> 31.172.137.128/25 >> *> 31.172.141.0/25 193.0.0.56 0 3333 1103 >> 15772 24685 i >> *> 31.172.141.128/25 >> * 31.186.234.0/26 202.249.2.86 0 7500 2516 >> 3549 15570 i >> * 31.186.234.64/26 202.249.2.86 0 7500 2516 >> 3549 15570 i >> --More-- >> >> And that's just the first screen full, which gets us less than 1/5th of >> the way through the address space. It also doesn't >> include /30-/32 size prefixes as I wasn't that creative with my regex foo. >> >> And I'd say that I do know it - there are no /25-32 addresses routable >> across a majority of the global internet. >> >> >> I lack adequate perspective to say for certain that these prefixes are >> our would be visible on enough routers to comprise "a majority of the >> global internet" (and so do you or anyone else, in actual fact). >> > > Seriously? Owen, I know you're better than that! Troll bait perhaps but > I'll respond. > > There's 30-40 full BGP feeds sent to route-views often reflecting internal > views from each ASN and not what they would necessarily propagate > downstream, each of those prefixes in your screen grab are seen behind a > single obscure path, there should be another 30-40 route entries *per > prefix* .. there's not a single tier-1 in there, not even your employer > AS6939! > > > Um, no. The | include regexp construct I used prevented the additional > paths from being displayed, but, they are not, in fact, all single-paths. > Um you have just one single tier-1 propagating this.. there is no way int he world this is globally routable..! Even you, 6939 does not propagate it... Anyway this argument feels tit-for-tat but my point remains, You cannot use netblocks of prefixes greater than /24 in the internet of 2014. Steve > > At random: > > route-views>sh ip bgp 27.125.159.128 > BGP routing table entry for 27.125.159.128/26, version 2028363256 > Paths: (3 available, best #2, table Default-IP-Routing-Table) > Flag: 0x820 > Not advertised to any peer > 7500 2516 3549 38861 55430 > 202.249.2.86 from 202.249.2.86 (202.249.2.86) > Origin IGP, localpref 100, valid, external > 7660 2516 3549 38861 55430 > 203.181.248.168 from 203.181.248.168 (203.181.248.168) > Origin IGP, localpref 100, valid, external, best > Community: 2516:1030 > 3549 38861 55430 > 208.51.134.254 (inaccessible) from 208.51.134.254 (67.17.81.150) > Origin IGP, metric 2593, localpref 100, valid, external > > > Sure, this all ends at the same origin and even two of its upstreams are > identical, but 2516 is also accepting it from 3549 and 7500 is taking it > from them and passing it along. > > I suppose you can argue that these are all cases of "unintended leakage", > but whether intentional or through leakage, longer prefixes go farther than > you would like to believe. > > You know full well these are not even remotely globally routable by > themselves. Why assert they are or might be?! > > > That depends on your definition of "remotely globally routable". > > >> My point is that nobody is dropping /24s and I would be pretty surprised >> to see anyone start doing. I would argue that the primary reason that >> static situation has persisted is that doing so would put one at a >> competitive disadvantage. Otherwise, I know for a fact that there are a >> number of providers that would love to shrink their routing tables by >> dropping /21-/24 routes, for example. (Or at least several have expressed a >> desire to do so at one time or another). >> > > /24s have been acceptable since the late 1990s. > > > Yes. > > I'm sorry but prefixes longer than /24 simply will not work on the global > Internet of 2014, you are welcome to sell transit to a customer with a > small block but we all know unless you are holding the aggregate that its > come from that its not going to work for what anyone would consider "global > internet access". > > > They're definitely sub-optimal, to be sure, but "will not work" hasn't > born out in my experience or in that of some of my clients who refused to > listen to me. > > There is a possible place for longer prefixes which is for TE or > connecting separate sites through a single upstream but neither of these is > the scenario on the table. > > > On this we at least agree. > > Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating for longer than /24 IPv4 prefixes. > I actually believe that the coming disaster in the IPv4 routing table is > going to be the primary driver for IPv6 adoption well surpassing the IPv4 > address shortage in the next few years. (Though I believe that the address > shortage will be one of the primary drivers in the coming fragmentation > of the IPv4 routing table). > > I'm just saying that what is coming will hit much harder than most people > predict and that longer prefixes are out there, are being distributed, and > when they start multiplying, it's going to get very interesting trying to > keep the IPv4 internet running. > > Owen > > > -- Director / Founder IX Reach Ltd E: steve.wilcox at ixreach.com M: +44 7966 048633 Tempus Court, Bellfield Road, High Wycombe, HP13 5HA, UK. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mark.tinka at seacom.mu Tue Jul 22 19:56:09 2014 From: mark.tinka at seacom.mu (Mark Tinka) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 21:56:09 +0200 Subject: [rpd] Factors affecting in-region utilization - way forward? In-Reply-To: References: <201407211357.31049.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> Message-ID: <201407222156.13156.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> On Monday, July 21, 2014 02:34:31 PM Stephen Wilcox wrote: > My point is being accepted by an upstream != globally > routable. And internal use of long prefixes (which is > what I think you are seeing in route-views) doesn't > count. What I see is a lot of examples of (very bad > netiquette) deaggregation being performed by the same > handful of ASNs... And my point was if a "Really Big Global Carrier" is accepting and routing longer-than-/24's and /48's in their network (which reasonably well-connected and peers with other large carriers who have a similar persuasion), there is a higher (but still remote) chance that some portion of those longer subnets could be routable. Not very globally, but the intermittent performance would certainly raise enough frustration for some operators to seriously consider this. What I'm saying is - don't even do it. Doing it half-way is worse than not doing it at all, because it sets expectations that are difficult to undo. Mark. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. URL: From steve.wilcox at ixreach.com Tue Jul 22 19:58:00 2014 From: steve.wilcox at ixreach.com (Stephen Wilcox) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 23:58:00 +0400 Subject: [rpd] Factors affecting in-region utilization - way forward? In-Reply-To: <201407222156.13156.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> References: <201407211357.31049.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> <201407222156.13156.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> Message-ID: On 22 July 2014 23:56, Mark Tinka wrote: > On Monday, July 21, 2014 02:34:31 PM Stephen Wilcox wrote: > > > My point is being accepted by an upstream != globally > > routable. And internal use of long prefixes (which is > > what I think you are seeing in route-views) doesn't > > count. What I see is a lot of examples of (very bad > > netiquette) deaggregation being performed by the same > > handful of ASNs... > > And my point was if a "Really Big Global Carrier" is > accepting and routing longer-than-/24's and /48's in their > network (which reasonably well-connected and peers with > other large carriers who have a similar persuasion), there > is a higher (but still remote) chance that some portion of > those longer subnets could be routable. > > Not very globally, but the intermittent performance would > certainly raise enough frustration for some operators to > seriously consider this. > > What I'm saying is - don't even do it. Doing it half-way is > worse than not doing it at all, because it sets expectations > that are difficult to undo. Doing it 80% is enough to perceive a massive problem with your Internet access.. it needs to be 99%+ or its not worth considering... Steve -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mark.tinka at seacom.mu Tue Jul 22 20:01:53 2014 From: mark.tinka at seacom.mu (Mark Tinka) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 22:01:53 +0200 Subject: [rpd] Factors affecting in-region utilization - way forward? In-Reply-To: References: <201407222156.13156.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> Message-ID: <201407222201.53946.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> On Tuesday, July 22, 2014 09:58:00 PM Stephen Wilcox wrote: > Doing it 80% is enough to perceive a massive problem with > your Internet access.. it needs to be 99%+ or its not > worth considering... When you have customers screaming down your throat, the pressure is on to deliver on your promise. And yes, in this case, a promise can be implied, even indirectly. Providers who allow anything longer than /24's or /48's, even with a hint of comfort that they won't go very far, are opening us all up to downstream scrutiny. Mark. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. URL: From list-admin at afrinic.net Fri Aug 1 03:11:11 2014 From: list-admin at afrinic.net (list-admin at afrinic.net) Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2014 05:11:11 +0200 Subject: [rpd] Monthly statistics for mailing-list: rpd@afrinic.net Message-ID: <201408010311.s713BBSr023398@ns1.afrinic.net> Monthly statistics for mailing-list: rpd at afrinic.net (Generated at: Fri Aug 1 03:11:01 UTC 2014) Statistics for month: July 2014 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ***** Authors with the most number of messages posted: +----+-----Author-----------------------------------+--Msg-+-Percent-+ | 1 | mark.tinka at seacom.mu | 17 | 14.53 % | | 2 | seun.ojedeji at gmail.com | 14 | 11.97 % | | 3 | owen at delong.com | 13 | 11.11 % | | 4 | mukom.tamon at gmail.com | 12 | 10.26 % | | 5 | ondouglas at gmail.com | 10 | 8.55 % | | 6 | steve.wilcox at ixreach.com | 7 | 5.98 % | | 7 | mainanoa at gmail.com | 6 | 5.13 % | | 8 | Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com | 6 | 5.13 % | | 9 | kofi.ansa at gmail.com | 5 | 4.27 % | | 10 | jacksonmuthi at gmail.com | 4 | 3.42 % | | 11 | seeburn.k at gmail.com | 3 | 2.56 % | | 12 | dogwallah at gmail.com | 3 | 2.56 % | | 13 | omo at wacren.net | 3 | 2.56 % | | 14 | geier at geier.ne.tz | 2 | 1.71 % | | 15 | tespok at tespok.co.ke | 2 | 1.71 % | | 16 | list-admin at afrinic.net | 1 | 0.85 % | | 17 | mje at posix.co.za | 1 | 0.85 % | | 18 | badru.ntege at nftconsult.com | 1 | 0.85 % | | 19 | sergekbk at yahoo.fr | 1 | 0.85 % | | 20 | vymala at afrinic.net | 1 | 0.85 % | +----+----------------------------------------------+------+---------+ | | other | 5 | 4.27 % | +----+----------------------------------------------+------+---------+ ***** Authors with the largest total size of messages posted: +----+-----Author-------------------------------------------+-KBytes-+ | 1 | owen at delong.com | 136.3 | | 2 | seun.ojedeji at gmail.com | 102.2 | | 3 | steve.wilcox at ixreach.com | 87.1 | | 4 | Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com | 60.8 | | 5 | mukom.tamon at gmail.com | 57.4 | | 6 | kofi.ansa at gmail.com | 30.4 | | 7 | vymala at afrinic.net | 29.7 | | 8 | seeburn.k at gmail.com | 29.6 | | 9 | mainanoa at gmail.com | 28.6 | | 10 | mark.tinka at seacom.mu | 28.3 | | 11 | omo at wacren.net | 11.0 | | 12 | list-admin at afrinic.net | 9.5 | | 13 | tespok at tespok.co.ke | 9.1 | | 14 | mje at posix.co.za | 8.9 | | 15 | badru.ntege at nftconsult.com | 8.7 | | 16 | sergekbk at yahoo.fr | 8.7 | | 17 | ondouglas at gmail.com | 4.3 | | 18 | jacksonmuthi at gmail.com | 3.4 | | 19 | geier at geier.ne.tz | 2.8 | | 20 | ndg at ieee.org | 2.7 | +----+------------------------------------------------------+--------+ ***** Authors with the largest average size of messages posted: +----+-----Author--------------------------------------------+-bytes-+ | 1 | vymala at afrinic.net | 30409 | | 2 | steve.wilcox at ixreach.com | 12741 | | 3 | owen at delong.com | 10737 | | 4 | Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com | 10382 | | 5 | seeburn.k at gmail.com | 10096 | | 6 | list-admin at afrinic.net | 9720 | | 7 | mje at posix.co.za | 9158 | | 8 | badru.ntege at nftconsult.com | 8942 | | 9 | sergekbk at yahoo.fr | 8864 | | 10 | seun.ojedeji at gmail.com | 7473 | | 11 | kofi.ansa at gmail.com | 6233 | | 12 | mukom.tamon at gmail.com | 4897 | | 13 | mainanoa at gmail.com | 4887 | | 14 | tespok at tespok.co.ke | 4682 | | 15 | omo at wacren.net | 3755 | | 16 | ndg at ieee.org | 2767 | | 17 | woody at pch.net | 2722 | | 18 | mark.tinka at seacom.mu | 1707 | | 19 | Boubakar.Barry at wacren.net | 1491 | | 20 | geier at geier.ne.tz | 1447 | +----+-------------------------------------------------------+-------+ ***** Top subjects by popularity: +----+----Subject-----------------------------------+--Msg-+-Percent-+ | 1 | [rpd] New proposal - "Out-Of-Region Use of A | 66 | 56.41 % | | 2 | [rpd] Re: Factors affecting in-region utiliz | 30 | 25.64 % | | 3 | [rpd] Factors affecting in-region utilizatio | 12 | 10.26 % | | 4 | [rpd] New proposal - "Out-Of-Region Use of A | 3 | 2.56 % | | 5 | [rpd] Fwd: [IANAtransition] Transition from | 3 | 2.56 % | | 6 | [rpd] Monthly statistics for mailing-list: r | 1 | 0.85 % | | 7 | [rpd] Proposal update - "AfriNIC Whois Datab | 1 | 0.85 % | | 8 | [rpd] Fwd: [Internetgovtech] update to discu | 1 | 0.85 % | +----+----------------------------------------------+------+---------+ | | other | 0 | 0.00 % | +----+----------------------------------------------+------+---------+ ***** Graph showing number of messages written during hours of day: 100% ---------------------------------#--------------- - 10 90% ---------------------------------#---------#----- msgs 80% -------------------------#-------#---------#----- 70% -#---------------#-------#-------#---------#-#--- 60% -#---------------#---#---#-#-#-#-#---#-----#-#--- 50% -#---------------#-#-#---#-#-#-#-#---#-#-#-#-#--- 40% -#---------#-----#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#---#-#-#-#-#--- 30% -#-#-------#---#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#--- 20% -#-#---#-#-#---#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#- 10% -#-#---#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#- * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * hour 0 5 11 17 23 ***** Graph showing number of messages written during days of month: 100% ---------------------------------------#----------------------- - 21 90% -------------------#-------------------#----------------------- msgs 80% -------------------#-------------------#----------------------- 70% -------------------#-------------------#-#--------------------- 60% -------------------#-----------------#-#-#--------------------- 50% -------------------#-----------------#-#-#--------------------- 40% -------#---#-------#-----------------#-#-#--------------------- 30% -------#-#-#-------#-----------------#-#-#--------------------- 20% -------#-#-#-#-----#-#---------------#-#-#--------------------- 10% -------#-#-#-#---#-#-#---------------#-#-#-#------------------- * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * day 1 6 12 18 24 31 ***** Graph showing number of messages written during days of week: 100% -------------------------#--- - 30 90% -------------------------#--- msgs 80% -------------------------#--- 70% -#-------------------#---#--- 60% -#-----------#-------#---#--- 50% -#-----------#---#---#---#--- 40% -#-----------#---#---#---#--- 30% -#-----------#---#---#---#--- 20% -#---#-------#---#---#---#--- 10% -#---#---#---#---#---#---#--- * * * * * * * Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun ***** Longest message: Author : steve.wilcox at ixreach.com Subject : [rpd] Factors affecting in-region utilization - way forward? Date : Tue, 22 Jul 2014 01:30:19 +0400 Size : 57556 bytes ***** Most popular subject: Subject : [rpd] New proposal - "Out-Of-Region Use of AFRINIC Internet No. of msgs: 66 Total size : 360917 bytes ***** Final summary: Total number of messages: 117 Total number of different authors: 25 Total number of different subjects: 8 Total size of messages (w/o headers): 945922 bytes Average size of a message: 8084 bytes -- Regards, AFRINIC _____________________ powered by grepmail and MailListStat From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com Thu Aug 7 18:03:01 2014 From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji) Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2014 19:03:01 +0100 Subject: [rpd] Academic IPv4 Allocation ( AFPUB-2013-GEN-001-DRAFT-03) - Status Message-ID: Dear Colleagues, As per the PDP, the following policy has expired due to non provision of an update in the last 12months. Proposal ID: AFPUB-2013-GEN-001-DRAFT-03 Title: Academic IPv4 Allocation Authors: Andrew Alston, Sunday Folayan URL: http:// www.afrinic.net / en /community/policy-development/policy-proposals/842-academic- ipv4 -allocation-- afpub -2013-gen-001-draft-03--under-discussion Shorturl: http://goo.gl/c0Gzof To read through the AFRINIC region Policy Development Process, please browse to: http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development Regards, Seun Ojedeji & Adam Nelson PDWG Co-Chairs -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sfolayan at gmail.com Thu Aug 7 20:58:18 2014 From: sfolayan at gmail.com (Sunday Folayan) Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2014 21:58:18 +0100 Subject: [rpd] Academic IPv4 Allocation ( AFPUB-2013-GEN-001-DRAFT-03) - Status In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <53E3E86A.1030408@gmail.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Dear Co-Chairs. Thank you very much for the update. I guess Benjamin changed his mind on the policy. May its soul rest in peace. Regards ... Sunday. On 07/08/2014 19:03, Seun Ojedeji wrote: > Dear Colleagues, > > As per the PDP, the following policy has expired due to non > provision of an update in the last 12months. > > Proposal ID: AFPUB-2013-GEN-001-DRAFT-03 Title: Academic IPv4 > Allocation Authors: Andrew Alston, Sunday Folayan URL: http:// > > > www.afrinic.net > > > / > > > en > > > /community/policy-development/policy-proposals/842-academic- > > > ipv4 > > > - -allocation-- > > > afpub > > > - -2013-gen-001-draft-03--under-discussion > > > Shorturl: http://goo.gl/c0Gzof > > To read through the AFRINIC region Policy Development Process, > > please browse to: > http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development > > Regards, > > Seun Ojedeji & Adam Nelson PDWG Co-Chairs > > > > _______________________________________________ rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > - -- - ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sunday Adekunle Folayan blog: http://www.sundayfolayan.name.ng email: sfolayan at skannet.com.ng, sfolayan at gmail.com phone: *234-816-866-7523, +234-802-291-2202 skype: sfolayan fcbk: www.facebook.com/sfolayan tweet: sfolayan linkedin: sfolayan : http://free.lanci.ng - Anyone, Anyjob, Anywhere, Anytime - ------------------------------------------------------------------ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJT4+hiAAoJEH6UvSz6fA25FU8IAJBVGhzn8eBF8x6rNUbv5u1f Z0HCQJbNIkKSLHnexRvqRqJToc/zkHgmu8/6t8+JUtQAfkA3qNu7HC/HBmnoYB8K tl+xT4uOSmVJpntz+TRp2CjP/ilBKy0w4HIW6X49idtjayy51OUkqT6rNF/INBQN y5BfF885byZLaL2Sk2iU8MP+Y72/zOn94dFLw8b4WqgJZsmXQJcqb2DsHJooO9wv UJafYPciTo1mDW8MvN/WjCrPy+x+T9YuqaTII34oGnVSGFTR3aeQF07IBAFeG8i6 v1qsEdqjvUA6avWz8Gq76b876VIwMGQUdaS+UGJOVBewE0TB96aShBpY4A4zmIU= =B5uR -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From neriah at afrinic.net Sun Aug 31 05:39:48 2014 From: neriah at afrinic.net (Neriah Sossou) Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2014 09:39:48 +0400 Subject: [rpd] WHOIS 2.0 Message-ID: Dear colleagues, We are happy to inform you that on Saturday 30 August 2014, AFRINIC deployed a new code for the WHOIS database, WHOIS 2.0 (v 1.73). With the deployment of WHOIS 2.0, AFRINIC's team have implemented two policies that were recently ratified: a. No Reverse Unless Assigned; b. Anycast Assignments in the AFRINIC region. We trust that WHOIS 2.0 will contribute greatly to the management of Internet number resources in our region. Best regards, __________ Neriah Sossou Head IT & Engineering, AFRINIC Ltd. t: +230 403 51 00 | f: +230 466 6758 | tt: @afrinic | w: www.afrinic.net facebook.com/afrinic | flickr.com/afrinic | youtube.com/afrinicmedia ___________________________ See you in Mauritius for AFRINIC-21 November 22 to 28, 2014 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mainanoa at gmail.com Sun Aug 31 09:18:08 2014 From: mainanoa at gmail.com (Noah Maina) Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2014 12:18:08 +0300 Subject: [rpd] WHOIS 2.0 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: +1 and Good stuff Neriah and the team. Cheers Noah On 31 Aug 2014 08:39, "Neriah Sossou" wrote: > Dear colleagues, > > We are happy to inform you that on Saturday 30 August 2014, AFRINIC > deployed a new code for the WHOIS database, WHOIS 2.0 (v 1.73). > > With the deployment of WHOIS 2.0, AFRINIC's team have implemented two > policies that were recently ratified: > a. No Reverse Unless Assigned; > b. Anycast Assignments in the AFRINIC region. > > We trust that WHOIS 2.0 will contribute greatly to the management of > Internet number resources in our region. > Best regards, > __________ > > Neriah Sossou > Head IT & Engineering, AFRINIC Ltd. > t: +230 403 51 00 | f: +230 466 6758 | tt: @afrinic | w: www.afrinic.netfacebook.com/afrinic | flickr.com/afrinic | youtube.com/afrinicmedia > ___________________________ > > See you in Mauritius for AFRINIC-21 > November 22 to 28, 2014 > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com Sun Aug 31 09:57:13 2014 From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji) Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2014 12:57:13 +0300 Subject: [rpd] WHOIS 2.0 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thank you for this important information Neriah Regards On Sun, Aug 31, 2014 at 8:39 AM, Neriah Sossou wrote: > Dear colleagues, > > We are happy to inform you that on Saturday 30 August 2014, AFRINIC > deployed a new code for the WHOIS database, WHOIS 2.0 (v 1.73). > > With the deployment of WHOIS 2.0, AFRINIC's team have implemented two > policies that were recently ratified: > a. No Reverse Unless Assigned; > b. Anycast Assignments in the AFRINIC region. > > We trust that WHOIS 2.0 will contribute greatly to the management of > Internet number resources in our region. > Best regards, > __________ > > Neriah Sossou > Head IT & Engineering, AFRINIC Ltd. > t: +230 403 51 00 | f: +230 466 6758 | tt: @afrinic | w: www.afrinic.netfacebook.com/afrinic | flickr.com/afrinic | youtube.com/afrinicmedia > ___________________________ > > See you in Mauritius for AFRINIC-21 > November 22 to 28, 2014 > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng * The key to understanding is humility - my view ! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From list-admin at afrinic.net Mon Sep 1 03:11:11 2014 From: list-admin at afrinic.net (list-admin at afrinic.net) Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2014 03:11:11 GMT Subject: [rpd] Monthly statistics for mailing-list: rpd@afrinic.net Message-ID: <201409010311.s813BBL6029815@ns1.afrinic.net> Monthly statistics for mailing-list: rpd at afrinic.net (Generated at: Mon Sep 1 03:11:01 UTC 2014) Statistics for month: August 2014 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ***** Authors with the most number of messages posted: +----+-----Author-----------------------------------+--Msg-+-Percent-+ | 1 | seun.ojedeji at gmail.com | 2 | 33.33 % | | 2 | list-admin at afrinic.net | 1 | 16.67 % | | 3 | sfolayan at gmail.com | 1 | 16.67 % | | 4 | neriah at afrinic.net | 1 | 16.67 % | | 5 | mainanoa at gmail.com | 1 | 16.67 % | +----+----------------------------------------------+------+---------+ | | other | 0 | 0.00 % | +----+----------------------------------------------+------+---------+ ***** Authors with the largest total size of messages posted: +----+-----Author-------------------------------------------+-KBytes-+ | 1 | neriah at afrinic.net | 16.1 | | 2 | seun.ojedeji at gmail.com | 14.2 | | 3 | mainanoa at gmail.com | 8.8 | | 4 | list-admin at afrinic.net | 8.8 | | 5 | sfolayan at gmail.com | 1.4 | +----+------------------------------------------------------+--------+ ***** Authors with the largest average size of messages posted: +----+-----Author--------------------------------------------+-bytes-+ | 1 | neriah at afrinic.net | 16471 | | 2 | mainanoa at gmail.com | 9035 | | 3 | list-admin at afrinic.net | 8963 | | 4 | seun.ojedeji at gmail.com | 7247 | | 5 | sfolayan at gmail.com | 1389 | +----+-------------------------------------------------------+-------+ ***** Top subjects by popularity: +----+----Subject-----------------------------------+--Msg-+-Percent-+ | 1 | [rpd] WHOIS 2.0 | 3 | 50.00 % | | 2 | [rpd] Monthly statistics for mailing-list: r | 1 | 16.67 % | | 3 | [rpd] Academic IPv4 Allocation ( AFPUB-2013- | 1 | 16.67 % | | 4 | [rpd] Academic IPv4 Allocation ( AFPUB-2013- | 1 | 16.67 % | +----+----------------------------------------------+------+---------+ | | other | 0 | 0.00 % | +----+----------------------------------------------+------+---------+ ***** Graph showing number of messages written during hours of day: 100% -------------------------#----------------------- - 2 90% -------------------------#----------------------- msgs 80% -------------------------#----------------------- 70% -------------------------#----------------------- 60% -------------------------#----------------------- 50% -----------#-------#-----#-------------#---#----- 40% -----------#-------#-----#-------------#---#----- 30% -----------#-------#-----#-------------#---#----- 20% -----------#-------#-----#-------------#---#----- 10% -----------#-------#-----#-------------#---#----- * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * hour 0 5 11 17 23 ***** Graph showing number of messages written during days of month: 100% -------------------------------------------------------------#- - 3 90% -------------------------------------------------------------#- msgs 80% -------------------------------------------------------------#- 70% -------------------------------------------------------------#- 60% -------------#-----------------------------------------------#- 50% -------------#-----------------------------------------------#- 40% -------------#-----------------------------------------------#- 30% -#-----------#-----------------------------------------------#- 20% -#-----------#-----------------------------------------------#- 10% -#-----------#-----------------------------------------------#- * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * day 1 6 12 18 24 31 ***** Graph showing number of messages written during days of week: 100% -------------------------#--- - 3 90% -------------------------#--- msgs 80% -------------------------#--- 70% -------------------------#--- 60% -------------#-----------#--- 50% -------------#-----------#--- 40% -------------#-----------#--- 30% -------------#---#-------#--- 20% -------------#---#-------#--- 10% -------------#---#-------#--- * * * * * * * Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun ***** Longest message: Author : neriah at afrinic.net Subject : [rpd] WHOIS 2.0 Date : Sun, 31 Aug 2014 09:39:48 +0400 Size : 17129 bytes ***** Most popular subject: Subject : [rpd] WHOIS 2.0 No. of msgs: 3 Total size : 40849 bytes ***** Final summary: Total number of messages: 6 Total number of different authors: 5 Total number of different subjects: 4 Total size of messages (w/o headers): 57859 bytes Average size of a message: 9643 bytes -- Regards, AFRINIC _____________________ powered by grepmail and MailListStat From ernest at afrinic.net Wed Sep 3 09:04:47 2014 From: ernest at afrinic.net (Ernest) Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2014 12:04:47 +0300 Subject: Staff Assessment for AFPUB-2014-GEN-002-DRAFT-01 (was: Re: [rpd] New proposal - "Out-Of-Region Use of AFRINIC Internet Number Resources" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-002-DRAFT-01)) In-Reply-To: References: <1404494578.17253.11.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> Message-ID: <5406D9AF.9080300@afrinic.net> Dear All, Below are the points of interest that staff have noted in the policy proposal Out-Of-Region Use of AFRINIC Internet Number Resources" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-002-DRAFT-01): ======================================== Chapter 2, Paragraph 1: "This policy allows up to 40% of Internet number resources in use by a member to be outside the region..." Staff Comment(s): The policy should be restricted to LIR allocations and not End-User PI Space. There is no provision in the current policies for AFRINIC staff to measure usage of End User (PI) space. The staff's main basis of number resource usage assessment today is by looking at PA assignments and sub-allocations registered by an LIR in the WHOIS database as provided for in Section 9 of the "IPv4 Allocation Policy - AFPUB-2005-v4-001 at http://afrinic.net/en/library/policies/126-afpub-2005-v4-001. This method of registering usage in the whois db only applies to LIRs. Staff recommends that this sentence therefore be changed to "This policy allows up to 40% of Internet number resources in use by an AFRINIC LIR member to be outside the region..." _________________________________________ Chapter 2, Paragraph 2: ?For the avoidance of doubt, the author does not seek to prolong the lifespan of IPv4 with this proposal but rather, to ensure that number resources allocated/assigned by AFRINIC are used by legitimate members from the service region to support their network operations, regardless of physical location?. Staff Comment(s): Author should clarify about what is the intended meaning of the words ?legitimate members?. Staff shall otherwise interpret it as ?members in good standing?). _________________________________________ Clause 3b: ?Notwithstanding (3.a), the number resources used outside the region at any given point in time shall not exceed 40% of the total space in use by a member. Total space in use shall be calculated as follows: if x be the allocation/assignment size; and x-y the amount of space in use at time z, then 40% of (x-y) shall be the ceiling)?. Staff comment(s): The author should clarify further on the formula/variables, by explicitly defining what ?y? stands for. _________________________________________ Clause 3c: "c. AFRINIC staff shall at their discretion, and using whatever means are available, assess compliance.." Staff comment(s): The staff's main basis of number resource usage assessment today is by looking at PA assignments and sub-allocations registered by the LIR in the WHOIS database as provided for in Section 9 of the "IPv4 Allocation Policy - AFPUB-2005-v4-001 at http://afrinic.net/en/library/policies/126-afpub-2005-v4-001. (We may only take a step further when there are some doubt regarding registered information). _________________________________________ Clause 3f: ?This policy shall apply to past, present and future allocations and assignments made by AFRINIC?. Staff comment(s): After the policy proposal is ratified and implemented, there could be some existing members in breach of the new policy. In-line with 6(d) of the RSA, breach or non-compliance with this policy should ultimately result in cancellation of the RSA and consequent reclamation of associated resources. The proposal should clearly state the time frame (duration) that should be allowed for members in breach, and should also propose what steps AFRINIC should take during this time frame in reaching out to non-compliant members before revoking/cancelling their RSAs and reclaiming their resources if they remain in breach after the stated time period. ======================================== Regards, ernest. From kofi.ansa at gmail.com Wed Sep 17 15:15:37 2014 From: kofi.ansa at gmail.com (Daniel Kofi ANSA AKUFO) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2014 19:15:37 +0400 Subject: [rpd] Re: [afnog] A typical case of abuse of our resources!!! In-Reply-To: <20140917141624.GH43684@macbook.bluepipe.net> References: <20140917141624.GH43684@macbook.bluepipe.net> Message-ID: On 17 September 2014 18:16, Phil Regnauld wrote: > Daniel Kofi ANSA AKUFO (kofi.ansa) writes: > > > > I don't have an issue where IPs are used but my concern is when huge > > resources in the order of /12 are issued to virtual ORGs and they tend to > > abuse it for spamming and other activities. A typical example is the /16 > > block which was issued as part of /12 to an ORG last year. > > > > http://bgp.he.net/net/154.87.0.0/16#_dns > > For reference: > > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/members-discuss/2013-November/001382.html > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/members-discuss/2013-November/001429.html > > Things vary on a case by case basis, but in this particular one, > there > is supporting evidence that the blocks in question are being > announced. > How much of it is allocated to real services is unknown, but first > we'd > have to agree on a definition of "wasting the resources". > Phil In IMHO it is not about how much is announced or even where ... but how much of the content served using these resources is beneficial to the service region the IPs were assigned ... Nevertheless the fact remains these virtual ORGs manage to secure such blocks due to the selfish corrupt practices of a few. A lot of questions to be asked Are the RIRs so much in need of revenue? Are the potential members and ORGs not consuming the resources? Are there double standards? Do the so called management who want to sign off on these allocations have their own processes? K. > > Cheers, > Phil > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com Wed Sep 17 15:30:15 2014 From: Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com (Andrew Alston) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2014 16:30:15 +0100 Subject: [rpd] Re: [afnog] A typical case of abuse of our resources!!! In-Reply-To: References: <20140917141624.GH43684@macbook.bluepipe.net> Message-ID: Hi All, I speak here entirely under my own name and what I am saying should in no way be construed as the position of the AfriNIC board or any other organisation and/or company that I am associated with. While I understand the views expressed by Kofi, I have said many times, there is a solution to the problems if the community believes they exist, and that is the policy process. The current rules as defined by policy are pretty clear, space may be allocated to any organisation duly constituted on the African continent. There is absolutely nothing in current policy, as defined and agreed by the community, to restrict space allocation based on where the space would be geographically used. The rules state that the institution must be constituted in the service area and that is that. The exception to this is in the soft landing policy which places geographic restrictions on the use of IP space. Now, the arguments for and against geographic restrictions go both ways, keep the space in Africa and stop it getting pillaged for use outside is the argument for geographic restrictions. The argument against geographic restrictions (which I personally subscribe to) states that large African companies expand beyond the service region and need space, and hence should be able to use their Afrinic space in their expansion. This serves the continent economically and in various ways since African entities can then freely grow into large world wide organisations (and I point out that companies such as MTN, Debeers, Anglo etc have all gone down the expansion route, and there is NO space available beyond the borders under than on the secondary market). But at current, IF the application was made by a legitimately constituted African company, there aren?t any rules to stop this type of behaviour. If people want rules, the policy development process is there to create them. I also point out that once space has been allocated, geographic announcements aside, how space is used by the applicant is not really relevant, so long as it is announced, and being used by infrastructure on the global internet, what the uses are beyond that are not the business of the RIR and I would argue should not ever be the business of the RIR. The RIR?s job is to allocate space, not to police its uses after that. In the case of spam and other dodgy/illegal activities the countries where the actions are being committed should have laws and legal ways to deal with these. Thanks Andrew Alston Group Head of IP Strategy [cid:4653FDA0-EB40-41E0-99AC-D33AF2B39D18] Sameer business Park, Block A, Mombasa Road. Nairobi, Kenya T: +254 205000000 - M: +254 733 2222 04 - E: andrew.alston at liquidtelecom.com From: Daniel Kofi ANSA AKUFO > Date: Wednesday, September 17, 2014 at 6:15 PM To: rpd List >, "afnog at afnog.org" > Subject: Re: [afnog] A typical case of abuse of our resources!!! On 17 September 2014 18:16, Phil Regnauld > wrote: Daniel Kofi ANSA AKUFO (kofi.ansa) writes: > > I don't have an issue where IPs are used but my concern is when huge > resources in the order of /12 are issued to virtual ORGs and they tend to > abuse it for spamming and other activities. A typical example is the /16 > block which was issued as part of /12 to an ORG last year. > > http://bgp.he.net/net/154.87.0.0/16#_dns For reference: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/members-discuss/2013-November/001382.html http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/members-discuss/2013-November/001429.html Things vary on a case by case basis, but in this particular one, there is supporting evidence that the blocks in question are being announced. How much of it is allocated to real services is unknown, but first we'd have to agree on a definition of "wasting the resources". Phil In IMHO it is not about how much is announced or even where ... but how much of the content served using these resources is beneficial to the service region the IPs were assigned ... Nevertheless the fact remains these virtual ORGs manage to secure such blocks due to the selfish corrupt practices of a few. A lot of questions to be asked Are the RIRs so much in need of revenue? Are the potential members and ORGs not consuming the resources? Are there double standards? Do the so called management who want to sign off on these allocations have their own processes? K. Cheers, Phil ________________________________ DISCLAIMER: This email contains proprietary information some or all of which may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this email, please notify the author by replying to this email. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose, copy, print, or rely on this email. We cannot accept liability for any statements made which are clearly the sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of this company or one of its agents. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 1D7357BF-29F7-4C26-9D6A-6EFCA78201B1[14].png Type: image/png Size: 13157 bytes Desc: 1D7357BF-29F7-4C26-9D6A-6EFCA78201B1[14].png URL: From steve.wilcox at ixreach.com Wed Sep 17 15:38:33 2014 From: steve.wilcox at ixreach.com (Stephen Wilcox) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2014 16:38:33 +0100 Subject: [rpd] Re: [afnog] A typical case of abuse of our resources!!! In-Reply-To: References: <20140917141624.GH43684@macbook.bluepipe.net> Message-ID: On 17 September 2014 16:15, Daniel Kofi ANSA AKUFO wrote: > > > On 17 September 2014 18:16, Phil Regnauld wrote: > >> Daniel Kofi ANSA AKUFO (kofi.ansa) writes: >> > >> > I don't have an issue where IPs are used but my concern is when huge >> > resources in the order of /12 are issued to virtual ORGs and they tend >> to >> > abuse it for spamming and other activities. A typical example is the /16 >> > block which was issued as part of /12 to an ORG last year. >> > >> > http://bgp.he.net/net/154.87.0.0/16#_dns >> >> For reference: >> >> >> http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/members-discuss/2013-November/001382.html >> >> http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/members-discuss/2013-November/001429.html >> >> Things vary on a case by case basis, but in this particular one, >> there >> is supporting evidence that the blocks in question are being >> announced. >> How much of it is allocated to real services is unknown, but >> first we'd >> have to agree on a definition of "wasting the resources". >> > Phil > > In IMHO it is not about how much is announced or even where ... but how > much of the content served using these resources is beneficial to the > service region the IPs were assigned ... > > Nevertheless the fact remains these virtual ORGs manage to secure such > blocks due to the selfish corrupt practices of a few. > > A lot of questions to be asked > > Are the RIRs so much in need of revenue? Are the potential members and > ORGs not consuming the resources? Are there double standards? Do the so > called management who want to sign off on these allocations have their own > processes? > It is not the job of the RIRs to decide if a business is beneficial or how valuable the LIR is. However, it is the job of the RIR to make sure that claims are genuine and that the IPs are being actually used on real equipment for an actual purpose. I can see many ways in which an ORG might use multiple RIRs and fake applications to obtain a lot more address than the policy states. But once this is discovered the RIRs should reevaluate and if a past application is deemed fake/dishonest consider revoking the address block. Steve -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kofi.ansa at gmail.com Wed Sep 17 16:08:28 2014 From: kofi.ansa at gmail.com (Daniel Kofi ANSA AKUFO) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2014 20:08:28 +0400 Subject: [rpd] Re: [afnog] A typical case of abuse of our resources!!! In-Reply-To: References: <20140917141624.GH43684@macbook.bluepipe.net> Message-ID: Andrew, Read my comment "In IMHO it is not about how much is announced or even where" As much as it is NOT the job of RIRs to "police" resources they must take initiative to follow up reported cases. Or do we have to spell that also in a Policy? On 17 September 2014 19:38, Stephen Wilcox wrote: > > > On 17 September 2014 16:15, Daniel Kofi ANSA AKUFO > wrote: > >> >> >> On 17 September 2014 18:16, Phil Regnauld wrote: >> >>> Daniel Kofi ANSA AKUFO (kofi.ansa) writes: >>> > >>> > I don't have an issue where IPs are used but my concern is when huge >>> > resources in the order of /12 are issued to virtual ORGs and they tend >>> to >>> > abuse it for spamming and other activities. A typical example is the >>> /16 >>> > block which was issued as part of /12 to an ORG last year. >>> > >>> > http://bgp.he.net/net/154.87.0.0/16#_dns >>> >>> For reference: >>> >>> >>> http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/members-discuss/2013-November/001382.html >>> >>> http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/members-discuss/2013-November/001429.html >>> >>> Things vary on a case by case basis, but in this particular one, >>> there >>> is supporting evidence that the blocks in question are being >>> announced. >>> How much of it is allocated to real services is unknown, but >>> first we'd >>> have to agree on a definition of "wasting the resources". >>> >> Phil >> >> In IMHO it is not about how much is announced or even where ... but how >> much of the content served using these resources is beneficial to the >> service region the IPs were assigned ... >> >> Nevertheless the fact remains these virtual ORGs manage to secure such >> blocks due to the selfish corrupt practices of a few. >> >> A lot of questions to be asked >> >> Are the RIRs so much in need of revenue? Are the potential members and >> ORGs not consuming the resources? Are there double standards? Do the so >> called management who want to sign off on these allocations have their own >> processes? >> > > It is not the job of the RIRs to decide if a business is beneficial or how > valuable the LIR is. > > However, it is the job of the RIR to make sure that claims are genuine and > that the IPs are being actually used on real equipment for an actual > purpose. I can see many ways in which an ORG might use multiple RIRs and > fake applications to obtain a lot more address than the policy states. But > once this is discovered the RIRs should reevaluate and if a past > application is deemed fake/dishonest consider revoking the address block. > > Steve > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From quaynor at ghana.com Wed Sep 17 21:00:09 2014 From: quaynor at ghana.com (Nii Narku Quaynor) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2014 21:00:09 +0000 Subject: [rpd] Re: [afnog] A typical case of abuse of our resources!!! Message-ID: <98F3E15F-6AB0-4F35-AF31-D90E2140B77A@ghana.com> Hi, I think the resources are for the regions Internet development and it should stay that way and make policies that drive that Wether it is written in policies or not, it is difficult to convince Internet users in Africa that their Internet development is 'overseas' The African RIR would be interested in guarding its stewardship and function in public interest likewise one would want to be aware how the resources are used requiring resource members to be sincere, provide network information, contribute policies etc With above I am not interested on ideas to use numbers out of region but interested in how to use the numbers in the region One would be guided by genuinely working in trust Best Nii > On Sep 17, 2014, at 15:15, Daniel Kofi ANSA AKUFO wrote: > > > >> On 17 September 2014 18:16, Phil Regnauld wrote: >> Daniel Kofi ANSA AKUFO (kofi.ansa) writes: >> > >> > I don't have an issue where IPs are used but my concern is when huge >> > resources in the order of /12 are issued to virtual ORGs and they tend to >> > abuse it for spamming and other activities. A typical example is the /16 >> > block which was issued as part of /12 to an ORG last year. >> > >> > http://bgp.he.net/net/154.87.0.0/16#_dns >> >> For reference: >> >> http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/members-discuss/2013-November/001382.html >> http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/members-discuss/2013-November/001429.html >> >> Things vary on a case by case basis, but in this particular one, there >> is supporting evidence that the blocks in question are being announced. >> How much of it is allocated to real services is unknown, but first we'd >> have to agree on a definition of "wasting the resources". > Phil > > In IMHO it is not about how much is announced or even where ... but how much of the content served using these resources is beneficial to the service region the IPs were assigned ... > > Nevertheless the fact remains these virtual ORGs manage to secure such blocks due to the selfish corrupt practices of a few. > > A lot of questions to be asked > > Are the RIRs so much in need of revenue? Are the potential members and ORGs not consuming the resources? Are there double standards? Do the so called management who want to sign off on these allocations have their own processes? > > K. >> >> Cheers, >> Phil > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sfolayan at gmail.com Fri Sep 19 11:46:10 2014 From: sfolayan at gmail.com (Sunday Folayan) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2014 12:46:10 +0100 Subject: [rpd] Re: [afnog] A typical case of abuse of our resources!!! In-Reply-To: References: <541BD21B.5020900@gmail.com> <541BFF49.9050502@gmail.com> Message-ID: <541C1782.3060509@gmail.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 19/09/2014 12:03, Kofi ANSA AKUFO wrote: >>>> Amigo, >>>> >>>> When I last checked the policy space, there was nothing that >>>> showed you lighting a candle, instead of this persistent >>>> cursing of the darkness. >>>> >>>>> :) I wouldn't call it cursing of the darkness, but rather >>>>> stimulating discussion to explore our policy processes and >>>>> policies implemented to steer away from "lighting candles" >>>>> that will be blown out quickly. >>>> > > It would be blown away, if such candles are lit on a windy day. Of > course, no one will notice if it is sunny as well. > > Would be great if people see you as stimulating discussions, and > not belly-aching about the organization, its processes and the > integrity of the management and staff. What looks visible here, is > the prophet and not the message. Perhaps you need to change your > tactics and method for a reasonable impact. Discretion is the > greater part of valour. > > Sunday > >> Thanks for sharing your opinion. Could you be specific where any >> staff of AFRINIC has been criticized in this post other than the >> process and framework staff find themselves working in? You wrote this ... "I know for sure some AFRINIC hostmasters did their best to prevent this but then their efforts are over ridden by so called management ..." here http://afnog.org/pipermail/afnog/2014-September/001824.html Is "So Called Management" a normal grammatical construct? >> I believe you been a board member can help to enlighten the >> community about the processes and ADDRESS the issues rather than >> shut down discussions. Go and read my exploits and position with the now dead and buried Academic policy, co-authored with Andrew Alston, who is now also a Board member. We crooned, begged, preached and populated the mailing lists took several mikes at Lusaka, Abidjan and lately Djobouti. Wake up! There is no room for selective Amnesia here. >> As a long standing board member let the community know whether >> the board approved the first time allocation of /12 IPv4 to this >> ORG? The Board approves policies, not allocations. Show me where in the rule, it tasks the Board with approving allocations? > If yes why? Not Applicable. >> What policies framework was followed to approve this block? Ask our hostmasters after the next hostmasters' report at the next meeting in MU. If you want them to seek approval from you, propose a policy in that regard. >> This will help to enlighten the community about the flaws in our >> processes and policies and sensitize many when it comes to voting >> and implementation of policies. Cool. I however have not seen anyone display some lack of understanding of our policies here, rather the deliberate attempt to pull down the house. When I checked .... https://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=193262322 I saw a Kofi ANSA AKUFO, IP Resource Analyst AFRINIC June 2013 ? December 2013 (7 months)Ebene Mauritius - - Handling of requests for AFRINIC membership. - - Allocation and assignment of address space in response to approved requests. [Others deleted] Perhaps the community should be asking you if it is ... Sour grapes? If you have the slightest idea about how we can keep African Addresses in Africa for the sake of Africans, bring it on. I will support you to high heavens. Sunday. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUHBeCAAoJEH6UvSz6fA25aIcIAKe5O1EEvhRkyRARjFt6mI3U vNCZl+GiGMGOfhGnWI+uVnaAcLOfcjBidI59a0wgHYxO2WP/JgmTMMaMm/T1yW5+ xgyjQZdeEeUc099eJLPNUG3eMfj9v41ZSS5CSpqlh5ulnnmY0BkyJ8Yy+pUfs26E QzG375e4bbUP1ZGImSya7i6nvo2+pmi/uPMxDrpzBlAeOeSFJ7QUo0CvEzYvlfcf ch1gmTL1gIgv33kG9BEFUzxBBoy1CskrbU7+RWUqlOS+T4CZB/sqIZim/v7i6Mv4 qre7xXaNoSQaw+pWiqUFZ5oqDjnfPzJgOn1TdbrR7bpLiE1JNfEWwljyWjSPN/k= =gAd1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From badru.ntege at nftconsult.com Fri Sep 19 12:14:44 2014 From: badru.ntege at nftconsult.com (Badru Ntege) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2014 12:14:44 +0000 Subject: [rpd] Re: [Board-Discuss] Re: [afnog] A typical case of abuse of our resources!!! In-Reply-To: <541C1782.3060509@gmail.com> References: <541BD21B.5020900@gmail.com> <541BFF49.9050502@gmail.com> <541C1782.3060509@gmail.com> Message-ID: My view on this issue especially the pending one is not to allow the new allocation. We cannot hide behind policy as board we need to have the balls to say NO to our resources going off the continent on our watch. Lets show some leadership here. I think we are the ones tying our hands. We can make a decision against the allocation. Regards On 9/19/14, 2:46 PM, "Sunday Folayan" wrote: >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >Hash: SHA1 > >On 19/09/2014 12:03, Kofi ANSA AKUFO wrote: >>>>> Amigo, >>>>> >>>>> When I last checked the policy space, there was nothing that >>>>> showed you lighting a candle, instead of this persistent >>>>> cursing of the darkness. >>>>> >>>>>> :) I wouldn't call it cursing of the darkness, but rather >>>>>> stimulating discussion to explore our policy processes and >>>>>> policies implemented to steer away from "lighting candles" >>>>>> that will be blown out quickly. >>>>> >> >> It would be blown away, if such candles are lit on a windy day. Of >> course, no one will notice if it is sunny as well. >> >> Would be great if people see you as stimulating discussions, and >> not belly-aching about the organization, its processes and the >> integrity of the management and staff. What looks visible here, is >> the prophet and not the message. Perhaps you need to change your >> tactics and method for a reasonable impact. Discretion is the >> greater part of valour. >> >> Sunday >> >>> Thanks for sharing your opinion. Could you be specific where any >>> staff of AFRINIC has been criticized in this post other than the >>> process and framework staff find themselves working in? > >You wrote this ... "I know for sure some AFRINIC hostmasters did their >best to prevent this but then their efforts are over ridden by so >called management ..." here >http://afnog.org/pipermail/afnog/2014-September/001824.html Is "So >Called Management" a normal grammatical construct? > >>> I believe you been a board member can help to enlighten the >>> community about the processes and ADDRESS the issues rather than >>> shut down discussions. > >Go and read my exploits and position with the now dead and buried >Academic policy, co-authored with Andrew Alston, who is now also a >Board member. We crooned, begged, preached and populated the mailing >lists took several mikes at Lusaka, Abidjan and lately Djobouti. Wake >up! There is no room for selective Amnesia here. > >>> As a long standing board member let the community know whether >>> the board approved the first time allocation of /12 IPv4 to this >>> ORG? > >The Board approves policies, not allocations. Show me where in the >rule, it tasks the Board with approving allocations? > >> If yes why? > >Not Applicable. > >>> What policies framework was followed to approve this block? > >Ask our hostmasters after the next hostmasters' report at the next >meeting in MU. If you want them to seek approval from you, propose a >policy in that regard. > >>> This will help to enlighten the community about the flaws in our >>> processes and policies and sensitize many when it comes to voting >>> and implementation of policies. > >Cool. I however have not seen anyone display some lack of >understanding of our policies here, rather the deliberate attempt to >pull down the house. > >When I checked .... https://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=193262322 > >I saw a Kofi ANSA AKUFO, IP Resource Analyst AFRINIC >June 2013 ? December 2013 (7 months)Ebene Mauritius >- - Handling of requests for AFRINIC membership. >- - Allocation and assignment of address space in response to approved >requests. >[Others deleted] > >Perhaps the community should be asking you if it is ... Sour grapes? > >If you have the slightest idea about how we can keep African Addresses >in Africa for the sake of Africans, bring it on. I will support you to >high heavens. > >Sunday. >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) > >iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUHBeCAAoJEH6UvSz6fA25aIcIAKe5O1EEvhRkyRARjFt6mI3U >vNCZl+GiGMGOfhGnWI+uVnaAcLOfcjBidI59a0wgHYxO2WP/JgmTMMaMm/T1yW5+ >xgyjQZdeEeUc099eJLPNUG3eMfj9v41ZSS5CSpqlh5ulnnmY0BkyJ8Yy+pUfs26E >QzG375e4bbUP1ZGImSya7i6nvo2+pmi/uPMxDrpzBlAeOeSFJ7QUo0CvEzYvlfcf >ch1gmTL1gIgv33kG9BEFUzxBBoy1CskrbU7+RWUqlOS+T4CZB/sqIZim/v7i6Mv4 >qre7xXaNoSQaw+pWiqUFZ5oqDjnfPzJgOn1TdbrR7bpLiE1JNfEWwljyWjSPN/k= >=gAd1 >-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >_______________________________________________ >board mailing list >board at afrinic.net >https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/board From kofi.ansa at gmail.com Fri Sep 19 12:28:12 2014 From: kofi.ansa at gmail.com (Kofi ANSA AKUFO) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2014 16:28:12 +0400 Subject: [rpd] Re: [afnog] A typical case of abuse of our resources!!! In-Reply-To: <541C1782.3060509@gmail.com> References: <541BD21B.5020900@gmail.com> <541BFF49.9050502@gmail.com> <541C1782.3060509@gmail.com> Message-ID: On 19 September 2014 15:46, Sunday Folayan wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 19/09/2014 12:03, Kofi ANSA AKUFO wrote: > >>>> Amigo, > >>>> > >>>> When I last checked the policy space, there was nothing that > >>>> showed you lighting a candle, instead of this persistent > >>>> cursing of the darkness. > >>>> > >>>>> :) I wouldn't call it cursing of the darkness, but rather > >>>>> stimulating discussion to explore our policy processes and > >>>>> policies implemented to steer away from "lighting candles" > >>>>> that will be blown out quickly. > >>>> > > > > It would be blown away, if such candles are lit on a windy day. Of > > course, no one will notice if it is sunny as well. > > > > Would be great if people see you as stimulating discussions, and > > not belly-aching about the organization, its processes and the > > integrity of the management and staff. What looks visible here, is > > the prophet and not the message. Perhaps you need to change your > > tactics and method for a reasonable impact. Discretion is the > > greater part of valour. > > > > Sunday > > > >> Thanks for sharing your opinion. Could you be specific where any > >> staff of AFRINIC has been criticized in this post other than the > >> process and framework staff find themselves working in? > > You wrote this ... "I know for sure some AFRINIC hostmasters did their > best to prevent this but then their efforts are over ridden by so > called management ..." here > http://afnog.org/pipermail/afnog/2014-September/001824.html Is "So > Called Management" a normal grammatical construct? > > >> I believe you been a board member can help to enlighten the > >> community about the processes and ADDRESS the issues rather than > >> shut down discussions. > > Go and read my exploits and position with the now dead and buried > Academic policy, co-authored with Andrew Alston, who is now also a > Board member. We crooned, begged, preached and populated the mailing > lists took several mikes at Lusaka, Abidjan and lately Djobouti. Wake > up! There is no room for selective Amnesia here. > > >> As a long standing board member let the community know whether > >> the board approved the first time allocation of /12 IPv4 to this > >> ORG? > > The Board approves policies, not allocations. Show me where in the > rule, it tasks the Board with approving allocations? > > > If yes why? > > Not Applicable. > > >> What policies framework was followed to approve this block? > > Ask our hostmasters after the next hostmasters' report at the next > meeting in MU. If you want them to seek approval from you, propose a > policy in that regard. > > Why wait for the meeting in MU? As much as I can remember as an AFRINIC hostmaster, allocations greater than /16 IPv4 have to be approved by management and board based on hostmasters recommendation. To give you a heads up I have had my fingers burnt for going against the contrary of approving without management consent. So please let me know on what basis was /12 allocation approved? Do you believe the the example in question brought up is contributing to our regional development? If No what procedures should be put in place to reclaim such allocations? > >> This will help to enlighten the community about the flaws in our > >> processes and policies and sensitize many when it comes to voting > >> and implementation of policies. > > Cool. I however have not seen anyone display some lack of > understanding of our policies here, rather the deliberate attempt to > pull down the house. > > When I checked .... https://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=193262322 > > I saw a Kofi ANSA AKUFO, IP Resource Analyst AFRINIC > June 2013 ? December 2013 (7 months)Ebene Mauritius > - - Handling of requests for AFRINIC membership. > - - Allocation and assignment of address space in response to approved > requests. > [Others deleted] > > Perhaps the community should be asking you if it is ... Sour grapes? > Come on Sunday lets not resort to personal attacks but rather address there issues in the discussion. Again lets address the issues. > > If you have the slightest idea about how we can keep African Addresses > in Africa for the sake of Africans, bring it on. I will support you to > high heavens. > > Exactly - the first process is learning to ask the right questions. Should we be asking "how to keep African Addresses in Africa for the sake of Africans" given the inherent globalization footprints of these internet resources? OR Should we be asking how to exploit the challenges and impact of current technologies (State of art Data Centers,Virtualization, City Surveillance Systems, R&D etc) which are gradually becoming defacto standards with our Regions Allocations to spark regional development. cheers K. > Sunday. > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) > > iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUHBeCAAoJEH6UvSz6fA25aIcIAKe5O1EEvhRkyRARjFt6mI3U > vNCZl+GiGMGOfhGnWI+uVnaAcLOfcjBidI59a0wgHYxO2WP/JgmTMMaMm/T1yW5+ > xgyjQZdeEeUc099eJLPNUG3eMfj9v41ZSS5CSpqlh5ulnnmY0BkyJ8Yy+pUfs26E > QzG375e4bbUP1ZGImSya7i6nvo2+pmi/uPMxDrpzBlAeOeSFJ7QUo0CvEzYvlfcf > ch1gmTL1gIgv33kG9BEFUzxBBoy1CskrbU7+RWUqlOS+T4CZB/sqIZim/v7i6Mv4 > qre7xXaNoSQaw+pWiqUFZ5oqDjnfPzJgOn1TdbrR7bpLiE1JNfEWwljyWjSPN/k= > =gAd1 > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From badru.ntege at nftconsult.com Fri Sep 19 12:31:31 2014 From: badru.ntege at nftconsult.com (Badru Ntege) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2014 12:31:31 +0000 Subject: [rpd] Re: [Board-Discuss] Re: [afnog] A typical case of abuse of our resources!!! In-Reply-To: References: <541BD21B.5020900@gmail.com> <541BFF49.9050502@gmail.com> <541C1782.3060509@gmail.com> Message-ID: My last email was not for external consumption. Please ignore that email it was my private opinion. Though the request seems to be legitimate it is being discussed. And exploring options If any. Accept my apologies. Regards On 9/19/14, 3:14 PM, "Badru Ntege" wrote: >My view on this issue especially the pending one is not to allow the new >allocation. We cannot hide behind policy as board we need to have the >balls to say NO to our resources going off the continent on our watch. > >Lets show some leadership here. I think we are the ones tying our hands. >We can make a decision against the allocation. > >Regards > > > > > > > > >On 9/19/14, 2:46 PM, "Sunday Folayan" wrote: > >>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >>Hash: SHA1 >> >>On 19/09/2014 12:03, Kofi ANSA AKUFO wrote: >>>>>> Amigo, >>>>>> >>>>>> When I last checked the policy space, there was nothing that >>>>>> showed you lighting a candle, instead of this persistent >>>>>> cursing of the darkness. >>>>>> >>>>>>> :) I wouldn't call it cursing of the darkness, but rather >>>>>>> stimulating discussion to explore our policy processes and >>>>>>> policies implemented to steer away from "lighting candles" >>>>>>> that will be blown out quickly. >>>>>> >>> >>> It would be blown away, if such candles are lit on a windy day. Of >>> course, no one will notice if it is sunny as well. >>> >>> Would be great if people see you as stimulating discussions, and >>> not belly-aching about the organization, its processes and the >>> integrity of the management and staff. What looks visible here, is >>> the prophet and not the message. Perhaps you need to change your >>> tactics and method for a reasonable impact. Discretion is the >>> greater part of valour. >>> >>> Sunday >>> >>>> Thanks for sharing your opinion. Could you be specific where any >>>> staff of AFRINIC has been criticized in this post other than the >>>> process and framework staff find themselves working in? >> >>You wrote this ... "I know for sure some AFRINIC hostmasters did their >>best to prevent this but then their efforts are over ridden by so >>called management ..." here >>http://afnog.org/pipermail/afnog/2014-September/001824.html Is "So >>Called Management" a normal grammatical construct? >> >>>> I believe you been a board member can help to enlighten the >>>> community about the processes and ADDRESS the issues rather than >>>> shut down discussions. >> >>Go and read my exploits and position with the now dead and buried >>Academic policy, co-authored with Andrew Alston, who is now also a >>Board member. We crooned, begged, preached and populated the mailing >>lists took several mikes at Lusaka, Abidjan and lately Djobouti. Wake >>up! There is no room for selective Amnesia here. >> >>>> As a long standing board member let the community know whether >>>> the board approved the first time allocation of /12 IPv4 to this >>>> ORG? >> >>The Board approves policies, not allocations. Show me where in the >>rule, it tasks the Board with approving allocations? >> >>> If yes why? >> >>Not Applicable. >> >>>> What policies framework was followed to approve this block? >> >>Ask our hostmasters after the next hostmasters' report at the next >>meeting in MU. If you want them to seek approval from you, propose a >>policy in that regard. >> >>>> This will help to enlighten the community about the flaws in our >>>> processes and policies and sensitize many when it comes to voting >>>> and implementation of policies. >> >>Cool. I however have not seen anyone display some lack of >>understanding of our policies here, rather the deliberate attempt to >>pull down the house. >> >>When I checked .... https://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=193262322 >> >>I saw a Kofi ANSA AKUFO, IP Resource Analyst AFRINIC >>June 2013 ? December 2013 (7 months)Ebene Mauritius >>- - Handling of requests for AFRINIC membership. >>- - Allocation and assignment of address space in response to approved >>requests. >>[Others deleted] >> >>Perhaps the community should be asking you if it is ... Sour grapes? >> >>If you have the slightest idea about how we can keep African Addresses >>in Africa for the sake of Africans, bring it on. I will support you to >>high heavens. >> >>Sunday. >>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >>Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) >> >>iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUHBeCAAoJEH6UvSz6fA25aIcIAKe5O1EEvhRkyRARjFt6mI3U >>vNCZl+GiGMGOfhGnWI+uVnaAcLOfcjBidI59a0wgHYxO2WP/JgmTMMaMm/T1yW5+ >>xgyjQZdeEeUc099eJLPNUG3eMfj9v41ZSS5CSpqlh5ulnnmY0BkyJ8Yy+pUfs26E >>QzG375e4bbUP1ZGImSya7i6nvo2+pmi/uPMxDrpzBlAeOeSFJ7QUo0CvEzYvlfcf >>ch1gmTL1gIgv33kG9BEFUzxBBoy1CskrbU7+RWUqlOS+T4CZB/sqIZim/v7i6Mv4 >>qre7xXaNoSQaw+pWiqUFZ5oqDjnfPzJgOn1TdbrR7bpLiE1JNfEWwljyWjSPN/k= >>=gAd1 >>-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >>_______________________________________________ >>board mailing list >>board at afrinic.net >>https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/board > >_______________________________________________ >board mailing list >board at afrinic.net >https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/board From steve.wilcox at ixreach.com Fri Sep 19 12:30:52 2014 From: steve.wilcox at ixreach.com (Stephen Wilcox) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2014 13:30:52 +0100 Subject: [rpd] Re: [Board-Discuss] Re: [afnog] A typical case of abuse of our resources!!! In-Reply-To: References: <541BD21B.5020900@gmail.com> <541BFF49.9050502@gmail.com> <541C1782.3060509@gmail.com> Message-ID: I think you have a good case for rescinding allocations that are fraudulent or being abused. The "off the continent" is not that relevant, since the LIR in the original email appears to be in the Seychelles. As for "the pending allocation" - unless I missed an email, this is just an example and the referenced discussions date from 2013 and already allocated resources across multiple RIRs. Steve On 19 September 2014 13:14, Badru Ntege wrote: > My view on this issue especially the pending one is not to allow the new > allocation. We cannot hide behind policy as board we need to have the > balls to say NO to our resources going off the continent on our watch. > > Lets show some leadership here. I think we are the ones tying our hands. > We can make a decision against the allocation. > > Regards > > > > > > > > > On 9/19/14, 2:46 PM, "Sunday Folayan" wrote: > > >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > >Hash: SHA1 > > > >On 19/09/2014 12:03, Kofi ANSA AKUFO wrote: > >>>>> Amigo, > >>>>> > >>>>> When I last checked the policy space, there was nothing that > >>>>> showed you lighting a candle, instead of this persistent > >>>>> cursing of the darkness. > >>>>> > >>>>>> :) I wouldn't call it cursing of the darkness, but rather > >>>>>> stimulating discussion to explore our policy processes and > >>>>>> policies implemented to steer away from "lighting candles" > >>>>>> that will be blown out quickly. > >>>>> > >> > >> It would be blown away, if such candles are lit on a windy day. Of > >> course, no one will notice if it is sunny as well. > >> > >> Would be great if people see you as stimulating discussions, and > >> not belly-aching about the organization, its processes and the > >> integrity of the management and staff. What looks visible here, is > >> the prophet and not the message. Perhaps you need to change your > >> tactics and method for a reasonable impact. Discretion is the > >> greater part of valour. > >> > >> Sunday > >> > >>> Thanks for sharing your opinion. Could you be specific where any > >>> staff of AFRINIC has been criticized in this post other than the > >>> process and framework staff find themselves working in? > > > >You wrote this ... "I know for sure some AFRINIC hostmasters did their > >best to prevent this but then their efforts are over ridden by so > >called management ..." here > >http://afnog.org/pipermail/afnog/2014-September/001824.html Is "So > >Called Management" a normal grammatical construct? > > > >>> I believe you been a board member can help to enlighten the > >>> community about the processes and ADDRESS the issues rather than > >>> shut down discussions. > > > >Go and read my exploits and position with the now dead and buried > >Academic policy, co-authored with Andrew Alston, who is now also a > >Board member. We crooned, begged, preached and populated the mailing > >lists took several mikes at Lusaka, Abidjan and lately Djobouti. Wake > >up! There is no room for selective Amnesia here. > > > >>> As a long standing board member let the community know whether > >>> the board approved the first time allocation of /12 IPv4 to this > >>> ORG? > > > >The Board approves policies, not allocations. Show me where in the > >rule, it tasks the Board with approving allocations? > > > >> If yes why? > > > >Not Applicable. > > > >>> What policies framework was followed to approve this block? > > > >Ask our hostmasters after the next hostmasters' report at the next > >meeting in MU. If you want them to seek approval from you, propose a > >policy in that regard. > > > >>> This will help to enlighten the community about the flaws in our > >>> processes and policies and sensitize many when it comes to voting > >>> and implementation of policies. > > > >Cool. I however have not seen anyone display some lack of > >understanding of our policies here, rather the deliberate attempt to > >pull down the house. > > > >When I checked .... https://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=193262322 > > > >I saw a Kofi ANSA AKUFO, IP Resource Analyst AFRINIC > >June 2013 ? December 2013 (7 months)Ebene Mauritius > >- - Handling of requests for AFRINIC membership. > >- - Allocation and assignment of address space in response to approved > >requests. > >[Others deleted] > > > >Perhaps the community should be asking you if it is ... Sour grapes? > > > >If you have the slightest idea about how we can keep African Addresses > >in Africa for the sake of Africans, bring it on. I will support you to > >high heavens. > > > >Sunday. > >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > >Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) > > > >iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUHBeCAAoJEH6UvSz6fA25aIcIAKe5O1EEvhRkyRARjFt6mI3U > >vNCZl+GiGMGOfhGnWI+uVnaAcLOfcjBidI59a0wgHYxO2WP/JgmTMMaMm/T1yW5+ > >xgyjQZdeEeUc099eJLPNUG3eMfj9v41ZSS5CSpqlh5ulnnmY0BkyJ8Yy+pUfs26E > >QzG375e4bbUP1ZGImSya7i6nvo2+pmi/uPMxDrpzBlAeOeSFJ7QUo0CvEzYvlfcf > >ch1gmTL1gIgv33kG9BEFUzxBBoy1CskrbU7+RWUqlOS+T4CZB/sqIZim/v7i6Mv4 > >qre7xXaNoSQaw+pWiqUFZ5oqDjnfPzJgOn1TdbrR7bpLiE1JNfEWwljyWjSPN/k= > >=gAd1 > >-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > >_______________________________________________ > >board mailing list > >board at afrinic.net > >https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/board > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From h.lu at anytimechinese.com Fri Sep 19 12:45:07 2014 From: h.lu at anytimechinese.com (Lu) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2014 20:45:07 +0800 Subject: [rpd] Re: [afnog] A typical case of abuse of our resources!!! In-Reply-To: References: <541BD21B.5020900@gmail.com> <541BFF49.9050502@gmail.com> <541C1782.3060509@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi everybody: I feel it became very personal here, the resource is using by our company and it is always used in the africa. And we do not do any emails as there is untrue claim about spam. I am personally at every afrinic meeting and please, if you have question about me, go and ask me in person. This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this message and including the text of the transmission received. > On 2014??9??19??, at ????8:28, Kofi ANSA AKUFO wrote: > > >> On 19 September 2014 15:46, Sunday Folayan wrote: >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> On 19/09/2014 12:03, Kofi ANSA AKUFO wrote: >> >>>> Amigo, >> >>>> >> >>>> When I last checked the policy space, there was nothing that >> >>>> showed you lighting a candle, instead of this persistent >> >>>> cursing of the darkness. >> >>>> >> >>>>> :) I wouldn't call it cursing of the darkness, but rather >> >>>>> stimulating discussion to explore our policy processes and >> >>>>> policies implemented to steer away from "lighting candles" >> >>>>> that will be blown out quickly. >> >>>> >> > >> > It would be blown away, if such candles are lit on a windy day. Of >> > course, no one will notice if it is sunny as well. >> > >> > Would be great if people see you as stimulating discussions, and >> > not belly-aching about the organization, its processes and the >> > integrity of the management and staff. What looks visible here, is >> > the prophet and not the message. Perhaps you need to change your >> > tactics and method for a reasonable impact. Discretion is the >> > greater part of valour. >> > >> > Sunday >> > >> >> Thanks for sharing your opinion. Could you be specific where any >> >> staff of AFRINIC has been criticized in this post other than the >> >> process and framework staff find themselves working in? >> >> You wrote this ... "I know for sure some AFRINIC hostmasters did their >> best to prevent this but then their efforts are over ridden by so >> called management ..." here >> http://afnog.org/pipermail/afnog/2014-September/001824.html Is "So >> Called Management" a normal grammatical construct? >> >> >> I believe you been a board member can help to enlighten the >> >> community about the processes and ADDRESS the issues rather than >> >> shut down discussions. >> >> Go and read my exploits and position with the now dead and buried >> Academic policy, co-authored with Andrew Alston, who is now also a >> Board member. We crooned, begged, preached and populated the mailing >> lists took several mikes at Lusaka, Abidjan and lately Djobouti. Wake >> up! There is no room for selective Amnesia here. >> >> >> As a long standing board member let the community know whether >> >> the board approved the first time allocation of /12 IPv4 to this >> >> ORG? >> >> The Board approves policies, not allocations. Show me where in the >> rule, it tasks the Board with approving allocations? >> >> > If yes why? >> >> Not Applicable. >> >> >> What policies framework was followed to approve this block? >> >> Ask our hostmasters after the next hostmasters' report at the next >> meeting in MU. If you want them to seek approval from you, propose a >> policy in that regard. > Why wait for the meeting in MU? As much as I can remember as an AFRINIC hostmaster, allocations greater than /16 IPv4 have to be approved by management and board based on hostmasters recommendation. To give you a heads up I have had my fingers burnt for going against the contrary of approving without management consent. > > So please let me know on what basis was /12 allocation approved? > > Do you believe the the example in question brought up is contributing to our regional development? If No what procedures should be put in place to reclaim such allocations? > >> >> This will help to enlighten the community about the flaws in our >> >> processes and policies and sensitize many when it comes to voting >> >> and implementation of policies. >> >> Cool. I however have not seen anyone display some lack of >> understanding of our policies here, rather the deliberate attempt to >> pull down the house. >> >> When I checked .... https://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=193262322 >> >> I saw a Kofi ANSA AKUFO, IP Resource Analyst AFRINIC >> June 2013 ?C December 2013 (7 months)Ebene Mauritius >> - - Handling of requests for AFRINIC membership. >> - - Allocation and assignment of address space in response to approved >> requests. >> [Others deleted] >> >> Perhaps the community should be asking you if it is ... Sour grapes? > > Come on Sunday lets not resort to personal attacks but rather address there issues in the discussion. Again lets address the issues. > >> >> If you have the slightest idea about how we can keep African Addresses >> in Africa for the sake of Africans, bring it on. I will support you to >> high heavens. > Exactly - the first process is learning to ask the right questions. > > Should we be asking "how to keep African Addresses in Africa for the sake of Africans" given the inherent globalization footprints of these internet resources? > > OR > > Should we be asking how to exploit the challenges and impact of current technologies (State of art Data Centers,Virtualization, City Surveillance Systems, R&D etc) which are gradually becoming defacto standards with our Regions Allocations to spark regional development. > > cheers > > K. > >> Sunday. >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >> Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) >> >> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUHBeCAAoJEH6UvSz6fA25aIcIAKe5O1EEvhRkyRARjFt6mI3U >> vNCZl+GiGMGOfhGnWI+uVnaAcLOfcjBidI59a0wgHYxO2WP/JgmTMMaMm/T1yW5+ >> xgyjQZdeEeUc099eJLPNUG3eMfj9v41ZSS5CSpqlh5ulnnmY0BkyJ8Yy+pUfs26E >> QzG375e4bbUP1ZGImSya7i6nvo2+pmi/uPMxDrpzBlAeOeSFJ7QUo0CvEzYvlfcf >> ch1gmTL1gIgv33kG9BEFUzxBBoy1CskrbU7+RWUqlOS+T4CZB/sqIZim/v7i6Mv4 >> qre7xXaNoSQaw+pWiqUFZ5oqDjnfPzJgOn1TdbrR7bpLiE1JNfEWwljyWjSPN/k= >> =gAd1 >> -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From steve.wilcox at ixreach.com Fri Sep 19 12:59:49 2014 From: steve.wilcox at ixreach.com (Stephen Wilcox) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2014 13:59:49 +0100 Subject: [rpd] Re: [afnog] A typical case of abuse of our resources!!! In-Reply-To: References: <541BD21B.5020900@gmail.com> <541BFF49.9050502@gmail.com> <541C1782.3060509@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi Lu, out of interest regarding the utilisation of IPs, why are you using one IP per DNS host ( http://bgp.he.net/net/154.87.0.0/16#_dns ) and many of these domains look like random letters and have no website eg http://ydxwsl.com/ thanks Steve On 19 September 2014 13:45, Lu wrote: > Hi everybody: > > I feel it became very personal here, the resource is using by our company > and it is always used in the africa. And we do not do any emails as there > is untrue claim about spam. > > I am personally at every afrinic meeting and please, if you have question > about me, go and ask me in person. > > This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. > It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or > otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use > of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the intended > addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission > in error, please notify this office immediately and e-mail the original at > the sender's address above by replying to this message and including the > text of the transmission received. > > On 2014?9?19?, at ??8:28, Kofi ANSA AKUFO wrote: > > > On 19 September 2014 15:46, Sunday Folayan wrote: > >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> On 19/09/2014 12:03, Kofi ANSA AKUFO wrote: >> >>>> Amigo, >> >>>> >> >>>> When I last checked the policy space, there was nothing that >> >>>> showed you lighting a candle, instead of this persistent >> >>>> cursing of the darkness. >> >>>> >> >>>>> :) I wouldn't call it cursing of the darkness, but rather >> >>>>> stimulating discussion to explore our policy processes and >> >>>>> policies implemented to steer away from "lighting candles" >> >>>>> that will be blown out quickly. >> >>>> >> > >> > It would be blown away, if such candles are lit on a windy day. Of >> > course, no one will notice if it is sunny as well. >> > >> > Would be great if people see you as stimulating discussions, and >> > not belly-aching about the organization, its processes and the >> > integrity of the management and staff. What looks visible here, is >> > the prophet and not the message. Perhaps you need to change your >> > tactics and method for a reasonable impact. Discretion is the >> > greater part of valour. >> > >> > Sunday >> > >> >> Thanks for sharing your opinion. Could you be specific where any >> >> staff of AFRINIC has been criticized in this post other than the >> >> process and framework staff find themselves working in? >> >> You wrote this ... "I know for sure some AFRINIC hostmasters did their >> best to prevent this but then their efforts are over ridden by so >> called management ..." here >> http://afnog.org/pipermail/afnog/2014-September/001824.html Is "So >> Called Management" a normal grammatical construct? >> >> >> I believe you been a board member can help to enlighten the >> >> community about the processes and ADDRESS the issues rather than >> >> shut down discussions. >> >> Go and read my exploits and position with the now dead and buried >> Academic policy, co-authored with Andrew Alston, who is now also a >> Board member. We crooned, begged, preached and populated the mailing >> lists took several mikes at Lusaka, Abidjan and lately Djobouti. Wake >> up! There is no room for selective Amnesia here. >> >> >> As a long standing board member let the community know whether >> >> the board approved the first time allocation of /12 IPv4 to this >> >> ORG? >> >> The Board approves policies, not allocations. Show me where in the >> rule, it tasks the Board with approving allocations? >> >> > If yes why? >> >> Not Applicable. >> >> >> What policies framework was followed to approve this block? >> >> Ask our hostmasters after the next hostmasters' report at the next >> meeting in MU. If you want them to seek approval from you, propose a >> policy in that regard. >> >> Why wait for the meeting in MU? As much as I can remember as an AFRINIC > hostmaster, allocations greater than /16 IPv4 have to be approved by > management and board based on hostmasters recommendation. To give you a > heads up I have had my fingers burnt for going against the contrary of > approving without management consent. > > So please let me know on what basis was /12 allocation approved? > > Do you believe the the example in question brought up is contributing to > our regional development? If No what procedures should be put in place to > reclaim such allocations? > > >> >> This will help to enlighten the community about the flaws in our >> >> processes and policies and sensitize many when it comes to voting >> >> and implementation of policies. >> >> Cool. I however have not seen anyone display some lack of >> understanding of our policies here, rather the deliberate attempt to >> pull down the house. >> >> When I checked .... https://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=193262322 >> >> I saw a Kofi ANSA AKUFO, IP Resource Analyst AFRINIC >> June 2013 ? December 2013 (7 months)Ebene Mauritius >> - - Handling of requests for AFRINIC membership. >> - - Allocation and assignment of address space in response to approved >> requests. >> [Others deleted] >> >> Perhaps the community should be asking you if it is ... Sour grapes? >> > > Come on Sunday lets not resort to personal attacks but rather address > there issues in the discussion. Again lets address the issues. > > >> >> If you have the slightest idea about how we can keep African Addresses >> in Africa for the sake of Africans, bring it on. I will support you to >> high heavens. >> >> Exactly - the first process is learning to ask the right questions. > > Should we be asking "how to keep African Addresses in Africa for the sake > of Africans" given the inherent globalization footprints of these internet > resources? > > OR > > Should we be asking how to exploit the challenges and impact of current > technologies (State of art Data Centers,Virtualization, City Surveillance > Systems, R&D etc) which are gradually becoming defacto standards with our > Regions Allocations to spark regional development. > > cheers > > K. > > >> Sunday. >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >> Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) >> >> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUHBeCAAoJEH6UvSz6fA25aIcIAKe5O1EEvhRkyRARjFt6mI3U >> vNCZl+GiGMGOfhGnWI+uVnaAcLOfcjBidI59a0wgHYxO2WP/JgmTMMaMm/T1yW5+ >> xgyjQZdeEeUc099eJLPNUG3eMfj9v41ZSS5CSpqlh5ulnnmY0BkyJ8Yy+pUfs26E >> QzG375e4bbUP1ZGImSya7i6nvo2+pmi/uPMxDrpzBlAeOeSFJ7QUo0CvEzYvlfcf >> ch1gmTL1gIgv33kG9BEFUzxBBoy1CskrbU7+RWUqlOS+T4CZB/sqIZim/v7i6Mv4 >> qre7xXaNoSQaw+pWiqUFZ5oqDjnfPzJgOn1TdbrR7bpLiE1JNfEWwljyWjSPN/k= >> =gAd1 >> -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >> > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From comm-announce at afrinic.net Fri Sep 19 13:07:47 2014 From: comm-announce at afrinic.net (AFRINIC Communication) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2014 17:07:47 +0400 Subject: [rpd] =?windows-1252?q?Implementation_of_the_=93No_Reverse_Unles?= =?windows-1252?q?s_Assigned=94_Policy?= Message-ID: <89C2DCED-887D-4429-B0E3-151B0EF00120@afrinic.net> Dear colleagues, We would like to inform members and the community that a policy ?No Reverse Unless Assigned? (AFPUB-2012-DNS-001) has been implemented by AFRINIC after having gone successfully through the Policy Development Process. This policy limits AFRINIC (LIR) members from obtaining reverse delegation (rDNS) from AFRINIC unless the address space that the LIR has issued (assigned or sub-allocated) to its customers and/or own network infrastructure has been recorded in the AFRINIC whois Database by the LIR. Further to the implementation of this policy, AFRINIC notes that 207 LIR members (out of our total membership of 1112) are not in conformity with this policy. Therefore, AFRINIC requests the cooperation of those 207 members who currently have reverse DNS services for allocated address space but have not registered any customer assignments or sub-allocations under that space to register those customer assignments and sub-allocations in order to comply with this policy. AFRINIC reminds these 207 LIRs that they have twelve (12) months as from Monday 22 September 2014 (as indicated in the policy) to register their assignments and sub-allocations. AFRINIC will disable reverse delegation of any LIR not in compliance as of 21 September 2015. AFRINIC reminds members and the community that we will no longer grant rDNS services unless an assignment or sub-allocation of the specific address space is registered appropriately in the AFRINIC whois database as required by this newly implemented policy. For any assistance or clarification, please contact AFRINIC at: hostmaster at afrinic.net The policy ?No Reverse Unless Assigned? is available at: http://afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposals/700-no-reverse-unless-assigned AFRINIC Team From h.lu at anytimechinese.com Fri Sep 19 13:09:57 2014 From: h.lu at anytimechinese.com (Lu) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2014 21:09:57 +0800 Subject: [rpd] Re: [afnog] A typical case of abuse of our resources!!! In-Reply-To: References: <541BD21B.5020900@gmail.com> <541BFF49.9050502@gmail.com> <541C1782.3060509@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi Such question is being asked in our request and for the confidentially we can not discuses it in public, just like any of your business, are all bounded by NDAs as well as operational needs. We are not abusing the resource and for the untrue spam and abuse claim( in which stands no evidence), is totally untrue. But all we can say about the business, we are operating from Africa and the company are based in Africa, putting us an public enemy of taking resource out of region is largely inaccurate. Over 90% of our Africa resource is announced by MTN Africa( as well as from one board member's letter seems he wants break the policy to disprove us is largely unnesscary). We are investing in Africa and hope brings a better future to Africa. This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this message and including the text of the transmission received. > On 2014??9??19??, at ????8:59, Stephen Wilcox wrote: > > Hi Lu, > out of interest regarding the utilisation of IPs, why are you using one IP per DNS host ( http://bgp.he.net/net/154.87.0.0/16#_dns ) and many of these domains look like random letters and have no website eg http://ydxwsl.com/ > > thanks > Steve > > >> On 19 September 2014 13:45, Lu wrote: >> Hi everybody: >> >> I feel it became very personal here, the resource is using by our company and it is always used in the africa. And we do not do any emails as there is untrue claim about spam. >> >> I am personally at every afrinic meeting and please, if you have question about me, go and ask me in person. >> >> This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. >> It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or >> otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use >> of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this message and including the text of the transmission received. >> >>> On 2014??9??19??, at ????8:28, Kofi ANSA AKUFO wrote: >>> >>> >>>> On 19 September 2014 15:46, Sunday Folayan wrote: >>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >>>> Hash: SHA1 >>>> >>>> On 19/09/2014 12:03, Kofi ANSA AKUFO wrote: >>>> >>>> Amigo, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> When I last checked the policy space, there was nothing that >>>> >>>> showed you lighting a candle, instead of this persistent >>>> >>>> cursing of the darkness. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> :) I wouldn't call it cursing of the darkness, but rather >>>> >>>>> stimulating discussion to explore our policy processes and >>>> >>>>> policies implemented to steer away from "lighting candles" >>>> >>>>> that will be blown out quickly. >>>> >>>> >>>> > >>>> > It would be blown away, if such candles are lit on a windy day. Of >>>> > course, no one will notice if it is sunny as well. >>>> > >>>> > Would be great if people see you as stimulating discussions, and >>>> > not belly-aching about the organization, its processes and the >>>> > integrity of the management and staff. What looks visible here, is >>>> > the prophet and not the message. Perhaps you need to change your >>>> > tactics and method for a reasonable impact. Discretion is the >>>> > greater part of valour. >>>> > >>>> > Sunday >>>> > >>>> >> Thanks for sharing your opinion. Could you be specific where any >>>> >> staff of AFRINIC has been criticized in this post other than the >>>> >> process and framework staff find themselves working in? >>>> >>>> You wrote this ... "I know for sure some AFRINIC hostmasters did their >>>> best to prevent this but then their efforts are over ridden by so >>>> called management ..." here >>>> http://afnog.org/pipermail/afnog/2014-September/001824.html Is "So >>>> Called Management" a normal grammatical construct? >>>> >>>> >> I believe you been a board member can help to enlighten the >>>> >> community about the processes and ADDRESS the issues rather than >>>> >> shut down discussions. >>>> >>>> Go and read my exploits and position with the now dead and buried >>>> Academic policy, co-authored with Andrew Alston, who is now also a >>>> Board member. We crooned, begged, preached and populated the mailing >>>> lists took several mikes at Lusaka, Abidjan and lately Djobouti. Wake >>>> up! There is no room for selective Amnesia here. >>>> >>>> >> As a long standing board member let the community know whether >>>> >> the board approved the first time allocation of /12 IPv4 to this >>>> >> ORG? >>>> >>>> The Board approves policies, not allocations. Show me where in the >>>> rule, it tasks the Board with approving allocations? >>>> >>>> > If yes why? >>>> >>>> Not Applicable. >>>> >>>> >> What policies framework was followed to approve this block? >>>> >>>> Ask our hostmasters after the next hostmasters' report at the next >>>> meeting in MU. If you want them to seek approval from you, propose a >>>> policy in that regard. >>> Why wait for the meeting in MU? As much as I can remember as an AFRINIC hostmaster, allocations greater than /16 IPv4 have to be approved by management and board based on hostmasters recommendation. To give you a heads up I have had my fingers burnt for going against the contrary of approving without management consent. >>> >>> So please let me know on what basis was /12 allocation approved? >>> >>> Do you believe the the example in question brought up is contributing to our regional development? If No what procedures should be put in place to reclaim such allocations? >>> >>>> >> This will help to enlighten the community about the flaws in our >>>> >> processes and policies and sensitize many when it comes to voting >>>> >> and implementation of policies. >>>> >>>> Cool. I however have not seen anyone display some lack of >>>> understanding of our policies here, rather the deliberate attempt to >>>> pull down the house. >>>> >>>> When I checked .... https://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=193262322 >>>> >>>> I saw a Kofi ANSA AKUFO, IP Resource Analyst AFRINIC >>>> June 2013 ?C December 2013 (7 months)Ebene Mauritius >>>> - - Handling of requests for AFRINIC membership. >>>> - - Allocation and assignment of address space in response to approved >>>> requests. >>>> [Others deleted] >>>> >>>> Perhaps the community should be asking you if it is ... Sour grapes? >>> >>> Come on Sunday lets not resort to personal attacks but rather address there issues in the discussion. Again lets address the issues. >>> >>>> >>>> If you have the slightest idea about how we can keep African Addresses >>>> in Africa for the sake of Africans, bring it on. I will support you to >>>> high heavens. >>> Exactly - the first process is learning to ask the right questions. >>> >>> Should we be asking "how to keep African Addresses in Africa for the sake of Africans" given the inherent globalization footprints of these internet resources? >>> >>> OR >>> >>> Should we be asking how to exploit the challenges and impact of current technologies (State of art Data Centers,Virtualization, City Surveillance Systems, R&D etc) which are gradually becoming defacto standards with our Regions Allocations to spark regional development. >>> >>> cheers >>> >>> K. >>> >>>> Sunday. >>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >>>> Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) >>>> >>>> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUHBeCAAoJEH6UvSz6fA25aIcIAKe5O1EEvhRkyRARjFt6mI3U >>>> vNCZl+GiGMGOfhGnWI+uVnaAcLOfcjBidI59a0wgHYxO2WP/JgmTMMaMm/T1yW5+ >>>> xgyjQZdeEeUc099eJLPNUG3eMfj9v41ZSS5CSpqlh5ulnnmY0BkyJ8Yy+pUfs26E >>>> QzG375e4bbUP1ZGImSya7i6nvo2+pmi/uPMxDrpzBlAeOeSFJ7QUo0CvEzYvlfcf >>>> ch1gmTL1gIgv33kG9BEFUzxBBoy1CskrbU7+RWUqlOS+T4CZB/sqIZim/v7i6Mv4 >>>> qre7xXaNoSQaw+pWiqUFZ5oqDjnfPzJgOn1TdbrR7bpLiE1JNfEWwljyWjSPN/k= >>>> =gAd1 >>>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> rpd mailing list >>> rpd at afrinic.net >>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >> >> _______________________________________________ >> rpd mailing list >> rpd at afrinic.net >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sfolayan at gmail.com Fri Sep 19 13:17:47 2014 From: sfolayan at gmail.com (Sunday Folayan) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2014 14:17:47 +0100 Subject: [rpd] Re: [afnog] A typical case of abuse of our resources!!! In-Reply-To: References: <541BD21B.5020900@gmail.com> <541BFF49.9050502@gmail.com> <541C1782.3060509@gmail.com> Message-ID: <541C2CFB.9070609@gmail.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Dear Kofi, On 19/09/2014 13:28, Kofi ANSA AKUFO wrote: > > Perhaps the community should be asking you if it is ... Sour > grapes? > > >> Come on Sunday lets not resort to personal attacks but rather >> address there issues in the discussion. Again lets address the >> issues. When you alluded to some "So called Management", was I the one resorting to foul language? I was just trying to let you know that some people are reading, and they can THINK. Why not take Randy's advise? > If you have the slightest idea about how we can keep African > Addresses in Africa for the sake of Africans, bring it on. I will > support you to high heavens. > > Exactly - the first process is learning to ask the right > questions. I enrolled, but dropped out of the Ph.D. class ;) > >> Should we be asking "how to keep African Addresses in Africa for >> the sake of Africans" given the inherent globalization footprints >> of these internet resources? > >> OR > >> Should we be asking how to exploit the challenges and impact of >> current technologies (State of art Data Centers,Virtualization, >> City Surveillance Systems, R&D etc) which are gradually becoming >> defacto standards with our Regions Allocations to spark regional >> development. > No matter the question you want to pose ... show me a solution and I will advocate it. Again, I joined by asking you to light the candle and not curse the darkness. You have worked in AfriNIC and know by now where policies are needed. Why not propose some policy and save us this rigmarole? We should not run AfriNIC like some African states, where executive power does things, instead of the laid down rules. In fact, we should resist just that. I am a firm believer in the fact that Government should be of laws, rather than of men. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law I am assuming that all the other issues I responded to, are now rested, within the confines of your privileged position of being sheltered in the organization before. Sunday. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUHCz7AAoJEH6UvSz6fA25WXcH/jLV1ADmQenNR24dVy2NX2E/ 76xTCZ8UhJYIJBcMz7nd2XO3+hzGFgKIuMFFZJxDhkell6aJCmEQRFrdCx/1KW8B Ggjnh8lWKuioevrvn28BLnAq5lneUFc8K4q5Usi1Q4iyrddj6GCK0xYxZNMPhm2W zYF+03wKq2ygRKOOVusMg9crJpPpqYugYI/T5WDPiuLN3Y2rxBv9GzE8fa03SymP i5No/xc7sUnGet3D2hHWkZ8diOpKDetUwpKuc23SY9AUa0RdOJJKQJ6GWpUDpFuy kekvOxTgBh1SWwNYzLdNocRTT4pZ8q1mFuPJoPv84HGpe9oECWoM95ci54qXNKM= =yrjH -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From kofi.ansa at gmail.com Fri Sep 19 13:36:23 2014 From: kofi.ansa at gmail.com (Kofi ANSA AKUFO) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2014 17:36:23 +0400 Subject: [rpd] Re: [afnog] A typical case of abuse of our resources!!! In-Reply-To: <541C2CFB.9070609@gmail.com> References: <541BD21B.5020900@gmail.com> <541BFF49.9050502@gmail.com> <541C1782.3060509@gmail.com> <541C2CFB.9070609@gmail.com> Message-ID: On 19 September 2014 17:17, Sunday Folayan wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Dear Kofi, > > On 19/09/2014 13:28, Kofi ANSA AKUFO wrote: > > > > Perhaps the community should be asking you if it is ... Sour > > grapes? > > > > > >> Come on Sunday lets not resort to personal attacks but rather > >> address there issues in the discussion. Again lets address the > >> issues. > > When you alluded to some "So called Management", was I the one > resorting to foul language? I was just trying to let you know that > some people are reading, and they can THINK. Why not take Randy's advise? > > Agreed and sincerely apologize that was not meant to be interpreted that way. > > If you have the slightest idea about how we can keep African > > Addresses in Africa for the sake of Africans, bring it on. I will > > support you to high heavens. > > > > Exactly - the first process is learning to ask the right > > questions. > > I enrolled, but dropped out of the Ph.D. class ;) > Please lets stick to policy discussion and issues relating. > > > > >> Should we be asking "how to keep African Addresses in Africa for > >> the sake of Africans" given the inherent globalization footprints > >> of these internet resources? > > > >> OR > > > >> Should we be asking how to exploit the challenges and impact of > >> current technologies (State of art Data Centers,Virtualization, > >> City Surveillance Systems, R&D etc) which are gradually becoming > >> defacto standards with our Regions Allocations to spark regional > >> development. > > > > No matter the question you want to pose ... show me a solution and I > will advocate it. Again, I joined by asking you to light the candle > and not curse the darkness. You have worked in AfriNIC and know by now > where policies are needed. Why not propose some policy and save us > this rigmarole? > > There are existing policies in place already which need better implementation. Please refer to IPv4 Allocation policy link below http://www.afrinic.net/en/library/policies/126-afpub-2005-v4-001 I have pointed out how hostmasters make recommendations to management so I ask again; For such large allocations would it not be good for board involvement ? who evaluate and allocate the /12? Would you agree with me the persons responsible should see if the usage comply and if not REACT? > We should not run AfriNIC like some African states, where executive > power does things, instead of the laid down rules. In fact, we should > resist just that. I am a firm believer in the fact that Government > should be of laws, rather than of men. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law > > I am assuming that all the other issues I responded to, are now > rested, within the confines of your privileged position of being > sheltered in the organization before. > No Sunday similar questions were asked in DJ and no answers to date we need answers. Not addressing the questions really "lights candles" if you agree with me. Cheers > > Sunday. > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) > > iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUHCz7AAoJEH6UvSz6fA25WXcH/jLV1ADmQenNR24dVy2NX2E/ > 76xTCZ8UhJYIJBcMz7nd2XO3+hzGFgKIuMFFZJxDhkell6aJCmEQRFrdCx/1KW8B > Ggjnh8lWKuioevrvn28BLnAq5lneUFc8K4q5Usi1Q4iyrddj6GCK0xYxZNMPhm2W > zYF+03wKq2ygRKOOVusMg9crJpPpqYugYI/T5WDPiuLN3Y2rxBv9GzE8fa03SymP > i5No/xc7sUnGet3D2hHWkZ8diOpKDetUwpKuc23SY9AUa0RdOJJKQJ6GWpUDpFuy > kekvOxTgBh1SWwNYzLdNocRTT4pZ8q1mFuPJoPv84HGpe9oECWoM95ci54qXNKM= > =yrjH > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com Fri Sep 19 13:45:52 2014 From: Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com (Andrew Alston) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2014 14:45:52 +0100 Subject: [rpd] Re: [afnog] A typical case of abuse of our resources!!! In-Reply-To: References: <541BD21B.5020900@gmail.com> <541BFF49.9050502@gmail.com> <541C1782.3060509@gmail.com> <541C2CFB.9070609@gmail.com> Message-ID: Kofi, Again, I state here that I wrote in my personal capacity and not as a member of the board or any other organisation that I may be associated with. I have long argued (and continue to argue) that without policy that allows board involvement specifically in the policy, the board has zero mandate to get involved in IP allocations. The rules around IP allocations are set by the PdP, which is a defined process/body within the bylaws. The board approves policy, it does not set it, and I would argue it would be seriously amiss if the board were to start playing in policy and bypassing the PdP. If policies are being misinterpreted by the host masters, either the policy wording is ambiguous or the case can be appealed to the operational management if someone feels the hostmasters are not doing their jobs (and I myself have followed this route in the past where there has been disagreement). But nowhere in any policy or in any bylaw is a mandate handed to the board to get involved in IP allocations or IP allocation policy. If you wish to see that you have two options a.) either write policy and get it approves that entrenches that position or b.) Get the bylaws modified to extend the mandate of the board. If you wish for (b) it will have to be done at an AGMM and approved by 2/3rds of the membership base present as are the rules for bylaw amendment. Andrew Alston Group Head of IP Strategy [cid:41F29117-7C0A-42B2-81DA-A5927B7242DF] Sameer business Park, Block A, Mombasa Road. Nairobi, Kenya T: +254 205000000 - M: +254 733 2222 04 - E: andrew.alston at liquidtelecom.com From: Kofi ANSA AKUFO > Date: Friday, September 19, 2014 at 4:36 PM To: Sunday Folayan > Cc: AfriNIC Discuss >, AfriNIC Resource Policy >, "afnog at afnog.org" >, AfriNIC Board of Directors' List >, Andrew Alston > Subject: Re: [afnog] A typical case of abuse of our resources!!! On 19 September 2014 17:17, Sunday Folayan > wrote: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Dear Kofi, On 19/09/2014 13:28, Kofi ANSA AKUFO wrote: > > Perhaps the community should be asking you if it is ... Sour > grapes? > > >> Come on Sunday lets not resort to personal attacks but rather >> address there issues in the discussion. Again lets address the >> issues. When you alluded to some "So called Management", was I the one resorting to foul language? I was just trying to let you know that some people are reading, and they can THINK. Why not take Randy's advise? Agreed and sincerely apologize that was not meant to be interpreted that way. > If you have the slightest idea about how we can keep African > Addresses in Africa for the sake of Africans, bring it on. I will > support you to high heavens. > > Exactly - the first process is learning to ask the right > questions. I enrolled, but dropped out of the Ph.D. class ;) Please lets stick to policy discussion and issues relating. > >> Should we be asking "how to keep African Addresses in Africa for >> the sake of Africans" given the inherent globalization footprints >> of these internet resources? > >> OR > >> Should we be asking how to exploit the challenges and impact of >> current technologies (State of art Data Centers,Virtualization, >> City Surveillance Systems, R&D etc) which are gradually becoming >> defacto standards with our Regions Allocations to spark regional >> development. > No matter the question you want to pose ... show me a solution and I will advocate it. Again, I joined by asking you to light the candle and not curse the darkness. You have worked in AfriNIC and know by now where policies are needed. Why not propose some policy and save us this rigmarole? There are existing policies in place already which need better implementation. Please refer to IPv4 Allocation policy link below http://www.afrinic.net/en/library/policies/126-afpub-2005-v4-001 I have pointed out how hostmasters make recommendations to management so I ask again; For such large allocations would it not be good for board involvement ? who evaluate and allocate the /12? Would you agree with me the persons responsible should see if the usage comply and if not REACT? We should not run AfriNIC like some African states, where executive power does things, instead of the laid down rules. In fact, we should resist just that. I am a firm believer in the fact that Government should be of laws, rather than of men. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law I am assuming that all the other issues I responded to, are now rested, within the confines of your privileged position of being sheltered in the organization before. No Sunday similar questions were asked in DJ and no answers to date we need answers. Not addressing the questions really "lights candles" if you agree with me. Cheers Sunday. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUHCz7AAoJEH6UvSz6fA25WXcH/jLV1ADmQenNR24dVy2NX2E/ 76xTCZ8UhJYIJBcMz7nd2XO3+hzGFgKIuMFFZJxDhkell6aJCmEQRFrdCx/1KW8B Ggjnh8lWKuioevrvn28BLnAq5lneUFc8K4q5Usi1Q4iyrddj6GCK0xYxZNMPhm2W zYF+03wKq2ygRKOOVusMg9crJpPpqYugYI/T5WDPiuLN3Y2rxBv9GzE8fa03SymP i5No/xc7sUnGet3D2hHWkZ8diOpKDetUwpKuc23SY9AUa0RdOJJKQJ6GWpUDpFuy kekvOxTgBh1SWwNYzLdNocRTT4pZ8q1mFuPJoPv84HGpe9oECWoM95ci54qXNKM= =yrjH -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ________________________________ DISCLAIMER: This email contains proprietary information some or all of which may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this email, please notify the author by replying to this email. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose, copy, print, or rely on this email. We cannot accept liability for any statements made which are clearly the sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of this company or one of its agents. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 1D7357BF-29F7-4C26-9D6A-6EFCA78201B1[22].png Type: image/png Size: 13157 bytes Desc: 1D7357BF-29F7-4C26-9D6A-6EFCA78201B1[22].png URL: From h.lu at anytimechinese.com Fri Sep 19 14:36:47 2014 From: h.lu at anytimechinese.com (Lu) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2014 22:36:47 +0800 Subject: [rpd] Re: [afnog] A typical case of abuse of our resources!!! In-Reply-To: References: <541BD21B.5020900@gmail.com> <541BFF49.9050502@gmail.com> <541C1782.3060509@gmail.com> <541C2CFB.9070609@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A845EBF-72F2-4CD8-984E-FE02FC54A0C1@anytimechinese.com> Hi kofi: Fyi, as the holder of the /12 you are specific asking about, we have just been heavily checked by afrinic staff and we can ensure you all of our usage are accounting to afrinic policy. And we investing and continue contributing to the future development of the Africa continent. My company see afrinic a as the future of the internet with huge market potential. If you still have any concern about our allocation, you are more than welcome to talk to me in person in next afrinic meeting. > On 2014?9?19?, at ??9:36, Kofi ANSA AKUFO wrote: > > > >> On 19 September 2014 17:17, Sunday Folayan wrote: >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> Dear Kofi, >> >> On 19/09/2014 13:28, Kofi ANSA AKUFO wrote: >> > >> > Perhaps the community should be asking you if it is ... Sour >> > grapes? >> > >> > >> >> Come on Sunday lets not resort to personal attacks but rather >> >> address there issues in the discussion. Again lets address the >> >> issues. >> >> When you alluded to some "So called Management", was I the one >> resorting to foul language? I was just trying to let you know that >> some people are reading, and they can THINK. Why not take Randy's advise? > > Agreed and sincerely apologize that was not meant to be interpreted that way. > >> > If you have the slightest idea about how we can keep African >> > Addresses in Africa for the sake of Africans, bring it on. I will >> > support you to high heavens. >> > >> > Exactly - the first process is learning to ask the right >> > questions. >> >> I enrolled, but dropped out of the Ph.D. class ;) > > Please lets stick to policy discussion and issues relating. > >> >> > >> >> Should we be asking "how to keep African Addresses in Africa for >> >> the sake of Africans" given the inherent globalization footprints >> >> of these internet resources? >> > >> >> OR >> > >> >> Should we be asking how to exploit the challenges and impact of >> >> current technologies (State of art Data Centers,Virtualization, >> >> City Surveillance Systems, R&D etc) which are gradually becoming >> >> defacto standards with our Regions Allocations to spark regional >> >> development. >> > >> >> No matter the question you want to pose ... show me a solution and I >> will advocate it. Again, I joined by asking you to light the candle >> and not curse the darkness. You have worked in AfriNIC and know by now >> where policies are needed. Why not propose some policy and save us >> this rigmarole? > There are existing policies in place already which need better implementation. Please refer to IPv4 Allocation policy link below > > http://www.afrinic.net/en/library/policies/126-afpub-2005-v4-001 > > I have pointed out how hostmasters make recommendations to management so I ask again; > > For such large allocations would it not be good for board involvement ? > who evaluate and allocate the /12? > Would you agree with me the persons responsible should see if the usage comply and if not REACT? > > >> We should not run AfriNIC like some African states, where executive >> power does things, instead of the laid down rules. In fact, we should >> resist just that. I am a firm believer in the fact that Government >> should be of laws, rather than of men. >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law >> >> I am assuming that all the other issues I responded to, are now >> rested, within the confines of your privileged position of being >> sheltered in the organization before. > > No Sunday similar questions were asked in DJ and no answers to date we need answers. Not addressing the questions really "lights candles" if you agree with me. > > Cheers > >> >> Sunday. >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >> Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) >> >> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUHCz7AAoJEH6UvSz6fA25WXcH/jLV1ADmQenNR24dVy2NX2E/ >> 76xTCZ8UhJYIJBcMz7nd2XO3+hzGFgKIuMFFZJxDhkell6aJCmEQRFrdCx/1KW8B >> Ggjnh8lWKuioevrvn28BLnAq5lneUFc8K4q5Usi1Q4iyrddj6GCK0xYxZNMPhm2W >> zYF+03wKq2ygRKOOVusMg9crJpPpqYugYI/T5WDPiuLN3Y2rxBv9GzE8fa03SymP >> i5No/xc7sUnGet3D2hHWkZ8diOpKDetUwpKuc23SY9AUa0RdOJJKQJ6GWpUDpFuy >> kekvOxTgBh1SWwNYzLdNocRTT4pZ8q1mFuPJoPv84HGpe9oECWoM95ci54qXNKM= >> =yrjH >> -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kofi.ansa at gmail.com Fri Sep 19 14:51:21 2014 From: kofi.ansa at gmail.com (Kofi ANSA AKUFO) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2014 18:51:21 +0400 Subject: [rpd] Re: [afnog] A typical case of abuse of our resources!!! In-Reply-To: References: <541BD21B.5020900@gmail.com> <541BFF49.9050502@gmail.com> <541C1782.3060509@gmail.com> <541C2CFB.9070609@gmail.com> Message-ID: Great discussion. None of the two current board members who have responded in this discussion have directly answered the questions asked but rather expressed their personal opinion on how the processes should work based on policies. Quoting Sunday - "We should not run AfriNIC like some African states, where executive power does things, instead of the laid down rules. In fact, we should resist just that. I am a firm believer in the fact that Government should be of laws, rather than of men." AND Andrew - "The rules around IP allocations are set by the PdP, which is a defined process/body within the bylaws. The board approves policy, it does not set it .. " The community should assume hostmasters should be responsible for evaluation and allocation of resources under the current framework. So ... Who approved such huge chunk /12 (over a million IPv4 addresses) in a first (initial) time request? What does the current policies say about such requests? What was the out come of the results of hostmasters evaluation? Did hostmasters make any recommendation to management? AFRINIC hostmasters perhaps could help the community to answer some of these questions. I am not witch hunting any ORGs or AFRINIC staff but see it as proactive audits of our resources and operations of our Regions RIRs operations. The community could turn a blind eye and argue against the issues discussed or be more constructive to forge ahead concrete and reflective regional development. Cheers K. On 19 September 2014 17:45, Andrew Alston wrote: > Kofi, > > Again, I state here that I wrote in my personal capacity and not as a > member of the board or any other organisation that I may be associated with. > > I have long argued (and continue to argue) that without policy that > allows board involvement specifically in the policy, the board has zero > mandate to get involved in IP allocations. The rules around IP allocations > are set by the PdP, which is a defined process/body within the bylaws. The > board approves policy, it does not set it, and I would argue it would be > seriously amiss if the board were to start playing in policy and bypassing > the PdP. > > If policies are being misinterpreted by the host masters, either the > policy wording is ambiguous or the case can be appealed to the operational > management if someone feels the hostmasters are not doing their jobs (and I > myself have followed this route in the past where there has been > disagreement). But nowhere in any policy or in any bylaw is a mandate > handed to the board to get involved in IP allocations or IP allocation > policy. > > If you wish to see that you have two options a.) either write policy and > get it approves that entrenches that position or b.) Get the bylaws > modified to extend the mandate of the board. If you wish for (b) it will > have to be done at an AGMM and approved by 2/3rds of the membership base > present as are the rules for bylaw amendment. > > *Andrew Alston* > Group Head of IP Strategy > > Sameer business Park, Block A, Mombasa Road. Nairobi, Kenya > > *T:* +254 205000000 - *M*: +254 733 2222 04 - *E:* > andrew.alston at liquidtelecom.com > > From: Kofi ANSA AKUFO > Date: Friday, September 19, 2014 at 4:36 PM > To: Sunday Folayan > Cc: AfriNIC Discuss , AfriNIC Resource > Policy , "afnog at afnog.org" , AfriNIC > Board of Directors' List , Andrew Alston < > andrew.alston at liquidtelecom.com> > Subject: Re: [afnog] A typical case of abuse of our resources!!! > > > > On 19 September 2014 17:17, Sunday Folayan wrote: > >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> Dear Kofi, >> >> On 19/09/2014 13:28, Kofi ANSA AKUFO wrote: >> > >> > Perhaps the community should be asking you if it is ... Sour >> > grapes? >> > >> > >> >> Come on Sunday lets not resort to personal attacks but rather >> >> address there issues in the discussion. Again lets address the >> >> issues. >> >> When you alluded to some "So called Management", was I the one >> resorting to foul language? I was just trying to let you know that >> some people are reading, and they can THINK. Why not take Randy's advise? >> >> > Agreed and sincerely apologize that was not meant to be interpreted that > way. > > >> > If you have the slightest idea about how we can keep African >> > Addresses in Africa for the sake of Africans, bring it on. I will >> > support you to high heavens. >> > >> > Exactly - the first process is learning to ask the right >> > questions. >> >> I enrolled, but dropped out of the Ph.D. class ;) >> > > Please lets stick to policy discussion and issues relating. > > >> >> > >> >> Should we be asking "how to keep African Addresses in Africa for >> >> the sake of Africans" given the inherent globalization footprints >> >> of these internet resources? >> > >> >> OR >> > >> >> Should we be asking how to exploit the challenges and impact of >> >> current technologies (State of art Data Centers,Virtualization, >> >> City Surveillance Systems, R&D etc) which are gradually becoming >> >> defacto standards with our Regions Allocations to spark regional >> >> development. >> > >> >> No matter the question you want to pose ... show me a solution and I >> will advocate it. Again, I joined by asking you to light the candle >> and not curse the darkness. You have worked in AfriNIC and know by now >> where policies are needed. Why not propose some policy and save us >> this rigmarole? >> >> There are existing policies in place already which need better > implementation. Please refer to IPv4 Allocation policy link below > > http://www.afrinic.net/en/library/policies/126-afpub-2005-v4-001 > > I have pointed out how hostmasters make recommendations to management so > I ask again; > > For such large allocations would it not be good for board involvement ? > who evaluate and allocate the /12? > Would you agree with me the persons responsible should see if the usage > comply and if not REACT? > > > >> We should not run AfriNIC like some African states, where executive >> power does things, instead of the laid down rules. In fact, we should >> resist just that. I am a firm believer in the fact that Government >> should be of laws, rather than of men. >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law >> >> I am assuming that all the other issues I responded to, are now >> rested, within the confines of your privileged position of being >> sheltered in the organization before. >> > > No Sunday similar questions were asked in DJ and no answers to date we > need answers. Not addressing the questions really "lights candles" if you > agree with me. > > Cheers > > >> >> Sunday. >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >> Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) >> >> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUHCz7AAoJEH6UvSz6fA25WXcH/jLV1ADmQenNR24dVy2NX2E/ >> 76xTCZ8UhJYIJBcMz7nd2XO3+hzGFgKIuMFFZJxDhkell6aJCmEQRFrdCx/1KW8B >> Ggjnh8lWKuioevrvn28BLnAq5lneUFc8K4q5Usi1Q4iyrddj6GCK0xYxZNMPhm2W >> zYF+03wKq2ygRKOOVusMg9crJpPpqYugYI/T5WDPiuLN3Y2rxBv9GzE8fa03SymP >> i5No/xc7sUnGet3D2hHWkZ8diOpKDetUwpKuc23SY9AUa0RdOJJKQJ6GWpUDpFuy >> kekvOxTgBh1SWwNYzLdNocRTT4pZ8q1mFuPJoPv84HGpe9oECWoM95ci54qXNKM= >> =yrjH >> -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >> > > > ------------------------------ > DISCLAIMER: This email contains proprietary information some or all of > which may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. If > an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this email, please > notify the author by replying to this email. If you are not the intended > recipient, you must not use, disclose, copy, print, or rely on this email. > We cannot accept liability for any statements made which are clearly the > sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of this company or one of its > agents. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 1D7357BF-29F7-4C26-9D6A-6EFCA78201B1[22].png Type: image/png Size: 13157 bytes Desc: not available URL: From omo at wacren.net Fri Sep 19 15:21:20 2014 From: omo at wacren.net (Omo Oaiya) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2014 15:21:20 +0000 Subject: [rpd] Re: [afnog] A typical case of abuse of our resources!!! In-Reply-To: References: <541BD21B.5020900@gmail.com> <541BFF49.9050502@gmail.com> <541C1782.3060509@gmail.com> <541C2CFB.9070609@gmail.com> Message-ID: On 19 September 2014 14:51, Kofi ANSA AKUFO wrote: > Who approved such huge chunk /12 (over a million IPv4 addresses) in a > first (initial) time request? What does the current policies say about such > requests? What was the out come of the results of hostmasters evaluation? > Did hostmasters make any recommendation to management? This connects with the clarity I requested. Policy seems to be quite clear to me in AFPUB-2005-v4-001 (8.2 -8.3) but others might have other interpretation. As much as we want different, Universities and NRENs are being treated in line with policy. Why was this allocation treated differently? Are there any others getting preferential treatment that is not guided by "rule of law"? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sfolayan at gmail.com Fri Sep 19 16:20:52 2014 From: sfolayan at gmail.com (Sunday Folayan) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2014 17:20:52 +0100 Subject: [rpd] Re: [afnog] A typical case of abuse of our resources!!! In-Reply-To: References: <541BD21B.5020900@gmail.com> <541BFF49.9050502@gmail.com> <541C1782.3060509@gmail.com> <541C2CFB.9070609@gmail.com> Message-ID: <541C57E4.8030504@gmail.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Dear Koffi and Omo, I am not holding brief for any applicant or hostmaster, but if a request comes, that shows that an LIR can, and will allocate a /12, you want AfriNIC to allocate a /22? Is that the interpretation of 8.3? to wit: AFRINIC shall apply a slow start mechanism to all new LIRs. With respect to allocations made by AFRINIC, the first allocation an LIR receives will be the size of the minimum practical allocation described in Section 8.2 (a) unless otherwise justified. The slow start policy is used by all RIR's to prevent allocations of large blocks of address space that may then remain substantially unassigned. AFRINIC implements the slow start mechanism in a consistent and fair manner for every LIR, and will apply the same principles and standards to every applicant for address space. What about the last clause ... "unless otherwise justified?". Are you saying that: o Applicant did not provide justification o Applicant provided justification but was not ok with hostmasters o Applicant provided justification and it was ok o Applicant provided fraudulent justification o None of the above. Omo's email further gives nuances to some preferential actions, apart from previous accusations of corruption. What exactly are we dealing with? Let me summarize Andrew's email again: When a Board begins to reach into operational matters not clearly in its charter or schedule, or not specifically assigned by policy, it is recipe for disaster. Sunday. On 19/09/2014 16:21, Omo Oaiya wrote: > On 19 September 2014 14:51, Kofi ANSA AKUFO > wrote: > >> Who approved such huge chunk /12 (over a million IPv4 addresses) >> in a first (initial) time request? What does the current policies >> say about such requests? What was the out come of the results of >> hostmasters evaluation? Did hostmasters make any recommendation >> to management? > > > > This connects with the clarity I requested. Policy seems to be > quite clear to me in AFPUB-2005-v4-001 (8.2 -8.3) but others might > have other interpretation. > > As much as we want different, Universities and NRENs are being > treated in line with policy. Why was this allocation treated > differently? Are there any others getting preferential treatment > that is not guided by "rule of law"? > > > > _______________________________________________ rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUHFfjAAoJEH6UvSz6fA253IgIAIMJ1rn7D+kRAgOsn90cc5M2 5uRdrHVT4Dh/v1HcPj0PbYVgzKdLxAj1qsQFeeqXO6Rl2D1XYPQ1vRmtV0W54yeU dmLrXk5xejJhuaNsJYbWRTOjIPzCeHC1N4HcAuBRosRVsbPwfHUwEvymog0g1ZWg uVWnc96i7ck/37+fyjSqwDSoBVDhLRrjzdcSADrGFGfoZHwmfeJJU0Lp1otskBX7 YE99fPs/nzJagRoPPuJbW+xxi/6beKkShu1BOO+Zi6/74NpJN85wWVaXpRdGXJHW Wt9f7Opb1XvY9kNue73J9P3dXFsUIaNxc0w193U13BptmQ/KeRNGhhxuifqS0OQ= =AnYV -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From kofi.ansa at gmail.com Fri Sep 19 17:05:32 2014 From: kofi.ansa at gmail.com (Kofi ANSA AKUFO) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2014 21:05:32 +0400 Subject: [rpd] Re: [afnog] A typical case of abuse of our resources!!! In-Reply-To: <541C57E4.8030504@gmail.com> References: <541BD21B.5020900@gmail.com> <541BFF49.9050502@gmail.com> <541C1782.3060509@gmail.com> <541C2CFB.9070609@gmail.com> <541C57E4.8030504@gmail.com> Message-ID: On 19 September 2014 20:20, Sunday Folayan wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Dear Koffi and Omo, > > I am not holding brief for any applicant or hostmaster, but if a > request comes, that shows that an LIR can, and will allocate a /12, > you want AfriNIC to allocate a /22? Is that the interpretation of 8.3? > to wit: > > > AFRINIC shall apply a slow start mechanism to all new LIRs. With > respect to allocations made by AFRINIC, the first allocation an LIR > receives will be the size of the minimum practical allocation > described in Section 8.2 (a) unless otherwise justified. > The slow start policy is used by all RIR's to prevent allocations of > large blocks of address space that may then remain substantially > unassigned. AFRINIC implements the slow start mechanism in a > consistent and fair manner for every LIR, and will apply the same > principles and standards to every applicant for address space. > > > What about the last clause ... "unless otherwise justified?". Are you > saying that: > o Applicant did not provide justification > o Applicant provided justification but was not ok with hostmasters > o Applicant provided justification and it was ok > o Applicant provided fraudulent justification > o None of the above. > > Sunday I believe AFRINIC hostmasters and management should answer this question. AFRINIC board is appointed by the member community and should assist to get the answers. Omo's email further gives nuances to some preferential actions, apart > from previous accusations of corruption. What exactly are we dealing > with? > > AFRINIC hostmasters make recommendations to AFRINIC management with respect to allocations greater than /17. Again what recommendation did the hostmasters make to management? Who constitute and what criteria is used to approve such huge allocations? Cheers K. Let me summarize Andrew's email again: When a Board begins to reach > into operational matters not clearly in its charter or schedule, or > not specifically assigned by policy, it is recipe for disaster. > > Sunday. > > On 19/09/2014 16:21, Omo Oaiya wrote: > > On 19 September 2014 14:51, Kofi ANSA AKUFO > > wrote: > > > >> Who approved such huge chunk /12 (over a million IPv4 addresses) > >> in a first (initial) time request? What does the current policies > >> say about such requests? What was the out come of the results of > >> hostmasters evaluation? Did hostmasters make any recommendation > >> to management? > > > > > > > > This connects with the clarity I requested. Policy seems to be > > quite clear to me in AFPUB-2005-v4-001 (8.2 -8.3) but others might > > have other interpretation. > > > > As much as we want different, Universities and NRENs are being > > treated in line with policy. Why was this allocation treated > > differently? Are there any others getting preferential treatment > > that is not guided by "rule of law"? > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ rpd mailing list > > rpd at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) > > iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUHFfjAAoJEH6UvSz6fA253IgIAIMJ1rn7D+kRAgOsn90cc5M2 > 5uRdrHVT4Dh/v1HcPj0PbYVgzKdLxAj1qsQFeeqXO6Rl2D1XYPQ1vRmtV0W54yeU > dmLrXk5xejJhuaNsJYbWRTOjIPzCeHC1N4HcAuBRosRVsbPwfHUwEvymog0g1ZWg > uVWnc96i7ck/37+fyjSqwDSoBVDhLRrjzdcSADrGFGfoZHwmfeJJU0Lp1otskBX7 > YE99fPs/nzJagRoPPuJbW+xxi/6beKkShu1BOO+Zi6/74NpJN85wWVaXpRdGXJHW > Wt9f7Opb1XvY9kNue73J9P3dXFsUIaNxc0w193U13BptmQ/KeRNGhhxuifqS0OQ= > =AnYV > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From omo at wacren.net Fri Sep 19 17:12:57 2014 From: omo at wacren.net (Omo Oaiya) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2014 17:12:57 +0000 Subject: [rpd] Re: [afnog] A typical case of abuse of our resources!!! In-Reply-To: <541C57E4.8030504@gmail.com> References: <541BD21B.5020900@gmail.com> <541BFF49.9050502@gmail.com> <541C1782.3060509@gmail.com> <541C2CFB.9070609@gmail.com> <541C57E4.8030504@gmail.com> Message-ID: On 19 September 2014 16:20, Sunday Folayan wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Dear Koffi and Omo, > > I am not holding brief for any applicant or hostmaster, but if a > request comes, that shows that an LIR can, and will allocate a /12, > you want AfriNIC to allocate a /22? Is that the interpretation of 8.3? > to wit: > > > AFRINIC shall apply a slow start mechanism to all new LIRs. With > respect to allocations made by AFRINIC, the first allocation an LIR > receives will be the size of the minimum practical allocation > described in Section 8.2 (a) unless otherwise justified. > The slow start policy is used by all RIR's to prevent allocations of > large blocks of address space that may then remain substantially > unassigned. AFRINIC implements the slow start mechanism in a > consistent and fair manner for every LIR, and will apply the same > principles and standards to every applicant for address space. > > > What about the last clause ... "unless otherwise justified?". Are you > saying that: > o Applicant did not provide justification > o Applicant provided justification but was not ok with hostmasters > o Applicant provided justification and it was ok > o Applicant provided fraudulent justification > o None of the above. > > Omo's email further gives nuances to some preferential actions, apart > from previous accusations of corruption. What exactly are we dealing > with? > > Sunday, No nuances of any sort. Simple questions from a member seeking clarity. You are in a better position to answer or get these answers for us. Please help respond to them so we move on. Omo -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From keshwarsingh.nadan at millenium.mu Fri Sep 19 17:16:06 2014 From: keshwarsingh.nadan at millenium.mu (Keshwarsingh Nadan) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2014 17:16:06 +0000 Subject: [rpd] Re: [afnog] A typical case of abuse of our resources!!! In-Reply-To: <541C57E4.8030504@gmail.com> References: <541BD21B.5020900@gmail.com> <541BFF49.9050502@gmail.com> <541C1782.3060509@gmail.com> <541C2CFB.9070609@gmail.com> <541C57E4.8030504@gmail.com> Message-ID: <8139A2D4BA5CE94C98E1A584DDEA6793B47917@exchange1.prod.servihoo.net> Dear Sunday, > -----Original Message----- > From: rpd-bounces at afrinic.net [mailto:rpd-bounces at afrinic.net] On Behalf > Of Sunday Folayan > Sent: 19 September 2014 20:21 > To: Omo Oaiya; Kofi ANSA AKUFO > Cc: Andrew Alston; AfriNIC Discuss; AfriNIC Resource Policy; > afnog at afnog.org > Subject: Re: [rpd] Re: [afnog] A typical case of abuse of our resources!!! > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Dear Koffi and Omo, > > I am not holding brief for any applicant or hostmaster, but if a request comes, > that shows that an LIR can, and will allocate a /12, you want AfriNIC to > allocate a /22? Is that the interpretation of 8.3? Definitely not. Despite that, some of us manage to get larger allocations and some aren't able. > to wit: > > > AFRINIC shall apply a slow start mechanism to all new LIRs. With respect to > allocations made by AFRINIC, the first allocation an LIR receives will be the > size of the minimum practical allocation described in Section 8.2 (a) unless > otherwise justified. > The slow start policy is used by all RIR's to prevent allocations of large blocks > of address space that may then remain substantially unassigned. AFRINIC > implements the slow start mechanism in a consistent and fair manner for > every LIR, and will apply the same principles and standards to every applicant > for address space. > > > What about the last clause ... "unless otherwise justified?". Are you saying > that: > o Applicant did not provide justification Never, your application would otherwise be rejected. > o Applicant provided justification but was not ok with hostmasters Happens most of the time > o Applicant provided justification and it was ok Depends on who provides the justification, who works on the request. > o Applicant provided fraudulent justification > o None of the above. > > Omo's email further gives nuances to some preferential actions, apart from > previous accusations of corruption. What exactly are we dealing with? Omo's right. Last year I was about to expose corruption cases regarding IPv4 allocations during the AOB at the AGM, I was threatened to be killed if ever I would step into Djibouti. This year I'm playing home on my playground, we'll see who can stop me. > > Let me summarize Andrew's email again: When a Board begins to reach into > operational matters not clearly in its charter or schedule, or not specifically > assigned by policy, it is recipe for disaster. > > Sunday. > > On 19/09/2014 16:21, Omo Oaiya wrote: > > On 19 September 2014 14:51, Kofi ANSA AKUFO > > wrote: > > > >> Who approved such huge chunk /12 (over a million IPv4 addresses) in a > >> first (initial) time request? What does the current policies say > >> about such requests? What was the out come of the results of > >> hostmasters evaluation? Did hostmasters make any recommendation to > >> management? > > > > > > > > This connects with the clarity I requested. Policy seems to be > > quite clear to me in AFPUB-2005-v4-001 (8.2 -8.3) but others might > > have other interpretation. > > > > As much as we want different, Universities and NRENs are being > > treated in line with policy. Why was this allocation treated > > differently? Are there any others getting preferential treatment that > > is not guided by "rule of law"? > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ rpd mailing > list > > rpd at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) > > iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUHFfjAAoJEH6UvSz6fA253IgIAIMJ1rn7D+kRAgOsn90cc5M > 2 > 5uRdrHVT4Dh/v1HcPj0PbYVgzKdLxAj1qsQFeeqXO6Rl2D1XYPQ1vRmtV0W54y > eU > dmLrXk5xejJhuaNsJYbWRTOjIPzCeHC1N4HcAuBRosRVsbPwfHUwEvymog0g1 > ZWg > uVWnc96i7ck/37+fyjSqwDSoBVDhLRrjzdcSADrGFGfoZHwmfeJJU0Lp1otskBX > 7 > YE99fPs/nzJagRoPPuJbW+xxi/6beKkShu1BOO+Zi6/74NpJN85wWVaXpRdGXJ > HW > Wt9f7Opb1XvY9kNue73J9P3dXFsUIaNxc0w193U13BptmQ/KeRNGhhxuifqS0 > OQ= > =AnYV > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 6435 bytes Desc: not available URL: From keshwarsingh.nadan at millenium.mu Fri Sep 19 17:20:22 2014 From: keshwarsingh.nadan at millenium.mu (Keshwarsingh Nadan) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2014 17:20:22 +0000 Subject: [rpd] Re: [afnog] A typical case of abuse of our resources!!! References: <541BD21B.5020900@gmail.com> <541BFF49.9050502@gmail.com> <541C1782.3060509@gmail.com> <541C2CFB.9070609@gmail.com> <541C57E4.8030504@gmail.com> Message-ID: <8139A2D4BA5CE94C98E1A584DDEA6793B4893E@exchange1.prod.servihoo.net> Edit: That was in cote d'ivoire. Djibouti was another story. I still remember while on a phone call with Kofi, it was clear the entire African west coast wanted my skin. > -----Original Message----- > From: Keshwarsingh Nadan > Sent: 19 September 2014 21:15 > To: 'Sunday Folayan'; Omo Oaiya; Kofi ANSA AKUFO > Cc: Andrew Alston; AfriNIC Discuss; AfriNIC Resource Policy; > afnog at afnog.org > Subject: RE: [rpd] Re: [afnog] A typical case of abuse of our resources!!! > > Dear Sunday, > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: rpd-bounces at afrinic.net [mailto:rpd-bounces at afrinic.net] On > Behalf > > Of Sunday Folayan > > Sent: 19 September 2014 20:21 > > To: Omo Oaiya; Kofi ANSA AKUFO > > Cc: Andrew Alston; AfriNIC Discuss; AfriNIC Resource Policy; > > afnog at afnog.org > > Subject: Re: [rpd] Re: [afnog] A typical case of abuse of our resources!!! > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > Hash: SHA1 > > > > Dear Koffi and Omo, > > > > I am not holding brief for any applicant or hostmaster, but if a request > comes, > > that shows that an LIR can, and will allocate a /12, you want AfriNIC to > > allocate a /22? Is that the interpretation of 8.3? > > Definitely not. Despite that, some of us manage to get larger allocations > and some aren't able. > > > to wit: > > > > > > AFRINIC shall apply a slow start mechanism to all new LIRs. With respect > to > > allocations made by AFRINIC, the first allocation an LIR receives will be > the > > size of the minimum practical allocation described in Section 8.2 (a) > unless > > otherwise justified. > > The slow start policy is used by all RIR's to prevent allocations of large > blocks > > of address space that may then remain substantially unassigned. AFRINIC > > implements the slow start mechanism in a consistent and fair manner for > > every LIR, and will apply the same principles and standards to every > applicant > > for address space. > > > > > > What about the last clause ... "unless otherwise justified?". Are you > saying > > that: > > o Applicant did not provide justification > > Never, your application would otherwise be rejected. > > > o Applicant provided justification but was not ok with hostmasters > > Happens most of the time > > > o Applicant provided justification and it was ok > > Depends on who provides the justification, who works on the request. > > > o Applicant provided fraudulent justification > > o None of the above. > > > > Omo's email further gives nuances to some preferential actions, apart from > > previous accusations of corruption. What exactly are we dealing with? > > Omo's right. Last year I was about to expose corruption cases regarding IPv4 > allocations during the AOB at the AGM, I was threatened to be killed if ever > I would step into Djibouti. > > This year I'm playing home on my playground, we'll see who can stop me. > > > > Let me summarize Andrew's email again: When a Board begins to reach > into > > operational matters not clearly in its charter or schedule, or not > specifically > > assigned by policy, it is recipe for disaster. > > > > Sunday. > > > > On 19/09/2014 16:21, Omo Oaiya wrote: > > > On 19 September 2014 14:51, Kofi ANSA AKUFO > > > wrote: > > > > > >> Who approved such huge chunk /12 (over a million IPv4 addresses) in a > > >> first (initial) time request? What does the current policies say > > >> about such requests? What was the out come of the results of > > >> hostmasters evaluation? Did hostmasters make any recommendation to > > >> management? > > > > > > > > > > > > This connects with the clarity I requested. Policy seems to be > > > quite clear to me in AFPUB-2005-v4-001 (8.2 -8.3) but others might > > > have other interpretation. > > > > > > As much as we want different, Universities and NRENs are being > > > treated in line with policy. Why was this allocation treated > > > differently? Are there any others getting preferential treatment that > > > is not guided by "rule of law"? > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ rpd mailing > > list > > > rpd at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > > Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) > > > > > iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUHFfjAAoJEH6UvSz6fA253IgIAIMJ1rn7D+kRAgOsn90cc5M > > 2 > > > 5uRdrHVT4Dh/v1HcPj0PbYVgzKdLxAj1qsQFeeqXO6Rl2D1XYPQ1vRmtV0W54y > > eU > > > dmLrXk5xejJhuaNsJYbWRTOjIPzCeHC1N4HcAuBRosRVsbPwfHUwEvymog0g1 > > ZWg > > > uVWnc96i7ck/37+fyjSqwDSoBVDhLRrjzdcSADrGFGfoZHwmfeJJU0Lp1otskBX > > 7 > > > YE99fPs/nzJagRoPPuJbW+xxi/6beKkShu1BOO+Zi6/74NpJN85wWVaXpRdGXJ > > HW > > > Wt9f7Opb1XvY9kNue73J9P3dXFsUIaNxc0w193U13BptmQ/KeRNGhhxuifqS0 > > OQ= > > =AnYV > > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > _______________________________________________ > > rpd mailing list > > rpd at afrinic.net > > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 6435 bytes Desc: not available URL: From sfolayan at gmail.com Fri Sep 19 17:44:59 2014 From: sfolayan at gmail.com (Sunday Folayan) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2014 18:44:59 +0100 Subject: [rpd] Re: [afnog] A typical case of abuse of our resources!!! In-Reply-To: References: <541BD21B.5020900@gmail.com> <541BFF49.9050502@gmail.com> <541C1782.3060509@gmail.com> <541C2CFB.9070609@gmail.com> <541C57E4.8030504@gmail.com> Message-ID: <541C6B9B.8050708@gmail.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hello Omo and Koffi, This was dealt with in Djibouti. Is it a different case? http://internetsummitafrica.org/images/AIS14_assets/powerpoint_template/IPv6/policy.afrinic20-5.pdf Slide 23. Sunday. On 19/09/2014 18:12, Omo Oaiya wrote: > On 19 September 2014 16:20, Sunday Folayan > wrote: > >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >> >> Dear Koffi and Omo, >> >> I am not holding brief for any applicant or hostmaster, but if a >> request comes, that shows that an LIR can, and will allocate a >> /12, you want AfriNIC to allocate a /22? Is that the >> interpretation of 8.3? to wit: >> >> AFRINIC shall apply a slow start mechanism to all new >> LIRs. With respect to allocations made by AFRINIC, the first >> allocation an LIR receives will be the size of the minimum >> practical allocation described in Section 8.2 (a) unless >> otherwise justified. The slow start policy is used by all RIR's >> to prevent allocations of large blocks of address space that may >> then remain substantially unassigned. AFRINIC implements the slow >> start mechanism in a consistent and fair manner for every LIR, >> and will apply the same principles and standards to every >> applicant for address space. >> >> What about the last clause ... "unless otherwise justified?". Are >> you saying that: o Applicant did not provide justification o >> Applicant provided justification but was not ok with hostmasters >> o Applicant provided justification and it was ok o Applicant >> provided fraudulent justification o None of the above. >> >> Omo's email further gives nuances to some preferential actions, >> apart from previous accusations of corruption. What exactly are >> we dealing with? >> >> > Sunday, > > No nuances of any sort. Simple questions from a member seeking > clarity. You are in a better position to answer or get these > answers for us. Please help respond to them so we move on. > > Omo > - -- - ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sunday Adekunle Folayan blog: http://www.sundayfolayan.name.ng email: sfolayan at skannet.com.ng, sfolayan at gmail.com phone: *234-816-866-7523, +234-802-291-2202 skype: sfolayan fcbk: www.facebook.com/sfolayan tweet: sfolayan linkedin: sfolayan : http://free.lanci.ng - Anyone, Anyjob, Anywhere, Anytime - ------------------------------------------------------------------ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUHGubAAoJEH6UvSz6fA25d3MH/3P8GiP8tl7uK9YHcdXVM4Ia Kh74r0WpuJR7BJO6HlzT8lNvH+RyIlrw7KAjnCwntydFrooNYoOvaAD1yAyb43AI LAXw8swsYXdWEQ7Wv2v8/S7rV8LjX3PqzDPbZTjok3Hm4SHxnIIbCe90rYfiYI9S 606QBNgl3rESKsxNsmAzU5+FqfZ2rIm0RnE03E7umIDBCNhbHTsdh4EpCXyqAYxc JjRE39cCUGixPwj9+qUv/aGkSx38Yna+IV+RhskL+xTQBVI2KEfKGyAe8uM9tZ3D m2iFIcHNcX99BdNPqbXkDoGMh/1cf7UROrGzyKRhAycoF7oTPVnUe0ZtGbTB8NU= =uHCx -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From sfolayan at gmail.com Fri Sep 19 17:51:46 2014 From: sfolayan at gmail.com (Sunday Folayan) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2014 18:51:46 +0100 Subject: [rpd] Re: [afnog] A typical case of abuse of our resources!!! In-Reply-To: References: <541BD21B.5020900@gmail.com> <541BFF49.9050502@gmail.com> <541C1782.3060509@gmail.com> <541C2CFB.9070609@gmail.com> <541C57E4.8030504@gmail.com> Message-ID: <541C6D32.2010907@gmail.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 19/09/2014 18:05, Kofi ANSA AKUFO wrote: > On 19 September 2014 20:20, Sunday Folayan > wrote: > > Dear Koffi and Omo, > > I am not holding brief for any applicant or hostmaster, but if a > request comes, that shows that an LIR can, and will allocate a > /12, you want AfriNIC to allocate a /22? Is that the interpretation > of 8.3? to wit: > > AFRINIC shall apply a slow start mechanism to all new > LIRs. With respect to allocations made by AFRINIC, the first > allocation an LIR receives will be the size of the minimum > practical allocation described in Section 8.2 (a) unless otherwise > justified. The slow start policy is used by all RIR's to prevent > allocations of large blocks of address space that may then remain > substantially unassigned. AFRINIC implements the slow start > mechanism in a consistent and fair manner for every LIR, and will > apply the same principles and standards to every applicant for > address space. > > What about the last clause ... "unless otherwise justified?". Are > you saying that: o Applicant did not provide justification o > Applicant provided justification but was not ok with hostmasters o > Applicant provided justification and it was ok o Applicant provided > fraudulent justification o None of the above. > > >> Sunday I believe AFRINIC hostmasters and management should answer >> this question. AFRINIC board is appointed by the member community >> and should assist to get the answers. It has been discussed by the community and the hostmasters already responded publicly to the community in Djibouti. Kindly issue them a "certificate of your understanding", as soon as possible. Sunday. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUHG0yAAoJEH6UvSz6fA25NMYH/0nm9CooU7j0O5AWl+VDmtVi m8qNnS/KkjbIA1V2sjWKbOdu0Zz1Z0AESMjjpk9ScjEsUAuaGAtc2YaEa8NvwGgL vVbocLjADrAqFwyYnU1StwgTfm1Yt4448ipr5ZXqwxpFLIdob9YPar6gh+oJEk06 HZQ1pztddYG+NI6PfST+yyWXOYuM9x7AB7WCkaqZx0zA3MXOLC0GG27H3oavbucR ADkLTbgBgYX3gKLNHU3ZfZ4Yl/esDp9BAqAxInJzkDEcOLraDbsstctZZMO4S0tg 6m7/wJ3B6Ygt5u4P99RuvTScuLv6YjevtOd24eohOG4gIi3w9ev1JrFWfx7rJio= =gZOJ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com Fri Sep 19 17:58:38 2014 From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2014 18:58:38 +0100 Subject: [afnog] [rpd] Re: A typical case of abuse of our resources!!! In-Reply-To: <8139A2D4BA5CE94C98E1A584DDEA6793B47917@exchange1.prod.servihoo.net> References: <541BD21B.5020900@gmail.com> <541BFF49.9050502@gmail.com> <541C1782.3060509@gmail.com> <541C2CFB.9070609@gmail.com> <541C57E4.8030504@gmail.com> <8139A2D4BA5CE94C98E1A584DDEA6793B47917@exchange1.prod.servihoo.net> Message-ID: sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 19 Sep 2014 18:16, "Keshwarsingh Nadan" wrote: >..... Last year I was about to expose corruption cases regarding IPv4 > allocations during the AOB at the AGM, I was threatened to be killed if ever > I would step into Djibouti. > Then I would say you may be part of the problem. I don't see why you could not raise your concern at the AGM, who threatened you? and I hope you have proof for these allegations. There are clear guideline to blow a whistle on foul play, and IMO it does not in anyway help the community neither does it fix anything by saying it in a manner you have done above. > This year I'm playing home on my playground, we'll see who can stop me. > > Please share the concern and at the same time provide recommendation on solution. It does not necessarily have to wait for the AGM or home play immunity ;) Cheers! > > Let me summarize Andrew's email again: When a Board begins to reach into > > operational matters not clearly in its charter or schedule, or not > specifically > > assigned by policy, it is recipe for disaster. > > > > Sunday. > > > > On 19/09/2014 16:21, Omo Oaiya wrote: > > > On 19 September 2014 14:51, Kofi ANSA AKUFO > > > wrote: > > > > > >> Who approved such huge chunk /12 (over a million IPv4 addresses) in a > > >> first (initial) time request? What does the current policies say > > >> about such requests? What was the out come of the results of > > >> hostmasters evaluation? Did hostmasters make any recommendation to > > >> management? > > > > > > > > > > > > This connects with the clarity I requested. Policy seems to be > > > quite clear to me in AFPUB-2005-v4-001 (8.2 -8.3) but others might > > > have other interpretation. > > > > > > As much as we want different, Universities and NRENs are being > > > treated in line with policy. Why was this allocation treated > > > differently? Are there any others getting preferential treatment that > > > is not guided by "rule of law"? > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ rpd mailing > > list > > > rpd at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > > Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) > > > > iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUHFfjAAoJEH6UvSz6fA253IgIAIMJ1rn7D+kRAgOsn90cc5M > > 2 > > 5uRdrHVT4Dh/v1HcPj0PbYVgzKdLxAj1qsQFeeqXO6Rl2D1XYPQ1vRmtV0W54y > > eU > > dmLrXk5xejJhuaNsJYbWRTOjIPzCeHC1N4HcAuBRosRVsbPwfHUwEvymog0g1 > > ZWg > > uVWnc96i7ck/37+fyjSqwDSoBVDhLRrjzdcSADrGFGfoZHwmfeJJU0Lp1otskBX > > 7 > > YE99fPs/nzJagRoPPuJbW+xxi/6beKkShu1BOO+Zi6/74NpJN85wWVaXpRdGXJ > > HW > > Wt9f7Opb1XvY9kNue73J9P3dXFsUIaNxc0w193U13BptmQ/KeRNGhhxuifqS0 > > OQ= > > =AnYV > > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > _______________________________________________ > > rpd mailing list > > rpd at afrinic.net > > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > _______________________________________________ > afnog mailing list > http://afnog.org/mailman/listinfo/afnog -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From steve.wilcox at ixreach.com Fri Sep 19 18:08:57 2014 From: steve.wilcox at ixreach.com (Stephen Wilcox) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2014 19:08:57 +0100 Subject: [rpd] Re: [afnog] A typical case of abuse of our resources!!! In-Reply-To: <8139A2D4BA5CE94C98E1A584DDEA6793B47917@exchange1.prod.servihoo.net> References: <541BD21B.5020900@gmail.com> <541BFF49.9050502@gmail.com> <541C1782.3060509@gmail.com> <541C2CFB.9070609@gmail.com> <541C57E4.8030504@gmail.com> <8139A2D4BA5CE94C98E1A584DDEA6793B47917@exchange1.prod.servihoo.net> Message-ID: On 19 September 2014 18:16, Keshwarsingh Nadan < keshwarsingh.nadan at millenium.mu> wrote: > > > Omo's email further gives nuances to some preferential actions, apart > from > > previous accusations of corruption. What exactly are we dealing with? > > Omo's right. Last year I was about to expose corruption cases regarding > IPv4 > allocations during the AOB at the AGM, I was threatened to be killed if > ever > I would step into Djibouti. > Are you serious? Are you able to share anything about what or why? Steve -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From keshwarsingh.nadan at millenium.mu Fri Sep 19 18:12:06 2014 From: keshwarsingh.nadan at millenium.mu (Keshwarsingh Nadan) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2014 18:12:06 +0000 Subject: [afnog] [rpd] Re: A typical case of abuse of our resources!!! In-Reply-To: References: <541BD21B.5020900@gmail.com> <541BFF49.9050502@gmail.com> <541C1782.3060509@gmail.com> <541C2CFB.9070609@gmail.com> <541C57E4.8030504@gmail.com> <8139A2D4BA5CE94C98E1A584DDEA6793B47917@exchange1.prod.servihoo.net> Message-ID: <8139A2D4BA5CE94C98E1A584DDEA6793B48994@exchange1.prod.servihoo.net> Hi, >> >Then I would say you may be part of the problem. I don't see why you could >not raise your concern at the AGM, who threatened you? and I hope you have >proof for these allegations. >There are clear guideline to blow a whistle on foul play, and IMO it does not >in anyway help the community neither does it fix anything by saying it in a >manner you have done above. > This year I'm playing home on my playground, we'll see who can stop me. I do have proof and I will strike at the right moment. > > >Please share the concern and at the same time provide recommendation on >solution. It does not necessarily have to wait for the AGM or home play >immunity ;) >Cheers! Every dog has its day -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 6435 bytes Desc: not available URL: From kofi.ansa at gmail.com Fri Sep 19 18:12:02 2014 From: kofi.ansa at gmail.com (Kofi ANSA AKUFO) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2014 22:12:02 +0400 Subject: [rpd] Re: [afnog] A typical case of abuse of our resources!!! In-Reply-To: <541C6D32.2010907@gmail.com> References: <541BD21B.5020900@gmail.com> <541BFF49.9050502@gmail.com> <541C1782.3060509@gmail.com> <541C2CFB.9070609@gmail.com> <541C57E4.8030504@gmail.com> <541C6D32.2010907@gmail.com> Message-ID: On 19 September 2014 21:51, Sunday Folayan wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 19/09/2014 18:05, Kofi ANSA AKUFO wrote: > > On 19 September 2014 20:20, Sunday Folayan > > wrote: > > > > Dear Koffi and Omo, > > > > I am not holding brief for any applicant or hostmaster, but if a > > request comes, that shows that an LIR can, and will allocate a > > /12, you want AfriNIC to allocate a /22? Is that the interpretation > > of 8.3? to wit: > > > > AFRINIC shall apply a slow start mechanism to all new > > LIRs. With respect to allocations made by AFRINIC, the first > > allocation an LIR receives will be the size of the minimum > > practical allocation described in Section 8.2 (a) unless otherwise > > justified. The slow start policy is used by all RIR's to prevent > > allocations of large blocks of address space that may then remain > > substantially unassigned. AFRINIC implements the slow start > > mechanism in a consistent and fair manner for every LIR, and will > > apply the same principles and standards to every applicant for > > address space. > > > > What about the last clause ... "unless otherwise justified?". Are > > you saying that: o Applicant did not provide justification o > > Applicant provided justification but was not ok with hostmasters o > > Applicant provided justification and it was ok o Applicant provided > > fraudulent justification o None of the above. > > > > > >> Sunday I believe AFRINIC hostmasters and management should answer > >> this question. AFRINIC board is appointed by the member community > >> and should assist to get the answers. > > It has been discussed by the community and the hostmasters already > responded publicly to the community in Djibouti. > > What was their responds? I also did not see any concrete answers to the questions asked in the slides you sent. Who approved such huge chunk /12 (over a million IPv4 addresses) in a first (initial) time request? What does the current policies say about such requests? What was the out come of the results of hostmasters evaluation? > Kindly issue them a "certificate of your understanding", as soon as > possible. > > Sunday. > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) > > iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUHG0yAAoJEH6UvSz6fA25NMYH/0nm9CooU7j0O5AWl+VDmtVi > m8qNnS/KkjbIA1V2sjWKbOdu0Zz1Z0AESMjjpk9ScjEsUAuaGAtc2YaEa8NvwGgL > vVbocLjADrAqFwyYnU1StwgTfm1Yt4448ipr5ZXqwxpFLIdob9YPar6gh+oJEk06 > HZQ1pztddYG+NI6PfST+yyWXOYuM9x7AB7WCkaqZx0zA3MXOLC0GG27H3oavbucR > ADkLTbgBgYX3gKLNHU3ZfZ4Yl/esDp9BAqAxInJzkDEcOLraDbsstctZZMO4S0tg > 6m7/wJ3B6Ygt5u4P99RuvTScuLv6YjevtOd24eohOG4gIi3w9ev1JrFWfx7rJio= > =gZOJ > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From keshwarsingh.nadan at millenium.mu Fri Sep 19 18:26:34 2014 From: keshwarsingh.nadan at millenium.mu (Keshwarsingh Nadan) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2014 18:26:34 +0000 Subject: [rpd] Re: [afnog] A typical case of abuse of our resources!!! In-Reply-To: References: <541BD21B.5020900@gmail.com> <541BFF49.9050502@gmail.com> <541C1782.3060509@gmail.com> <541C2CFB.9070609@gmail.com> <541C57E4.8030504@gmail.com> <8139A2D4BA5CE94C98E1A584DDEA6793B47917@exchange1.prod.servihoo.net> Message-ID: <8139A2D4BA5CE94C98E1A584DDEA6793B489D7@exchange1.prod.servihoo.net> Hey Steve, >Are you serious? Are you able to share anything about what or why? Yes I am serious since this is a public list. I can't share anything for the time being, but like I said this will be exposed at the right moment and venue. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 6435 bytes Desc: not available URL: From sfolayan at gmail.com Fri Sep 19 18:24:46 2014 From: sfolayan at gmail.com (Sunday Folayan) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2014 19:24:46 +0100 Subject: [rpd] Re: [afnog] A typical case of abuse of our resources!!! In-Reply-To: <8139A2D4BA5CE94C98E1A584DDEA6793B4893E@exchange1.prod.servihoo.net> References: <541BD21B.5020900@gmail.com> <541BFF49.9050502@gmail.com> <541C1782.3060509@gmail.com> <541C2CFB.9070609@gmail.com> <541C57E4.8030504@gmail.com> <8139A2D4BA5CE94C98E1A584DDEA6793B4893E@exchange1.prod.servihoo.net> Message-ID: <541C74EE.3020204@gmail.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Mr Nadan, Are we replaying the discussions on the rpd list exactly a year ago? https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2013/003578.html https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2013/003592.html .. and many other mails for those who care. AfriNIC cannot and should not discuss the details of specific allocations on mailing lists, just because members are asking. I think we should let AfriNIC run as an organization, reporting and responding to the community as properly constituted using proper channels. I hope we would move on to more productive things, instead of pulling down our own RIR. Sunday. On 19/09/2014 18:20, Keshwarsingh Nadan wrote: > Edit: That was in cote d'ivoire. Djibouti was another story. > > I still remember while on a phone call with Kofi, it was clear the > entire African west coast wanted my skin. > >> -----Original Message----- From: Keshwarsingh Nadan Sent: 19 >> September 2014 21:15 To: 'Sunday Folayan'; Omo Oaiya; Kofi ANSA >> AKUFO Cc: Andrew Alston; AfriNIC Discuss; AfriNIC Resource >> Policy; afnog at afnog.org Subject: RE: [rpd] Re: [afnog] A typical >> case of abuse of our resources!!! >> >> Dear Sunday, >> >>> -----Original Message----- From: rpd-bounces at afrinic.net >>> [mailto:rpd-bounces at afrinic.net] On >> Behalf >>> Of Sunday Folayan Sent: 19 September 2014 20:21 To: Omo Oaiya; >>> Kofi ANSA AKUFO Cc: Andrew Alston; AfriNIC Discuss; AfriNIC >>> Resource Policy; afnog at afnog.org Subject: Re: [rpd] Re: [afnog] >>> A typical case of abuse of our > resources!!! >>> > Dear Koffi and Omo, > > I am not holding brief for any applicant or hostmaster, but if a > request >>> comes, > that shows that an LIR can, and will allocate a /12, you want > AfriNIC to allocate a /22? Is that the interpretation of 8.3? >>> >>> Definitely not. Despite that, some of us manage to get larger >>> allocations and some aren't able. >>> > to wit: > > AFRINIC shall apply a slow start mechanism to all new > LIRs. With respect >>> to > allocations made by AFRINIC, the first allocation an LIR receives > will >> be >>> the > size of the minimum practical allocation described in Section 8.2 > (a) >>> unless > otherwise justified. The slow start policy is used by all RIR's to > prevent allocations of >> large >>> blocks > of address space that may then remain substantially unassigned. > AFRINIC implements the slow start mechanism in a consistent and > fair manner for every LIR, and will apply the same principles and > standards to every >>> applicant > for address space. > > What about the last clause ... "unless otherwise justified?". Are > you >>> saying > that: o Applicant did not provide justification >>> >>> Never, your application would otherwise be rejected. >>> > o Applicant provided justification but was not ok with hostmasters >>> >>> Happens most of the time >>> > o Applicant provided justification and it was ok >>> >>> Depends on who provides the justification, who works on the >>> request. >>> > o Applicant provided fraudulent justification o None of the above. > > Omo's email further gives nuances to some preferential actions, > apart >> from > previous accusations of corruption. What exactly are we dealing > with? >>> >>> Omo's right. Last year I was about to expose corruption cases >>> regarding >> IPv4 >>> allocations during the AOB at the AGM, I was threatened to be >>> killed if >> ever >>> I would step into Djibouti. >>> >>> This year I'm playing home on my playground, we'll see who can >>> stop me. > > Let me summarize Andrew's email again: When a Board begins to > reach >>> into > operational matters not clearly in its charter or schedule, or not >>> specifically > assigned by policy, it is recipe for disaster. > > Sunday. > > On 19/09/2014 16:21, Omo Oaiya wrote: >>>>> On 19 September 2014 14:51, Kofi ANSA AKUFO >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Who approved such huge chunk /12 (over a million IPv4 >>>>>> addresses) in a first (initial) time request? What does >>>>>> the current policies say about such requests? What was >>>>>> the out come of the results of hostmasters evaluation? >>>>>> Did hostmasters make any recommendation to management? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> This connects with the clarity I requested. Policy seems >>>>> to be quite clear to me in AFPUB-2005-v4-001 (8.2 -8.3) but >>>>> others might have other interpretation. >>>>> >>>>> As much as we want different, Universities and NRENs are >>>>> being treated in line with policy. Why was this allocation >>>>> treated differently? Are there any others getting >>>>> preferential treatment that is not guided by "rule of >>>>> law"? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ rpd >>>>> mailing > list >>>>> rpd at afrinic.net >>>>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >>>>> >>> _______________________________________________ rpd mailing >>> list rpd at afrinic.net >>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd - -- - ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sunday Adekunle Folayan blog: http://www.sundayfolayan.name.ng email: sfolayan at skannet.com.ng, sfolayan at gmail.com phone: *234-816-866-7523, +234-802-291-2202 skype: sfolayan fcbk: www.facebook.com/sfolayan tweet: sfolayan linkedin: sfolayan : http://free.lanci.ng - Anyone, Anyjob, Anywhere, Anytime - ------------------------------------------------------------------ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUHHTuAAoJEH6UvSz6fA25Ql0H/j/2ctAwhaRCs37ih3l0X9Tq 0cO4ysAP6x6ADk0vWDqLgw5duH05IjavAFGZvI3VUuKDu3YmNZzXzgCOpK/0ZUpG ZWPCdCCPzim/ERy3i83es0j5BveRCCaTugEoReYZHi6kOYGjLBC2MCYxA30ANoxd 5NAVirSDQiH/pj2ZKc3lBbHa4xT0+fOk1jzh4lXOdy0bUfwh8kwV6uyi2R6RXutb nVueWhSPHWf3f5Xw0hWpfaX++c6uoaaL9COfG89Oy3eh/Z29TT/WefTvmUavbthG p4lvI6YFW/ERodyEMdBPL0XqZ54VgNI7CWWdudw+7TNfhtlddv2csIQO0m2j92o= =0SK5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From steve.wilcox at ixreach.com Fri Sep 19 18:31:18 2014 From: steve.wilcox at ixreach.com (Stephen Wilcox) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2014 19:31:18 +0100 Subject: [rpd] Re: [afnog] A typical case of abuse of our resources!!! In-Reply-To: <8139A2D4BA5CE94C98E1A584DDEA6793B489D7@exchange1.prod.servihoo.net> References: <541BD21B.5020900@gmail.com> <541BFF49.9050502@gmail.com> <541C1782.3060509@gmail.com> <541C2CFB.9070609@gmail.com> <541C57E4.8030504@gmail.com> <8139A2D4BA5CE94C98E1A584DDEA6793B47917@exchange1.prod.servihoo.net> <8139A2D4BA5CE94C98E1A584DDEA6793B489D7@exchange1.prod.servihoo.net> Message-ID: On 19 September 2014 19:26, Keshwarsingh Nadan < keshwarsingh.nadan at millenium.mu> wrote: > Hey Steve, > > >Are you serious? Are you able to share anything about what or why? > > Yes I am serious since this is a public list. I can't share anything for > the > time being, but like I said this will be exposed at the right moment and > venue. > I understand not naming individuals or being too specific but can you describe the circumstances? This would be the first instance of anything even remotely like this I've heard of, and I'm wondering how such a thing is possible and what else is out there. Regarding "the right moment and venue" .. I hope this is for good reasons and not to hold anything back for personal gain else we're creating a cycle.. Steve -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From keshwarsingh.nadan at millenium.mu Fri Sep 19 18:33:37 2014 From: keshwarsingh.nadan at millenium.mu (Keshwarsingh Nadan) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2014 18:33:37 +0000 Subject: [rpd] Re: [afnog] A typical case of abuse of our resources!!! In-Reply-To: <541C74EE.3020204@gmail.com> References: <541BD21B.5020900@gmail.com> <541BFF49.9050502@gmail.com> <541C1782.3060509@gmail.com> <541C2CFB.9070609@gmail.com> <541C57E4.8030504@gmail.com> <8139A2D4BA5CE94C98E1A584DDEA6793B4893E@exchange1.prod.servihoo.net> <541C74EE.3020204@gmail.com> Message-ID: <8139A2D4BA5CE94C98E1A584DDEA6793B48A08@exchange1.prod.servihoo.net> Hi Sunday, > -----Original Message----- > From: Sunday Folayan [mailto:sfolayan at gmail.com] > Sent: 19 September 2014 22:25 > To: Keshwarsingh Nadan; Omo Oaiya; Kofi ANSA AKUFO > Cc: Andrew Alston; AfriNIC Discuss; AfriNIC Resource Policy; > afnog at afnog.org > Subject: Re: [rpd] Re: [afnog] A typical case of abuse of our resources!!! > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Mr Nadan, > > Are we replaying the discussions on the rpd list exactly a year ago? > > https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2013/003578.html > https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2013/003592.html > No, Sir. > .. and many other mails for those who care. > > AfriNIC cannot and should not discuss the details of specific allocations on > mailing lists, just because members are asking. > > I think we should let AfriNIC run as an organization, reporting and responding > to the community as properly constituted using proper channels. > > I hope we would move on to more productive things, instead of pulling down > our own RIR. Our 'own' :-) > > Sunday. > > > On 19/09/2014 18:20, Keshwarsingh Nadan wrote: > > Edit: That was in cote d'ivoire. Djibouti was another story. > > > > I still remember while on a phone call with Kofi, it was clear the > > entire African west coast wanted my skin. > > > >> -----Original Message----- From: Keshwarsingh Nadan Sent: 19 > >> September 2014 21:15 To: 'Sunday Folayan'; Omo Oaiya; Kofi ANSA AKUFO > >> Cc: Andrew Alston; AfriNIC Discuss; AfriNIC Resource Policy; > >> afnog at afnog.org Subject: RE: [rpd] Re: [afnog] A typical case of > >> abuse of our resources!!! > >> > >> Dear Sunday, > >> > >>> -----Original Message----- From: rpd-bounces at afrinic.net > >>> [mailto:rpd-bounces at afrinic.net] On > >> Behalf > >>> Of Sunday Folayan Sent: 19 September 2014 20:21 To: Omo Oaiya; Kofi > >>> ANSA AKUFO Cc: Andrew Alston; AfriNIC Discuss; AfriNIC Resource > >>> Policy; afnog at afnog.org Subject: Re: [rpd] Re: [afnog] A typical > >>> case of abuse of our > > resources!!! > >>> > > Dear Koffi and Omo, > > > > I am not holding brief for any applicant or hostmaster, but if a > > request > >>> comes, > > that shows that an LIR can, and will allocate a /12, you want AfriNIC > > to allocate a /22? Is that the interpretation of 8.3? > >>> > >>> Definitely not. Despite that, some of us manage to get larger > >>> allocations and some aren't able. > >>> > > to wit: > > > > AFRINIC shall apply a slow start mechanism to all new > > LIRs. With respect > >>> to > > allocations made by AFRINIC, the first allocation an LIR receives will > >> be > >>> the > > size of the minimum practical allocation described in Section 8.2 > > (a) > >>> unless > > otherwise justified. The slow start policy is used by all RIR's to > > prevent allocations of > >> large > >>> blocks > > of address space that may then remain substantially unassigned. > > AFRINIC implements the slow start mechanism in a consistent and fair > > manner for every LIR, and will apply the same principles and standards > > to every > >>> applicant > > for address space. > > > > What about the last clause ... "unless otherwise justified?". Are you > >>> saying > > that: o Applicant did not provide justification > >>> > >>> Never, your application would otherwise be rejected. > >>> > > o Applicant provided justification but was not ok with hostmasters > >>> > >>> Happens most of the time > >>> > > o Applicant provided justification and it was ok > >>> > >>> Depends on who provides the justification, who works on the request. > >>> > > o Applicant provided fraudulent justification o None of the above. > > > > Omo's email further gives nuances to some preferential actions, apart > >> from > > previous accusations of corruption. What exactly are we dealing with? > >>> > >>> Omo's right. Last year I was about to expose corruption cases > >>> regarding > >> IPv4 > >>> allocations during the AOB at the AGM, I was threatened to be killed > >>> if > >> ever > >>> I would step into Djibouti. > >>> > >>> This year I'm playing home on my playground, we'll see who can stop > >>> me. > > > > Let me summarize Andrew's email again: When a Board begins to reach > >>> into > > operational matters not clearly in its charter or schedule, or not > >>> specifically > > assigned by policy, it is recipe for disaster. > > > > Sunday. > > > > On 19/09/2014 16:21, Omo Oaiya wrote: > >>>>> On 19 September 2014 14:51, Kofi ANSA AKUFO > > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> Who approved such huge chunk /12 (over a million IPv4 > >>>>>> addresses) in a first (initial) time request? What does the > >>>>>> current policies say about such requests? What was the out come > >>>>>> of the results of hostmasters evaluation? > >>>>>> Did hostmasters make any recommendation to management? > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> This connects with the clarity I requested. Policy seems > >>>>> to be quite clear to me in AFPUB-2005-v4-001 (8.2 -8.3) but others > >>>>> might have other interpretation. > >>>>> > >>>>> As much as we want different, Universities and NRENs are being > >>>>> treated in line with policy. Why was this allocation treated > >>>>> differently? Are there any others getting preferential treatment > >>>>> that is not guided by "rule of law"? > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> _______________________________________________ rpd > mailing > > list > >>>>> rpd at afrinic.net > >>>>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > >>>>> > >>> _______________________________________________ rpd > mailing list > >>> rpd at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > - -- > - ---------------------------------------------------------------- > Sunday Adekunle Folayan > blog: http://www.sundayfolayan.name.ng > email: sfolayan at skannet.com.ng, sfolayan at gmail.com > phone: *234-816-866-7523, +234-802-291-2202 > skype: sfolayan > fcbk: www.facebook.com/sfolayan > tweet: sfolayan > linkedin: sfolayan > : http://free.lanci.ng - Anyone, Anyjob, Anywhere, Anytime > - ------------------------------------------------------------------ > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) > > iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUHHTuAAoJEH6UvSz6fA25Ql0H/j/2ctAwhaRCs37ih3l0X9Tq > 0cO4ysAP6x6ADk0vWDqLgw5duH05IjavAFGZvI3VUuKDu3YmNZzXzgCOpK/0Z > UpG > ZWPCdCCPzim/ERy3i83es0j5BveRCCaTugEoReYZHi6kOYGjLBC2MCYxA30ANo > xd > 5NAVirSDQiH/pj2ZKc3lBbHa4xT0+fOk1jzh4lXOdy0bUfwh8kwV6uyi2R6RXutb > nVueWhSPHWf3f5Xw0hWpfaX++c6uoaaL9COfG89Oy3eh/Z29TT/WefTvmUa > vbthG > p4lvI6YFW/ERodyEMdBPL0XqZ54VgNI7CWWdudw+7TNfhtlddv2csIQO0m2j92 > o= > =0SK5 > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 6435 bytes Desc: not available URL: From keshwarsingh.nadan at millenium.mu Fri Sep 19 18:54:56 2014 From: keshwarsingh.nadan at millenium.mu (Keshwarsingh Nadan) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2014 18:54:56 +0000 Subject: [rpd] Re: [afnog] A typical case of abuse of our resources!!! In-Reply-To: References: <541BD21B.5020900@gmail.com> <541BFF49.9050502@gmail.com> <541C1782.3060509@gmail.com> <541C2CFB.9070609@gmail.com> <541C57E4.8030504@gmail.com> <8139A2D4BA5CE94C98E1A584DDEA6793B47917@exchange1.prod.servihoo.net> <8139A2D4BA5CE94C98E1A584DDEA6793B489D7@exchange1.prod.servihoo.net> Message-ID: <8139A2D4BA5CE94C98E1A584DDEA6793B48A3C@exchange1.prod.servihoo.net> Hey Steve, >I understand not naming individuals or being too specific but can you describe the circumstances? I really wish I could describe the circumstances whilst writing this.. Unfortunately, any wordings wrongly interpreted can be used against me. Legal professionals are assembling every chunks together, we will publish that soon, arrests have been forecasted. Another so called *not for profit* organization is involved as well. >This would be the first instance of anything even remotely like this I've heard of, and I'm wondering how such a thing is possible and what else is out there. Many others will be out. >Regarding "the right moment and venue" .. I hope this is for good reasons and not to hold anything back for personal gain else we're creating a cycle.. Nothing personal, that would be for the best interest of everyone. From sfolayan at gmail.com Fri Sep 19 19:01:03 2014 From: sfolayan at gmail.com (Sunday Folayan) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2014 20:01:03 +0100 Subject: [rpd] Re: [afnog] A typical case of abuse of our resources!!! In-Reply-To: <8139A2D4BA5CE94C98E1A584DDEA6793B48A3C@exchange1.prod.servihoo.net> References: <541BFF49.9050502@gmail.com> <541C1782.3060509@gmail.com> <541C2CFB.9070609@gmail.com> <541C57E4.8030504@gmail.com> <8139A2D4BA5CE94C98E1A584DDEA6793B47917@exchange1.prod.servihoo.net> <8139A2D4BA5CE94C98E1A584DDEA6793B489D7@exchange1.prod.servihoo.net> <8139A2D4BA5CE94C98E1A584DDEA6793B48A3C@exchange1.prod.servihoo.net> Message-ID: <541C7D6F.30606@gmail.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Does anyone have Jack Bauer's AS number? AfriNIC may need him soon. Sunday. On 19/09/2014 19:54, Keshwarsingh Nadan wrote: > Hey Steve, > >> I understand not naming individuals or being too specific but can >> you describe the circumstances? > > I really wish I could describe the circumstances whilst writing > this.. Unfortunately, any wordings wrongly interpreted can be used > against me. Legal professionals are assembling every chunks > together, we will publish that soon, arrests have been forecasted. > > Another so called *not for profit* organization is involved as > well. > >> This would be the first instance of anything even remotely like >> this I've heard of, and I'm wondering how such a thing is >> possible and what else is out there. > > Many others will be out. > >> Regarding "the right moment and venue" .. I hope this is for good >> reasons and not to hold anything back for personal gain else >> we're creating a cycle.. > > Nothing personal, that would be for the best interest of everyone. > - -- - ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sunday Adekunle Folayan blog: http://www.sundayfolayan.name.ng email: sfolayan at skannet.com.ng, sfolayan at gmail.com phone: *234-816-866-7523, +234-802-291-2202 skype: sfolayan fcbk: www.facebook.com/sfolayan tweet: sfolayan linkedin: sfolayan : http://free.lanci.ng - Anyone, Anyjob, Anywhere, Anytime - ------------------------------------------------------------------ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUHH1vAAoJEH6UvSz6fA25EV0H/RyMxY677pYkJr+YukdE+Ckh B9xG8jKrPfzhMC1YR/h9twmEt+kHEsGhEI/X2vAZu/Yvq7nv47/XOHi8DroDxelP 7AJgSnumYs2zHwnPetHzwqtVi1Zz/jRwn3T5Egr84Stc4BSHLbzxYIjZ3lMAh1GJ 5WRHIV+iBeS8sqXymIikz8M5tH+YHvBKAjYv40U4wipGMPMixbRHg3WVauXSkV/p urJDoqO7l66nbaF5WtGh9RxhhRT3LGRjXp8xl//+Q6Lsai3oSf6glYX9SjcOvsYM GHww9hOzyrnT/lJIa6oUS/+CLHke6PCrl/TFZPy6kedW2TgIXDucDvPyAao9RE0= =MORi -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From steve.wilcox at ixreach.com Fri Sep 19 19:01:53 2014 From: steve.wilcox at ixreach.com (Stephen Wilcox) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2014 20:01:53 +0100 Subject: [rpd] Re: [afnog] A typical case of abuse of our resources!!! In-Reply-To: <541C7D6F.30606@gmail.com> References: <541BFF49.9050502@gmail.com> <541C1782.3060509@gmail.com> <541C2CFB.9070609@gmail.com> <541C57E4.8030504@gmail.com> <8139A2D4BA5CE94C98E1A584DDEA6793B47917@exchange1.prod.servihoo.net> <8139A2D4BA5CE94C98E1A584DDEA6793B489D7@exchange1.prod.servihoo.net> <8139A2D4BA5CE94C98E1A584DDEA6793B48A3C@exchange1.prod.servihoo.net> <541C7D6F.30606@gmail.com> Message-ID: Surely its ASN24? On 19 September 2014 20:01, Sunday Folayan wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Does anyone have Jack Bauer's AS number? > > AfriNIC may need him soon. > > Sunday. > > > On 19/09/2014 19:54, Keshwarsingh Nadan wrote: > > Hey Steve, > > > >> I understand not naming individuals or being too specific but can > >> you describe the circumstances? > > > > I really wish I could describe the circumstances whilst writing > > this.. Unfortunately, any wordings wrongly interpreted can be used > > against me. Legal professionals are assembling every chunks > > together, we will publish that soon, arrests have been forecasted. > > > > Another so called *not for profit* organization is involved as > > well. > > > >> This would be the first instance of anything even remotely like > >> this I've heard of, and I'm wondering how such a thing is > >> possible and what else is out there. > > > > Many others will be out. > > > >> Regarding "the right moment and venue" .. I hope this is for good > >> reasons and not to hold anything back for personal gain else > >> we're creating a cycle.. > > > > Nothing personal, that would be for the best interest of everyone. > > > > > - -- > - ---------------------------------------------------------------- > Sunday Adekunle Folayan > blog: http://www.sundayfolayan.name.ng > email: sfolayan at skannet.com.ng, sfolayan at gmail.com > phone: *234-816-866-7523, +234-802-291-2202 > skype: sfolayan > fcbk: www.facebook.com/sfolayan > tweet: sfolayan > linkedin: sfolayan > : http://free.lanci.ng - Anyone, Anyjob, Anywhere, Anytime > - ------------------------------------------------------------------ > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) > > iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUHH1vAAoJEH6UvSz6fA25EV0H/RyMxY677pYkJr+YukdE+Ckh > B9xG8jKrPfzhMC1YR/h9twmEt+kHEsGhEI/X2vAZu/Yvq7nv47/XOHi8DroDxelP > 7AJgSnumYs2zHwnPetHzwqtVi1Zz/jRwn3T5Egr84Stc4BSHLbzxYIjZ3lMAh1GJ > 5WRHIV+iBeS8sqXymIikz8M5tH+YHvBKAjYv40U4wipGMPMixbRHg3WVauXSkV/p > urJDoqO7l66nbaF5WtGh9RxhhRT3LGRjXp8xl//+Q6Lsai3oSf6glYX9SjcOvsYM > GHww9hOzyrnT/lJIa6oUS/+CLHke6PCrl/TFZPy6kedW2TgIXDucDvPyAao9RE0= > =MORi > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > -- Director / Founder IX Reach Ltd E: steve.wilcox at ixreach.com M: +44 7966 048633 Tempus Court, Bellfield Road, High Wycombe, HP13 5HA, UK. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com Fri Sep 19 19:21:00 2014 From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2014 20:21:00 +0100 Subject: [rpd] A buzz phrase from ARIN strategic plan for 2015-2016 Message-ID: Hi, I was just taking a peep on the revision version of the ARIN next 2 years strategic plan[1] and it got my attention that while other action point lines were edited, the line i quote below is one of the 2 lines[2] that was introduced in the plan. "Item F. Improve overall Internet number registry usability to the community by improving coordination with other RIRs on registry *transfer* and maintenance processes" I wonder how much of balance will be experienced from both sides and it also becomes interesting that it is when a registry start running out of resource that it decides to improve on inter-region transfer mechanism[3]. Hopefully our region will wake-up to the clarion call and start facing the reality of things. Cheers! 1. https://www.arin.net/about_us/corp_docs/stratplan-changes.pdf 2. The second line is more of a general IG statement which one of the other items (like M) could have been interpreted to mean thesame thing 3. Pun intended -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng * The key to understanding is humility - my view ! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kofi.ansa at gmail.com Fri Sep 19 19:22:29 2014 From: kofi.ansa at gmail.com (Kofi ANSA AKUFO) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2014 23:22:29 +0400 Subject: [rpd] Re: [afnog] A typical case of abuse of our resources!!! In-Reply-To: References: <541BFF49.9050502@gmail.com> <541C1782.3060509@gmail.com> <541C2CFB.9070609@gmail.com> <541C57E4.8030504@gmail.com> <8139A2D4BA5CE94C98E1A584DDEA6793B47917@exchange1.prod.servihoo.net> <8139A2D4BA5CE94C98E1A584DDEA6793B489D7@exchange1.prod.servihoo.net> <8139A2D4BA5CE94C98E1A584DDEA6793B48A3C@exchange1.prod.servihoo.net> <541C7D6F.30606@gmail.com> Message-ID: Come folks Lets get serious this a policy discussion list and issues concerning policy implementation. Lets not troll or divert discussions if we cant come out straight with answers to questions. On 19 September 2014 23:01, Stephen Wilcox wrote: > Surely its ASN24? > > On 19 September 2014 20:01, Sunday Folayan wrote: > >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> Does anyone have Jack Bauer's AS number? >> >> AfriNIC may need him soon. >> >> Sunday. >> >> >> On 19/09/2014 19:54, Keshwarsingh Nadan wrote: >> > Hey Steve, >> > >> >> I understand not naming individuals or being too specific but can >> >> you describe the circumstances? >> > >> > I really wish I could describe the circumstances whilst writing >> > this.. Unfortunately, any wordings wrongly interpreted can be used >> > against me. Legal professionals are assembling every chunks >> > together, we will publish that soon, arrests have been forecasted. >> > >> > Another so called *not for profit* organization is involved as >> > well. >> > >> >> This would be the first instance of anything even remotely like >> >> this I've heard of, and I'm wondering how such a thing is >> >> possible and what else is out there. >> > >> > Many others will be out. >> > >> >> Regarding "the right moment and venue" .. I hope this is for good >> >> reasons and not to hold anything back for personal gain else >> >> we're creating a cycle.. >> > >> > Nothing personal, that would be for the best interest of everyone. >> > >> >> >> - -- >> - ---------------------------------------------------------------- >> Sunday Adekunle Folayan >> blog: http://www.sundayfolayan.name.ng >> email: sfolayan at skannet.com.ng, sfolayan at gmail.com >> phone: *234-816-866-7523, +234-802-291-2202 >> skype: sfolayan >> fcbk: www.facebook.com/sfolayan >> tweet: sfolayan >> linkedin: sfolayan >> : http://free.lanci.ng - Anyone, Anyjob, Anywhere, Anytime >> - ------------------------------------------------------------------ >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >> Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) >> >> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUHH1vAAoJEH6UvSz6fA25EV0H/RyMxY677pYkJr+YukdE+Ckh >> B9xG8jKrPfzhMC1YR/h9twmEt+kHEsGhEI/X2vAZu/Yvq7nv47/XOHi8DroDxelP >> 7AJgSnumYs2zHwnPetHzwqtVi1Zz/jRwn3T5Egr84Stc4BSHLbzxYIjZ3lMAh1GJ >> 5WRHIV+iBeS8sqXymIikz8M5tH+YHvBKAjYv40U4wipGMPMixbRHg3WVauXSkV/p >> urJDoqO7l66nbaF5WtGh9RxhhRT3LGRjXp8xl//+Q6Lsai3oSf6glYX9SjcOvsYM >> GHww9hOzyrnT/lJIa6oUS/+CLHke6PCrl/TFZPy6kedW2TgIXDucDvPyAao9RE0= >> =MORi >> -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >> > > > > -- > Director / Founder > IX Reach Ltd > E: steve.wilcox at ixreach.com > M: +44 7966 048633 > Tempus Court, Bellfield Road, High Wycombe, HP13 5HA, UK. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From omo at wacren.net Fri Sep 19 19:32:22 2014 From: omo at wacren.net (Omo Oaiya) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2014 19:32:22 +0000 Subject: [afnog] [rpd] Re: A typical case of abuse of our resources!!! In-Reply-To: <541C6D32.2010907@gmail.com> References: <541BD21B.5020900@gmail.com> <541BFF49.9050502@gmail.com> <541C1782.3060509@gmail.com> <541C2CFB.9070609@gmail.com> <541C57E4.8030504@gmail.com> <541C6D32.2010907@gmail.com> Message-ID: > > On 19 September 2014 20:20, Sunday Folayan > > wrote: > > It has been discussed by the community and the hostmasters already > responded publicly to the community in Djibouti. > > Kindly issue them a "certificate of your understanding", as soon as > possible. Kindly point out which slide answers which question so we can bring this to a quick conclusion. Omo -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dogwallah at gmail.com Fri Sep 19 19:44:52 2014 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2014 14:44:52 -0500 Subject: [afnog] [rpd] Re: A typical case of abuse of our resources!!! In-Reply-To: References: <541BFF49.9050502@gmail.com> <541C1782.3060509@gmail.com> <541C2CFB.9070609@gmail.com> <541C57E4.8030504@gmail.com> <8139A2D4BA5CE94C98E1A584DDEA6793B47917@exchange1.prod.servihoo.net> <8139A2D4BA5CE94C98E1A584DDEA6793B489D7@exchange1.prod.servihoo.net> <8139A2D4BA5CE94C98E1A584DDEA6793B48A3C@exchange1.prod.servihoo.net> <541C7D6F.30606@gmail.com> Message-ID: right, so if we want a policy that prevents people from using resources for spamming or other purposes we don't like, we have to write those policies. Hostmasters (IP Resource Analysts) can only do what we tell them to do in policy. So write a policy that does what you want, and we will discuss. On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 2:22 PM, Kofi ANSA AKUFO wrote: > Come folks > > Lets get serious this a policy discussion list and issues concerning policy > implementation. > > Lets not troll or divert discussions if we cant come out straight with > answers to questions. > > > On 19 September 2014 23:01, Stephen Wilcox wrote: >> >> Surely its ASN24? >> >> On 19 September 2014 20:01, Sunday Folayan wrote: >>> >>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >>> Hash: SHA1 >>> >>> Does anyone have Jack Bauer's AS number? >>> >>> AfriNIC may need him soon. >>> >>> Sunday. >>> >>> >>> On 19/09/2014 19:54, Keshwarsingh Nadan wrote: >>> > Hey Steve, >>> > >>> >> I understand not naming individuals or being too specific but can >>> >> you describe the circumstances? >>> > >>> > I really wish I could describe the circumstances whilst writing >>> > this.. Unfortunately, any wordings wrongly interpreted can be used >>> > against me. Legal professionals are assembling every chunks >>> > together, we will publish that soon, arrests have been forecasted. >>> > >>> > Another so called *not for profit* organization is involved as >>> > well. >>> > >>> >> This would be the first instance of anything even remotely like >>> >> this I've heard of, and I'm wondering how such a thing is >>> >> possible and what else is out there. >>> > >>> > Many others will be out. >>> > >>> >> Regarding "the right moment and venue" .. I hope this is for good >>> >> reasons and not to hold anything back for personal gain else >>> >> we're creating a cycle.. >>> > >>> > Nothing personal, that would be for the best interest of everyone. >>> > >>> >>> >>> - -- >>> - ---------------------------------------------------------------- >>> Sunday Adekunle Folayan >>> blog: http://www.sundayfolayan.name.ng >>> email: sfolayan at skannet.com.ng, sfolayan at gmail.com >>> phone: *234-816-866-7523, +234-802-291-2202 >>> skype: sfolayan >>> fcbk: www.facebook.com/sfolayan >>> tweet: sfolayan >>> linkedin: sfolayan >>> : http://free.lanci.ng - Anyone, Anyjob, Anywhere, Anytime >>> - ------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >>> Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) >>> >>> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUHH1vAAoJEH6UvSz6fA25EV0H/RyMxY677pYkJr+YukdE+Ckh >>> B9xG8jKrPfzhMC1YR/h9twmEt+kHEsGhEI/X2vAZu/Yvq7nv47/XOHi8DroDxelP >>> 7AJgSnumYs2zHwnPetHzwqtVi1Zz/jRwn3T5Egr84Stc4BSHLbzxYIjZ3lMAh1GJ >>> 5WRHIV+iBeS8sqXymIikz8M5tH+YHvBKAjYv40U4wipGMPMixbRHg3WVauXSkV/p >>> urJDoqO7l66nbaF5WtGh9RxhhRT3LGRjXp8xl//+Q6Lsai3oSf6glYX9SjcOvsYM >>> GHww9hOzyrnT/lJIa6oUS/+CLHke6PCrl/TFZPy6kedW2TgIXDucDvPyAao9RE0= >>> =MORi >>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Director / Founder >> IX Reach Ltd >> E: steve.wilcox at ixreach.com >> M: +44 7966 048633 >> Tempus Court, Bellfield Road, High Wycombe, HP13 5HA, UK. > > > > _______________________________________________ > afnog mailing list > http://afnog.org/mailman/listinfo/afnog -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel From badru.ntege at nftconsult.com Fri Sep 19 20:03:48 2014 From: badru.ntege at nftconsult.com (Badru Ntege) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2014 20:03:48 +0000 Subject: [rpd] Re: [afnog] A typical case of abuse of our resources!!! In-Reply-To: <8139A2D4BA5CE94C98E1A584DDEA6793B489D7@exchange1.prod.servihoo.net> References: <541BD21B.5020900@gmail.com> <541BFF49.9050502@gmail.com> <541C1782.3060509@gmail.com> <541C2CFB.9070609@gmail.com> <541C57E4.8030504@gmail.com> <8139A2D4BA5CE94C98E1A584DDEA6793B47917@exchange1.prod.servihoo.net> , <8139A2D4BA5CE94C98E1A584DDEA6793B489D7@exchange1.prod.servihoo.net> Message-ID: <03078974-63DB-4FCA-81B0-73F8903B4F90@nftconsult.com> Nadan I think we are losing the plot here. If someone has genuine evidence of wrong doing please raise it with the legal authorities. The community will thank you for highlighting the wrong doing you seem to allude to. Regards Badru Ntege Sent from my Mobile > On 19 Sep 2014, at 21:30, "Keshwarsingh Nadan" wrote: > > Hey Steve, > >> Are you serious? Are you able to share anything about what or why? > > Yes I am serious since this is a public list. I can't share anything for the > time being, but like I said this will be exposed at the right moment and > venue. > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd From h.lu at anytimechinese.com Sat Sep 20 00:37:13 2014 From: h.lu at anytimechinese.com (Lu Heng) Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2014 08:37:13 +0800 Subject: [rpd] [afnog] A typical case of abuse of our resources!!! In-Reply-To: <03078974-63DB-4FCA-81B0-73F8903B4F90@nftconsult.com> References: <541BD21B.5020900@gmail.com> <541BFF49.9050502@gmail.com> <541C1782.3060509@gmail.com> <541C2CFB.9070609@gmail.com> <541C57E4.8030504@gmail.com> <8139A2D4BA5CE94C98E1A584DDEA6793B47917@exchange1.prod.servihoo.net> , <8139A2D4BA5CE94C98E1A584DDEA6793B489D7@exchange1.prod.servihoo.net> <03078974-63DB-4FCA-81B0-73F8903B4F90@nftconsult.com> Message-ID: <77EB746D-0070-44BF-A466-732590F8DE96@anytimechinese.com> Hi This is policy mailing list not law enforcement mailing list, if there is something legally wrong, it is up to local law enforcement to act but not any one here on the list. and this is a mailing for policy but not nationalism, I am very much surprised one of the board member here direct ask to break policy in order to "save the continent", in which there is nothing to save from as seems there is no resource being taking outside of the continent. because our range has been mentioned since beginning of the discussion, let me make things clear once for all: 1. the resource we take are using in africa. 2. we are investing in africa. If anyone want to make more accusation on us please do provide evidence otherwise we see it as public defamation. ? 20 Sep 2014?04:03?Badru Ntege ??? > Nadan > > I think we are losing the plot here. If someone has genuine evidence of wrong doing please raise it with the legal authorities. > > The community will thank you for highlighting the wrong doing you seem to allude to. > > > Regards > > Badru Ntege > Sent from my Mobile > >> On 19 Sep 2014, at 21:30, "Keshwarsingh Nadan" wrote: >> >> Hey Steve, >> >>> Are you serious? Are you able to share anything about what or why? >> >> Yes I am serious since this is a public list. I can't share anything for the >> time being, but like I said this will be exposed at the right moment and >> venue. >> _______________________________________________ >> rpd mailing list >> rpd at afrinic.net >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com Sat Sep 20 02:42:32 2014 From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji) Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2014 03:42:32 +0100 Subject: [rpd] [afnog] A typical case of abuse of our resources!!! In-Reply-To: <77EB746D-0070-44BF-A466-732590F8DE96@anytimechinese.com> References: <541BD21B.5020900@gmail.com> <541BFF49.9050502@gmail.com> <541C1782.3060509@gmail.com> <541C2CFB.9070609@gmail.com> <541C57E4.8030504@gmail.com> <8139A2D4BA5CE94C98E1A584DDEA6793B47917@exchange1.prod.servihoo.net> <8139A2D4BA5CE94C98E1A584DDEA6793B489D7@exchange1.prod.servihoo.net> <03078974-63DB-4FCA-81B0-73F8903B4F90@nftconsult.com> <77EB746D-0070-44BF-A466-732590F8DE96@anytimechinese.com> Message-ID: Hello Lu, I think it's important to read a mail in context, my understanding of Badru's last mail is that he was not responding to you. Cheers! sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 20 Sep 2014 01:40, "Lu Heng" wrote: > Hi > > This is policy mailing list not law enforcement mailing list, if there is > something legally wrong, it is up to local law enforcement to act but not > any one here on the list. and this is a mailing for policy but not > nationalism, I am very much surprised one of the board member here direct > ask to break policy in order to "save the continent", in which there is > nothing to save from as seems there is no resource being taking outside of > the continent. > > because our range has been mentioned since beginning of the discussion, > let me make things clear once for all: > > 1. the resource we take are using in africa. > > 2. we are investing in africa. > > If anyone want to make more accusation on us please do provide evidence > otherwise we see it as public defamation. > > > ? 20 Sep 2014?04:03?Badru Ntege ??? > > > Nadan > > > > I think we are losing the plot here. If someone has genuine evidence of > wrong doing please raise it with the legal authorities. > > > > The community will thank you for highlighting the wrong doing you seem > to allude to. > > > > > > Regards > > > > Badru Ntege > > Sent from my Mobile > > > >> On 19 Sep 2014, at 21:30, "Keshwarsingh Nadan" < > keshwarsingh.nadan at millenium.mu> wrote: > >> > >> Hey Steve, > >> > >>> Are you serious? Are you able to share anything about what or why? > >> > >> Yes I am serious since this is a public list. I can't share anything > for the > >> time being, but like I said this will be exposed at the right moment and > >> venue. > >> _______________________________________________ > >> rpd mailing list > >> rpd at afrinic.net > >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > _______________________________________________ > > rpd mailing list > > rpd at afrinic.net > > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kofi.ansa at gmail.com Sat Sep 20 02:51:50 2014 From: kofi.ansa at gmail.com (Kofi ANSA AKUFO) Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2014 06:51:50 +0400 Subject: [rpd] [afnog] A typical case of abuse of our resources!!! In-Reply-To: <77EB746D-0070-44BF-A466-732590F8DE96@anytimechinese.com> References: <541BD21B.5020900@gmail.com> <541BFF49.9050502@gmail.com> <541C1782.3060509@gmail.com> <541C2CFB.9070609@gmail.com> <541C57E4.8030504@gmail.com> <8139A2D4BA5CE94C98E1A584DDEA6793B47917@exchange1.prod.servihoo.net> <8139A2D4BA5CE94C98E1A584DDEA6793B489D7@exchange1.prod.servihoo.net> <03078974-63DB-4FCA-81B0-73F8903B4F90@nftconsult.com> <77EB746D-0070-44BF-A466-732590F8DE96@anytimechinese.com> Message-ID: On 20 September 2014 04:37, Lu Heng wrote: > Hi > > This is policy mailing list not law enforcement mailing list, if there is > something legally wrong, it is up to local law enforcement to act but not > any one here on the list. and this is a mailing for policy but not > nationalism, I am very much surprised one of the board member here direct > ask to break policy in order to "save the continent", in which there is > nothing to save from as seems there is no resource being taking outside of > the continent. > > because our range has been mentioned since beginning of the discussion, > let me make things clear once for all: > > 1. the resource we take are using in africa. > > Hi Lu is this a technical challenge to check where resources are being used? > 2. we are investing in africa. > > I believe this is an opportunity for any organisation in question to use to point out SPECIFIC investments or community development to the region from the resources allocated. Do you agree with me? Cheers K. > If anyone want to make more accusation on us please do provide evidence > otherwise we see it as public defamation. > > > ? 20 Sep 2014?04:03?Badru Ntege ??? > > > Nadan > > > > I think we are losing the plot here. If someone has genuine evidence of > wrong doing please raise it with the legal authorities. > > > > The community will thank you for highlighting the wrong doing you seem > to allude to. > > > > > > Regards > > > > Badru Ntege > > Sent from my Mobile > > > >> On 19 Sep 2014, at 21:30, "Keshwarsingh Nadan" < > keshwarsingh.nadan at millenium.mu> wrote: > >> > >> Hey Steve, > >> > >>> Are you serious? Are you able to share anything about what or why? > >> > >> Yes I am serious since this is a public list. I can't share anything > for the > >> time being, but like I said this will be exposed at the right moment and > >> venue. > >> _______________________________________________ > >> rpd mailing list > >> rpd at afrinic.net > >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > _______________________________________________ > > rpd mailing list > > rpd at afrinic.net > > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From h.lu at anytimechinese.com Sat Sep 20 03:25:35 2014 From: h.lu at anytimechinese.com (Lu Heng) Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2014 11:25:35 +0800 Subject: [rpd] [afnog] A typical case of abuse of our resources!!! In-Reply-To: References: <541BD21B.5020900@gmail.com> <541BFF49.9050502@gmail.com> <541C1782.3060509@gmail.com> <541C2CFB.9070609@gmail.com> <541C57E4.8030504@gmail.com> <8139A2D4BA5CE94C98E1A584DDEA6793B47917@exchange1.prod.servihoo.net> <8139A2D4BA5CE94C98E1A584DDEA6793B489D7@exchange1.prod.servihoo.net> <03078974-63DB-4FCA-81B0-73F8903B4F90@nftconsult.com> <77EB746D-0070-44BF-A466-732590F8DE96@anytimechinese.com> Message-ID: Hi For Seun: I believe he is talking about our additional allocation request in which seems pending board decision(in which I wonder since when broad has started into operational matters?), and very much surprise he is talking like politician rather than technician. For K: I guess it is quite simple to check who announce the range and where it is being announced, over 90% of our allocation is being announced by MTN Africa. I do not believe policy mailing list is the place to question confidential business details from Afrinic member, do you agree with me? And we are investing in South Africa and planning to built a future datacenter there in the near future together with China communication service. if you are very much interested and like to bring future customer to us, we are very much welcome to that. ? 20 Sep 2014?10:51?Kofi ANSA AKUFO ??? > > > On 20 September 2014 04:37, Lu Heng wrote: > Hi > > This is policy mailing list not law enforcement mailing list, if there is something legally wrong, it is up to local law enforcement to act but not any one here on the list. and this is a mailing for policy but not nationalism, I am very much surprised one of the board member here direct ask to break policy in order to "save the continent", in which there is nothing to save from as seems there is no resource being taking outside of the continent. > > because our range has been mentioned since beginning of the discussion, let me make things clear once for all: > > 1. the resource we take are using in africa. > > > Hi Lu is this a technical challenge to check where resources are being used? > > 2. we are investing in africa. > > I believe this is an opportunity for any organisation in question to use to point out SPECIFIC investments or community development to the region from the resources allocated. Do you agree with me? > > Cheers > > K. > > If anyone want to make more accusation on us please do provide evidence otherwise we see it as public defamation. > > > ? 20 Sep 2014?04:03?Badru Ntege ??? > > > Nadan > > > > I think we are losing the plot here. If someone has genuine evidence of wrong doing please raise it with the legal authorities. > > > > The community will thank you for highlighting the wrong doing you seem to allude to. > > > > > > Regards > > > > Badru Ntege > > Sent from my Mobile > > > >> On 19 Sep 2014, at 21:30, "Keshwarsingh Nadan" wrote: > >> > >> Hey Steve, > >> > >>> Are you serious? Are you able to share anything about what or why? > >> > >> Yes I am serious since this is a public list. I can't share anything for the > >> time being, but like I said this will be exposed at the right moment and > >> venue. > >> _______________________________________________ > >> rpd mailing list > >> rpd at afrinic.net > >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > _______________________________________________ > > rpd mailing list > > rpd at afrinic.net > > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kofi.ansa at gmail.com Sat Sep 20 04:17:36 2014 From: kofi.ansa at gmail.com (Kofi ANSA AKUFO) Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2014 08:17:36 +0400 Subject: [rpd] [afnog] A typical case of abuse of our resources!!! In-Reply-To: References: <541BD21B.5020900@gmail.com> <541BFF49.9050502@gmail.com> <541C1782.3060509@gmail.com> <541C2CFB.9070609@gmail.com> <541C57E4.8030504@gmail.com> <8139A2D4BA5CE94C98E1A584DDEA6793B47917@exchange1.prod.servihoo.net> <8139A2D4BA5CE94C98E1A584DDEA6793B489D7@exchange1.prod.servihoo.net> <03078974-63DB-4FCA-81B0-73F8903B4F90@nftconsult.com> <77EB746D-0070-44BF-A466-732590F8DE96@anytimechinese.com> Message-ID: On 20 September 2014 07:25, Lu Heng wrote: > Hi > > For Seun: > > I believe he is talking about our additional allocation request in which > seems pending board decision(in which I wonder since when broad has started > into operational matters?), and very much surprise he is talking like > politician rather than technician. > > For K: > > I guess it is quite simple to check who announce the range and where it is > being announced, over 90% of our allocation is being announced by MTN > Africa. > > You will agree with me it is not quite obvious as you mention. There is no fixed correlation between where IP resources are announced and the geographical location. We would be shooting ourselves in the foot if we do that. > I do not believe policy mailing list is the place to question confidential > business details from Afrinic member, do you agree with me? > > Nobody is questioning confidential business details. Questions were asked about interpretation of policy with respect to evaluation and approval of resources. Policies are developed by the community and I do not see any reason why the community should not get answers as to the process. >From your respond to Seun I infer you are requesting for additional resources which has been forwarded to Afrinic management and board right? > And we are investing in South Africa and planning to built a future > datacenter there in the near future together with China communication > service. if you are very much interested and like to bring future customer > to us, we are very much welcome to that. > > > Interesting so I presume you are providing Data Hosting Services with your african region operations based in South Africa right? So you are providing content in the African Region? Nice Cheers K. > ? 20 Sep 2014?10:51?Kofi ANSA AKUFO ??? > > > > On 20 September 2014 04:37, Lu Heng wrote: > >> Hi >> >> This is policy mailing list not law enforcement mailing list, if there >> is something legally wrong, it is up to local law enforcement to act but >> not any one here on the list. and this is a mailing for policy but not >> nationalism, I am very much surprised one of the board member here direct >> ask to break policy in order to "save the continent", in which there is >> nothing to save from as seems there is no resource being taking outside of >> the continent. >> >> because our range has been mentioned since beginning of the discussion, >> let me make things clear once for all: >> >> 1. the resource we take are using in africa. >> >> > Hi Lu is this a technical challenge to check where resources are being > used? > > >> 2. we are investing in africa. >> >> I believe this is an opportunity for any organisation in question to use > to point out SPECIFIC investments or community development to the region > from the resources allocated. Do you agree with me? > > Cheers > > K. > > >> If anyone want to make more accusation on us please do provide evidence >> otherwise we see it as public defamation. >> >> >> ? 20 Sep 2014?04:03?Badru Ntege ??? >> >> > Nadan >> > >> > I think we are losing the plot here. If someone has genuine evidence of >> wrong doing please raise it with the legal authorities. >> > >> > The community will thank you for highlighting the wrong doing you seem >> to allude to. >> > >> > >> > Regards >> > >> > Badru Ntege >> > Sent from my Mobile >> > >> >> On 19 Sep 2014, at 21:30, "Keshwarsingh Nadan" < >> keshwarsingh.nadan at millenium.mu> wrote: >> >> >> >> Hey Steve, >> >> >> >>> Are you serious? Are you able to share anything about what or why? >> >> >> >> Yes I am serious since this is a public list. I can't share anything >> for the >> >> time being, but like I said this will be exposed at the right moment >> and >> >> venue. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> rpd mailing list >> >> rpd at afrinic.net >> >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >> > _______________________________________________ >> > rpd mailing list >> > rpd at afrinic.net >> > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >> >> _______________________________________________ >> rpd mailing list >> rpd at afrinic.net >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sfolayan at gmail.com Sat Sep 20 05:42:52 2014 From: sfolayan at gmail.com (Sunday Folayan) Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2014 06:42:52 +0100 Subject: [afnog] [rpd] Re: A typical case of abuse of our resources!!! In-Reply-To: References: <541C2CFB.9070609@gmail.com> <541C57E4.8030504@gmail.com> <8139A2D4BA5CE94C98E1A584DDEA6793B47917@exchange1.prod.servihoo.net> <8139A2D4BA5CE94C98E1A584DDEA6793B489D7@exchange1.prod.servihoo.net> <8139A2D4BA5CE94C98E1A584DDEA6793B48A3C@exchange1.prod.servihoo.net> <541C7D6F.30606@gmail.com> Message-ID: <541D13DC.80805@gmail.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 +1. Sunday. On 19/09/2014 20:44, McTim wrote: > > > > right, so if we want a policy that prevents people from using > resources for spamming or other purposes we don't like, we have to > write those policies. > > Hostmasters (IP Resource Analysts) can only do what we tell them to > do in policy. > > So write a policy that does what you want, and we will discuss. > > > > On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 2:22 PM, Kofi ANSA AKUFO > wrote: >> Come folks >> >> Lets get serious this a policy discussion list and issues >> concerning policy implementation. >> >> Lets not troll or divert discussions if we cant come out straight >> with answers to questions. >> >> >> On 19 September 2014 23:01, Stephen Wilcox >> wrote: >>> >>> Surely its ASN24? >>> >>> On 19 September 2014 20:01, Sunday Folayan >>> wrote: >>>> > Does anyone have Jack Bauer's AS number? > > AfriNIC may need him soon. > > Sunday. > > > On 19/09/2014 19:54, Keshwarsingh Nadan wrote: >>>>>> Hey Steve, >>>>>> >>>>>>> I understand not naming individuals or being too >>>>>>> specific but can you describe the circumstances? >>>>>> >>>>>> I really wish I could describe the circumstances whilst >>>>>> writing this.. Unfortunately, any wordings wrongly >>>>>> interpreted can be used against me. Legal professionals >>>>>> are assembling every chunks together, we will publish >>>>>> that soon, arrests have been forecasted. >>>>>> >>>>>> Another so called *not for profit* organization is >>>>>> involved as well. >>>>>> >>>>>>> This would be the first instance of anything even >>>>>>> remotely like this I've heard of, and I'm wondering how >>>>>>> such a thing is possible and what else is out there. >>>>>> >>>>>> Many others will be out. >>>>>> >>>>>>> Regarding "the right moment and venue" .. I hope this >>>>>>> is for good reasons and not to hold anything back for >>>>>>> personal gain else we're creating a cycle.. >>>>>> >>>>>> Nothing personal, that would be for the best interest of >>>>>> everyone. >>>>>> > > >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- Director / Founder IX Reach Ltd E: steve.wilcox at ixreach.com >>> M: +44 7966 048633 Tempus Court, Bellfield Road, High Wycombe, >>> HP13 5HA, UK. >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ afnog mailing >> list http://afnog.org/mailman/listinfo/afnog > > > - -- - ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sunday Adekunle Folayan blog: http://www.sundayfolayan.name.ng email: sfolayan at skannet.com.ng, sfolayan at gmail.com phone: *234-816-866-7523, +234-802-291-2202 skype: sfolayan fcbk: www.facebook.com/sfolayan tweet: sfolayan linkedin: sfolayan : http://free.lanci.ng - Anyone, Anyjob, Anywhere, Anytime - ------------------------------------------------------------------ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUHRPcAAoJEH6UvSz6fA25EqAIAKYCKnSbRgUvtEjKZGNGd6mX 5zT01igasympLdsgmB2VuuKEjTn+BvGH8bX1HAxeonNsg2VlFIzX+4LksU2oBhtd M1D1WSW8GeKTPslBLVAt6vPIlD0qO3H4hdSmrMgBsztpPcmey2xlM05H+q/YOGGc JXrwuZJ2JkmLNAmutCjfhmz11pqRskRc2/jLIdMhqnIIyV1DqJQYy+RrzEoi+nPW WfEhToGqzEJ2GzJ2SVaK1HGKCYTsswo2QjsikzX4p3rppnv/vh45Cfr2RJ4KWOvn TfMuSehpn+jXB4kRtuY+ultkM30ESpQ7Xa+KSU5SwSk6zCp3b0gNTmaLrnVzROY= =gblU -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From sfolayan at gmail.com Sat Sep 20 05:58:37 2014 From: sfolayan at gmail.com (Sunday Folayan) Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2014 06:58:37 +0100 Subject: [afnog] [rpd] Re: A typical case of abuse of our resources!!! In-Reply-To: References: <541BD21B.5020900@gmail.com> <541BFF49.9050502@gmail.com> <541C1782.3060509@gmail.com> <541C2CFB.9070609@gmail.com> <541C57E4.8030504@gmail.com> <541C6D32.2010907@gmail.com> Message-ID: <541D178D.1000706@gmail.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 19/09/2014 20:32, Omo Oaiya wrote: >>> On 19 September 2014 20:20, Sunday Folayan >>> wrote: >> >> It has been discussed by the community and the hostmasters >> already responded publicly to the community in Djibouti. >> >> Kindly issue them a "certificate of your understanding", as soon >> as possible. > > Kindly point out which slide answers which question so we can > bring this to a quick conclusion. Come on ... Omo! Slides of presentation do not answer questions. It is the discussions and the comments of staff at question time, that answers them. If you can spend some nollywood time on the below policywood, you are done. http://www.duniamedia.ch/ais2014/vod_en/p_4_2.php http://www.duniamedia.ch/ais2014/vod_en/p_4_3.php http://www.duniamedia.ch/ais2014/vod_en/p_4_4.php Sunday. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUHReNAAoJEH6UvSz6fA25W8gIAJLl/zRI3SkUw3+1ScZsXmlF cl08SILZQ5+IOgJfr65hoF28E5jEA+lIOmyErowfuEhtkY+jt2fSQ/EIvGtCgR54 8H7NbSHCc0Gz7uGyJubOeHn1zM1ef9UkH6TXa/FGjsaUH5UcrJbRu/GC8ci2kuZP Ky/F0GYdeHyV4KtTzZ1XFn9iIgKgjOtU5PPuRoZr3VImOJUNAf+DWCCLnanTFrRC 4EiR/8ifzmAnLskeiochpfI3EsiF3sq7lXjyrUVDwDbKq+nqjKOqj6rTSsol2qmN Sgm7BpwhagbuqzoBwK+5i7QbLZIAkTOB0TpaV4bjnuIqMLjmWYsXwgJcWB3x2AM= =k4xH -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From omo at datasphir.com Sat Sep 20 09:45:19 2014 From: omo at datasphir.com (Omo Oaiya) Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2014 09:45:19 +0000 Subject: [rpd] [afnog] A typical case of abuse of our resources!!! In-Reply-To: <77EB746D-0070-44BF-A466-732590F8DE96@anytimechinese.com> References: <541BD21B.5020900@gmail.com> <541BFF49.9050502@gmail.com> <541C1782.3060509@gmail.com> <541C2CFB.9070609@gmail.com> <541C57E4.8030504@gmail.com> <8139A2D4BA5CE94C98E1A584DDEA6793B47917@exchange1.prod.servihoo.net> <8139A2D4BA5CE94C98E1A584DDEA6793B489D7@exchange1.prod.servihoo.net> <03078974-63DB-4FCA-81B0-73F8903B4F90@nftconsult.com> <77EB746D-0070-44BF-A466-732590F8DE96@anytimechinese.com> Message-ID: On 20 September 2014 00:37, Lu Heng wrote: > Hi > > This is policy mailing list not law enforcement mailing list, if there is > something legally wrong, it is up to local law enforcement to act but not > any one here on the list. and this is a mailing for policy but not > nationalism, I am very much surprised one of the board member here direct > ask to break policy in order to "save the continent", in which there is > nothing to save from as seems there is no resource being taking outside of > the continent. > > because our range has been mentioned since beginning of the discussion, > let me make things clear once for all: > > 1. the resource we take are using in africa. > > 2. we are investing in africa. > > If anyone want to make more accusation on us please do provide evidence > otherwise we see it as public defamation. > > Mr Lu, Perhaps you can enrich the discussion on utilisation of IPs with an answer to this question raised earlier On 19 September 2014 12:59, Stephen Wilcox wrote: > Hi Lu, > out of interest regarding the utilisation of IPs, why are you using one > IP per DNS host ( http://bgp.he.net/net/154.87.0.0/16#_dns ) and many of > these domains look like random letters and have no website eg > http://ydxwsl.com/ > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From omo at wacren.net Sat Sep 20 10:02:22 2014 From: omo at wacren.net (Omo Oaiya) Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2014 10:02:22 +0000 Subject: [afnog] [rpd] Re: A typical case of abuse of our resources!!! In-Reply-To: <541D178D.1000706@gmail.com> References: <541BD21B.5020900@gmail.com> <541BFF49.9050502@gmail.com> <541C1782.3060509@gmail.com> <541C2CFB.9070609@gmail.com> <541C57E4.8030504@gmail.com> <541C6D32.2010907@gmail.com> <541D178D.1000706@gmail.com> Message-ID: On 20 September 2014 05:58, Sunday Folayan wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 19/09/2014 20:32, Omo Oaiya wrote: > >>> On 19 September 2014 20:20, Sunday Folayan > >>> wrote: > >> > >> It has been discussed by the community and the hostmasters > >> already responded publicly to the community in Djibouti. > >> > >> Kindly issue them a "certificate of your understanding", as soon > >> as possible. > > > > Kindly point out which slide answers which question so we can > > bring this to a quick conclusion. > > Come on ... Omo! > > Slides of presentation do not answer questions. It is the discussions > and the comments of staff at question time, that answers them. > Sunday, Staff specifically said they would get back to me. Can you be more specific? > If you can spend some nollywood time on the below policywood, you are > done. > > http://www.duniamedia.ch/ais2014/vod_en/p_4_2.php > http://www.duniamedia.ch/ais2014/vod_en/p_4_3.php > http://www.duniamedia.ch/ais2014/vod_en/p_4_4.php > > Red herring. Omo -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From psmata2g8 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 20 13:24:52 2014 From: psmata2g8 at yahoo.com (ata) Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2014 06:24:52 -0700 Subject: [rpd] Re: rpd Digest, Vol 96, Issue 19 In-Reply-To: <201409201200.s8KC07ia016068@mail.afrinic.net> Message-ID: <1411219492.28457.YahooMailBasic@web122001.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Its quite disheartening when reading certain comments on the mailing list. Its through this mailing that all is well informed about the consumption of the African Network Information Centre (AfriNIC) resources. if for whatsoever reason you are investing in Africa its probably because you have seen prospects. I beg to differ. Below is a message from About us on http://www.afrinic.net/en/about-us "The African Network Information Center (AFRINIC) is the Regional Internet Registry (RIR) for Africa, responsible for the distribution and management of Internet number resources such as IP addresses and ASN (Autonomous System Numbers) for the African region. AFRINIC?s mission is to provide professional and efficient distribution of Internet number resources to the African Internet community, to support Internet technology usage and development across the continent and to strengthen Internet self-governance in Africa by encouraging a participatory policy development. The allocation of the Internet address space is primarily carried out by the IANA (Internet Assigned Name Authority) under a contract with ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers). IANA allocates IP address blocks to RIRs (Regional Internet Registries) which have the authority to re-allocate them within their respective geographical areas (of continental scope). There are four other RIRs worldwide: RIPE-NCC (serving Europe and surrounding areas), APNIC (serving Asia and Pacific region), ARIN (serving North America) and LACNIC(serving Latin America and the Caribbean)." If for any other reason there are prospects for investors then there are more available resources that can be acquired from the respective RIR. We will refer Mr Lu and team to take resources from APNIC for the business or investment proposed in Africa. Again if the resource can be hosted anywhere irrespective then that should also be done with resources from APNIC not necessarily AfiNIC as inferred by Phil. AfriNIC is for serving the African Sub Region not otherwise. Doing anything else contrary is defying the mission, vision and purpose of AfriNIC for the African Sub Region. If our trusted management is doing something contrary like allocating our few resources to members of ORG that does not meet the objectives of AfriNIC, We the kind people of Africa besiege thee to avert that decision and save the future of our next generation tech-preneurs. Truly African. Ata Redeemer. -------------------------------------------- On Sat, 9/20/14, rpd-request at afrinic.net wrote: Subject: rpd Digest, Vol 96, Issue 19 To: rpd at afrinic.net Date: Saturday, September 20, 2014, 1:00 PM Send rpd mailing list submissions to ??? rpd at afrinic.net To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit ??? https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to ??? rpd-request at afrinic.net You can reach the person managing the list at ??? rpd-owner at afrinic.net When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of rpd digest..." Today's Topics: ???1. Re: [afnog] [rpd] Re: A typical case of abuse of our ? ? ? resources!!! (Sunday Folayan) ???2. Re: [afnog] [rpd] Re: A typical case of abuse of our ? ? ? resources!!! (Sunday Folayan) ???3. Re: [afnog] A typical case of abuse of our resources!!! ? ? ? (Omo Oaiya) ???4. Re: [afnog] [rpd] Re: A typical case of abuse of our ? ? ? resources!!! (Omo Oaiya) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2014 06:42:52 +0100 From: Sunday Folayan Subject: Re: [afnog] [rpd] Re: A typical case of abuse of our ??? resources!!! To: McTim , Kofi ANSA AKUFO Cc: AfriNIC Resource Policy Message-ID: <541D13DC.80805 at gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 +1. Sunday. On 19/09/2014 20:44, McTim wrote: > > > > right, so if we want a policy that prevents people from using > resources for spamming or other purposes we don't like, we have to > write those policies. > > Hostmasters (IP Resource Analysts) can only do what we tell them to > do in policy. > > So write a policy that does what you want, and we will discuss. > > > > On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 2:22 PM, Kofi ANSA AKUFO > wrote: >> Come folks >> >> Lets get serious this a policy discussion list and issues >> concerning policy implementation. >> >> Lets not troll or divert discussions if we cant come out straight >> with answers to questions. >> >> >> On 19 September 2014 23:01, Stephen Wilcox >> wrote: >>> >>> Surely its ASN24? >>> >>> On 19 September 2014 20:01, Sunday Folayan >>> wrote: >>>> > Does anyone have Jack Bauer's AS number? > > AfriNIC may need him soon. > > Sunday. > > > On 19/09/2014 19:54, Keshwarsingh Nadan wrote: >>>>>> Hey Steve, >>>>>> >>>>>>> I understand not naming individuals or being too >>>>>>> specific but can you describe the circumstances? >>>>>> >>>>>> I really wish I could describe the circumstances whilst >>>>>> writing this.. Unfortunately, any wordings wrongly >>>>>> interpreted can be used against me. Legal professionals >>>>>> are assembling every chunks together, we will publish >>>>>> that soon, arrests have been forecasted. >>>>>> >>>>>> Another so called *not for profit* organization is >>>>>> involved as well. >>>>>> >>>>>>> This would be the first instance of anything even >>>>>>> remotely like this I've heard of, and I'm wondering how >>>>>>> such a thing is possible and what else is out there. >>>>>> >>>>>> Many others will be out. >>>>>> >>>>>>> Regarding "the right moment and venue" .. I hope this >>>>>>> is for good reasons and not to hold anything back for >>>>>>> personal gain else we're creating a cycle.. >>>>>> >>>>>> Nothing personal, that would be for the best interest of >>>>>> everyone. >>>>>> > > >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- Director / Founder IX Reach Ltd E: steve.wilcox at ixreach.com >>> M: +44 7966 048633 Tempus Court, Bellfield Road, High Wycombe, >>> HP13 5HA, UK. >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ afnog mailing >> list http://afnog.org/mailman/listinfo/afnog > > > - -- - ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sunday Adekunle Folayan ? ? blog: http://www.sundayfolayan.name.ng ???email: sfolayan at skannet.com.ng, sfolayan at gmail.com ???phone: *234-816-866-7523, +234-802-291-2202 ???skype: sfolayan ? ? fcbk: www.facebook.com/sfolayan ???tweet: sfolayan linkedin: sfolayan ? ? ? ? : http://free.lanci.ng - Anyone, Anyjob, Anywhere, Anytime - ------------------------------------------------------------------ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUHRPcAAoJEH6UvSz6fA25EqAIAKYCKnSbRgUvtEjKZGNGd6mX 5zT01igasympLdsgmB2VuuKEjTn+BvGH8bX1HAxeonNsg2VlFIzX+4LksU2oBhtd M1D1WSW8GeKTPslBLVAt6vPIlD0qO3H4hdSmrMgBsztpPcmey2xlM05H+q/YOGGc JXrwuZJ2JkmLNAmutCjfhmz11pqRskRc2/jLIdMhqnIIyV1DqJQYy+RrzEoi+nPW WfEhToGqzEJ2GzJ2SVaK1HGKCYTsswo2QjsikzX4p3rppnv/vh45Cfr2RJ4KWOvn TfMuSehpn+jXB4kRtuY+ultkM30ESpQ7Xa+KSU5SwSk6zCp3b0gNTmaLrnVzROY= =gblU -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2014 06:58:37 +0100 From: Sunday Folayan Subject: Re: [afnog] [rpd] Re: A typical case of abuse of our ??? resources!!! To: Omo Oaiya Cc: AfriNIC Discuss ,??? "AfriNIC RPD ??? MList." , AFNOG Message-ID: <541D178D.1000706 at gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 19/09/2014 20:32, Omo Oaiya wrote: >>> On 19 September 2014 20:20, Sunday Folayan >>> wrote: >> >> It has been discussed by the community and the hostmasters >> already responded publicly to the community in Djibouti. >> >> Kindly issue them a "certificate of your understanding", as soon >> as possible. > > Kindly point out which slide answers which question so we can > bring this to a quick conclusion. Come on ... Omo! Slides of presentation do not answer questions. It is the discussions and the comments of staff at question time, that answers them. If you can spend some nollywood time on the below policywood, you are done. http://www.duniamedia.ch/ais2014/vod_en/p_4_2.php http://www.duniamedia.ch/ais2014/vod_en/p_4_3.php http://www.duniamedia.ch/ais2014/vod_en/p_4_4.php Sunday. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUHReNAAoJEH6UvSz6fA25W8gIAJLl/zRI3SkUw3+1ScZsXmlF cl08SILZQ5+IOgJfr65hoF28E5jEA+lIOmyErowfuEhtkY+jt2fSQ/EIvGtCgR54 8H7NbSHCc0Gz7uGyJubOeHn1zM1ef9UkH6TXa/FGjsaUH5UcrJbRu/GC8ci2kuZP Ky/F0GYdeHyV4KtTzZ1XFn9iIgKgjOtU5PPuRoZr3VImOJUNAf+DWCCLnanTFrRC 4EiR/8ifzmAnLskeiochpfI3EsiF3sq7lXjyrUVDwDbKq+nqjKOqj6rTSsol2qmN Sgm7BpwhagbuqzoBwK+5i7QbLZIAkTOB0TpaV4bjnuIqMLjmWYsXwgJcWB3x2AM= =k4xH -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2014 09:45:19 +0000 From: Omo Oaiya Subject: Re: [rpd] [afnog] A typical case of abuse of our resources!!! To: Lu Heng Cc: "afnog at afnog.org" ,??? AfriNIC Discuss ??? ,??? AfriNIC Resource Policy ??? ,??? Andrew Alston Message-ID: ??? Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" On 20 September 2014 00:37, Lu Heng wrote: > Hi > > This is policy mailing list not law enforcement mailing list,? if there is > something legally wrong, it is up to local law enforcement to act but not > any one here on the list. and this is a mailing for policy but not > nationalism, I am very much surprised one of the board member here direct > ask to break policy in order to "save the continent", in which there is > nothing to save from as seems there is no resource being taking outside of > the continent. > > because our range has been mentioned since beginning of the discussion, > let me make things clear once for all: > > 1. the resource we take are using in africa. > > 2. we are investing in africa. > > If anyone want to make more accusation on us please do provide evidence > otherwise we see it as public defamation. > > Mr Lu, Perhaps you can enrich the discussion on utilisation of IPs with an answer to this question raised earlier On 19 September 2014 12:59, Stephen Wilcox wrote: > Hi Lu, >? out of interest regarding the utilisation of IPs, why are you using one > IP per DNS host ( http://bgp.he.net/net/154.87.0.0/16#_dns ) and many of > these domains look like random letters and have no website eg > http://ydxwsl.com/ > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20140920/5831f689/attachment-0001.htm ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2014 10:02:22 +0000 From: Omo Oaiya Subject: Re: [afnog] [rpd] Re: A typical case of abuse of our ??? resources!!! To: Sunday Folayan Cc: AfriNIC Discuss ,??? "AfriNIC RPD ??? MList." , AFNOG Message-ID: ??? Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" On 20 September 2014 05:58, Sunday Folayan wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 19/09/2014 20:32, Omo Oaiya wrote: > >>> On 19 September 2014 20:20, Sunday Folayan > >>> wrote: > >> > >> It has been discussed by the community and the hostmasters > >> already responded publicly to the community in Djibouti. > >> > >> Kindly issue them a "certificate of your understanding", as soon > >> as possible. > > > > Kindly point out which slide answers which question so we can > > bring this to a quick conclusion. > > Come on ... Omo! > > Slides of presentation do not answer questions. It is the discussions > and the comments of staff at question time, that answers them. > Sunday, Staff specifically said they would get back to me.? Can you be more specific? > If you can spend some nollywood time on the below policywood, you are > done. > > http://www.duniamedia.ch/ais2014/vod_en/p_4_2.php > http://www.duniamedia.ch/ais2014/vod_en/p_4_3.php > http://www.duniamedia.ch/ais2014/vod_en/p_4_4.php > > Red herring. Omo -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20140920/9998e114/attachment-0001.htm ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ rpd mailing list rpd at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd End of rpd Digest, Vol 96, Issue 19 *********************************** From sfolayan at gmail.com Sat Sep 20 15:00:33 2014 From: sfolayan at gmail.com (Sunday Folayan) Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2014 16:00:33 +0100 Subject: [afnog] [rpd] Re: A typical case of abuse of our resources!!! In-Reply-To: References: <541BD21B.5020900@gmail.com> <541BFF49.9050502@gmail.com> <541C1782.3060509@gmail.com> <541C2CFB.9070609@gmail.com> <541C57E4.8030504@gmail.com> <541C6D32.2010907@gmail.com> <541D178D.1000706@gmail.com> Message-ID: <541D9691.3010309@gmail.com> On 20/09/2014 11:02, Omo Oaiya wrote: > On 20 September 2014 05:58, Sunday Folayan wrote: > >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> On 19/09/2014 20:32, Omo Oaiya wrote: >>>>> On 19 September 2014 20:20, Sunday Folayan >>>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> It has been discussed by the community and the hostmasters >>>> already responded publicly to the community in Djibouti. >>>> >>>> Kindly issue them a "certificate of your understanding", as soon >>>> as possible. >>> >>> Kindly point out which slide answers which question so we can >>> bring this to a quick conclusion. >> >> Come on ... Omo! >> >> Slides of presentation do not answer questions. It is the discussions >> and the comments of staff at question time, that answers them. >> > > Sunday, > > Staff specifically said they would get back to me. Can you be more > specific? Do well to ask staff what is delaying their getting back to you, and you may remind them of the exact question that is not yes answered. I suggest that you also quote the exact frame in the videos. > > >> If you can spend some nollywood time on the below policywood, you are >> done. >> >> http://www.duniamedia.ch/ais2014/vod_en/p_4_2.php >> http://www.duniamedia.ch/ais2014/vod_en/p_4_3.php >> http://www.duniamedia.ch/ais2014/vod_en/p_4_4.php >> >> > Red herring. Of course! > > > Omo > Sunday. From mainanoa at gmail.com Sat Sep 20 17:42:33 2014 From: mainanoa at gmail.com (Noah Maina) Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2014 20:42:33 +0300 Subject: [rpd] Re: [afnog] A typical case of abuse of our resources!!! In-Reply-To: References: <541BD21B.5020900@gmail.com> <541BFF49.9050502@gmail.com> <541C1782.3060509@gmail.com> <541C2CFB.9070609@gmail.com> Message-ID: On 19 September 2014 16:45, Andrew Alston wrote: > Kofi, > > Again, I state here that I wrote in my personal capacity and not as a > member of the board or any other organisation that I may be associated with. > > Andrew, I like the way you start your responses this days :-) lol > > > *Andrew Alston* > > Noah -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mainanoa at gmail.com Sat Sep 20 17:45:18 2014 From: mainanoa at gmail.com (Noah Maina) Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2014 20:45:18 +0300 Subject: [rpd] Re: [afnog] A typical case of abuse of our resources!!! In-Reply-To: <4A845EBF-72F2-4CD8-984E-FE02FC54A0C1@anytimechinese.com> References: <541BD21B.5020900@gmail.com> <541BFF49.9050502@gmail.com> <541C1782.3060509@gmail.com> <541C2CFB.9070609@gmail.com> <4A845EBF-72F2-4CD8-984E-FE02FC54A0C1@anytimechinese.com> Message-ID: On 19 September 2014 17:36, Lu wrote: > Hi kofi: > > Fyi, as the holder of the /12 you are specific asking about, we have just > been heavily checked by afrinic staff and we can ensure you all of our > usage are accounting to afrinic policy. > > Keep the good job and make sure the allocated resources are fully utilized within the region.... ./noah -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mainanoa at gmail.com Sat Sep 20 17:53:25 2014 From: mainanoa at gmail.com (Noah Maina) Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2014 20:53:25 +0300 Subject: [rpd] Re: [afnog] A typical case of abuse of our resources!!! In-Reply-To: References: <541BD21B.5020900@gmail.com> <541BFF49.9050502@gmail.com> <541C1782.3060509@gmail.com> <541C2CFB.9070609@gmail.com> Message-ID: On 19 September 2014 17:51, Kofi ANSA AKUFO wrote: > The community could turn a blind eye and argue against the issues > discussed or be more constructive to forge ahead concrete and reflective > regional development. > > Kofi, We the community are waiting for you to draft some policy /amend the bylaws etc...and drop it herein with ideas/solutions to this current problem you brought forth.... Otherwise my free googlemail space is almost full with endless troubleshooting..... > Cheers > > K. > Noah -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mainanoa at gmail.com Sat Sep 20 18:00:18 2014 From: mainanoa at gmail.com (Noah Maina) Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2014 21:00:18 +0300 Subject: [rpd] [afnog] A typical case of abuse of our resources!!! In-Reply-To: References: <541BD21B.5020900@gmail.com> <541BFF49.9050502@gmail.com> <541C1782.3060509@gmail.com> <541C2CFB.9070609@gmail.com> <541C57E4.8030504@gmail.com> <8139A2D4BA5CE94C98E1A584DDEA6793B47917@exchange1.prod.servihoo.net> <8139A2D4BA5CE94C98E1A584DDEA6793B489D7@exchange1.prod.servihoo.net> <03078974-63DB-4FCA-81B0-73F8903B4F90@nftconsult.com> <77EB746D-0070-44BF-A466-732590F8DE96@anytimechinese.com> Message-ID: On 20 September 2014 06:25, Lu Heng wrote: > Hi > > Hi Lu, > I do not believe policy mailing list is the place to question confidential > business details from Afrinic member, do you agree with me? > > I agree with you....unless someone has signed some NDA with you.... Noah -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mainanoa at gmail.com Sat Sep 20 18:02:44 2014 From: mainanoa at gmail.com (Noah Maina) Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2014 21:02:44 +0300 Subject: [afnog] [rpd] Re: A typical case of abuse of our resources!!! In-Reply-To: References: <541BFF49.9050502@gmail.com> <541C1782.3060509@gmail.com> <541C2CFB.9070609@gmail.com> <541C57E4.8030504@gmail.com> <8139A2D4BA5CE94C98E1A584DDEA6793B47917@exchange1.prod.servihoo.net> <8139A2D4BA5CE94C98E1A584DDEA6793B489D7@exchange1.prod.servihoo.net> <8139A2D4BA5CE94C98E1A584DDEA6793B48A3C@exchange1.prod.servihoo.net> <541C7D6F.30606@gmail.com> Message-ID: On 19 September 2014 22:44, McTim wrote: > > right, so if we want a policy that prevents people from using > resources for spamming or other purposes we don't like, we have to > write those policies. > ++1, My exact line of thought McTim.... Noah -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mainanoa at gmail.com Sat Sep 20 18:06:07 2014 From: mainanoa at gmail.com (Noah Maina) Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2014 21:06:07 +0300 Subject: [rpd] Re: [afnog] A typical case of abuse of our resources!!! In-Reply-To: References: <541BD21B.5020900@gmail.com> <541BFF49.9050502@gmail.com> <541C1782.3060509@gmail.com> <541C2CFB.9070609@gmail.com> Message-ID: On 20 September 2014 21:02, Kofi ANSA AKUFO wrote: > > > On 20 September 2014 21:53, Noah Maina wrote: > >> >> >> Otherwise my free googlemail space is almost full with endless >> troubleshooting..... >> > > Hmm my brother > > don't worry we will all tackle it the anytimeafrican way ... > > > I have never received SPAM from anytimeafrica..... > >> >>> Cheers >>> >>> K. >>> >> >> Noah >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mainanoa at gmail.com Sat Sep 20 18:08:54 2014 From: mainanoa at gmail.com (Noah Maina) Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2014 21:08:54 +0300 Subject: [rpd] Re: [afnog] A typical case of abuse of our resources!!! In-Reply-To: References: <541BFF49.9050502@gmail.com> <541C1782.3060509@gmail.com> <541C2CFB.9070609@gmail.com> <541C57E4.8030504@gmail.com> <8139A2D4BA5CE94C98E1A584DDEA6793B47917@exchange1.prod.servihoo.net> <8139A2D4BA5CE94C98E1A584DDEA6793B489D7@exchange1.prod.servihoo.net> <8139A2D4BA5CE94C98E1A584DDEA6793B48A3C@exchange1.prod.servihoo.net> <541C7D6F.30606@gmail.com> Message-ID: On 19 September 2014 20:01, Sunday Folayan wrote: > >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> Does anyone have Jack Bauer's AS number? >> > Sure, Chloe O'Brian > >> AfriNIC may need him soon. >> >> They can contact her... > Sunday. >> >> Noah -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kofi.ansa at gmail.com Sat Sep 20 18:29:13 2014 From: kofi.ansa at gmail.com (Kofi ANSA AKUFO) Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2014 22:29:13 +0400 Subject: [rpd] Re: [afnog] A typical case of abuse of our resources!!! In-Reply-To: References: <541BD21B.5020900@gmail.com> <541BFF49.9050502@gmail.com> <541C1782.3060509@gmail.com> <541C2CFB.9070609@gmail.com> Message-ID: On 20 September 2014 22:06, Noah Maina wrote: > > > On 20 September 2014 21:02, Kofi ANSA AKUFO wrote: > >> >> >> On 20 September 2014 21:53, Noah Maina wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> Otherwise my free googlemail space is almost full with endless >>> troubleshooting..... >>> >> >> Hmm my brother >> >> don't worry we will all tackle it the anytimeafrican way ... >> >> >> > I have never received SPAM from anytimeafrica..... > Seriously maybe the community will have to be the ultimate hostmasters to evaluate huge allocations ... -- > members are saying their request are forwarded to management and board for approval -- > board members are giving personal opinion based on current policy they are not involved in evaluation and approval Should we expect processes that output information into public whois db to be a blackbox? K. > > >>> >>>> Cheers >>>> >>>> K. >>>> >>> >>> Noah >>> >>> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From keshwarsingh.nadan at millenium.mu Sat Sep 20 18:31:22 2014 From: keshwarsingh.nadan at millenium.mu (Keshwarsingh Nadan) Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2014 18:31:22 +0000 Subject: [rpd] Re: [afnog] A typical case of abuse of our resources!!! In-Reply-To: References: <541BD21B.5020900@gmail.com> <541BFF49.9050502@gmail.com> <541C1782.3060509@gmail.com> <541C2CFB.9070609@gmail.com> Message-ID: <8139A2D4BA5CE94C98E1A584DDEA6793B49EB3@exchange1.prod.servihoo.net> Omo, >On 19 September 2014 14:51, Kofi ANSA AKUFO wrote: >Who approved such huge chunk /12 (over a million IPv4 addresses) in a first (initial) time request? > >As much as we want different, ?Universities and NRENs are being treated in line with policy. ?Why was this allocation treated differently? ?Are there any others getting?preferential treatment that is not guided by "rule >of law"? To all of the above, AFRINIC will never disclose such information (confidentiality clause), but there exists two possibilities which can override, I'm not sure on the first one: a) As a member, clause 7.6(viii) can be invoked by passing a special resolution signed by at least 5% of the members requesting the board for further clarification. I can show up by aggregating all my resource holder organizations (28), but I'm not sure AFRINIC would consider since they have a pending legal issue against me. Will you and others follow this route by summing up to 5% ? b) If you want an unbiased statement (who/why) on the /12 chunk, AFRINIC being incorporated under the companies act 2001 of Mauritius, we can request the 'Independent Commission Against Corruption' to investigate. As a member I want to know more about Mr. Lu's allocation, care to know more ? Shoot me off list. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 6435 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mainanoa at gmail.com Sat Sep 20 18:33:40 2014 From: mainanoa at gmail.com (Noah Maina) Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2014 21:33:40 +0300 Subject: [rpd] Re: [afnog] A typical case of abuse of our resources!!! In-Reply-To: References: <541BD21B.5020900@gmail.com> <541BFF49.9050502@gmail.com> <541C1782.3060509@gmail.com> <541C2CFB.9070609@gmail.com> Message-ID: On 20 September 2014 21:29, Kofi ANSA AKUFO wrote: > > > On 20 September 2014 22:06, Noah Maina wrote: > >> >> >> On 20 September 2014 21:02, Kofi ANSA AKUFO wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On 20 September 2014 21:53, Noah Maina wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Otherwise my free googlemail space is almost full with endless >>>> troubleshooting..... >>>> >>> >>> Hmm my brother >>> >>> don't worry we will all tackle it the anytimeafrican way ... >>> >>> >>> >> I have never received SPAM from anytimeafrica..... >> > > Seriously maybe the community will have to be the ultimate hostmasters to > evaluate huge allocations ... > > -- > members are saying their request are forwarded to management and > board for approval > > -- > board members are giving personal opinion based on current policy > they are not involved in evaluation and approval > > Should we expect processes that output information into public whois db to > be a blackbox? > > Well, I am not a believer of endless back and forth emails which do not yield no results .... All am trying to point out to you is simple.... We as a community has solved so many issues through Policy and By-laws, So rather than waste loads of time going back and forth...How about you present a solution to his mailing list and the community through a Draft Policy and we move on from there.... > K. > > Noah -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kofi.ansa at gmail.com Sat Sep 20 18:56:51 2014 From: kofi.ansa at gmail.com (Kofi ANSA AKUFO) Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2014 22:56:51 +0400 Subject: [rpd] Re: [afnog] A typical case of abuse of our resources!!! In-Reply-To: References: <541BD21B.5020900@gmail.com> <541BFF49.9050502@gmail.com> <541C1782.3060509@gmail.com> <541C2CFB.9070609@gmail.com> Message-ID: On 20 September 2014 22:33, Noah Maina wrote: > > > On 20 September 2014 21:29, Kofi ANSA AKUFO wrote: > >> >> >> On 20 September 2014 22:06, Noah Maina wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On 20 September 2014 21:02, Kofi ANSA AKUFO wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 20 September 2014 21:53, Noah Maina wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Otherwise my free googlemail space is almost full with endless >>>>> troubleshooting..... >>>>> >>>> >>>> Hmm my brother >>>> >>>> don't worry we will all tackle it the anytimeafrican way ... >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> I have never received SPAM from anytimeafrica..... >>> >> >> Seriously maybe the community will have to be the ultimate hostmasters to >> evaluate huge allocations ... >> >> -- > members are saying their request are forwarded to management and >> board for approval >> >> -- > board members are giving personal opinion based on current policy >> they are not involved in evaluation and approval >> >> Should we expect processes that output information into public whois db >> to be a blackbox? >> >> > Well, I am not a believer of endless back and forth emails which do not > yield no results .... > > All am trying to point out to you is simple.... We as a community has > solved so many issues through Policy and By-laws, So rather than waste > loads of time going back and forth...How about you present a solution to > his mailing list and the community through a Draft Policy and we move on > from there.... > > And we as a community needs to come out with answers to questions asked Noah. We have existing policies in place and I believe some board members pointed out that. Hostmasters have also expressed their challenges in some of these evaluation at meetings. IMHO Policies stand better chance to be effective when issues such as these are discussed openly even before they are drafted. I am a firm advocate of Policy and By-Laws especially when we are using democratic mechanisms to enact them. Perhaps we should also turn to these same mechanisms to address some of the challenges of allocation of resources. > >> K. >> >> > Noah > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mainanoa at gmail.com Sat Sep 20 19:10:45 2014 From: mainanoa at gmail.com (Noah Maina) Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2014 22:10:45 +0300 Subject: [rpd] Re: [afnog] A typical case of abuse of our resources!!! In-Reply-To: References: <541BD21B.5020900@gmail.com> <541BFF49.9050502@gmail.com> <541C1782.3060509@gmail.com> <541C2CFB.9070609@gmail.com> Message-ID: On 20 September 2014 21:56, Kofi ANSA AKUFO wrote: > > On 20 September 2014 22:33, Noah Maina wrote: > >> >> >> On 20 September 2014 21:29, Kofi ANSA AKUFO wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On 20 September 2014 22:06, Noah Maina wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 20 September 2014 21:02, Kofi ANSA AKUFO >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 20 September 2014 21:53, Noah Maina wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Otherwise my free googlemail space is almost full with endless >>>>>> troubleshooting..... >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Hmm my brother >>>>> >>>>> don't worry we will all tackle it the anytimeafrican way ... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> I have never received SPAM from anytimeafrica..... >>>> >>> >>> Seriously maybe the community will have to be the ultimate hostmasters >>> to evaluate huge allocations ... >>> >>> -- > members are saying their request are forwarded to management and >>> board for approval >>> >>> -- > board members are giving personal opinion based on current policy >>> they are not involved in evaluation and approval >>> >>> Should we expect processes that output information into public whois db >>> to be a blackbox? >>> >>> >> Well, I am not a believer of endless back and forth emails which do not >> yield no results .... >> >> All am trying to point out to you is simple.... We as a community has >> solved so many issues through Policy and By-laws, So rather than waste >> loads of time going back and forth...How about you present a solution to >> his mailing list and the community through a Draft Policy and we move on >> from there.... >> >> And we as a community needs to come out with answers to questions asked > Noah. We have existing policies in place and I believe some board members > pointed out that. Hostmasters have also expressed their challenges in some > of these evaluation at meetings. > > IMHO Policies stand better chance to be effective when issues such as > these are discussed openly even before they are drafted. > > I am a firm advocate of Policy and By-Laws especially when we are using > democratic mechanisms to enact them. > > Perhaps we should also turn to these same mechanisms to address some of > the challenges of allocation of resources. > > > #BoF #This discussion has been exhausted this far.....IMHO If [ policy is drafted! ] then [ respond further ] else, [ black-list Kofi, Nadah ,Andrew, Badru, Sunday, et' al etc for no results is yet being yield ] fi, #EoF > >> >>> K. >>> >>> >> Noah >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From boubakarbarry at gmail.com Sat Sep 20 19:28:46 2014 From: boubakarbarry at gmail.com (Boubakar Barry) Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2014 19:28:46 +0000 Subject: [rpd] Re: [afnog] A typical case of abuse of our resources!!! In-Reply-To: References: <541BD21B.5020900@gmail.com> <541BFF49.9050502@gmail.com> <541C1782.3060509@gmail.com> <541C2CFB.9070609@gmail.com> Message-ID: The number of posts in this thread and the discussions held in Djibouti show that the community wants clarification on this allocation. In the best interest of our organisation (i.e. AfriNIC) and in order to restore trust, Management and Board should take this seriously and provide adequate responses to the issues raised. Boubakar On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 7:10 PM, Noah Maina wrote: > > > On 20 September 2014 21:56, Kofi ANSA AKUFO wrote: > >> >> On 20 September 2014 22:33, Noah Maina wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On 20 September 2014 21:29, Kofi ANSA AKUFO wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 20 September 2014 22:06, Noah Maina wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 20 September 2014 21:02, Kofi ANSA AKUFO >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 20 September 2014 21:53, Noah Maina wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Otherwise my free googlemail space is almost full with endless >>>>>>> troubleshooting..... >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Hmm my brother >>>>>> >>>>>> don't worry we will all tackle it the anytimeafrican way ... >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> I have never received SPAM from anytimeafrica..... >>>>> >>>> >>>> Seriously maybe the community will have to be the ultimate hostmasters >>>> to evaluate huge allocations ... >>>> >>>> -- > members are saying their request are forwarded to management and >>>> board for approval >>>> >>>> -- > board members are giving personal opinion based on current policy >>>> they are not involved in evaluation and approval >>>> >>>> Should we expect processes that output information into public whois db >>>> to be a blackbox? >>>> >>>> >>> Well, I am not a believer of endless back and forth emails which do not >>> yield no results .... >>> >>> All am trying to point out to you is simple.... We as a community has >>> solved so many issues through Policy and By-laws, So rather than waste >>> loads of time going back and forth...How about you present a solution to >>> his mailing list and the community through a Draft Policy and we move on >>> from there.... >>> >>> And we as a community needs to come out with answers to questions asked >> Noah. We have existing policies in place and I believe some board members >> pointed out that. Hostmasters have also expressed their challenges in some >> of these evaluation at meetings. >> >> IMHO Policies stand better chance to be effective when issues such as >> these are discussed openly even before they are drafted. >> >> I am a firm advocate of Policy and By-Laws especially when we are using >> democratic mechanisms to enact them. >> >> Perhaps we should also turn to these same mechanisms to address some of >> the challenges of allocation of resources. >> >> >> > > #BoF > #This discussion has been exhausted this far.....IMHO > > If > > [ policy is drafted! ] > > then > > [ respond further ] > > else, > > [ black-list Kofi, Nadah ,Andrew, Badru, Sunday, et' al etc for no results > is yet being yield ] > > fi, > > #EoF > > >> >>> >>>> K. >>>> >>>> >>> Noah >>> >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From adiel at afrinic.net Sat Sep 20 20:41:18 2014 From: adiel at afrinic.net (Adiel Akplogan) Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2014 00:41:18 +0400 Subject: [rpd] [afnog] A typical case of abuse of our resources!!! In-Reply-To: References: <541BD21B.5020900@gmail.com> <541BFF49.9050502@gmail.com> <541C1782.3060509@gmail.com> <541C2CFB.9070609@gmail.com> Message-ID: <01D41EDC-5024-4D0B-9AAF-1EEA126ADB99@afrinic.net> Hello Boubakar, On Sep 20, 2014, at 23:28 PM, Boubakar Barry wrote: > The number of posts in this thread and the discussions held in Djibouti show that the community wants clarification on this allocation. > > In the best interest of our organisation (i.e. AfriNIC) and in order to restore trust, Management and Board should take this seriously and provide adequate responses to the issues raised. This allocation has followed the same process and procedure as any other requests sent to the IP analysts. In term of application and interpretation of the current policy nothing in this one was different. I think the RS team will be sending all the clarifications on the process shortly. Beyond that, I think there is a lot of emotional speculation that we need to avoid to be dragged into ? as you said in the interest of the organisation. Thanks. - a. > On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 7:10 PM, Noah Maina wrote: > > > On 20 September 2014 21:56, Kofi ANSA AKUFO wrote: > > On 20 September 2014 22:33, Noah Maina wrote: > > > On 20 September 2014 21:29, Kofi ANSA AKUFO wrote: > > > On 20 September 2014 22:06, Noah Maina wrote: > > > On 20 September 2014 21:02, Kofi ANSA AKUFO wrote: > > > On 20 September 2014 21:53, Noah Maina wrote: > > > Otherwise my free googlemail space is almost full with endless troubleshooting..... > > Hmm my brother > > don't worry we will all tackle it the anytimeafrican way ... > > > > I have never received SPAM from anytimeafrica..... > > Seriously maybe the community will have to be the ultimate hostmasters to evaluate huge allocations ... > > -- > members are saying their request are forwarded to management and board for approval > > -- > board members are giving personal opinion based on current policy they are not involved in evaluation and approval > > Should we expect processes that output information into public whois db to be a blackbox? > > > Well, I am not a believer of endless back and forth emails which do not yield no results .... > > All am trying to point out to you is simple.... We as a community has solved so many issues through Policy and By-laws, So rather than waste loads of time going back and forth...How about you present a solution to his mailing list and the community through a Draft Policy and we move on from there.... > > And we as a community needs to come out with answers to questions asked Noah. We have existing policies in place and I believe some board members pointed out that. Hostmasters have also expressed their challenges in some of these evaluation at meetings. > > IMHO Policies stand better chance to be effective when issues such as these are discussed openly even before they are drafted. > > I am a firm advocate of Policy and By-Laws especially when we are using democratic mechanisms to enact them. > > Perhaps we should also turn to these same mechanisms to address some of the challenges of allocation of resources. > > > > > #BoF > #This discussion has been exhausted this far.....IMHO > > If > > [ policy is drafted! ] > > then > > [ respond further ] > > else, > > [ black-list Kofi, Nadah ,Andrew, Badru, Sunday, et' al etc for no results is yet being yield ] > > fi, > > #EoF > > > K. > > > Noah > > > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 313 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From ndonnang at nvconsulting.biz Sat Sep 20 20:56:12 2014 From: ndonnang at nvconsulting.biz (Victor Ndonnang) Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2014 16:56:12 -0400 Subject: [afnog] [rpd] Re: A typical case of abuse of our resources!!! In-Reply-To: References: <541BFF49.9050502@gmail.com> <541C1782.3060509@gmail.com> <541C2CFB.9070609@gmail.com> <541C57E4.8030504@gmail.com> <8139A2D4BA5CE94C98E1A584DDEA6793B47917@exchange1.prod.servihoo.net> <8139A2D4BA5CE94C98E1A584DDEA6793B489D7@exchange1.prod.servihoo.net> <8139A2D4BA5CE94C98E1A584DDEA6793B48A3C@exchange1.prod.servihoo.net> <541C7D6F.30606@gmail.com> Message-ID: <001a01cfd515$50922be0$f1b683a0$@nvconsulting.biz> +1 McTim, It is not just about what we like or don?t like; It is about what serves the public interest and the development of the Internet in Africa. There is an ongoing discussion on enhancing ?ICANN accountability??May we should start exploring the same thing for AFRINIC. Very few people are involved in AFNIC policy development process and sometimes, they just develop a policy to support what they want or like rather than developing policies that really support the development of the Internet in Africa. AFRINIC has supported the development of the Internet in Africa for the past 10 years, let?s make sure It continues to do so and even better for the upcoming years. Trust is key is this process?. Best regards, Victor Ndonnang From: rpd-bounces at afrinic.net [mailto:rpd-bounces at afrinic.net] On Behalf Of Noah Maina Sent: Saturday, September 20, 2014 2:03 PM To: McTim Cc: AfriNIC Resource Policy Subject: Re: [afnog] [rpd] Re: A typical case of abuse of our resources!!! On 19 September 2014 22:44, McTim > wrote: right, so if we want a policy that prevents people from using resources for spamming or other purposes we don't like, we have to write those policies. ++1, My exact line of thought McTim.... Noah -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sfolayan at gmail.com Sat Sep 20 21:31:52 2014 From: sfolayan at gmail.com (Sunday Folayan) Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2014 22:31:52 +0100 Subject: [rpd] Re: [afnog] A typical case of abuse of our resources!!! In-Reply-To: References: <541BD21B.5020900@gmail.com> <541BFF49.9050502@gmail.com> <541C1782.3060509@gmail.com> <541C2CFB.9070609@gmail.com> Message-ID: <541DF248.2020200@gmail.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 20/09/2014 19:29, Kofi ANSA AKUFO wrote: > On 20 September 2014 22:06, Noah Maina wrote: > >> >> >> On 20 September 2014 21:02, Kofi ANSA AKUFO >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On 20 September 2014 21:53, Noah Maina >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Otherwise my free googlemail space is almost full with >>>> endless troubleshooting..... >>>> >>> >>> Hmm my brother >>> >>> don't worry we will all tackle it the anytimeafrican way ... >>> >>> >>> >> I have never received SPAM from anytimeafrica..... >> > > Seriously maybe the community will have to be the ultimate > hostmasters to evaluate huge allocations ... > > -- > members are saying their request are forwarded to management > and board for approval > > -- > board members are giving personal opinion based on current > policy they are not involved in evaluation and approval > > Should we expect processes that output information into public > whois db to be a blackbox? > > K. You keep coming clearer to the discerning with each comment. So the community must review the entire ticket thread before they can equally volunteer an opinion? Just propose a policy and stop this pissing game. Sunday. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUHfJIAAoJEH6UvSz6fA25vcoH/0PG9xJwvQJNAUEMCCfUZpOX lh3cCQWA8NuKHjgMTNopTt5yOQ3/Mf0JJHMVDOIWPbwTsbErHgKXLuLaBveDEhUK zsDwmQ4T82/VfZ+3JL9+z7uyA3scp0icPjfuNQ0+ieo3CfFM4PvYTDjDbKDZfwxq orf3U9bBdF0bMIOFHQmbrbWEuHt3sx13x0xJLpF68RtwsMMCkRz/yrncmtgzuiZZ 3YghuM+D6jhAGM7npUGm14BGFALzHrdADt10Z1UrLIx49ZGMhcRXYfPeSylouTGf BE/bctlPzIWxBVWt0rcAJy7r+UBVHSA2Nrvjx/X7SRKAuGsWrkq7dgVB4pjPSco= =tFE2 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From sfolayan at gmail.com Sat Sep 20 21:53:09 2014 From: sfolayan at gmail.com (Sunday Folayan) Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2014 22:53:09 +0100 Subject: [afnog] [rpd] Re: A typical case of abuse of our resources!!! In-Reply-To: <8139A2D4BA5CE94C98E1A584DDEA6793B49EB3@exchange1.prod.servihoo.net> References: <541BD21B.5020900@gmail.com> <541BFF49.9050502@gmail.com> <541C1782.3060509@gmail.com> <541C2CFB.9070609@gmail.com> <8139A2D4BA5CE94C98E1A584DDEA6793B49EB3@exchange1.prod.servihoo.net> Message-ID: <541DF745.1040704@gmail.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 20/09/2014 19:31, Keshwarsingh Nadan wrote: > Omo, > >> On 19 September 2014 14:51, Kofi ANSA AKUFO >> wrote: Who approved such huge chunk /12 (over a million IPv4 >> addresses) in a first > (initial) time request? > >> As much as we want different, Universities and NRENs are being >> treated in > line with policy. Why was this allocation treated differently? > Are there any others getting preferential treatment that is not > guided by "rule >of law"? > > To all of the above, AFRINIC will never disclose such information > (confidentiality clause), but there exists two possibilities which > can override, I'm not sure on the first one: > > a) As a member, clause 7.6(viii) can be invoked by passing a > special resolution signed by at least 5% of the members requesting > the board for further clarification. I can show up by aggregating > all my resource holder organizations (28), but I'm not sure AFRINIC > would consider since they have a pending legal issue against me. > Will you and others follow this route by summing up to 5% ? > > b) If you want an unbiased statement (who/why) on the /12 chunk, > AFRINIC being incorporated under the companies act 2001 of > Mauritius, we can request the 'Independent Commission Against > Corruption' to investigate. As a member I want to know more about > Mr. Lu's allocation, care to know more ? Shoot me off list. Off list? so much for transparency! Sunday. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUHfdFAAoJEH6UvSz6fA25MEcIAIxrVqVf39wCJfARFGbqKxym 7tcmiF1i652j0/avH4thYM295hXXBgYL9n7uALclgEcDnkA7n+huOs3jDdnVWSNI tYnU0wE1Wm5tVj84QaS0IxYzX/Mdadn2KT71ECwbOniKSMIvnwxVopbivfcClOys 9tSjlvxrQFYubM4W2+5NErV7+WQyXe4cxA4k1IjyjCs2sUUiMAPSEnGeB9FhseGj TdtlPDxr9WCjoTX+IFDTYsmq+hSWDFYG69VZhS4wTRMuNS/AhjULBZYueS/IGNer FC6lYsdXOk5IjLc9VTfFuNdJLWPr8mfOQ1oNeRIqnoCm29ObSBxjNsd/HzCMnU8= =b8dk -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com Sun Sep 21 06:07:06 2014 From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji) Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2014 07:07:06 +0100 Subject: [rpd] Re: [afnog] A typical case of abuse of our resources!!! In-Reply-To: References: <541BD21B.5020900@gmail.com> <541BFF49.9050502@gmail.com> <541C1782.3060509@gmail.com> <541C2CFB.9070609@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hello Kofi, sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 20 Sep 2014 19:59, "Kofi ANSA AKUFO" wrote: >. >> >> All am trying to point out to you is simple.... We as a community has solved so many issues through Policy and By-laws, So rather than waste loads of time going back and forth...How about you present a solution to his mailing list and the community through a Draft Policy and we move on from there.... >> > And we as a community needs to come out with answers to questions asked Noah. > What questions were asked that has not been responded to. (Maybe you care to list them?) > We have existing policies in place and I believe some board members pointed out that. Hostmasters have also expressed their challenges in some of these evaluation at meetings. > Great thank you for sending this reminder of the realities on ground; Staff has always made a presentation of the challenges they face but we the community have failed to help them by providing policy that further makes application review process easier for them. > IMHO Policies stand better chance to be effective when issues such as these are discussed openly even before they are drafted. > > I am a firm advocate of Policy and By-Laws especially when we are using democratic mechanisms to enact them. > Good.... Welcome back! > Perhaps we should also turn to these same mechanisms to address some of the challenges of allocation of resources. > Okay this is progress, so how about we consider this thread closed and then you lead by indicating at least 1 challenge and it's corresponding proposal to resolve it. I am sure the community will be willing to fine tune it to maturity. Cheers! > >> >>> >>> K. >>> >> >> Noah > > > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com Sun Sep 21 06:25:05 2014 From: Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com (Andrew Alston) Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2014 07:25:05 +0100 Subject: [afnog] [rpd] Re: A typical case of abuse of our resources!!! In-Reply-To: <001a01cfd515$50922be0$f1b683a0$@nvconsulting.biz> References: <541BFF49.9050502@gmail.com> <541C1782.3060509@gmail.com> <541C2CFB.9070609@gmail.com> <541C57E4.8030504@gmail.com> <8139A2D4BA5CE94C98E1A584DDEA6793B47917@exchange1.prod.servihoo.net> <8139A2D4BA5CE94C98E1A584DDEA6793B489D7@exchange1.prod.servihoo.net> <8139A2D4BA5CE94C98E1A584DDEA6793B48A3C@exchange1.prod.servihoo.net> <541C7D6F.30606@gmail.com> <001a01cfd515$50922be0$f1b683a0$@nvconsulting.biz> Message-ID: Disclaimer: Speaking in my personal capacity and not representative of the AfriNIC board or any other organisation/company to which I am affiliated. > Very few people are involved in AFNIC policy development process and sometimes, they just develop a policy to support what they want or like rather than developing policies that really support the > development of the Internet in Africa. Victor, this is true, but it is by choice that individuals do not get involved in the PdP, since it is an open body. Year after year I have stood at PdP meetings and we get people in the room, lots of them, but when it comes to discussions about policy on the PdP list, I would be amazed there are more than 15 or 20 people who actually get involved and talk on there on a regular and sustained basis. This has been spoken about MANY times. But I say this, it is like an election in a country, if the community does not choose to partake in the PdP lists, and does not choose to get involved in the formulation of policy (and the modifications to policies they aren?t happy with etc), then they have absolutely zero right to complain afterwards if the policies that are put in place do not meet their needs. My message to the community, if you feel the current policies aren?t working, or you aren?t happy with them, write new ones, go to the PdP, and if the rest of the community is in agreement with you, your amendments/new policies will get passed, if they don?t pass, listen to WHY the community isn?t passing them, and either change your position or modify so that the community is happy with them. Basically: Take some responsibility for the policies that are out there, since you, as a community put them there, either through showing consensus at a meeting, or through apathy that stopped you objecting to them) and you as a community have the chance to change them. Just my thoughts Andrew Alston Group Head of IP Strategy [cid:B26E1988-0A9A-4CF8-8C82-A468569A0538] Sameer business Park, Block A, Mombasa Road. Nairobi, Kenya T: +254 205000000 - M: +254 733 2222 04 - E: andrew.alston at liquidtelecom.com ________________________________ DISCLAIMER: This email contains proprietary information some or all of which may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this email, please notify the author by replying to this email. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose, copy, print, or rely on this email. We cannot accept liability for any statements made which are clearly the sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of this company or one of its agents. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 1D7357BF-29F7-4C26-9D6A-6EFCA78201B1[24].png Type: image/png Size: 13157 bytes Desc: 1D7357BF-29F7-4C26-9D6A-6EFCA78201B1[24].png URL: From ernest at afrinic.net Sun Sep 21 08:22:43 2014 From: ernest at afrinic.net (Ernest) Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2014 11:22:43 +0300 Subject: [rpd] [afnog] A typical case of abuse of our resources!!! In-Reply-To: <01D41EDC-5024-4D0B-9AAF-1EEA126ADB99@afrinic.net> References: <541C1782.3060509@gmail.com> <541C2CFB.9070609@gmail.com> <01D41EDC-5024-4D0B-9AAF-1EEA126ADB99@afri! nic.net> Message-ID: <541E8AD3.8090508@afrinic.net> Adiel Akplogan wrote thus on 9/20/14, 11:41 PM: > Hello Boubakar, > > On Sep 20, 2014, at 23:28 PM, Boubakar Barry > wrote: >> The number of posts in this thread and the discussions held in >> Djibouti show that the community wants clarification on this >> allocation. >> >> In the best interest of our organisation (i.e. AfriNIC) and in >> order to restore trust, Management and Board should take this >> seriously and provide adequate responses to the issues raised. > > This allocation has followed the same process and procedure as > any other requests sent to the IP analysts. In term of > application and interpretation of the current policy nothing in > this one was different. I think the RS team will be sending all > the clarifications on the process shortly. Beyond that, I think > there is a lot of emotional speculation that we need to avoid to > be dragged into ? as you said in the interest of the > organisation. Further to Adiel's mail above: We have studied the community's concerns and comments (in this thread) regarding the address resource 154.80.0.0/12 that was allocated to Cloud Innovation on 2013-Jul-24. Although we cannot divulge detailed information due to confidentiality requirements, let us take this opportunity to point out the following: o The request was received and evaluated as usual, against compliance with all criteria in the IPv4 Allocation Policy and it fully satisfied all eligibility requirements. o Being a large chunk of space, the hostmaster team provided an evaluation report to executive management (which contained the evaluation process and the team?s recommended decision on the request). Management consequently approved its issuance. o The current IPv4 allocation policy does not contain any restrictions to out-of-region address space usage specifically when end-users of that space are located out of region. What IP analysts examine is the legal existence of the requestor (and its infrastructure that supports services to be provided) in the region. Where customers are located is generally not the IP Analysts main concern unless there is observed incoherence in the request. o We have in the past few meetings informed the community (in the policy implementation report) about the observed increase in requests from companies registered in our region of service (with evidence of their infrastructure hosted in the region) but planning to provide services that are used by customers out of region. We informed the community with intent that the community considers a policy around this issue if deemed necessary. We would like to state here that as long as a request has adhered to policy, AFRINIC will in most cases approve it, unless there are other visible factors impeding its approval (and needing further study and perhaps escalation). Regards, Ernest. From kofi.ansa at gmail.com Sun Sep 21 08:26:18 2014 From: kofi.ansa at gmail.com (Kofi ANSA AKUFO) Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2014 12:26:18 +0400 Subject: [rpd] Re: [afnog] A typical case of abuse of our resources!!! In-Reply-To: References: <541BD21B.5020900@gmail.com> <541BFF49.9050502@gmail.com> <541C1782.3060509@gmail.com> <541C2CFB.9070609@gmail.com> Message-ID: On 21 September 2014 10:07, Seun Ojedeji wrote: > Hello Kofi, > > sent from Google nexus 4 > kindly excuse brevity and typos. > On 20 Sep 2014 19:59, "Kofi ANSA AKUFO" wrote: > >. > >> > >> All am trying to point out to you is simple.... We as a community has > solved so many issues through Policy and By-laws, So rather than waste > loads of time going back and forth...How about you present a solution to > his mailing list and the community through a Draft Policy and we move on > from there.... > >> > > And we as a community needs to come out with answers to questions asked > Noah. > > > What questions were asked that has not been responded to. (Maybe you care > to list them?) > > > > We have existing policies in place and I believe some board members > pointed out that. Hostmasters have also expressed their challenges in some > of these evaluation at meetings. > > > Great thank you for sending this reminder of the realities on ground; > Staff has always made a presentation of the challenges they face but we the > community have failed to help them by providing policy that further makes > application review process easier for them. > > > IMHO Policies stand better chance to be effective when issues such as > these are discussed openly even before they are drafted. > > > > I am a firm advocate of Policy and By-Laws especially when we are using > democratic mechanisms to enact them. > > > Good.... Welcome back! > > > Perhaps we should also turn to these same mechanisms to address some of > the challenges of allocation of resources. > > > Okay this is progress, so how about we consider this thread closed and > then you lead by indicating at least 1 challenge and it's corresponding > proposal to r > In deed the discussion is meant to throw light on some of the challenges facing the community (both members, staff, board etc) and surely policies may be born if necessary. I believe I am not being biased to any party but rather seeking for the good interest of our organisation. A board member has assured the community hostmasters will soon respond to the questions asked ... What are the processes followed for evaluating huge first time allocations (/16 IPv4 downwards)? They should also tell us how additional request of similar order is handled. Do they make any recommendations? To whom? Who currently signs-off to approve such requests? I hope the community will much appreciate the need not only to discuss policy and vote to implement it but will consider to be the ultimate quarters to interpret and sign off on such allocation for the regions development. Cheers K. > esolve it. I am sure the community will be willing to fine tune it to > maturity. > > Cheers! > > > >> > >>> > >>> K. > >>> > >> > >> Noah > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > rpd mailing list > > rpd at afrinic.net > > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From boubakarbarry at gmail.com Sun Sep 21 10:40:39 2014 From: boubakarbarry at gmail.com (Boubakar Barry) Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2014 10:40:39 +0000 Subject: [rpd] [afnog] A typical case of abuse of our resources!!! In-Reply-To: <01D41EDC-5024-4D0B-9AAF-1EEA126ADB99@afrinic.net> References: <541BD21B.5020900@gmail.com> <541BFF49.9050502@gmail.com> <541C1782.3060509@gmail.com> <541C2CFB.9070609@gmail.com> <01D41EDC-5024-4D0B-9AAF-1EEA126ADB99@afrinic.net> Message-ID: Dear Adiel, On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 8:41 PM, Adiel Akplogan wrote: > > This allocation has followed the same process and procedure as any other > requests sent to the IP analysts. In term of application and interpretation > of the current policy nothing in this one was different. I think the RS > team will be sending all the clarifications on the process shortly. Good; the sooner the better. > Beyond that, I think there is a lot of emotional speculation that we need > to avoid to be dragged into ? as you said in the interest of the > organisation. > > Speculation is unavoidable if legitimate information/clarification requests by members are not dealt with in a timely manner; certainly something that needs to be fixed. Best. Boubakar -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From adiel at afrinic.net Sun Sep 21 11:47:01 2014 From: adiel at afrinic.net (Adiel Akplogan) Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2014 15:47:01 +0400 Subject: [rpd] [afnog] A typical case of abuse of our resources!!! In-Reply-To: References: <541BD21B.5020900@gmail.com> <541BFF49.9050502@gmail.com> <541C1782.3060509@gmail.com> <541C2CFB.9070609@gmail.com> <01D41EDC-5024-4D0B-9AAF-1EEA126ADB99@afrinic.net> Message-ID: <42343F97-A290-4AEF-923D-DFDD1492EE08@afrinic.net> On Sep 21, 2014, at 14:40 PM, Boubakar Barry wrote: > Beyond that, I think there is a lot of emotional speculation that we need to avoid to be dragged into ? as you said in the interest of the organisation. > > Speculation is unavoidable if legitimate information/clarification requests by members are not dealt with in a timely manner; certainly something that needs to be fixed. Can you please precise what is the legitimate informations/clarifications that are not dealt with? Let me reiterate this: AFRINIC staff will never provide details information about a specific member request and justification they have given in the evaluation process on a mailing list. Every time there are concern raised on the mailing there are internal process that allow these to be reviewed and corrective measure taken where necessary. That process is being currently reviewed to extend it to a formal conflict arbitration mechanism in which community will be involved for further transparency. But I can ensure you that up to now all issues raised have been dealt with strictly inline with existing policies and term of applications defined in the RSA. Nothing more nothing less. - a. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 313 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From sfolayan at gmail.com Sun Sep 21 14:18:13 2014 From: sfolayan at gmail.com (Sunday Folayan) Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2014 15:18:13 +0100 Subject: [rpd] [afnog] A typical case of abuse of our resources!!! In-Reply-To: References: <541C2CFB.9070609@gmail.com> <01D41EDC-5024-4D0B-9AAF-1EEA126ADB99@afrinic.net> Message-ID: <541EDE25.9050508@gmail.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 21/09/2014 11:40, Boubakar Barry wrote: > Dear Adiel, > > On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 8:41 PM, Adiel Akplogan > wrote: > >> >> This allocation has followed the same process and procedure as >> any other requests sent to the IP analysts. In term of >> application and interpretation of the current policy nothing in >> this one was different. I think the RS team will be sending all >> the clarifications on the process shortly. > > > Good; the sooner the better. It has already been provided. See and please please acknowledge Ernest's email, just for the records. > > >> Beyond that, I think there is a lot of emotional speculation that >> we need to avoid to be dragged into ? as you said in the interest >> of the organisation. >> >> > Speculation is unavoidable if legitimate information/clarification > requests by members are not dealt with in a timely manner; > certainly something that needs to be fixed. Information must be routed correctly. Asking Board to clarify operational issues is obviously not right. Asking for customer details from the organization or peddling them is equally unethical. Individuals should put on their own hats, instead of hiding behind the community cloak. Lastly, let the community read the "Qualifications" in reports, and act on them without delay. Sunday. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUHt4lAAoJEH6UvSz6fA25VuwIAIDhDKFHz2Z+lBmlZZKlhoPF qOvRCY3Gz/fp3z1tKd8Sn11wn2mGZmQkHwazIMI49FI4l+8PQIFzoXlqFywOc67j 3QUUU6p6/ELHe4cyZVnb74hhrccZgMGNGj37yUP4r8NhufY1JDR9GwAmeiL4isQT xefXF5cFy0lsWnqc3/f/kEo8o5QxfwFFx6wLb7PDm5uSyD6uQbOmQSBn3izXLT3X 1pTSBQsEha6Y5LI/Ov5uZg8j4eCu+L6TwWmJhIsSCfgW8qX2s+WDMmMeBzljuD+e HCdoPycFVkDxzEJsVBJvmEracthK38C4hmAVyTxlrU12uj1lQnpLVZ3XM4QCJ/0= =I65W -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From boubakarbarry at gmail.com Sun Sep 21 15:11:16 2014 From: boubakarbarry at gmail.com (Boubakar Barry) Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2014 15:11:16 +0000 Subject: [rpd] Re: [afnog] A typical case of abuse of our resources!!! In-Reply-To: <541EDE25.9050508@gmail.com> References: <541C2CFB.9070609@gmail.com> <01D41EDC-5024-4D0B-9AAF-1EEA126ADB99@afrinic.net> <541EDE25.9050508@gmail.com> Message-ID: I wont accept to be dragged into an endless back and forth exchange of posts nor to muddy paths, to be polite. I made comments and suggestions based on what I read on the list, and common sense dictates the need for AfriNIC to take action and bring all of this to a satisfactory end for everyone, or at least for the majority. They can be considred or ignored. BTW, I have never pretented that I'm speaking on behalf of the AfriNIC community; and those who know me well should know that I don't need any kind of shield to express my views. My last post on this. Boubakar On Sunday, September 21, 2014, Sunday Folayan wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 21/09/2014 11:40, Boubakar Barry wrote: > > Dear Adiel, > > > > On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 8:41 PM, Adiel Akplogan > > > wrote: > > > >> > >> This allocation has followed the same process and procedure as > >> any other requests sent to the IP analysts. In term of > >> application and interpretation of the current policy nothing in > >> this one was different. I think the RS team will be sending all > >> the clarifications on the process shortly. > > > > > > Good; the sooner the better. > > It has already been provided. See and please please acknowledge > Ernest's email, just for the records. > > > > > > >> Beyond that, I think there is a lot of emotional speculation that > >> we need to avoid to be dragged into ? as you said in the interest > >> of the organisation. > >> > >> > > Speculation is unavoidable if legitimate information/clarification > > requests by members are not dealt with in a timely manner; > > certainly something that needs to be fixed. > > Information must be routed correctly. Asking Board to clarify > operational issues is obviously not right. Asking for customer details > from the organization or peddling them is equally unethical. > Individuals should put on their own hats, instead of hiding behind the > community cloak. Lastly, let the community read the "Qualifications" > in reports, and act on them without delay. > > Sunday. > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) > > iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUHt4lAAoJEH6UvSz6fA25VuwIAIDhDKFHz2Z+lBmlZZKlhoPF > qOvRCY3Gz/fp3z1tKd8Sn11wn2mGZmQkHwazIMI49FI4l+8PQIFzoXlqFywOc67j > 3QUUU6p6/ELHe4cyZVnb74hhrccZgMGNGj37yUP4r8NhufY1JDR9GwAmeiL4isQT > xefXF5cFy0lsWnqc3/f/kEo8o5QxfwFFx6wLb7PDm5uSyD6uQbOmQSBn3izXLT3X > 1pTSBQsEha6Y5LI/Ov5uZg8j4eCu+L6TwWmJhIsSCfgW8qX2s+WDMmMeBzljuD+e > HCdoPycFVkDxzEJsVBJvmEracthK38C4hmAVyTxlrU12uj1lQnpLVZ3XM4QCJ/0= > =I65W > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kofi.ansa at gmail.com Sun Sep 21 15:26:34 2014 From: kofi.ansa at gmail.com (Kofi ANSA AKUFO) Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2014 19:26:34 +0400 Subject: [rpd] [afnog] A typical case of abuse of our resources!!! In-Reply-To: <541E8AD3.8090508@afrinic.net> References: <541C1782.3060509@gmail.com> <541C2CFB.9070609@gmail.com> <01D41EDC-5024-4D0B-9AAF-1EEA126ADB99@afrinic.net> <541E8AD3.8090508@afrinic.net> Message-ID: On 21 September 2014 12:22, Ernest wrote: > Adiel Akplogan wrote thus on 9/20/14, 11:41 PM: > > Hello Boubakar, > > > > On Sep 20, 2014, at 23:28 PM, Boubakar Barry > > wrote: > >> The number of posts in this thread and the discussions held in > >> Djibouti show that the community wants clarification on this > >> allocation. > >> > >> In the best interest of our organisation (i.e. AfriNIC) and in > >> order to restore trust, Management and Board should take this > >> seriously and provide adequate responses to the issues raised. > > > > This allocation has followed the same process and procedure as > > any other requests sent to the IP analysts. In term of > > application and interpretation of the current policy nothing in > > this one was different. I think the RS team will be sending all > > the clarifications on the process shortly. Beyond that, I think > > there is a lot of emotional speculation that we need to avoid to > > be dragged into ? as you said in the interest of the > > organisation. > > > Further to Adiel's mail above: > > We have studied the community's concerns and comments (in this > thread) regarding the address resource 154.80.0.0/12 that was > allocated to Cloud Innovation on 2013-Jul-24. > > Although we cannot divulge detailed information due to > confidentiality requirements, let us take this opportunity to point > out the following: > > o The request was received and evaluated as usual, against > compliance with all criteria in the IPv4 Allocation Policy and it > fully satisfied all eligibility requirements. > > Great > o Being a large chunk of space, the hostmaster team provided an > evaluation report to executive management (which contained the > evaluation process and the team?s recommended decision on the > request). Management consequently approved its issuance. > > Thank you for the clarification. > o The current IPv4 allocation policy does not contain any > restrictions to out-of-region address space usage specifically when > end-users of that space are located out of region. What IP analysts > examine is the legal existence of the requestor (and its > infrastructure that supports services to be provided) in the region. > Where customers are located is generally not the IP Analysts main > concern unless there is observed incoherence in the request. > > Which means our current IPv4 policies needs amendment to fall inline or concretely reflect the regions development agenda without stiffening expansion of services to other regions. > o We have in the past few meetings informed the community (in the > policy implementation report) about the observed increase in > requests from companies registered in our region of service (with > evidence of their infrastructure hosted in the region) but > planning to provide services that are used by customers out of > region. We informed the community with intent that the community > considers a policy around this issue if deemed necessary. > > Should we interpret this as "content which promote the regions development" should be KEY in any amendment proposed? > We would like to state here that as long as a request has adhered to > policy, AFRINIC will in most cases approve it, unless there are > other visible factors impeding its approval (and needing further > study and perhaps escalation). > Again any proposal to amend current policy should spell out a clear escalation process to include the member community. Thank you Cheers K. > > Regards, > Ernest. > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sfolayan at gmail.com Sun Sep 21 16:40:41 2014 From: sfolayan at gmail.com (Sunday Folayan) Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2014 17:40:41 +0100 Subject: [rpd] Re: [afnog] A typical case of abuse of our resources!!! In-Reply-To: References: <01D41EDC-5024-4D0B-9AAF-1EEA126ADB99@afrinic.net> <541EDE25.9050508@gmail.com> Message-ID: <541EFF89.1080702@gmail.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Boubakar, I just asked that you acknowledge Ernest's email. Plain and simple. The other comments were general, and not directed at you as a person. Into these issues, we all dived in, based on our convictions. We also chose what and who to believe in sieving through the allegations and claims even to life that may have been peddled on the list. Yes, lets move on, all necessary points made, but still no policies. Sunday. On 21/09/2014 16:11, Boubakar Barry wrote: > I wont accept to be dragged into an endless back and forth exchange > of posts nor to muddy paths, to be polite > > I made comments and suggestions based on what I read on the list, > and common sense dictates the need for AfriNIC to take action and > bring all of this to a satisfactory end for everyone, or at least > for the majority. They can be considred or ignored. > > BTW, I have never pretented that I'm speaking on behalf of the > AfriNIC community; and those who know me well should know that I > don't need any kind of shield to express my views. > > My last post on this. > > Boubakar > > On Sunday, September 21, 2014, Sunday Folayan > wrote: > > On 21/09/2014 11:40, Boubakar Barry wrote: >>>> Dear Adiel, >>>> >>>> On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 8:41 PM, Adiel Akplogan >>>> > >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> This allocation has followed the same process and procedure >>>>> as any other requests sent to the IP analysts. In term of >>>>> application and interpretation of the current policy >>>>> nothing in this one was different. I think the RS team will >>>>> be sending all the clarifications on the process shortly. >>>> >>>> >>>> Good; the sooner the better. > > It has already been provided. See and please please acknowledge > Ernest's email, just for the records. > >>>> >>>> >>>>> Beyond that, I think there is a lot of emotional >>>>> speculation that we need to avoid to be dragged into ? as >>>>> you said in the interest of the organisation. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Speculation is unavoidable if legitimate >>>> information/clarification requests by members are not dealt >>>> with in a timely manner; certainly something that needs to be >>>> fixed. > > Information must be routed correctly. Asking Board to clarify > operational issues is obviously not right. Asking for customer > details from the organization or peddling them is equally > unethical. Individuals should put on their own hats, instead of > hiding behind the community cloak. Lastly, let the community read > the "Qualifications" in reports, and act on them without delay. > > Sunday. > > >> > - -- - ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sunday Adekunle Folayan blog: http://www.sundayfolayan.name.ng email: sfolayan at skannet.com.ng, sfolayan at gmail.com phone: *234-816-866-7523, +234-802-291-2202 skype: sfolayan fcbk: www.facebook.com/sfolayan tweet: sfolayan linkedin: sfolayan : http://free.lanci.ng - Anyone, Anyjob, Anywhere, Anytime - ------------------------------------------------------------------ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUHv+JAAoJEH6UvSz6fA25G38IAJ7G3tF6DuCu3kPKnrqHEfNP oLmWz9sr8U4LdqKdP6t8oRtUHOMGcrphwTtujl9GnJpzaYHeZ2dj/RtloUWeo5Rj o29FWAvzWLfzCG/qlNr+S+x5iOPa+prwk6xxjZZU8JuDbKr+aKzX1KRKjUiFP9oW GxhcsE4IhcVs9221dD0ZmVdbJCzuse++/yZU4gwGBQni9CE0lB53qjPozCxj2ktU Le8YGTOFeIPtH/kEW5PNze99nsAPu+enTSJXY12R4LDipilBmI7oPb3HBs5ITTWP 3ok7Z22xVQVqrHaMj7vpPWQ2L3l/VjuGkXjjNaiIm3GvAPWaYUd97zVhaTXHToE= =jX8c -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com Sun Sep 21 17:16:01 2014 From: Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com (Andrew Alston) Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2014 18:16:01 +0100 Subject: [rpd] [afnog] A typical case of abuse of our resources!!! In-Reply-To: References: <541C1782.3060509@gmail.com> <541C2CFB.9070609@gmail.com> <01D41EDC-5024-4D0B-9AAF-1EEA126ADB99@afrinic.net> <541E8AD3.8090508@afrinic.net> Message-ID: <7FF93785BD2D534EA45841A8AAA1D89B5131CB04EF@liquid-exch.liquidtelecom.local> Kofi, Again speaking as myself and not representative of the board or any other organisation to which I am affiliated. If you feel there should be policy updates, you as a member of this community are as free as any other individual to draft and propose policy amendments. Instead of everyone being upset by current policy and asking for amendments and waiting for someone else to do it, how about taking the lead and proposing some policy and if the community agrees, we can implement? Andrew Alston Group Head of IP Strategy [cid:image001.png at 01CFD5D8.DBDFE750] Liquid Telecommunications Limited, 6 New Street Square, London EC4A 3BF T: +27 76 219 7933 (ZA) T: +254 733 2222 04 (KE) E: andrew.alston at liquidtelecom.com W: www.liquidtelecom.com From: rpd-bounces at afrinic.net [mailto:rpd-bounces at afrinic.net] On Behalf Of Kofi ANSA AKUFO Sent: 21 September 2014 18:27 To: Ernest Cc: AfriNIC Discuss; AfriNIC List Subject: Re: [rpd] [afnog] A typical case of abuse of our resources!!! On 21 September 2014 12:22, Ernest > wrote: Adiel Akplogan wrote thus on 9/20/14, 11:41 PM: > Hello Boubakar, > > On Sep 20, 2014, at 23:28 PM, Boubakar Barry > > wrote: >> The number of posts in this thread and the discussions held in >> Djibouti show that the community wants clarification on this >> allocation. >> >> In the best interest of our organisation (i.e. AfriNIC) and in >> order to restore trust, Management and Board should take this >> seriously and provide adequate responses to the issues raised. > > This allocation has followed the same process and procedure as > any other requests sent to the IP analysts. In term of > application and interpretation of the current policy nothing in > this one was different. I think the RS team will be sending all > the clarifications on the process shortly. Beyond that, I think > there is a lot of emotional speculation that we need to avoid to > be dragged into ? as you said in the interest of the > organisation. Further to Adiel's mail above: We have studied the community's concerns and comments (in this thread) regarding the address resource 154.80.0.0/12 that was allocated to Cloud Innovation on 2013-Jul-24. Although we cannot divulge detailed information due to confidentiality requirements, let us take this opportunity to point out the following: o The request was received and evaluated as usual, against compliance with all criteria in the IPv4 Allocation Policy and it fully satisfied all eligibility requirements. Great o Being a large chunk of space, the hostmaster team provided an evaluation report to executive management (which contained the evaluation process and the team?s recommended decision on the request). Management consequently approved its issuance. Thank you for the clarification. o The current IPv4 allocation policy does not contain any restrictions to out-of-region address space usage specifically when end-users of that space are located out of region. What IP analysts examine is the legal existence of the requestor (and its infrastructure that supports services to be provided) in the region. Where customers are located is generally not the IP Analysts main concern unless there is observed incoherence in the request. Which means our current IPv4 policies needs amendment to fall inline or concretely reflect the regions development agenda without stiffening expansion of services to other regions. o We have in the past few meetings informed the community (in the policy implementation report) about the observed increase in requests from companies registered in our region of service (with evidence of their infrastructure hosted in the region) but planning to provide services that are used by customers out of region. We informed the community with intent that the community considers a policy around this issue if deemed necessary. Should we interpret this as "content which promote the regions development" should be KEY in any amendment proposed? We would like to state here that as long as a request has adhered to policy, AFRINIC will in most cases approve it, unless there are other visible factors impeding its approval (and needing further study and perhaps escalation). Again any proposal to amend current policy should spell out a clear escalation process to include the member community. Thank you Cheers K. Regards, Ernest. _______________________________________________ rpd mailing list rpd at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd ________________________________ DISCLAIMER: This email contains proprietary information some or all of which may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this email, please notify the author by replying to this email. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose, copy, print, or rely on this email. We cannot accept liability for any statements made which are clearly the sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of this company or one of its agents. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 17933 bytes Desc: image001.png URL: From mainanoa at gmail.com Sun Sep 21 17:54:28 2014 From: mainanoa at gmail.com (Noah Maina) Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2014 20:54:28 +0300 Subject: [rpd] [afnog] A typical case of abuse of our resources!!! In-Reply-To: <01D41EDC-5024-4D0B-9AAF-1EEA126ADB99@afrinic.net> References: <541BD21B.5020900@gmail.com> <541BFF49.9050502@gmail.com> <541C1782.3060509@gmail.com> <541C2CFB.9070609@gmail.com> <01D41EDC-5024-4D0B-9AAF-1EEA126ADB99@afrinic.net> Message-ID: On 20 September 2014 23:41, Adiel Akplogan wrote: > Hello Boubakar, > > On Sep 20, 2014, at 23:28 PM, Boubakar Barry > wrote: > > The number of posts in this thread and the discussions held in Djibouti > show that the community wants clarification on this allocation. > > > > In the best interest of our organisation (i.e. AfriNIC) and in order to > restore trust, Management and Board should take this seriously and provide > adequate responses to the issues raised. > > This allocation has followed the same process and procedure as any other > requests sent to the IP analysts. In term of application and interpretation > of the current policy nothing in this one was different. I think the RS > team will be sending all the clarifications on the process shortly. Beyond > that, I think there is a lot of emotional speculation that we need to avoid > to be dragged into ? as you said in the interest of the organisation. > > Hello Adiel, So to be precise, Whether i need a /24 or /12 what matters is my justification on how I will use it (backedup with full documentation) and if i do justify, then the IP analyst, hostmaster and whoever is involved in the chain of approval, will go a head and issue my assignment since the current policy is in line with that..... Key word....JUSTIFICATION....so meaning the folks whose /12 is being questioned herein, must have justified their request and the assignments was done.... and if tomorrow I dont actually use up the assignment as I indicated initially, then that is different story!!!! Right? > Thanks. > > - a. > ./noah -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mainanoa at gmail.com Sun Sep 21 17:56:26 2014 From: mainanoa at gmail.com (Noah Maina) Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2014 20:56:26 +0300 Subject: [rpd] [afnog] A typical case of abuse of our resources!!! In-Reply-To: <541E8AD3.8090508@afrinic.net> References: <541C1782.3060509@gmail.com> <541C2CFB.9070609@gmail.com> <01D41EDC-5024-4D0B-9AAF-1EEA126ADB99@afrinic.net> <541E8AD3.8090508@afrinic.net> Message-ID: On 21 September 2014 11:22, Ernest wrote: > Adiel Akplogan wrote thus on 9/20/14, 11:41 PM: > > Hello Boubakar, > > > > On Sep 20, 2014, at 23:28 PM, Boubakar Barry > > wrote: > >> The number of posts in this thread and the discussions held in > >> Djibouti show that the community wants clarification on this > >> allocation. > >> > >> In the best interest of our organisation (i.e. AfriNIC) and in > >> order to restore trust, Management and Board should take this > >> seriously and provide adequate responses to the issues raised. > > > > This allocation has followed the same process and procedure as > > any other requests sent to the IP analysts. In term of > > application and interpretation of the current policy nothing in > > this one was different. I think the RS team will be sending all > > the clarifications on the process shortly. Beyond that, I think > > there is a lot of emotional speculation that we need to avoid to > > be dragged into ? as you said in the interest of the > > organisation. > > > Further to Adiel's mail above: > > We have studied the community's concerns and comments (in this > thread) regarding the address resource 154.80.0.0/12 that was > allocated to Cloud Innovation on 2013-Jul-24. > > Although we cannot divulge detailed information due to > confidentiality requirements, let us take this opportunity to point > out the following: > > o The request was received and evaluated as usual, against > compliance with all criteria in the IPv4 Allocation Policy and it > fully satisfied all eligibility requirements. > > o Being a large chunk of space, the hostmaster team provided an > evaluation report to executive management (which contained the > evaluation process and the team?s recommended decision on the > request). Management consequently approved its issuance. > > o The current IPv4 allocation policy does not contain any > restrictions to out-of-region address space usage specifically when > end-users of that space are located out of region. What IP analysts > examine is the legal existence of the requestor (and its > infrastructure that supports services to be provided) in the region. > Where customers are located is generally not the IP Analysts main > concern unless there is observed incoherence in the request. > > o We have in the past few meetings informed the community (in the > policy implementation report) about the observed increase in > requests from companies registered in our region of service (with > evidence of their infrastructure hosted in the region) but > planning to provide services that are used by customers out of > region. We informed the community with intent that the community > considers a policy around this issue if deemed necessary. > > We would like to state here that as long as a request has adhered to > policy, AFRINIC will in most cases approve it, unless there are > other visible factors impeding its approval (and needing further > study and perhaps escalation). > > ++1 Ernest and thank you for this clarification...... > Regards, > Ernest. > > ./noah -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kofi.ansa at gmail.com Sun Sep 21 20:56:45 2014 From: kofi.ansa at gmail.com (Kofi ANSA AKUFO) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2014 00:56:45 +0400 Subject: [rpd] [afnog] A typical case of abuse of our resources!!! In-Reply-To: <7FF93785BD2D534EA45841A8AAA1D89B5131CB04EF@liquid-exch.liquidtelecom.local> References: <541C1782.3060509@gmail.com> <541C2CFB.9070609@gmail.com> <01D41EDC-5024-4D0B-9AAF-1EEA126ADB99@afrinic.net> <541E8AD3.8090508@afrinic.net> <7FF93785BD2D534EA45841A8AAA1D89B5131CB04EF@liquid-exch.liquidtelecom.local> Message-ID: On 21 September 2014 21:16, Andrew Alston wrote: > Kofi, > > > > Again speaking as myself and not representative of the board or any other > organisation to which I am affiliated. > > > > If you feel there should be policy updates, you as a member of this > community are as free as any other individual to draft and propose policy > amendments. > > > > Instead of everyone being upset by current policy and asking for > amendments and waiting for someone else to do it, how about taking the lead > and proposing some policy and if the community agrees, we can implement? > > > Andrew I take that as as a challenge to propose an amendment to the current IPv4 allocation policies as well as promote building IPv6 infrastructure in parallel to prevent our region from lagging behind in the current evolution to next generation infrastructure. As someone who has actively experience both sides of the process I believe I provided a fair platform in this discussion to the community of what is as stake. The community must realize they have the ultimate say in how our resources are exploited to promote regional development and hold accountable those entrusted to interpret policies. We could continue deceiving ourselves it is not the job of our internet registries (both RIR and LIRs) to "police" the allocation of our resources and proactive checks of right usage. The key phrase here is "promote regional development" BUT NOT necessarily "keep resources in the region". IMHO content and infrastructure in our region should be priority. Again we have the choice to be passive, turn blind eyes and entrust decision process to a few to make or proactively get involved to exploit our resources for the regions development. Cheers K. > > > Andrew Alston > > Group Head of IP Strategy > > [image: cid:24DFDAAE-631D-4EDA-9C2E-8978E3AA9664] > > Liquid Telecommunications Limited, 6 New Street Square, London EC4A 3BF > T: +27 76 219 7933 (ZA) T: +254 733 2222 04 (KE) E: > andrew.alston at liquidtelecom.com > > W: www.liquidtelecom.com > > > > > > *From:* rpd-bounces at afrinic.net [mailto:rpd-bounces at afrinic.net] *On > Behalf Of *Kofi ANSA AKUFO > *Sent:* 21 September 2014 18:27 > *To:* Ernest > *Cc:* AfriNIC Discuss; AfriNIC List > *Subject:* Re: [rpd] [afnog] A typical case of abuse of our resources!!! > > > > > > > > On 21 September 2014 12:22, Ernest wrote: > > Adiel Akplogan wrote thus on 9/20/14, 11:41 PM: > > Hello Boubakar, > > > > On Sep 20, 2014, at 23:28 PM, Boubakar Barry > > wrote: > >> The number of posts in this thread and the discussions held in > >> Djibouti show that the community wants clarification on this > >> allocation. > >> > >> In the best interest of our organisation (i.e. AfriNIC) and in > >> order to restore trust, Management and Board should take this > >> seriously and provide adequate responses to the issues raised. > > > > This allocation has followed the same process and procedure as > > any other requests sent to the IP analysts. In term of > > application and interpretation of the current policy nothing in > > this one was different. I think the RS team will be sending all > > the clarifications on the process shortly. Beyond that, I think > > there is a lot of emotional speculation that we need to avoid to > > be dragged into ? as you said in the interest of the > > organisation. > > > Further to Adiel's mail above: > > We have studied the community's concerns and comments (in this > thread) regarding the address resource 154.80.0.0/12 that was > allocated to Cloud Innovation on 2013-Jul-24. > > Although we cannot divulge detailed information due to > confidentiality requirements, let us take this opportunity to point > out the following: > > o The request was received and evaluated as usual, against > compliance with all criteria in the IPv4 Allocation Policy and it > fully satisfied all eligibility requirements. > > > > Great > > > o Being a large chunk of space, the hostmaster team provided an > evaluation report to executive management (which contained the > evaluation process and the team?s recommended decision on the > request). Management consequently approved its issuance. > > Thank you for the clarification. > > > > o The current IPv4 allocation policy does not contain any > restrictions to out-of-region address space usage specifically when > end-users of that space are located out of region. What IP analysts > examine is the legal existence of the requestor (and its > infrastructure that supports services to be provided) in the region. > Where customers are located is generally not the IP Analysts main > concern unless there is observed incoherence in the request. > > > > Which means our current IPv4 policies needs amendment to fall inline or > concretely reflect the regions development agenda without stiffening > expansion of services to other regions. > > > > o We have in the past few meetings informed the community (in the > policy implementation report) about the observed increase in > requests from companies registered in our region of service (with > evidence of their infrastructure hosted in the region) but > planning to provide services that are used by customers out of > region. We informed the community with intent that the community > considers a policy around this issue if deemed necessary. > > > > Should we interpret this as "content which promote the regions > development" should be KEY in any amendment proposed? > > > > We would like to state here that as long as a request has adhered to > policy, AFRINIC will in most cases approve it, unless there are > other visible factors impeding its approval (and needing further > study and perhaps escalation). > > > > Again any proposal to amend current policy should spell out a clear > escalation process to include the member community. > > Thank you > > Cheers > > K. > > > > > Regards, > Ernest. > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > > > ------------------------------ > DISCLAIMER: This email contains proprietary information some or all of > which may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. If > an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this email, please > notify the author by replying to this email. If you are not the intended > recipient, you must not use, disclose, copy, print, or rely on this email. > We cannot accept liability for any statements made which are clearly the > sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of this company or one of its > agents. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 17933 bytes Desc: not available URL: From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com Sun Sep 21 21:52:22 2014 From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji) Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2014 22:52:22 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] Re: [rpd] [afnog] A typical case of abuse of our resources!!! In-Reply-To: References: <541BD21B.5020900@gmail.com> <541BFF49.9050502@gmail.com> <541C1782.3060509@gmail.com> <541C2CFB.9070609@gmail.com> <01D41EDC-5024-4D0B-9AAF-1EEA126ADB99@afrinic.net> <42343F97-A290-4AEF-923D-DFDD1492EE08@afrinic.net> Message-ID: sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 21 Sep 2014 20:01, "Mark Slingsby" wrote: > > > Policy or no policy, should this organisation be granted these IP?s? It seems we all know the answer to this. > Interesting use of "we" in this context ;) > If we don?t already have, we need a policy to say that 95% of the IP?s must be used within the region. > There is a related policy proposal currently under discussion, you may want to submit your view to the author about it through the rpd list. http://afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposals/1157-out-of-region-use-of-afrinic-internet-number-resources > > Do we have stats on how many of each IP range size are allocated each month? > I know there is allocation stats available on the AfriNIC website. > And how many requested & rejected? > Perhaps it may be good to have this summary during public policy Meeting or AGM, not sure about how NDA will go along with this. > Anything bigger than a /XX should be referred to the community? I haven?t mentioned a size because it shouldn?t be overly onerous. > Interesting perspective, you may want to turn this into a policy proposal. However, it may be good you clearly define the community in this context.[1] Cheers! 1. Especially the practicality of turning a resource request to an unlimited community. > Regards, > > Mark_______________________________________________ > members-discuss mailing list > members-discuss at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/members-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sfolayan at gmail.com Sun Sep 21 23:33:55 2014 From: sfolayan at gmail.com (Sunday Folayan) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2014 00:33:55 +0100 Subject: [rpd] [afnog] A typical case of abuse of our resources!!! In-Reply-To: References: <01D41EDC-5024-4D0B-9AAF-1EEA126ADB99@afrinic.net> <541E8AD3.8090508@afrinic.net> <7FF93785BD2D534EA45841A8AAA1D89B5131CB04EF@liquid-exch.liquidtelecom.local> Message-ID: <541F6063.2020401@gmail.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 21/09/2014 21:56, Kofi ANSA AKUFO wrote: > On 21 September 2014 21:16, Andrew Alston > wrote: > >> Kofi, >> >> >> >> Again speaking as myself and not representative of the board or >> any other organisation to which I am affiliated. >> >> >> >> If you feel there should be policy updates, you as a member of >> this community are as free as any other individual to draft and >> propose policy amendments. >> >> >> >> Instead of everyone being upset by current policy and asking for >> amendments and waiting for someone else to do it, how about >> taking the lead and proposing some policy and if the community >> agrees, we can implement? >> >> >> > Andrew I take that as as a challenge to propose an amendment to the > current IPv4 allocation policies as well as promote building IPv6 > infrastructure in parallel to prevent our region from lagging > behind in the current evolution to next generation infrastructure. > > As someone who has actively experience both sides of the process I > believe I provided a fair platform in this discussion to the > community of what is as stake. > > The community must realize they have the ultimate say in how our > resources are exploited to promote regional development and hold > accountable those entrusted to interpret policies. > > We could continue deceiving ourselves it is not the job of our > internet registries (both RIR and LIRs) to "police" the allocation > of our resources and proactive checks of right usage. > > The key phrase here is "promote regional development" BUT NOT > necessarily "keep resources in the region". IMHO content and > infrastructure in our region should be priority. Again we have the > choice to be passive, turn blind eyes and entrust decision process > to a few to make or proactively get involved to exploit our > resources for the regions development. > > Cheers > > K. So ... should the community expect a policy, taking advantage of your "seen it all" position? If so, when? Time ticks ... Sunday. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUH2BiAAoJEH6UvSz6fA25y98H/3szTTvKQXFqz2CRC0eoDktW pt/q6ciTaUaIfGB17dIRgph5JM/MXFiPNKrvMrTZrItSVizuk98IF+8hcfAXsdNJ Oqzc2BWnj86zB/kXqkBWqAf3pNTAxYVflkPlq8gEcnon52KrUomUDf7BuklcLQhj gFMl1TraSHlx5aKwUogTMZr4tVpT9QAn/Qb7mpHVi6kWXkNw2jBUphKDALBVNp+z lbBxXLU4yTYnTyxhTj/RH6fYpg9aDRYCKv2Op2nbDov+fFuU3dqnnavZCqC7p18V +SDp3ZDj0SY/R0Frxsv+l+l98vzJQq5cY6E1TFuYD8rXLQNZODwNYkjPA2msHJo= =/qzm -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From kofi.ansa at gmail.com Mon Sep 22 02:51:19 2014 From: kofi.ansa at gmail.com (Kofi ANSA AKUFO) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2014 06:51:19 +0400 Subject: [rpd] [afnog] A typical case of abuse of our resources!!! In-Reply-To: <541F6063.2020401@gmail.com> References: <01D41EDC-5024-4D0B-9AAF-1EEA126ADB99@afrinic.net> <541E8AD3.8090508@afrinic.net> <7FF93785BD2D534EA45841A8AAA1D89B5131CB04EF@liquid-exch.liquidtelecom.local> <541F6063.2020401@gmail.com> Message-ID: On 22 September 2014 03:33, Sunday Folayan wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 21/09/2014 21:56, Kofi ANSA AKUFO wrote: > > On 21 September 2014 21:16, Andrew Alston > > wrote: > > > >> Kofi, > >> > >> > >> > >> Again speaking as myself and not representative of the board or > >> any other organisation to which I am affiliated. > >> > >> > >> > >> If you feel there should be policy updates, you as a member of > >> this community are as free as any other individual to draft and > >> propose policy amendments. > >> > >> > >> > >> Instead of everyone being upset by current policy and asking for > >> amendments and waiting for someone else to do it, how about > >> taking the lead and proposing some policy and if the community > >> agrees, we can implement? > >> > >> > >> > > Andrew I take that as as a challenge to propose an amendment to the > > current IPv4 allocation policies as well as promote building IPv6 > > infrastructure in parallel to prevent our region from lagging > > behind in the current evolution to next generation infrastructure. > > > > As someone who has actively experience both sides of the process I > > believe I provided a fair platform in this discussion to the > > community of what is as stake. > > > > The community must realize they have the ultimate say in how our > > resources are exploited to promote regional development and hold > > accountable those entrusted to interpret policies. > > > > We could continue deceiving ourselves it is not the job of our > > internet registries (both RIR and LIRs) to "police" the allocation > > of our resources and proactive checks of right usage. > > > > The key phrase here is "promote regional development" BUT NOT > > necessarily "keep resources in the region". IMHO content and > > infrastructure in our region should be priority. Again we have the > > choice to be passive, turn blind eyes and entrust decision process > > to a few to make or proactively get involved to exploit our > > resources for the regions development. > > > > Cheers > > > > K. > > > So ... should the community expect a policy, taking advantage of your > "seen it all" position? If so, when? Time ticks ... > > It will be presented when ready. Sunday AFRINIC is accountable to the member community. Board Members should show sense of direction and encourage transparency in all processes and not hide behind protecting the organisation or the "interest of the organisation". CAUTION Senior members should refrain from shutting down discussions and or opinions. Others may also be tempted to hit back. Cheers K. > Sunday. > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) > > iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUH2BiAAoJEH6UvSz6fA25y98H/3szTTvKQXFqz2CRC0eoDktW > pt/q6ciTaUaIfGB17dIRgph5JM/MXFiPNKrvMrTZrItSVizuk98IF+8hcfAXsdNJ > Oqzc2BWnj86zB/kXqkBWqAf3pNTAxYVflkPlq8gEcnon52KrUomUDf7BuklcLQhj > gFMl1TraSHlx5aKwUogTMZr4tVpT9QAn/Qb7mpHVi6kWXkNw2jBUphKDALBVNp+z > lbBxXLU4yTYnTyxhTj/RH6fYpg9aDRYCKv2Op2nbDov+fFuU3dqnnavZCqC7p18V > +SDp3ZDj0SY/R0Frxsv+l+l98vzJQq5cY6E1TFuYD8rXLQNZODwNYkjPA2msHJo= > =/qzm > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From madhvi at afrinic.net Mon Sep 22 07:46:59 2014 From: madhvi at afrinic.net (madhvi Gokool) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2014 11:46:59 +0400 Subject: [rpd] A typical case of abuse of our resources!!! In-Reply-To: References: <01D41EDC-5024-4D0B-9AAF-1EEA126ADB99@afrinic.net> <541E8AD3.8090508@afrinic.net> <7FF93785BD2D534EA45841A8AAA1D89B5131CB04EF@liquid-exch.liquidtelecom.local> <541F6063.2020401@gmail.com> Message-ID: <541FD3F3.5020906@afrinic.net> Dear Members of the AFRINIC Community, Further to the discussions that have happened on the lists , please find a brief on the escalation process that have been in place at AFRINIC for a long time. Resource Evaluation is done consistently and transparently as per established internal business processes. IP Analysts assisted by a senior staff in the Registration Services Team evaluate all big resource requests (/14 and more) and submit a report with their recommendations to the Executive Team. The report may also contain policy implementation issues IP Analysts have encountered in the evaluation process. The Executive Team's feedback and experience have contributed to the enhancement of the business processes. In addition, to improve visibility of these processes and to ensure their consistency and transparency, AFRINIC business processes have also been implemented in the New Member Registration Portal & guidelines have also been made publicly available as from 2013. The URL are as follows:- http://www.afrinic.net/en/library/membership-documents/ https://apps.afrinic.net/nmrp/ AFRINIC has always encouraged feedback in regard to the processes via the members-discuss mailing list and the member feedback surveys. Regards Madhvi ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Madhvi Gokool Tel: +230 403 51 00 Registration Service Manager Sip: madhvi at voip.afrinic.net www.afrinic.net (E): madhvi at afrinic.net ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ See you in Mauritius for AFRINIC-21 November 22 to 28, 2014 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From sfolayan at gmail.com Mon Sep 22 08:55:32 2014 From: sfolayan at gmail.com (Sunday Folayan) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2014 09:55:32 +0100 Subject: [rpd] [afnog] A typical case of abuse of our resources!!! In-Reply-To: References: <01D41EDC-5024-4D0B-9AAF-1EEA126ADB99@afrinic.net> <541E8AD3.8090508@afrinic.net> <7FF93785BD2D534EA45841A8AAA1D89B5131CB04EF@liquid-exch.liquidtelecom.local> <541F6063.2020401@gmail.com> Message-ID: <541FE404.4090506@gmail.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > > So ... should the community expect a policy, taking advantage of > your "seen it all" position? If so, when? Time ticks ... > > It will be presented when ready. > Thanks. Great progress. >> Sunday AFRINIC is accountable to the member community. Board >> Members should show sense of direction and encourage transparency >> in all processes and not hide behind protecting the organisation >> or the "interest of the organisation". > >> CAUTION Senior members should refrain from shutting down >> discussions and or opinions. Others may also be tempted to hit >> back. > Noted and thanks for the caution. I speak for myself and have spoken for myself in all my communications. I apologize if I sounded like shutting down discussions, nor put up a face that I am not accountable to the community. We should not hide behind the anonymity provided by the net to make grave accusations. You will agree with me that your tone and slant is now progressive and considerate. To all feathers I may have ruffled, I apologize. Sunday. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUH+QEAAoJEH6UvSz6fA25sT0H/1ICUdw02/0zOYOcyXlEOKXg myvtik7RQ7GzhW9FV19A4WPE9EQzeUf5b4u2Xn1GnbOWBVxfaL45FDCjdW7liNTW duVE62tWCGIOfdNnmkz0UCAQka/bDSganHQuaGMVSvlRx4GgYCEPwDoz84O4FEIf d9RH0lyATOtaEZSqFG+Ga/o6lV+/VjZOVVD5ptYQHMn0bxirXI9yGLx5Qe7GNtv+ A5GTZQ06Yai6XCaf8tQF2Gat/tR5oXOqeMBkPwOmZVvLp2LqueJgsnGGMeEi5lH9 4ngNPr267sxAVuHQKL2BWFty03emjHB4qQuc93bsB+JnkAy6GBpx4slh277ZWEg= =DWIJ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From keshwarsingh.nadan at millenium.mu Mon Sep 22 09:34:02 2014 From: keshwarsingh.nadan at millenium.mu (Keshwarsingh Nadan) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2014 09:34:02 +0000 Subject: [rpd] A typical case of abuse of our resources!!! In-Reply-To: <541FD3F3.5020906@afrinic.net> References: <01D41EDC-5024-4D0B-9AAF-1EEA126ADB99@afrinic.net> <541E8AD3.8090508@afrinic.net> <7FF93785BD2D534EA45841A8AAA1D89B5131CB04EF@liquid-exch.liquidtelecom.local> <541F6063.2020401@gmail.com> , <541FD3F3.5020906@afrinic.net> Message-ID: <20140922093309.5423238.90880.534@millenium.mu> Hi, "Resource Evaluation is done consistently and transparently as per established internal business processes.?" Really? Resource evaluation is done consistently and transparently as per policies approved by the community. How can resource evaluation be transparent as per established internal business process? Can you please share those internal business process ?with the community? Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone. Original Message From: madhvi Gokool Sent: Monday, 22 September 2014 11:47 To: rpd at afrinic.net; members-discuss at afrinic.net Subject: Re: [rpd] A typical case of abuse of our resources!!! Dear Members of the AFRINIC Community, Further to the discussions that have happened on the lists , please find a brief on the escalation process that have been in place at AFRINIC for a long time. Resource Evaluation is done consistently and transparently as per established internal business processes. IP Analysts assisted by a senior staff in the Registration Services Team evaluate all big resource requests (/14 and more) and submit a report with their recommendations to the Executive Team. The report may also contain policy implementation issues IP Analysts have encountered in the evaluation process. The Executive Team's feedback and experience have contributed to the enhancement of the business processes. In addition, to improve visibility of these processes and to ensure their consistency and transparency, AFRINIC business processes have also been implemented in the New Member Registration Portal & guidelines have also been made publicly available as from 2013. The URL are as follows:- http://www.afrinic.net/en/library/membership-documents/ https://apps.afrinic.net/nmrp/ AFRINIC has always encouraged feedback in regard to the processes via the members-discuss mailing list and the member feedback surveys. Regards Madhvi ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Madhvi Gokool Tel: +230 403 51 00 Registration Service Manager Sip: madhvi at voip.afrinic.net www.afrinic.net (E): madhvi at afrinic.net ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ See you in Mauritius for AFRINIC-21 November 22 to 28, 2014 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ rpd mailing list rpd at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd From kofi.ansa at gmail.com Mon Sep 22 10:11:09 2014 From: kofi.ansa at gmail.com (Kofi ANSA AKUFO) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2014 14:11:09 +0400 Subject: [rpd] [afnog] A typical case of abuse of our resources!!! In-Reply-To: <541FE404.4090506@gmail.com> References: <01D41EDC-5024-4D0B-9AAF-1EEA126ADB99@afrinic.net> <541E8AD3.8090508@afrinic.net> <7FF93785BD2D534EA45841A8AAA1D89B5131CB04EF@liquid-exch.liquidtelecom.local> <541F6063.2020401@gmail.com> <541FE404.4090506@gmail.com> Message-ID: On 22 September 2014 12:55, Sunday Folayan wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > > > > > So ... should the community expect a policy, taking advantage of > > your "seen it all" position? If so, when? Time ticks ... > > > > It will be presented when ready. > > > > Thanks. Great progress. > > > >> Sunday AFRINIC is accountable to the member community. Board > >> Members should show sense of direction and encourage transparency > >> in all processes and not hide behind protecting the organisation > >> or the "interest of the organisation". > > > >> CAUTION Senior members should refrain from shutting down > >> discussions and or opinions. Others may also be tempted to hit > >> back. > > > > Noted and thanks for the caution. I speak for myself and have spoken > for myself in all my communications. I apologize if I sounded like > shutting down discussions, nor put up a face that I am not accountable > to the community. > > We should not hide behind the anonymity provided by the net to make > grave accusations. You will agree with me that your tone and slant is > now progressive and considerate. > > To all feathers I may have ruffled, I apologize. > Thanks Sunday for the good sportsmanship. I believe I did not make any grave accusations but posed questions for clarification. I do sincerely apologize to any individuals who felt otherwise. This is my last post on this topic. Cheers Kofi "Strong people don't put others down ... They lift them up" ---> Michael P. Watson I believe I asked questions which were within > > Sunday. > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) > > iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUH+QEAAoJEH6UvSz6fA25sT0H/1ICUdw02/0zOYOcyXlEOKXg > myvtik7RQ7GzhW9FV19A4WPE9EQzeUf5b4u2Xn1GnbOWBVxfaL45FDCjdW7liNTW > duVE62tWCGIOfdNnmkz0UCAQka/bDSganHQuaGMVSvlRx4GgYCEPwDoz84O4FEIf > d9RH0lyATOtaEZSqFG+Ga/o6lV+/VjZOVVD5ptYQHMn0bxirXI9yGLx5Qe7GNtv+ > A5GTZQ06Yai6XCaf8tQF2Gat/tR5oXOqeMBkPwOmZVvLp2LqueJgsnGGMeEi5lH9 > 4ngNPr267sxAVuHQKL2BWFty03emjHB4qQuc93bsB+JnkAy6GBpx4slh277ZWEg= > =DWIJ > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ndonnang at nvconsulting.biz Mon Sep 22 18:40:49 2014 From: ndonnang at nvconsulting.biz (Victor Ndonnang) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2014 14:40:49 -0400 Subject: [afnog] [rpd] Re: A typical case of abuse of our resources!!! In-Reply-To: References: <541BFF49.9050502@gmail.com> <541C1782.3060509@gmail.com> <541C2CFB.9070609@gmail.com> <541C57E4.8030504@gmail.com> <8139A2D4BA5CE94C98E1A584DDEA6793B47917@exchange1.prod.servihoo.net> <8139A2D4BA5CE94C98E1A584DDEA6793B489D7@exchange1.prod.servihoo.net> <8139A2D4BA5CE94C98E1A584DDEA6793B48A3C@exchange1.prod.servihoo.net> <541C7D6F.30606@gmail.com> <001a01cfd515$50922be0$f1b683a0$@nvconsulting.biz> Message-ID: <57179297-A33D-4ACC-AE3A-C4FAC64DC24D@nvconsulting.biz> Hi Andrew, Thank you for your clear input. I can't agree more with you on that. It is not just about saying this is good or bad; It is about getting involved and help make things better and more globally acceptable. But efforts are needed on both sides: -The interested stakeholders in the community should take time to learn the process, understand it and help change what is imperfect... Policies are there to evolve. - Afrinic as a community driven organization should continue doing more efforts to have more people in the PDP process. Best regards, Victor. ************ Victor Ndonnang https://twitter.com/VictorNdonnang ~Sent from my iPhone~ > On Sep 21, 2014, at 2:25 AM, Andrew Alston wrote: > > Disclaimer: Speaking in my personal capacity and not representative of the AfriNIC board or any other organisation/company to which I am affiliated. > > > Very few people are involved in AFNIC policy development process and sometimes, they just develop a policy to support what they want or like rather than developing policies that really support the > > development of the Internet in Africa. > > Victor, this is true, but it is by choice that individuals do not get involved in the PdP, since it is an open body. Year after year I have stood at PdP meetings and we get people in the room, lots of them, but when it comes to discussions about policy on the PdP list, I would be amazed there are more than 15 or 20 people who actually get involved and talk on there on a regular and sustained basis. > > This has been spoken about MANY times. But I say this, it is like an election in a country, if the community does not choose to partake in the PdP lists, and does not choose to get involved in the formulation of policy (and the modifications to policies they aren?t happy with etc), then they have absolutely zero right to complain afterwards if the policies that are put in place do not meet their needs. > > My message to the community, if you feel the current policies aren?t working, or you aren?t happy with them, write new ones, go to the PdP, and if the rest of the community is in agreement with you, your amendments/new policies will get passed, if they don?t pass, listen to WHY the community isn?t passing them, and either change your position or modify so that the community is happy with them. Basically: Take some responsibility for the policies that are out there, since you, as a community put them there, either through showing consensus at a meeting, or through apathy that stopped you objecting to them) and you as a community have the chance to change them. > > Just my thoughts > > Andrew Alston > Group Head of IP Strategy > <1D7357BF-29F7-4C26-9D6A-6EFCA78201B1[24].png> > Sameer business Park, Block A, Mombasa Road. Nairobi, Kenya > T: +254 205000000 - M: +254 733 2222 04 - E: andrew.alston at liquidtelecom.com > > > > > > > > > DISCLAIMER: This email contains proprietary information some or all of which may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this email, please notify the author by replying to this email. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose, copy, print, or rely on this email. We cannot accept liability for any statements made which are clearly the sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of this company or one of its agents. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From psmata2g8 at yahoo.com Mon Sep 22 23:28:29 2014 From: psmata2g8 at yahoo.com (ata) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2014 16:28:29 -0700 Subject: [rpd] Re: rpd Digest, Vol 96, Issue 29 In-Reply-To: <201409212103.s8LL3fvV011353@mail.afrinic.net> Message-ID: <1411428509.89428.YahooMailBasic@web122003.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Excuse brevity and typos, I am sincerely getting disappointed at the management of AfriNIC. Not only is our resources being abused as a subject matter but also the trust entrusted to management. Highly disappointing. Are there not lots of IPV6 address space that could have been issued by AfriNIC for investors in Africa who have followed the due process?. So why the IPV4 address space. With the era where we are advocating for the use of IPv6 address space. Can any one explain to this noble community why AfriNIC did not issue IPV6 instead of the chunk IPv4 address space issued and its spamming scandal? Or Perhaps are we transitioning the functions of AfriNIC or AfriNIC stewardship Transition or accountability or transitioning from actual trends to another. We do believe that AfriNIC management is meant to serve this community. We need answers. Questions work answering ! Truly African, Ata Redeemer -------------------------------------------- On Sun, 9/21/14, rpd-request at afrinic.net wrote: Subject: rpd Digest, Vol 96, Issue 29 To: rpd at afrinic.net Date: Sunday, September 21, 2014, 10:03 PM Send rpd mailing list submissions to ??? rpd at afrinic.net To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit ??? https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to ??? rpd-request at afrinic.net You can reach the person managing the list at ??? rpd-owner at afrinic.net When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of rpd digest..." Today's Topics: ???1. Re: [afnog] A typical case of abuse of our resources!!! ? ? ? (Noah Maina) ???2. Re: [afnog] A typical case of abuse of our resources!!! ? ? ? (Noah Maina) ???3. Re: [afnog] A typical case of abuse of our resources!!! ? ? ? (Kofi ANSA AKUFO) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2014 20:54:28 +0300 From: Noah Maina Subject: Re: [rpd] [afnog] A typical case of abuse of our resources!!! To: Adiel Akplogan Cc: AfriNIC Discuss ,??? AfriNIC List ??? Message-ID: ??? Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" On 20 September 2014 23:41, Adiel Akplogan wrote: > Hello Boubakar, > > On Sep 20, 2014, at 23:28 PM, Boubakar Barry > wrote: > > The number of posts in this thread and the discussions held in Djibouti > show that the community wants clarification on this allocation. > > > > In the best interest of our organisation (i.e. AfriNIC) and in order to > restore trust, Management and Board should take this seriously and provide > adequate responses to the issues raised. > > This allocation has followed the same process and procedure as any other > requests sent to the IP analysts. In term of application and interpretation > of the current policy nothing in this one was different. I think the RS > team will be sending all the clarifications on the process shortly. Beyond > that, I think there is a lot of emotional speculation that we need to avoid > to be dragged into ??as you said in the interest of the organisation. > > Hello Adiel, So to be precise, Whether i need a /24 or? /12 what matters is my justification on how I will use it (backedup with full documentation) and if i do justify, then the IP analyst, hostmaster and whoever is involved in the chain of approval, will go a head and issue my assignment since the current policy is in line with that..... Key word....JUSTIFICATION....so meaning the folks whose /12 is being questioned herein, must have justified their request and the assignments was done.... and if tomorrow I dont actually use up the assignment as I indicated initially, then that is? different story!!!! Right? > Thanks. > > - a. > ./noah -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20140921/6b79d96c/attachment-0001.htm ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2014 20:56:26 +0300 From: Noah Maina Subject: Re: [rpd] [afnog] A typical case of abuse of our resources!!! To: Ernest Cc: AfriNIC Discuss ,??? AfriNIC List ??? Message-ID: ??? Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" On 21 September 2014 11:22, Ernest wrote: > Adiel Akplogan wrote thus on 9/20/14, 11:41 PM: > > Hello Boubakar, > > > > On Sep 20, 2014, at 23:28 PM, Boubakar Barry > > wrote: > >> The number of posts in this thread and the discussions held in > >> Djibouti show that the community wants clarification on this > >> allocation. > >> > >> In the best interest of our organisation (i.e. AfriNIC) and in > >> order to restore trust, Management and Board should take this > >> seriously and provide adequate responses to the issues raised. > > > > This allocation has followed the same process and procedure as > > any other requests sent to the IP analysts. In term of > > application and interpretation of the current policy nothing in > > this one was different. I think the RS team will be sending all > > the clarifications on the process shortly. Beyond that, I think > > there is a lot of emotional speculation that we need to avoid to > > be dragged into ??as you said in the interest of the > > organisation. > > > Further to Adiel's mail above: > > We have studied the community's concerns and comments (in this > thread) regarding the address resource 154.80.0.0/12 that was > allocated to Cloud Innovation on 2013-Jul-24. > > Although we cannot divulge detailed information due to > confidentiality requirements, let us take this opportunity to point > out the following: > > o The request was received and evaluated as usual, against > compliance with all criteria in the IPv4 Allocation Policy and it > fully satisfied all eligibility requirements. > > o Being a large chunk of space, the hostmaster team provided an > evaluation report to executive management (which contained the > evaluation process and the team?? recommended decision on the > request). Management consequently approved its issuance. > > o The current IPv4 allocation policy does not contain any > restrictions to out-of-region address space usage specifically when > end-users of that space are located out of region. What IP analysts > examine is the legal existence of the requestor (and its > infrastructure that supports services to be provided) in the region. > Where customers are located is generally not the IP Analysts main > concern unless there is observed incoherence in the request. > > o We have in the past few meetings informed the community (in the > policy implementation report) about the observed increase in > requests from companies registered in our region of service (with > evidence of their infrastructure hosted in the region) but > planning to provide services that are used by customers out of > region. We informed the community with intent that the community > considers a policy around this issue if deemed necessary. > > We would like to state here that as long as a request has adhered to > policy, AFRINIC will in most cases approve it, unless there are > other visible factors impeding its approval (and needing further > study and perhaps escalation). > > ++1 Ernest and thank you for this clarification...... > Regards, > Ernest. > > ./noah -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20140921/4e2c7d3c/attachment-0001.htm ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2014 00:56:45 +0400 From: Kofi ANSA AKUFO Subject: Re: [rpd] [afnog] A typical case of abuse of our resources!!! To: Andrew Alston Cc: AfriNIC Discuss ,??? AfriNIC List ??? Message-ID: ??? Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Skipped content of type multipart/alternative-------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 17933 bytes Desc: not available Url : https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20140922/899393b2/image001.png ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ rpd mailing list rpd at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd End of rpd Digest, Vol 96, Issue 29 *********************************** From omo at wacren.net Tue Sep 23 12:39:48 2014 From: omo at wacren.net (Omo Oaiya) Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 13:39:48 +0100 Subject: [afnog] [rpd] Re: A typical case of abuse of our resources!!! In-Reply-To: <57179297-A33D-4ACC-AE3A-C4FAC64DC24D@nvconsulting.biz> References: <541BFF49.9050502@gmail.com> <541C1782.3060509@gmail.com> <541C2CFB.9070609@gmail.com> <541C57E4.8030504@gmail.com> <8139A2D4BA5CE94C98E1A584DDEA6793B47917@exchange1.prod.servihoo.net> <8139A2D4BA5CE94C98E1A584DDEA6793B489D7@exchange1.prod.servihoo.net> <8139A2D4BA5CE94C98E1A584DDEA6793B48A3C@exchange1.prod.servihoo.net> <541C7D6F.30606@gmail.com> <001a01cfd515$50922be0$f1b683a0$@nvconsulting.biz> <57179297-A33D-4ACC-AE3A-C4FAC64DC24D@nvconsulting.biz> Message-ID: Hi It is easy enough to say the "community" does not participate and this may be true but the "community" also needs to feel its voice can be heard. We also don't all have to be involved in policy making to see the obvious. Policies are only ideas. It is the implementation that counts and quite often the spirit is as important as the letter. Writing yet another policy does not necessarily fix the issue. Some of the policies that have been suggested have outcomes that are satisfied by the requirements for justification in existing policies. What we perhaps need to revise is our understanding of the content and contexts of existing policies. Btw, thanks to the staff for reverting and even if process was followed as implied, a /12 is an odd million addresses and remains a million anyhow you shake it up. An innovation that requires this many addresses in today's African Internet is not likely to be missed by the pundits. Would be nice to see the utilisation that convinced staff .... Mr Lu has not been able to revert on the funny domains with random letters and no website. Can anyone help him? Best wishes Omo On 22 September 2014 19:40, Victor Ndonnang wrote: > Hi Andrew, > Thank you for your clear input. I can't agree more with you on that. It is > not just about saying this is good or bad; It is about getting involved and > help make things better and more globally acceptable. > But efforts are needed on both sides: > > -The interested stakeholders in the community should take time to learn > the process, understand it and help change what is imperfect... Policies > are there to evolve. > - Afrinic as a community driven organization should continue doing more > efforts to have more people in the PDP process. > > Best regards, > Victor. > > ************ > Victor Ndonnang > https://twitter.com/VictorNdonnang > > ~Sent from my iPhone~ > > On Sep 21, 2014, at 2:25 AM, Andrew Alston < > Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com> wrote: > > Disclaimer: Speaking in my personal capacity and not representative of > the AfriNIC board or any other organisation/company to which I am > affiliated. > > > Very few people are involved in AFNIC policy development process and > sometimes, they just develop a policy to support what they want or like > rather than developing policies that really support the > > development of the Internet in Africa. > > Victor, this is true, but it is by choice that individuals do not get > involved in the PdP, since it is an open body. Year after year I have > stood at PdP meetings and we get people in the room, lots of them, but when > it comes to discussions about policy on the PdP list, I would be amazed > there are more than 15 or 20 people who actually get involved and talk on > there on a regular and sustained basis. > > This has been spoken about MANY times. But I say this, it is like an > election in a country, if the community does not choose to partake in the > PdP lists, and does not choose to get involved in the formulation of policy > (and the modifications to policies they aren't happy with etc), then they > have absolutely zero right to complain afterwards if the policies that are > put in place do not meet their needs. > > My message to the community, if you feel the current policies aren't > working, or you aren't happy with them, write new ones, go to the PdP, and > if the rest of the community is in agreement with you, your amendments/new > policies will get passed, if they don't pass, listen to WHY the community > isn't passing them, and either change your position or modify so that the > community is happy with them. Basically: Take some responsibility for the > policies that are out there, since you, as a community put them there, > either through showing consensus at a meeting, or through apathy that > stopped you objecting to them) and you as a community have the chance to > change them. > > Just my thoughts > > *Andrew Alston* > Group Head of IP Strategy > > <1D7357BF-29F7-4C26-9D6A-6EFCA78201B1[24].png> > > Sameer business Park, Block A, Mombasa Road. Nairobi, Kenya > > *T:* +254 205000000 - *M*: +254 733 2222 04 - *E:* > andrew.alston at liquidtelecom.com > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > DISCLAIMER: This email contains proprietary information some or all of > which may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. If > an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this email, please > notify the author by replying to this email. If you are not the intended > recipient, you must not use, disclose, copy, print, or rely on this email. > We cannot accept liability for any statements made which are clearly the > sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of this company or one of its > agents. > > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From owen at delong.com Tue Sep 23 22:54:07 2014 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 15:54:07 -0700 Subject: [rpd] rpd Digest, Vol 96, Issue 29 In-Reply-To: <1411428509.89428.YahooMailBasic@web122003.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <1411428509.89428.YahooMailBasic@web122003.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <39A2E937-1C14-413A-9437-072D478A2D73@delong.com> Ata, With all due respect, I think your message shows several fundamental misunderstandings of the process and events in question. 1. AfriNIC can only issue the type of resources requested when issuing resources. This has been the policy and procedure since inception. A requestor who comes to AfriNIC and requests an ASN will get an ASN or nothing. Similarly with a request for an IPv4 allocation or assignment, and/or an IPv6 allocation and/or assignment. AfriNIC does not have the ability to substitute one type of resource for another. 2. The resources were requested by an organization properly constituted in the AfriNIC service region. The organization in question filed all of the required documentation with their request. The request was reviewed according to the policies as adopted by this community and found to be a valid request according to those policies. As a result, the resources were issued. AfriNIC does not have the ability to make it up as they go along, nor do they have the authority to deny a request that conforms to policy any more than they have the authority to issue a request which does not comply with policy. The hostmasters must be able to act in good faith in making such determinations to the best of their ability and we as a community must accept their judgment. If we believe they have erred in a particular case, there are mechanisms for reporting that belief and having the management and/or the AfriNIC board further investigate the situation. If you believe that the request was fraudulent or otherwise failed to comply with AfriNIC policy, then you should raise those concerns to AfriNIC management and see what is revealed in the subsequent investigation. If you dislike the policy or believe that additional policy that would have prevented such an allocation is needed, then you should propose new policy language through the PDP (which takes place largely on this list) and work to achieve community consensus around that proposed policy. AfriNIC staff and management do not make policy. They implement policy that is made by the community. The board is only allowed to make policy in very exceptional circumstances and such policy modifications are subject to subsequent review by this community. I?ve provided brief answers to each of your points in line in case you find this longer text difficult to follow. Owen On Sep 22, 2014, at 4:28 PM, ata wrote: > Excuse brevity and typos, > I am sincerely getting disappointed at the management of AfriNIC. Not only is our resources being abused as a subject matter but also the trust entrusted to management. Highly disappointing. Are there not lots of IPV6 address space that could have been issued by AfriNIC for investors in Africa who have followed the due process?. So why the IPV4 address space. 1. Yes. 2. Because that is the type of resource requested by the organization in question. > With the era where we are advocating for the use of IPv6 address space. Can any one explain to this noble community why AfriNIC did not issue IPV6 instead of the chunk IPv4 address space issued and its spamming scandal? Because AfriNIC can only issue the type of resource requested by the organization. There is no policy allowing AfriNIC to provide IPv4 in response to an IPv6 request or vice versa. If you believe such policy should exist, please propose it here. > Or Perhaps are we transitioning the functions of AfriNIC or AfriNIC stewardship Transition or accountability or transitioning from actual trends to another. We do believe that AfriNIC management is meant to serve this community. We need answers. I?m afraid I was unable to parse this portion of your message. I have no idea what you are trying to communicate here. I apologize for my apparent ignorance. > Questions work answering ! Do you mean ?Questions worth answering?? Thanks, Owen > > Truly African, > Ata Redeemer > -------------------------------------------- > On Sun, 9/21/14, rpd-request at afrinic.net wrote: > > Subject: rpd Digest, Vol 96, Issue 29 > To: rpd at afrinic.net > Date: Sunday, September 21, 2014, 10:03 PM > > Send rpd mailing list submissions to > rpd at afrinic.net > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' > to > rpd-request at afrinic.net > > You can reach the person managing the list at > rpd-owner at afrinic.net > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more > specific > than "Re: Contents of rpd digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: [afnog] A typical case of abuse of > our resources!!! > (Noah Maina) > 2. Re: [afnog] A typical case of abuse of > our resources!!! > (Noah Maina) > 3. Re: [afnog] A typical case of abuse of > our resources!!! > (Kofi ANSA AKUFO) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2014 20:54:28 +0300 > From: Noah Maina > Subject: Re: [rpd] [afnog] A typical case of abuse of our > resources!!! > To: Adiel Akplogan > Cc: AfriNIC Discuss , > AfriNIC List > > Message-ID: > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > On 20 September 2014 23:41, Adiel Akplogan > wrote: > >> Hello Boubakar, >> >> On Sep 20, 2014, at 23:28 PM, Boubakar Barry >> wrote: >>> The number of posts in this thread and the > discussions held in Djibouti >> show that the community wants clarification on this > allocation. >>> >>> In the best interest of our organisation (i.e. > AfriNIC) and in order to >> restore trust, Management and Board should take this > seriously and provide >> adequate responses to the issues raised. >> >> This allocation has followed the same process and > procedure as any other >> requests sent to the IP analysts. In term of > application and interpretation >> of the current policy nothing in this one was > different. I think the RS >> team will be sending all the clarifications on the > process shortly. Beyond >> that, I think there is a lot of emotional speculation > that we need to avoid >> to be dragged into ??as you said in the interest of > the organisation. >> >> Hello Adiel, > > So to be precise, Whether i need a /24 or /12 what > matters is my > justification on how I will use it (backedup with full > documentation) and > if i do justify, then the IP analyst, hostmaster and whoever > is involved in > the chain of approval, will go a head and issue my > assignment since the > current policy is in line with that..... > > Key word....JUSTIFICATION....so meaning the folks whose /12 > is being > questioned herein, must have justified their request and the > assignments > was done.... and if tomorrow I dont actually use up the > assignment as I > indicated initially, then that is different story!!!! > > Right? > > >> Thanks. >> >> - a. >> > > ./noah > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20140921/6b79d96c/attachment-0001.htm > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2014 20:56:26 +0300 > From: Noah Maina > Subject: Re: [rpd] [afnog] A typical case of abuse of our > resources!!! > To: Ernest > Cc: AfriNIC Discuss , > AfriNIC List > > Message-ID: > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > On 21 September 2014 11:22, Ernest > wrote: > >> Adiel Akplogan wrote thus on 9/20/14, 11:41 PM: >>> Hello Boubakar, >>> >>> On Sep 20, 2014, at 23:28 PM, Boubakar Barry >>> > wrote: >>>> The number of posts in this thread and the > discussions held in >>>> Djibouti show that the community wants > clarification on this >>>> allocation. >>>> >>>> In the best interest of our organisation (i.e. > AfriNIC) and in >>>> order to restore trust, Management and Board > should take this >>>> seriously and provide adequate responses to > the issues raised. >>> >>> This allocation has followed the same process and > procedure as >>> any other requests sent to the IP analysts. In > term of >>> application and interpretation of the current > policy nothing in >>> this one was different. I think the RS team will > be sending all >>> the clarifications on the process shortly. Beyond > that, I think >>> there is a lot of emotional speculation that we > need to avoid to >>> be dragged into ??as you said in the interest > of the >>> organisation. >> >> >> Further to Adiel's mail above: >> >> We have studied the community's concerns and comments > (in this >> thread) regarding the address resource 154.80.0.0/12 > that was >> allocated to Cloud Innovation on 2013-Jul-24. >> >> Although we cannot divulge detailed information due to >> confidentiality requirements, let us take this > opportunity to point >> out the following: >> >> o The request was received and evaluated as usual, > against >> compliance with all criteria in the IPv4 Allocation > Policy and it >> fully satisfied all eligibility requirements. >> >> o Being a large chunk of space, the hostmaster team > provided an >> evaluation report to executive management (which > contained the >> evaluation process and the team?? recommended > decision on the >> request). Management consequently approved its > issuance. >> >> o The current IPv4 allocation policy does not contain > any >> restrictions to out-of-region address space usage > specifically when >> end-users of that space are located out of region. What > IP analysts >> examine is the legal existence of the requestor (and > its >> infrastructure that supports services to be provided) > in the region. >> Where customers are located is generally not the IP > Analysts main >> concern unless there is observed incoherence in the > request. >> >> o We have in the past few meetings informed the > community (in the >> policy implementation report) about the observed > increase in >> requests from companies registered in our region of > service (with >> evidence of their infrastructure hosted in the region) > but >> planning to provide services that are used by customers > out of >> region. We informed the community with intent that the > community >> considers a policy around this issue if deemed > necessary. >> >> We would like to state here that as long as a request > has adhered to >> policy, AFRINIC will in most cases approve it, unless > there are >> other visible factors impeding its approval (and > needing further >> study and perhaps escalation). >> >> > ++1 Ernest and thank you for this clarification...... > > >> Regards, >> Ernest. >> >> ./noah > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20140921/4e2c7d3c/attachment-0001.htm > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2014 00:56:45 +0400 > From: Kofi ANSA AKUFO > Subject: Re: [rpd] [afnog] A typical case of abuse of our > resources!!! > To: Andrew Alston > Cc: AfriNIC Discuss , > AfriNIC List > > Message-ID: > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Skipped content of type multipart/alternative-------------- > next part -------------- > A non-text attachment was scrubbed... > Name: image001.png > Type: image/png > Size: 17933 bytes > Desc: not available > Url : https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20140922/899393b2/image001.png > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > > End of rpd Digest, Vol 96, Issue 29 > *********************************** > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd From owen at delong.com Tue Sep 23 23:34:16 2014 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 16:34:16 -0700 Subject: [afnog] [rpd] Re: A typical case of abuse of our resources!!! In-Reply-To: References: <541BFF49.9050502@gmail.com> <541C1782.3060509@gmail.com> <541C2CFB.9070609@gmail.com> <541C57E4.8030504@gmail.com> <8139A2D4BA5CE94C98E1A584DDEA6793B47917@exchange1.prod.servihoo.net> <8139A2D4BA5CE94C98E1A584DDEA6793B489D7@exchange1.prod.servihoo.net> <8139A2D4BA5CE94C98E1A584DDEA6793B48A3C@exchange1.prod.servihoo.net> <541C7D6F.30606@gmail.com> <001a01cfd515$50922be0$f1b683a0$@nvconsulting.biz> <57179297-A33D-4ACC-AE3A-C4FAC64DC24D@nvconsulting.biz> Message-ID: <565AABEB-5FF7-4464-8106-B5D8EB0646AD@delong.com> Asking AfriNIC staff to implement the spirit of the policy rather than taking care to write what we really want as a community into the letter of the policy is a very dangerous request. If you had a loosely written policy to a dozen people and ask each of them to explain the spirit of the policy, it is unlikely that more than one or two of them (at best) will come particularly close to the original author?s stated intent for the policy. More importantly, you will probably have at least 12 different (and often some of them radically different) ideas as to the core intent of the policy. I agree that the allocation is suspicious, but if the postmasters say that the justification supplied meets policy, then I believe we must trust them absent any strong evidence of fraud. Share suspicion alone is not sufficient. I suspect that the domains are being used to host VPNs and are likely serving end-users outside the region via these VPNs. Currently, there?s nothing in AfriNIC policy to prohibit that. I leave it as an exercise for other members of this list to decide whether there should be policy to prohibit such allocations. I will say this? Regardless of how we hand out the remaining IPv4 addresses, the simple reality is that IPv4 will soon be much less important than having an IPv6 deployment and I believe that the community would be better served by aggressively implementing IPv6 than by handwringing over the mechanism by which the limited IPv4 free pool is drained. Owen On Sep 23, 2014, at 5:39 AM, Omo Oaiya wrote: > Hi > > It is easy enough to say the "community" does not participate and this may be true but the "community" also needs to feel its voice can be heard. We also don't all have to be involved in policy making to see the obvious. > > Policies are only ideas. It is the implementation that counts and quite often the spirit is as important as the letter. Writing yet another policy does not necessarily fix the issue. Some of the policies that have been suggested have outcomes that are satisfied by the requirements for justification in existing policies. What we perhaps need to revise is our understanding of the content and contexts of existing policies. > > Btw, thanks to the staff for reverting and even if process was followed as implied, a /12 is an odd million addresses and remains a million anyhow you shake it up. An innovation that requires this many addresses in today's African Internet is not likely to be missed by the pundits. Would be nice to see the utilisation that convinced staff .... Mr Lu has not been able to revert on the funny domains with random letters and no website. Can anyone help him? > > > > Best wishes > > Omo > > On 22 September 2014 19:40, Victor Ndonnang wrote: > Hi Andrew, > Thank you for your clear input. I can't agree more with you on that. It is not just about saying this is good or bad; It is about getting involved and help make things better and more globally acceptable. > But efforts are needed on both sides: > > -The interested stakeholders in the community should take time to learn the process, understand it and help change what is imperfect... Policies are there to evolve. > - Afrinic as a community driven organization should continue doing more efforts to have more people in the PDP process. > > Best regards, > Victor. > > ************ > Victor Ndonnang > https://twitter.com/VictorNdonnang > ~Sent from my iPhone~ > > On Sep 21, 2014, at 2:25 AM, Andrew Alston wrote: > >> Disclaimer: Speaking in my personal capacity and not representative of the AfriNIC board or any other organisation/company to which I am affiliated. >> >> > Very few people are involved in AFNIC policy development process and sometimes, they just develop a policy to support what they want or like rather than developing policies that really support the >> >> > development of the Internet in Africa. >> >> Victor, this is true, but it is by choice that individuals do not get involved in the PdP, since it is an open body. Year after year I have stood at PdP meetings and we get people in the room, lots of them, but when it comes to discussions about policy on the PdP list, I would be amazed there are more than 15 or 20 people who actually get involved and talk on there on a regular and sustained basis. >> >> >> This has been spoken about MANY times. But I say this, it is like an election in a country, if the community does not choose to partake in the PdP lists, and does not choose to get involved in the formulation of policy (and the modifications to policies they aren?t happy with etc), then they have absolutely zero right to complain afterwards if the policies that are put in place do not meet their needs. >> >> My message to the community, if you feel the current policies aren?t working, or you aren?t happy with them, write new ones, go to the PdP, and if the rest of the community is in agreement with you, your amendments/new policies will get passed, if they don?t pass, listen to WHY the community isn?t passing them, and either change your position or modify so that the community is happy with them. Basically: Take some responsibility for the policies that are out there, since you, as a community put them there, either through showing consensus at a meeting, or through apathy that stopped you objecting to them) and you as a community have the chance to change them. >> >> Just my thoughts >> >> Andrew Alston >> Group Head of IP Strategy >> <1D7357BF-29F7-4C26-9D6A-6EFCA78201B1[24].png> >> >> Sameer business Park, Block A, Mombasa Road. Nairobi, Kenya >> >> T: +254 205000000 - M: +254 733 2222 04 - E: andrew.alston at liquidtelecom.com >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> DISCLAIMER: This email contains proprietary information some or all of which may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this email, please notify the author by replying to this email. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose, copy, print, or rely on this email. We cannot accept liability for any statements made which are clearly the sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of this company or one of its agents. >> > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From adiel at afrinic.net Wed Sep 24 07:29:08 2014 From: adiel at afrinic.net (Adiel Akplogan) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 11:29:08 +0400 Subject: [members-discuss] [rpd] [afnog] A typical case of abuse of our resources!!! In-Reply-To: References: <541BD21B.5020900@gmail.com> <541BFF49.9050502@gmail.com> <541C1782.3060509@gmail.com> <541C2CFB.9070609@gmail.com> <01D41EDC-5024-4D0B-9AAF-1EEA126ADB99@afrinic.net> Message-ID: <3888F94E-8FDA-4867-A2EA-21FCDB3D6437@afrinic.net> On Sep 21, 2014, at 21:54 PM, Noah Maina wrote: > Key word....JUSTIFICATION....so meaning the folks whose /12 is being questioned herein, must have justified their request and the assignments was done.... and if tomorrow I dont actually use up the assignment as I indicated initially, then that is different story!!!! > > Right? That is it Noah. - a. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 313 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From omo at wacren.net Wed Sep 24 13:28:03 2014 From: omo at wacren.net (Omo Oaiya) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 14:28:03 +0100 Subject: [afnog] [rpd] Re: A typical case of abuse of our resources!!! In-Reply-To: <565AABEB-5FF7-4464-8106-B5D8EB0646AD@delong.com> References: <541BFF49.9050502@gmail.com> <541C1782.3060509@gmail.com> <541C2CFB.9070609@gmail.com> <541C57E4.8030504@gmail.com> <8139A2D4BA5CE94C98E1A584DDEA6793B47917@exchange1.prod.servihoo.net> <8139A2D4BA5CE94C98E1A584DDEA6793B489D7@exchange1.prod.servihoo.net> <8139A2D4BA5CE94C98E1A584DDEA6793B48A3C@exchange1.prod.servihoo.net> <541C7D6F.30606@gmail.com> <001a01cfd515$50922be0$f1b683a0$@nvconsulting.biz> <57179297-A33D-4ACC-AE3A-C4FAC64DC24D@nvconsulting.biz> <565AABEB-5FF7-4464-8106-B5D8EB0646AD@delong.com> Message-ID: On 24 September 2014 00:34, Owen DeLong wrote: > Asking AfriNIC staff to implement the spirit of the policy rather than > taking care to write what we really want as a community into the letter of > the policy is a very dangerous request. > > If you had a loosely written policy to a dozen people and ask each of them > to explain the spirit of the policy, it is unlikely that more than one or > two of them (at best) will come particularly close to the original author's > stated intent for the policy. > > More importantly, you will probably have at least 12 different (and often > some of them radically different) ideas as to the core intent of the policy. > In saying the spirit was as important as the letter, I meant complying with the letter of the policy but guided by its spirit. I appreciate folks having differing views of the same but the intent of the IPv4 allocation policy is straightforward enough for broad consensus > I agree that the allocation is suspicious, but if the postmasters say that > the justification supplied meets policy, then I believe we must trust them > absent any strong evidence of fraud. Share suspicion alone is not > sufficient. > Agreed if you mean sheer suspicion. Fraud is the furthest from my thoughts but it would be interesting to know if the hostmasters' report was rubber-stamped by management or overridden. > > I suspect that the domains are being used to host VPNs and are likely > serving end-users outside the region via these VPNs. Currently, there's > nothing in AfriNIC policy to prohibit that. I leave it as an exercise for > other members of this list to decide whether there should be policy to > prohibit such allocations. > You can correct me but I understand that IANA allocates to Afrinic for redistribution in the African region and in the absence of guiding policy, the goals of Afrinic as custodian take precedence. I also understand that assignments are only valid if the original criteria for justification and assignment remains valid. If the allocation looks suspicious as many have opined, there should be some assessment to test for validity especially as it is this large. > > I will say this... Regardless of how we hand out the remaining IPv4 > addresses, the simple reality is that IPv4 will soon be much less important > than having an IPv6 deployment and I believe that the community would be > better served by aggressively implementing IPv6 than by handwringing over > the mechanism by which the limited IPv4 free pool is drained. > This will happen with time. Some like academia have additional incentive to deploy IPv6 in their networks and are likely to do so faster especially with the excellent support from Afrinic, but we still need IPv4 and trusted processes. Omo > > Owen > > On Sep 23, 2014, at 5:39 AM, Omo Oaiya wrote: > > Hi > > It is easy enough to say the "community" does not participate and this may > be true but the "community" also needs to feel its voice can be heard. We > also don't all have to be involved in policy making to see the obvious. > > Policies are only ideas. It is the implementation that counts and quite > often the spirit is as important as the letter. Writing yet another > policy does not necessarily fix the issue. Some of the policies that have > been suggested have outcomes that are satisfied by the requirements for > justification in existing policies. What we perhaps need to revise is our > understanding of the content and contexts of existing policies. > > Btw, thanks to the staff for reverting and even if process was followed as > implied, a /12 is an odd million addresses and remains a million anyhow you > shake it up. An innovation that requires this many addresses in today's > African Internet is not likely to be missed by the pundits. Would be nice > to see the utilisation that convinced staff .... Mr Lu has not been able to > revert on the funny domains with random letters and no website. Can anyone > help him? > > > > Best wishes > > Omo > > On 22 September 2014 19:40, Victor Ndonnang > wrote: > >> Hi Andrew, >> Thank you for your clear input. I can't agree more with you on that. It >> is not just about saying this is good or bad; It is about getting involved >> and help make things better and more globally acceptable. >> But efforts are needed on both sides: >> >> -The interested stakeholders in the community should take time to learn >> the process, understand it and help change what is imperfect... Policies >> are there to evolve. >> - Afrinic as a community driven organization should continue doing more >> efforts to have more people in the PDP process. >> >> Best regards, >> Victor. >> >> ************ >> Victor Ndonnang >> https://twitter.com/VictorNdonnang >> >> ~Sent from my iPhone~ >> >> On Sep 21, 2014, at 2:25 AM, Andrew Alston < >> Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com> wrote: >> >> Disclaimer: Speaking in my personal capacity and not representative of >> the AfriNIC board or any other organisation/company to which I am >> affiliated. >> >> > Very few people are involved in AFNIC policy development process and >> sometimes, they just develop a policy to support what they want or like >> rather than developing policies that really support the >> > development of the Internet in Africa. >> >> Victor, this is true, but it is by choice that individuals do not get >> involved in the PdP, since it is an open body. Year after year I have >> stood at PdP meetings and we get people in the room, lots of them, but when >> it comes to discussions about policy on the PdP list, I would be amazed >> there are more than 15 or 20 people who actually get involved and talk on >> there on a regular and sustained basis. >> >> This has been spoken about MANY times. But I say this, it is like an >> election in a country, if the community does not choose to partake in the >> PdP lists, and does not choose to get involved in the formulation of policy >> (and the modifications to policies they aren't happy with etc), then they >> have absolutely zero right to complain afterwards if the policies that are >> put in place do not meet their needs. >> >> My message to the community, if you feel the current policies aren't >> working, or you aren't happy with them, write new ones, go to the PdP, and >> if the rest of the community is in agreement with you, your amendments/new >> policies will get passed, if they don't pass, listen to WHY the community >> isn't passing them, and either change your position or modify so that the >> community is happy with them. Basically: Take some responsibility for the >> policies that are out there, since you, as a community put them there, >> either through showing consensus at a meeting, or through apathy that >> stopped you objecting to them) and you as a community have the chance to >> change them. >> >> Just my thoughts >> >> *Andrew Alston* >> Group Head of IP Strategy >> >> <1D7357BF-29F7-4C26-9D6A-6EFCA78201B1[24].png> >> >> Sameer business Park, Block A, Mombasa Road. Nairobi, Kenya >> >> *T:* +254 205000000 - *M*: +254 733 2222 04 - *E:* >> andrew.alston at liquidtelecom.com >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> DISCLAIMER: This email contains proprietary information some or all of >> which may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. If >> an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this email, please >> notify the author by replying to this email. If you are not the intended >> recipient, you must not use, disclose, copy, print, or rely on this email. >> We cannot accept liability for any statements made which are clearly the >> sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of this company or one of its >> agents. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> rpd mailing list >> rpd at afrinic.net >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >> >> > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jacksonmuthi at gmail.com Wed Sep 24 14:11:46 2014 From: jacksonmuthi at gmail.com (Jackson Muthili) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 17:11:46 +0300 Subject: [afnog] [rpd] Re: A typical case of abuse of our resources!!! In-Reply-To: <565AABEB-5FF7-4464-8106-B5D8EB0646AD@delong.com> References: <541BFF49.9050502@gmail.com> <541C1782.3060509@gmail.com> <541C2CFB.9070609@gmail.com> <541C57E4.8030504@gmail.com> <8139A2D4BA5CE94C98E1A584DDEA6793B47917@exchange1.prod.servihoo.net> <8139A2D4BA5CE94C98E1A584DDEA6793B489D7@exchange1.prod.servihoo.net> <8139A2D4BA5CE94C98E1A584DDEA6793B48A3C@exchange1.prod.servihoo.net> <541C7D6F.30606@gmail.com> <001a01cfd515$50922be0$f1b683a0$@nvconsulting.biz> <57179297-A33D-4ACC-AE3A-C4FAC64DC24D@nvconsulting.biz> <565AABEB-5FF7-4464-8106-B5D8EB0646AD@delong.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 2:34 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: > Asking AfriNIC staff to implement the spirit of the policy rather than > taking care to write what we really want as a community into the letter of > the policy is a very dangerous request. > > If you had a loosely written policy to a dozen people and ask each of them > to explain the spirit of the policy, it is unlikely that more than one or > two of them (at best) will come particularly close to the original author?s > stated intent for the policy. > > More importantly, you will probably have at least 12 different (and often > some of them radically different) ideas as to the core intent of the policy. > > I agree that the allocation is suspicious, but if the postmasters say that > the justification supplied meets policy, then I believe we must trust them > absent any strong evidence of fraud. Share suspicion alone is not > sufficient. > > I suspect that the domains are being used to host VPNs and are likely > serving end-users outside the region via these VPNs. Currently, there?s > nothing in AfriNIC policy to prohibit that. I leave it as an exercise for > other members of this list to decide whether there should be policy to > prohibit such allocations. > > I will say this? Regardless of how we hand out the remaining IPv4 addresses, > the simple reality is that IPv4 will soon be much less important than having > an IPv6 deployment and I believe that the community would be better served > by aggressively implementing IPv6 than by handwringing over the mechanism by > which the limited IPv4 free pool is drained. While you keep saying this you did not say some importants facts like (1) Ipv4 needed during transition (2) 98% of internet still on ipv4 despite that you think ipv4 is not anymore important (3) the develope or 1st world economy (USA include) have not adopt ipv6. I wonder why? What I try to say here is ipv4 is still very important and please dont discourage developing economy from levereaging so far its pool larger than rest of the world because it seem that internet may still run on Ipv4 for long time. From leo.vegoda at icann.org Wed Sep 24 15:36:10 2014 From: leo.vegoda at icann.org (Leo Vegoda) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 15:36:10 +0000 Subject: [afnog] [rpd] Re: A typical case of abuse of our resources!!! In-Reply-To: References: <541BFF49.9050502@gmail.com> <541C1782.3060509@gmail.com> <541C2CFB.9070609@gmail.com> <541C57E4.8030504@gmail.com> <8139A2D4BA5CE94C98E1A584DDEA6793B47917@exchange1.prod.servihoo.net> <8139A2D4BA5CE94C98E1A584DDEA6793B489D7@exchange1.prod.servihoo.net> <8139A2D4BA5CE94C98E1A584DDEA6793B48A3C@exchange1.prod.servihoo.net> <541C7D6F.30606@gmail.com> <001a01cfd515$50922be0$f1b683a0$@nvconsulting.biz> <57179297-A33D-4ACC-AE3A-C4FAC64DC24D@nvconsulting.biz> <565AABEB-5FF7-4464-8106-B5D8EB0646AD@delong.com> Message-ID: <72c0984f966e4b4f9cf3f94b80dda242@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> Dear Oma, Omo Oaiya wrote: [...] > You can correct me but I understand that IANA allocates to Afrinic for redistribution > in the African region and in the absence of guiding policy, the goals of Afrinic as custodian > take precedence.? ICANN makes allocations from the IANA pools of resources according to the policies that have been established using the Global Policy Development process, which can be found here: http://archive.icann.org/en/aso/aso-mou-attachmentA-29oct04.htm. The current set of policies do not define constraints on what the RIRs can do with the resources allocated to them, so each RIR's policy-making community can make the decisions that are most appropriate for its own context. Kind regards, Leo Vegoda ICANN From jwalu at yahoo.com Wed Sep 24 17:17:11 2014 From: jwalu at yahoo.com (Walubengo J) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 10:17:11 -0700 Subject: [afnog] [rpd] Re: A typical case of abuse of our resources!!! In-Reply-To: <565AABEB-5FF7-4464-8106-B5D8EB0646AD@delong.com> Message-ID: <1411579031.38600.YahooMailBasic@web162801.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> @Owen +1 walu ......as myself :-) -------------------------------------------- On Wed, 9/24/14, Owen DeLong wrote: Subject: Re: [afnog] [rpd] Re: A typical case of abuse of our resources!!! To: "Omo Oaiya" Cc: "AfriNIC Resource Policy" , "Andrew Alston" Date: Wednesday, September 24, 2014, 2:34 AM Asking AfriNIC staff to implement the spirit of the policy rather than taking care to write what we really want as a community into the letter of the policy is a very dangerous request. If you had a loosely written policy to a dozen people and ask each of them to explain the spirit of the policy, it is unlikely that more than one or two of them (at best) will come particularly close to the original author?s stated intent for the policy. More importantly, you will probably have at least 12 different (and often some of them radically different) ideas as to the core intent of the policy. I agree that the allocation is suspicious, but if the postmasters say that the justification supplied meets policy, then I believe we must trust them absent any strong evidence of fraud. Share suspicion alone is not sufficient. I suspect that the domains are being used to host VPNs and are likely serving end-users outside the region via these VPNs. Currently, there?s nothing in AfriNIC policy to prohibit that. I leave it as an exercise for other members of this list to decide whether there should be policy to prohibit such allocations. I will say this? Regardless of how we hand out the remaining IPv4 addresses, the simple reality is that IPv4 will soon be much less important than having an IPv6 deployment and I believe that the community would be better served by aggressively implementing IPv6 than by handwringing over the mechanism by which the limited IPv4 free pool is drained. Owen On Sep 23, 2014, at 5:39 AM, Omo Oaiya wrote: Hi It is easy enough to say the "community" does not participate and this may be true but the "community" also needs to feel its voice can be heard.? We also don't all have to be involved in policy making to see the obvious. Policies are only ideas. It is the implementation that counts and quite often the spirit is as important as the letter. ? Writing yet another policy does not necessarily fix the issue.? Some of the policies that have been suggested have outcomes that are satisfied by the requirements for justification in existing policies.? What we perhaps need to revise is our understanding of the content and contexts of existing policies. ? Btw, thanks to the staff for reverting and even if process was followed as implied, a /12 is an odd million addresses and remains a million anyhow you shake it up. ? An innovation that requires this many addresses in today's African Internet is not likely to be missed by the pundits. ? Would be nice to see the utilisation that convinced staff .... Mr Lu has not been able to revert on the funny domains with random letters and no website.? Can anyone help him? Best wishes Omo On 22 September 2014 19:40, Victor Ndonnang wrote: Hi Andrew,Thank you for your clear input. I can't agree more with you on that. It is not just about saying this is good or bad; It is about getting involved and help make things better and more globally acceptable.?But efforts are needed on both sides: -The interested stakeholders in the community should take time to learn the process, understand it and help change what is imperfect... Policies are there to evolve.- Afrinic as a community driven organization should continue doing more efforts to have more people in the PDP process. Best regards,Victor. ************Victor Ndonnanghttps://twitter.com/VictorNdonnang~Sent from my iPhone~ On Sep 21, 2014, at 2:25 AM, Andrew Alston wrote: Disclaimer: Speaking in my personal capacity and not representative of the AfriNIC board or any other organisation/company to which I am affiliated. > Very few people are involved in AFNIC policy development process and sometimes, they just develop a policy to support what they want or like rather than developing policies that really support the > development of the Internet in Africa. Victor, this is true, but it is by?choice that individuals do not get involved in the PdP, since it is an open body.? Year after year?I?have stood at PdP meetings and we get people in the room, lots of them, but when it comes to discussions about policy on the PdP list,?I would be amazed there are more than 15 or 20 people who actually get involved and talk on there on a regular and sustained basis. This has been spoken about MANY times.? But I say this, it is like an election in a country, if the community does not choose to partake in the PdP lists, and does not choose to get involved in the formulation of policy (and the modifications to policies they aren?t happy with etc), then they have absolutely zero right to complain afterwards if the policies that are put in place do not meet their needs. ? My message to the community, if you feel the current policies aren?t working, or you aren?t happy with them, write new ones, go to the PdP, and if the rest of the community is in agreement with you, your amendments/new policies will get passed, if they don?t pass, listen to WHY the community isn?t passing them, and either change your position or modify so that the community is happy with them.? Basically: Take some responsibility for the policies that are out there, since you, as a community put them there, either through showing consensus at a meeting, or through apathy that stopped you objecting to them) and you as a community have the chance to change them. Just my thoughts Andrew Alston Group Head of IP Strategy <1D7357BF-29F7-4C26-9D6A-6EFCA78201B1[24].png> Sameer business Park, Block A, Mombasa Road. Nairobi, Kenya T:?+254 205000000 -??M: +254 733 2222 04 -?E:?andrew.alston at liquidtelecom.com ? DISCLAIMER: This email contains proprietary information some or all of which may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this email, please notify the author by replying to this email. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose, copy, print, or rely on this email. We cannot accept liability for any statements made which are clearly the sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of this company or one of its agents. _______________________________________________ rpd mailing list rpd at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd _______________________________________________ rpd mailing list rpd at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd -----Inline Attachment Follows----- _______________________________________________ rpd mailing list rpd at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd From owen at delong.com Wed Sep 24 17:37:56 2014 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 10:37:56 -0700 Subject: [afnog] [rpd] Re: A typical case of abuse of our resources!!! In-Reply-To: References: <541BFF49.9050502@gmail.com> <541C1782.3060509@gmail.com> <541C2CFB.9070609@gmail.com> <541C57E4.8030504@gmail.com> <8139A2D4BA5CE94C98E1A584DDEA6793B47917@exchange1.prod.servihoo.net> <8139A2D4BA5CE94C98E1A584DDEA6793B489D7@exchange1.prod.servihoo.net> <8139A2D4BA5CE94C98E1A584DDEA6793B48A3C@exchange1.prod.servihoo.net> <541C7D6F.30606@gmail.com> <001a01cfd515$50922be0$f1b683a0$@nvconsulting.biz> <57179297-A33D-4ACC-AE3A-C4FAC64DC24D@nvconsulting.biz> <565AABEB-5FF7-4464-8106-B5D8EB0646AD@delong.com> Message-ID: On Sep 24, 2014, at 7:11 AM, Jackson Muthili wrote: > On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 2:34 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: >> Asking AfriNIC staff to implement the spirit of the policy rather than >> taking care to write what we really want as a community into the letter of >> the policy is a very dangerous request. >> >> If you had a loosely written policy to a dozen people and ask each of them >> to explain the spirit of the policy, it is unlikely that more than one or >> two of them (at best) will come particularly close to the original author?s >> stated intent for the policy. >> >> More importantly, you will probably have at least 12 different (and often >> some of them radically different) ideas as to the core intent of the policy. >> >> I agree that the allocation is suspicious, but if the postmasters say that >> the justification supplied meets policy, then I believe we must trust them >> absent any strong evidence of fraud. Share suspicion alone is not >> sufficient. >> >> I suspect that the domains are being used to host VPNs and are likely >> serving end-users outside the region via these VPNs. Currently, there?s >> nothing in AfriNIC policy to prohibit that. I leave it as an exercise for >> other members of this list to decide whether there should be policy to >> prohibit such allocations. >> >> I will say this? Regardless of how we hand out the remaining IPv4 addresses, >> the simple reality is that IPv4 will soon be much less important than having >> an IPv6 deployment and I believe that the community would be better served >> by aggressively implementing IPv6 than by handwringing over the mechanism by >> which the limited IPv4 free pool is drained. > > While you keep saying this you did not say some importants facts like > (1) Ipv4 needed during transition (2) 98% of internet still on ipv4 > despite that you think ipv4 is not anymore important (3) the develope > or 1st world economy (USA include) have not adopt ipv6. I wonder why? 1. At this point, there are few dependencies on IPv4 for transition. There are dependencies on IPv4 for maintaining connectivity to content which has not yet adopted IPv6. 2. Depending on how you measure this, one could argue that much closer to 100% of the internet remains on IPv4. However, that?s irrelevant, as all dual stacked hosts are ?still on IPv4?. The fraction of the internet that is not yet on IPv6 or does not yet have IPv6 service available is much smaller. It?s actually closer to 60% at this point. The fraction of major content providers that have not yet deployed IPv6 is approximately 84%. (You can see this for yourself at http://ww.delong.com/ipv6_alexa500.html which is updated daily at 0000 UTC). 3. Actually Comcast (the largest residential ISP in the US) has made IPv6 available to the vast majority of their residential users. Google, Facebook, Youtube, Yahoo, LinkedIn, Netflix, and many others have made their content available on IPv6. The first world has significantly deployed IPv6 and more is being deployed every day. At the present rate of IPv4 and IPv6 growth, there will be more internet users on IPv6 than on IPv4 in approximately 1.5 years. This assumes that the current IPv4 growth rate is sustainable (it isn?t) and that the IPv6 rate remains constant (it actually appears to be accelerating). If IPv4 does not maintain its growth rate and IPv6 continues to accelerate, likely that will be somewhere more like mid-2015. > What I try to say here is ipv4 is still very important and please dont > discourage developing economy from levereaging so far its pool larger > than rest of the world because it seem that internet may still run on > Ipv4 for long time. You?re welcome to leverage whatever you wish. However, I point out to you that your IPv4 inventory has a pretty limited shelf life at this point. I never said it was not important today. I said it would soon be much less important than it is today and I will stand by that statement. I do not believe for one second that the internet can actually run on IPv4 for a long time by any definition of long time > 5 years. It simply isn?t sustainable due to a number of constraints which include routing table size, churn rates, routing engine capabilities, TCAM limitations, and the utter destruction of capabilities that comes with NAT and is exacerbated by CGN, not to mention the security nightmare that is created by CGN in addition to the interesting denial of service nature of the intersection of IP reputation systems (widely used at the present time to make IPv4 usable) and CGN. Owen From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com Fri Sep 26 14:43:53 2014 From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji) Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2014 15:43:53 +0100 Subject: [rpd] New proposal - "Mandatory requirements for registering assignments and sub-allocations" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-003-DRAFT-01) Message-ID: Dear members, We have received a new policy Proposal - "Mandatory requirements for registering assignments and sub-allocations" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-003-DRAFT-01) Draft Policy name: Mandatory requirements for registering assignments and sub-allocations Unique identifier: AFPUB-2014-GEN-003-DRAFT-01 Status: New Submission Date: September 22, 2014 Author: Jean Robert Hountomey URL: http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposals/1215-mandatory-requirements-for-registering-assignments-and-sub-allocations Short url: http://goo.gl/vOJIrN Text Below: 1.Summary of the Problem Being Addressed by this Policy Proposal The AFRINIC IPv4 Allocation policy - AFPUB-2005-v4-001 (1) guides the responsible management of unique IPv4 address space in the AFRINIC region. The document was implemented in May 17, 2006. In a document called ?Creating Customer Assignments? (2) last Updated on Monday, 02 September 2013, AFRINIC has detailed the process of registering LIR network infrastructure and customer IP address assignments in the AFRINIC whois database. While the two documents are still applicable, the AFRINIC community has questioned at several occasions AFRINIC?s allocations. In addition few, AFRINIC Resource Members (3) have not registered their assignments in the AFRINIC database. 2.Summary of How this Proposal Addresses the Problem This document merges the AFRINIC IPv4 Allocation policy and Creating Customer Assignments by introducing a section (section 9.7) into AFRINIC IPV4 Allocation Policy. In addition, the document makes mandatory the registration of all allocations and assignments in the AFRINIC database. Furthermore, the document gives the authority to AFRINIC staff to conduct any process after approbation by the community to reclaim resources from unregistered assignments / allocations / sub-allocation since they are considered invalid. 3. Proposal 3.1. Modification of section (8b) of the AFRINIC IPV4 Allocation policy by replacing ?will be? by ?must be". a. All communication with AFRINIC must be in English. b. All allocations and assignments must be registered in an AFRINIC database. Any unregistered assignments / allocations / sub-allocation will be considered invalid. The registration data (name, IP block/range, contacts, status, etc..) must be correct at all times. This is necessary to support network operations. 3.2 The proposal adds section (9.7) ? ?Mandatory Requirement for registering assignments? to AFRINIC IPV4 Allocation Policy. Assignment registration is important for several reasons: -To inform the Internet community which organization is using the IPv4 address space, including the point of contact in case of operation problems, security -To ensure that the Resource Member has completed or is close to completing address space allocation such that the allocation of additional space is justified -Assignment Registration also helps AFRINIC in analyzing additional IPV4 block request made by a Resource Member in an open transparent process -Assignments must include the following mandatory attributes regarding the assignee: inetnum, net name, descr, country, admin-c, tech-c, org and any other mandatory information required as defined by an AFRINIC policy. 3.2.1 Size of block and timeframe All IP block assignments equal or larger than a /29 made by an AFRINIC Resource Member for its own network or customer must be registered and documented in AFRINIC Whois database no later than seven (7) business days after the assignment. 3.2.2 Residential Customers When the assignment is for residential customers, the address blocks that are being used by equipment or customer service areas, by service must be registered (dialup access server, DSLAM/DSL access Server, WIFI Access Point, WIMAX Cell, Cloud infrastructure etc..) The Resource Member must specify in the AFRINIC whois database that the block is used for Residential Customers (netname, desc) 3.3.3 Confidentiality. It is understandable that for business requirement and customer information protection the Resource Member might be reluctant to provide these information in the public database. The information must be provided to AFRINIC for audit purpose under confidential agreement. The Resources assigned must still be registered in AFRINIC Whois database with the following exception: -netname and descr must describe the usage of the block -all other information can be the same as the Ressource Member's information with the understanding that he is liable for any issue related to the IP Block. 4.References: (1) IPv4 Allocation Policy (Assignment Policies and Guidelines) http://AFRINIC.net/en/library/policies/126-policy-ipv4-address-allocation-policies (2) Creating Customer Assignments http://www.AFRINIC.net/en/library/membership-documents/214-creating-customer-assignments (3) Definition of AFRINIC Resource Member http://www.AFRINIC.net/en/services/rs *Useful urls:* Policy under discussion: http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposals Policy proposals: http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposals About the policy development process: http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/pdwg Regards --- Seun Ojedeji & Adam Nelson PDWG Co-Chairs -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dogwallah at gmail.com Fri Sep 26 14:58:31 2014 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2014 09:58:31 -0500 Subject: [rpd] New proposal - "Mandatory requirements for registering assignments and sub-allocations" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-003-DRAFT-01) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I support this proposal. On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 9:43 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: > Dear members, > > We have received a new policy Proposal - "Mandatory requirements for > registering assignments and sub-allocations" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-003-DRAFT-01) > > Draft Policy name: Mandatory requirements for registering assignments and > sub-allocations > Unique identifier: AFPUB-2014-GEN-003-DRAFT-01 > Status: New > Submission Date: September 22, 2014 > Author: Jean Robert Hountomey > URL: > http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposals/1215-mandatory-requirements-for-registering-assignments-and-sub-allocations > Short url: http://goo.gl/vOJIrN > > Text Below: > > 1.Summary of the Problem Being Addressed by this Policy Proposal > > The AFRINIC IPv4 Allocation policy - AFPUB-2005-v4-001 (1) guides the > responsible management of unique IPv4 address space in the AFRINIC region. > The document was implemented in May 17, 2006. > > In a document called ?Creating Customer Assignments? (2) last Updated on > Monday, 02 September 2013, AFRINIC has detailed the process of registering > LIR network infrastructure and customer IP address assignments in the > AFRINIC whois database. While the two documents are still applicable, the > AFRINIC community has questioned at several occasions AFRINIC?s allocations. > In addition few, AFRINIC Resource Members (3) have not registered their > assignments in the AFRINIC database. > > 2.Summary of How this Proposal Addresses the Problem > > This document merges the AFRINIC IPv4 Allocation policy and Creating > Customer Assignments by introducing a section (section 9.7) into AFRINIC > IPV4 Allocation Policy. In addition, the document makes mandatory the > registration of all allocations and assignments in the AFRINIC database. > Furthermore, the document gives the authority to AFRINIC staff to conduct > any process after approbation by the community to reclaim resources from > unregistered assignments / allocations / sub-allocation since they are > considered invalid. > 3. Proposal > > 3.1. Modification of section (8b) of the AFRINIC IPV4 Allocation policy by > replacing ?will be? by ?must be". > > a. All communication with AFRINIC must be in English. > b. All allocations and assignments must be registered in an AFRINIC > database. Any unregistered assignments / allocations / sub-allocation will > be considered invalid. > > The registration data (name, IP block/range, contacts, status, etc..) must > be correct at all times. This is necessary to support network operations. > > 3.2 The proposal adds section (9.7) ? ?Mandatory Requirement for registering > assignments? to AFRINIC IPV4 Allocation Policy. > > Assignment registration is important for several reasons: > > -To inform the Internet community which organization is using the IPv4 > address space, including the point of contact in case of operation problems, > security > > -To ensure that the Resource Member has completed or is close to completing > address space allocation such that the allocation of additional space is > justified > > -Assignment Registration also helps AFRINIC in analyzing additional IPV4 > block request made by a Resource Member in an open transparent process > > -Assignments must include the following mandatory attributes regarding the > assignee: inetnum, net name, descr, country, admin-c, tech-c, org > > and any other mandatory information required as defined by an AFRINIC > policy. > > 3.2.1 Size of block and timeframe > > All IP block assignments equal or larger than a /29 made by an AFRINIC > Resource Member for its own network or customer must be registered and > documented in AFRINIC Whois database no later than seven (7) business days > after the assignment. > > 3.2.2 Residential Customers > > When the assignment is for residential customers, the address blocks that > are being used by equipment or customer service areas, by service must be > registered (dialup access server, DSLAM/DSL access Server, WIFI Access > Point, WIMAX Cell, Cloud infrastructure etc..) The Resource Member must > specify in the AFRINIC whois database that the block is used for Residential > Customers (netname, desc) > > 3.3.3 Confidentiality. > > It is understandable that for business requirement and customer information > protection the Resource Member might be reluctant to provide these > information in the public database. The information must be provided to > AFRINIC for audit purpose under confidential agreement. > > The Resources assigned must still be registered in AFRINIC Whois database > with the following exception: > > -netname and descr must describe the usage of the block > -all other information can be the same as the Ressource Member's information > with the understanding that he is liable for any issue related to the IP > Block. > > 4.References: > > (1) IPv4 Allocation Policy (Assignment Policies and Guidelines) > http://AFRINIC.net/en/library/policies/126-policy-ipv4-address-allocation-policies > > (2) Creating Customer Assignments > http://www.AFRINIC.net/en/library/membership-documents/214-creating-customer-assignments > > (3) Definition of AFRINIC Resource Member > http://www.AFRINIC.net/en/services/rs > > Useful urls: > Policy under discussion: > http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposals > Policy proposals: > http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposals > About the policy development process: > http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/pdwg > > Regards > --- > Seun Ojedeji & Adam Nelson > PDWG Co-Chairs > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel From paulos at sdnp.org.mw Fri Sep 26 16:14:56 2014 From: paulos at sdnp.org.mw (Dr Paulos Nyirenda) Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2014 18:14:56 +0200 Subject: [rpd] New proposal - "Mandatory requirements for registering assignments and sub-allocations" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-003-DRAFT-01) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <54259100.16256.1F32FCF@paulos.sdnp.org.mw> Seun, While I am still considering the proposal, I would like to comment on the process for this policy proposal. Normally, a proposal that ammends a policy like this has produced a full version of the ammended policy and not just a list of the ammendments as has been done here. The full version of the policy then replaces the previous version or as the saying goes "obsoletes" the previous version in a tracked histrory. This allows the ammendments to be considered in the context of the whole policy and not just bits of it like this. So, in this case I think the way forward would be to ask the author to insert the ammendments and to produce the full ammended version of AFPUB-2005-v4-001 which is what should be presented to RPD for discussion. The list of ammendments can be put in the problem section of the new proposal or however the author wants it done with the guidance of the co-chairs BUT it is the full policy that should be discussed on RPD and not just the ammendments like this. I am open to correction on the process but at least that is the way I recall its use. Regards, Paulos ====================== Dr Paulos B Nyirenda NIC.MW & .mw ccTLD http://www.registrar.mw On 26 Sep 2014 at 15:43, Seun Ojedeji wrote: > > Dear members, > > We have received a new policy Proposal - "Mandatory requirements for > registering assignments and sub-allocations" > (AFPUB-2014-GEN-003-DRAFT-01) > > Draft Policy name: Mandatory requirements for registering assignments > and sub-allocations Unique identifier: AFPUB-2014-GEN-003-DRAFT-01 > Status: New Submission Date: September 22, 2014 Author: Jean Robert > Hountomey URL: > http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposal > s/1215-mandatory-require > ments-for-registering-assignments-and-sub-allocations Short url: > http://goo.gl/vOJIrN > > Text Below: > > 1.Summary of the Problem Being Addressed by this Policy Proposal > > The AFRINIC IPv4 Allocation policy - AFPUB-2005-v4-001 (1) guides the > responsible management of unique IPv4 address space in the AFRINIC > region. The document was implemented in May 17, 2006. > > In a document called "Creating Customer Assignments" (2) last Updated > on Monday, 02 September 2013, AFRINIC has detailed the process of > registering LIR network infrastructure and customer IP address > assignments in the AFRINIC whois database. While the two documents are > still applicable, the AFRINIC community has questioned at several > occasions AFRINIC's allocations. In addition few, AFRINIC Resource > Members (3) have not registered their assignments in the AFRINIC > database. > > 2.Summary of How this Proposal Addresses the Problem > > This document merges the AFRINIC IPv4 Allocation policy and Creating > Customer Assignments by introducing a section (section 9.7) into > AFRINIC IPV4 Allocation Policy. In addition, the document makes > mandatory the registration of all allocations and assignments in the > AFRINIC database. Furthermore, the document gives the authority to > AFRINIC staff to conduct any process after approbation by the > community to reclaim resources from unregistered assignments / > allocations / sub-allocation since they are considered invalid. 3. > Proposal > > 3.1. Modification of section (8b) of the AFRINIC IPV4 Allocation > policy by replacing "will be" by "must be". > > a. All communication with AFRINIC must be in English. > b. All allocations and assignments must be registered in an AFRINIC > database. Any unregistered assignments / allocations / sub-allocation > will be considered invalid. > > The registration data (name, IP block/range, contacts, status, etc..) > must be correct at all times. This is necessary to support network > operations. > > 3.2 The proposal adds section (9.7) - "Mandatory Requirement for > registering assignments" to AFRINIC IPV4 Allocation Policy. > > Assignment registration is important for several reasons: > > -To inform the Internet community which organization is using the IPv4 > address space, including the point of contact in case of operation > problems, security > > -To ensure that the Resource Member has completed or is close to > completing address space allocation such that the allocation of > additional space is justified > > -Assignment Registration also helps AFRINIC in analyzing additional > IPV4 block request made by a Resource Member in an open transparent > process > > -Assignments must include the following mandatory attributes regarding > the assignee: inetnum, net name, descr, country, admin-c, tech-c, org > > and any other mandatory information required as defined by an AFRINIC > policy. > > 3.2.1 Size of block and timeframe > > All IP block assignments equal or larger than a /29 made by an AFRINIC > Resource Member for its own network or customer must be registered and > documented in AFRINIC Whois database no later than seven (7) business > days after the assignment. > > 3.2.2 Residential Customers > > When the assignment is for residential customers, the address blocks > that are being used by equipment or customer service areas, by service > must be registered (dialup access server, DSLAM/DSL access Server, > WIFI Access Point, WIMAX Cell, Cloud infrastructure etc..) The > Resource Member must specify in the AFRINIC whois database that the > block is used for Residential Customers (netname, desc) > > 3.3.3 Confidentiality. > > It is understandable that for business requirement and customer > information protection the Resource Member might be reluctant to > provide these information in the public database. The information must > be provided to AFRINIC for audit purpose under confidential agreement. > > The Resources assigned must still be registered in AFRINIC Whois > database with the following exception: > > -netname and descr must describe the usage of the block > -all other information can be the same as the Ressource Member's > information with the understanding that he is liable for any issue > related to the IP Block. > > 4.References: > > (1) IPv4 Allocation Policy (Assignment Policies and Guidelines) > http://AFRINIC.net/en/library/policies/126-policy-ipv4-address-allocat > ion-policies > > (2) Creating Customer Assignments > http://www.AFRINIC.net/en/library/membership-documents/214-creating-cu > stomer-assignments > > (3) Definition of AFRINIC Resource Member > http://www.AFRINIC.net/en/services/rs > > Useful urls: > Policy under discussion: > http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposal > s Policy proposals: > http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposal > s About the policy development process: > http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/pdwg > > Regards > --- > Seun Ojedeji & Adam Nelson > PDWG Co-Chairs -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jrhountomey at gmail.com Sat Sep 27 00:03:36 2014 From: jrhountomey at gmail.com (Jean Robert Hountomey) Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2014 19:03:36 -0500 Subject: [rpd] New proposal - "Mandatory requirements for registering assignments and sub-allocations" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-003-DRAFT-01) In-Reply-To: <54259100.16256.1F32FCF@paulos.sdnp.org.mw> References: <54259100.16256.1F32FCF@paulos.sdnp.org.mw> Message-ID: <5425FED8.2050400@gmail.com> Thank you Dr Paulos, I will submit the new version. Best Regards. Jean Robert. On 9/26/14, 11:14 AM, Dr Paulos Nyirenda wrote: > > Seun, > > While I am still considering the proposal, I would like to comment on > the process for this policy proposal. > > Normally, a proposal that ammends a policy like this has produced a > full version of the ammended policy and not just a list of the > ammendments as has been done here. The full version of the policy then > replaces the previous version or as the saying goes "obsoletes" the > previous version in a tracked histrory. This allows the ammendments to > be considered in the context of the whole policy and not just bits of > it like this. > > So, in this case I think the way forward would be to ask the author to > insert the ammendments and to produce the full ammended version of > AFPUB-2005-v4-001 which is what should be presented to RPD for discussion. > > The list of ammendments can be put in the problem section of the new > proposal or however the author wants it done with the guidance of the > co-chairs BUT it is the full policy that should be discussed on RPD > and not just the ammendments like this. > > I am open to correction on the process but at least that is the way I > recall its use. > > Regards, > > Paulos > ====================== > Dr Paulos B Nyirenda > NIC.MW & .mw ccTLD > http://www.registrar.mw > > > On 26 Sep 2014 at 15:43, Seun Ojedeji wrote: > > > > > Dear members, > > > > We have received a new policy Proposal - "Mandatory requirements for > > registering assignments and sub-allocations" > > (AFPUB-2014-GEN-003-DRAFT-01) > > > > Draft Policy name: Mandatory requirements for registering assignments > > and sub-allocations Unique identifier: AFPUB-2014-GEN-003-DRAFT-01 > > Status: New Submission Date: September 22, 2014 Author: Jean Robert > > Hountomey URL: > > http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposal > > s/1215-mandatory-require > > ments-for-registering-assignments-and-sub-allocations Short url: > > http://goo.gl/vOJIrN > > > > Text Below: > > > > 1.Summary of the Problem Being Addressed by this Policy Proposal > > > > The AFRINIC IPv4 Allocation policy - AFPUB-2005-v4-001 (1) guides the > > responsible management of unique IPv4 address space in the AFRINIC > > region. The document was implemented in May 17, 2006. > > > > In a document called "Creating Customer Assignments" (2) last Updated > > on Monday, 02 September 2013, AFRINIC has detailed the process of > > registering LIR network infrastructure and customer IP address > > assignments in the AFRINIC whois database. While the two documents are > > still applicable, the AFRINIC community has questioned at several > > occasions AFRINIC's allocations. In addition few, AFRINIC Resource > > Members (3) have not registered their assignments in the AFRINIC > > database. > > > > 2.Summary of How this Proposal Addresses the Problem > > > > This document merges the AFRINIC IPv4 Allocation policy and Creating > > Customer Assignments by introducing a section (section 9.7) into > > AFRINIC IPV4 Allocation Policy. In addition, the document makes > > mandatory the registration of all allocations and assignments in the > > AFRINIC database. Furthermore, the document gives the authority to > > AFRINIC staff to conduct any process after approbation by the > > community to reclaim resources from unregistered assignments / > > allocations / sub-allocation since they are considered invalid. 3. > > Proposal > > > > 3.1. Modification of section (8b) of the AFRINIC IPV4 Allocation > > policy by replacing "will be" by "must be". > > > > a. All communication with AFRINIC must be in English. > > b. All allocations and assignments must be registered in an AFRINIC > > database. Any unregistered assignments / allocations / sub-allocation > > will be considered invalid. > > > > The registration data (name, IP block/range, contacts, status, etc..) > > must be correct at all times. This is necessary to support network > > operations. > > > > 3.2 The proposal adds section (9.7) - "Mandatory Requirement for > > registering assignments" to AFRINIC IPV4 Allocation Policy. > > > > Assignment registration is important for several reasons: > > > > -To inform the Internet community which organization is using the IPv4 > > address space, including the point of contact in case of operation > > problems, security > > > > -To ensure that the Resource Member has completed or is close to > > completing address space allocation such that the allocation of > > additional space is justified > > > > -Assignment Registration also helps AFRINIC in analyzing additional > > IPV4 block request made by a Resource Member in an open transparent > > process > > > > -Assignments must include the following mandatory attributes regarding > > the assignee: inetnum, net name, descr, country, admin-c, tech-c, org > > > > and any other mandatory information required as defined by an AFRINIC > > policy. > > > > 3.2.1 Size of block and timeframe > > > > All IP block assignments equal or larger than a /29 made by an AFRINIC > > Resource Member for its own network or customer must be registered and > > documented in AFRINIC Whois database no later than seven (7) business > > days after the assignment. > > > > 3.2.2 Residential Customers > > > > When the assignment is for residential customers, the address blocks > > that are being used by equipment or customer service areas, by service > > must be registered (dialup access server, DSLAM/DSL access Server, > > WIFI Access Point, WIMAX Cell, Cloud infrastructure etc..) The > > Resource Member must specify in the AFRINIC whois database that the > > block is used for Residential Customers (netname, desc) > > > > 3.3.3 Confidentiality. > > > > It is understandable that for business requirement and customer > > information protection the Resource Member might be reluctant to > > provide these information in the public database. The information must > > be provided to AFRINIC for audit purpose under confidential agreement. > > > > The Resources assigned must still be registered in AFRINIC Whois > > database with the following exception: > > > > -netname and descr must describe the usage of the block > > -all other information can be the same as the Ressource Member's > > information with the understanding that he is liable for any issue > > related to the IP Block. > > > > 4.References: > > > > (1) IPv4 Allocation Policy (Assignment Policies and Guidelines) > > http://AFRINIC.net/en/library/policies/126-policy-ipv4-address-allocat > > ion-policies > > > > (2) Creating Customer Assignments > > http://www.AFRINIC.net/en/library/membership-documents/214-creating-cu > > stomer-assignments > > > > (3) Definition of AFRINIC Resource Member > > http://www.AFRINIC.net/en/services/rs > > > > Useful urls: > > Policy under discussion: > > http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposal > > s Policy proposals: > > http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposal > > s About the policy development process: > > http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/pdwg > > > > Regards > > --- > > Seun Ojedeji & Adam Nelson > > PDWG Co-Chairs > > > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akeem at futa.edu.ng Sat Sep 27 06:22:36 2014 From: akeem at futa.edu.ng (Akeem MUFUTAU) Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2014 06:22:36 +0000 Subject: [rpd] RE: rpd Digest, Vol 96, Issue 37 In-Reply-To: <201409261616.s8QGGVD4021321@mail.afrinic.net> References: <201409261616.s8QGGVD4021321@mail.afrinic.net> Message-ID: <13f22cc21daf4af9aae2addbfb0e8b4a@AMSPR03MB241.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com> This seems to be okay, but we may need to reconsider the clause in 3.1 a ". All communication with AFRINIC must be in English." for the sake of our francophone colleagues. I think this clause should be made less heavy to enhance their participation Thanks Sent from my Windows Phone ________________________________ From: rpd-request at afrinic.net Sent: 26-Sep-14 5:18 PM To: rpd at afrinic.net Subject: rpd Digest, Vol 96, Issue 37 Send rpd mailing list submissions to rpd at afrinic.net To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to rpd-request at afrinic.net You can reach the person managing the list at rpd-owner at afrinic.net When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of rpd digest..." Today's Topics: 1. New proposal - "Mandatory requirements for registering assignments and sub-allocations" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-003-DRAFT-01) (Seun Ojedeji) 2. Re: New proposal - "Mandatory requirements for registering assignments and sub-allocations" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-003-DRAFT-01) (McTim) 3. Re: New proposal - "Mandatory requirements for registering assignments and sub-allocations" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-003-DRAFT-01) (Dr Paulos Nyirenda) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2014 15:43:53 +0100 From: Seun Ojedeji Subject: [rpd] New proposal - "Mandatory requirements for registering assignments and sub-allocations" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-003-DRAFT-01) To: rpd Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Dear members, We have received a new policy Proposal - "Mandatory requirements for registering assignments and sub-allocations" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-003-DRAFT-01) Draft Policy name: Mandatory requirements for registering assignments and sub-allocations Unique identifier: AFPUB-2014-GEN-003-DRAFT-01 Status: New Submission Date: September 22, 2014 Author: Jean Robert Hountomey URL: http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposals/1215-mandatory-requirements-for-registering-assignments-and-sub-allocations Short url: http://goo.gl/vOJIrN Text Below: 1.Summary of the Problem Being Addressed by this Policy Proposal The AFRINIC IPv4 Allocation policy - AFPUB-2005-v4-001 (1) guides the responsible management of unique IPv4 address space in the AFRINIC region. The document was implemented in May 17, 2006. In a document called ?Creating Customer Assignments? (2) last Updated on Monday, 02 September 2013, AFRINIC has detailed the process of registering LIR network infrastructure and customer IP address assignments in the AFRINIC whois database. While the two documents are still applicable, the AFRINIC community has questioned at several occasions AFRINIC?s allocations. In addition few, AFRINIC Resource Members (3) have not registered their assignments in the AFRINIC database. 2.Summary of How this Proposal Addresses the Problem This document merges the AFRINIC IPv4 Allocation policy and Creating Customer Assignments by introducing a section (section 9.7) into AFRINIC IPV4 Allocation Policy. In addition, the document makes mandatory the registration of all allocations and assignments in the AFRINIC database. Furthermore, the document gives the authority to AFRINIC staff to conduct any process after approbation by the community to reclaim resources from unregistered assignments / allocations / sub-allocation since they are considered invalid. 3. Proposal 3.1. Modification of section (8b) of the AFRINIC IPV4 Allocation policy by replacing ?will be? by ?must be". a. All communication with AFRINIC must be in English. b. All allocations and assignments must be registered in an AFRINIC database. Any unregistered assignments / allocations / sub-allocation will be considered invalid. The registration data (name, IP block/range, contacts, status, etc..) must be correct at all times. This is necessary to support network operations. 3.2 The proposal adds section (9.7) ? ?Mandatory Requirement for registering assignments? to AFRINIC IPV4 Allocation Policy. Assignment registration is important for several reasons: -To inform the Internet community which organization is using the IPv4 address space, including the point of contact in case of operation problems, security -To ensure that the Resource Member has completed or is close to completing address space allocation such that the allocation of additional space is justified -Assignment Registration also helps AFRINIC in analyzing additional IPV4 block request made by a Resource Member in an open transparent process -Assignments must include the following mandatory attributes regarding the assignee: inetnum, net name, descr, country, admin-c, tech-c, org and any other mandatory information required as defined by an AFRINIC policy. 3.2.1 Size of block and timeframe All IP block assignments equal or larger than a /29 made by an AFRINIC Resource Member for its own network or customer must be registered and documented in AFRINIC Whois database no later than seven (7) business days after the assignment. 3.2.2 Residential Customers When the assignment is for residential customers, the address blocks that are being used by equipment or customer service areas, by service must be registered (dialup access server, DSLAM/DSL access Server, WIFI Access Point, WIMAX Cell, Cloud infrastructure etc..) The Resource Member must specify in the AFRINIC whois database that the block is used for Residential Customers (netname, desc) 3.3.3 Confidentiality. It is understandable that for business requirement and customer information protection the Resource Member might be reluctant to provide these information in the public database. The information must be provided to AFRINIC for audit purpose under confidential agreement. The Resources assigned must still be registered in AFRINIC Whois database with the following exception: -netname and descr must describe the usage of the block -all other information can be the same as the Ressource Member's information with the understanding that he is liable for any issue related to the IP Block. 4.References: (1) IPv4 Allocation Policy (Assignment Policies and Guidelines) http://AFRINIC.net/en/library/policies/126-policy-ipv4-address-allocation-policies (2) Creating Customer Assignments http://www.AFRINIC.net/en/library/membership-documents/214-creating-customer-assignments (3) Definition of AFRINIC Resource Member http://www.AFRINIC.net/en/services/rs *Useful urls:* Policy under discussion: http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposals Policy proposals: http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposals About the policy development process: http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/pdwg Regards --- Seun Ojedeji & Adam Nelson PDWG Co-Chairs -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20140926/6c7760b6/attachment-0001.htm ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2014 09:58:31 -0500 From: McTim Subject: Re: [rpd] New proposal - "Mandatory requirements for registering assignments and sub-allocations" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-003-DRAFT-01) To: Seun Ojedeji Cc: rpd Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 I support this proposal. On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 9:43 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: > Dear members, > > We have received a new policy Proposal - "Mandatory requirements for > registering assignments and sub-allocations" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-003-DRAFT-01) > > Draft Policy name: Mandatory requirements for registering assignments and > sub-allocations > Unique identifier: AFPUB-2014-GEN-003-DRAFT-01 > Status: New > Submission Date: September 22, 2014 > Author: Jean Robert Hountomey > URL: > http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposals/1215-mandatory-requirements-for-registering-assignments-and-sub-allocations > Short url: http://goo.gl/vOJIrN > > Text Below: > > 1.Summary of the Problem Being Addressed by this Policy Proposal > > The AFRINIC IPv4 Allocation policy - AFPUB-2005-v4-001 (1) guides the > responsible management of unique IPv4 address space in the AFRINIC region. > The document was implemented in May 17, 2006. > > In a document called ?Creating Customer Assignments? (2) last Updated on > Monday, 02 September 2013, AFRINIC has detailed the process of registering > LIR network infrastructure and customer IP address assignments in the > AFRINIC whois database. While the two documents are still applicable, the > AFRINIC community has questioned at several occasions AFRINIC?s allocations. > In addition few, AFRINIC Resource Members (3) have not registered their > assignments in the AFRINIC database. > > 2.Summary of How this Proposal Addresses the Problem > > This document merges the AFRINIC IPv4 Allocation policy and Creating > Customer Assignments by introducing a section (section 9.7) into AFRINIC > IPV4 Allocation Policy. In addition, the document makes mandatory the > registration of all allocations and assignments in the AFRINIC database. > Furthermore, the document gives the authority to AFRINIC staff to conduct > any process after approbation by the community to reclaim resources from > unregistered assignments / allocations / sub-allocation since they are > considered invalid. > 3. Proposal > > 3.1. Modification of section (8b) of the AFRINIC IPV4 Allocation policy by > replacing ?will be? by ?must be". > > a. All communication with AFRINIC must be in English. > b. All allocations and assignments must be registered in an AFRINIC > database. Any unregistered assignments / allocations / sub-allocation will > be considered invalid. > > The registration data (name, IP block/range, contacts, status, etc..) must > be correct at all times. This is necessary to support network operations. > > 3.2 The proposal adds section (9.7) ? ?Mandatory Requirement for registering > assignments? to AFRINIC IPV4 Allocation Policy. > > Assignment registration is important for several reasons: > > -To inform the Internet community which organization is using the IPv4 > address space, including the point of contact in case of operation problems, > security > > -To ensure that the Resource Member has completed or is close to completing > address space allocation such that the allocation of additional space is > justified > > -Assignment Registration also helps AFRINIC in analyzing additional IPV4 > block request made by a Resource Member in an open transparent process > > -Assignments must include the following mandatory attributes regarding the > assignee: inetnum, net name, descr, country, admin-c, tech-c, org > > and any other mandatory information required as defined by an AFRINIC > policy. > > 3.2.1 Size of block and timeframe > > All IP block assignments equal or larger than a /29 made by an AFRINIC > Resource Member for its own network or customer must be registered and > documented in AFRINIC Whois database no later than seven (7) business days > after the assignment. > > 3.2.2 Residential Customers > > When the assignment is for residential customers, the address blocks that > are being used by equipment or customer service areas, by service must be > registered (dialup access server, DSLAM/DSL access Server, WIFI Access > Point, WIMAX Cell, Cloud infrastructure etc..) The Resource Member must > specify in the AFRINIC whois database that the block is used for Residential > Customers (netname, desc) > > 3.3.3 Confidentiality. > > It is understandable that for business requirement and customer information > protection the Resource Member might be reluctant to provide these > information in the public database. The information must be provided to > AFRINIC for audit purpose under confidential agreement. > > The Resources assigned must still be registered in AFRINIC Whois database > with the following exception: > > -netname and descr must describe the usage of the block > -all other information can be the same as the Ressource Member's information > with the understanding that he is liable for any issue related to the IP > Block. > > 4.References: > > (1) IPv4 Allocation Policy (Assignment Policies and Guidelines) > http://AFRINIC.net/en/library/policies/126-policy-ipv4-address-allocation-policies > > (2) Creating Customer Assignments > http://www.AFRINIC.net/en/library/membership-documents/214-creating-customer-assignments > > (3) Definition of AFRINIC Resource Member > http://www.AFRINIC.net/en/services/rs > > Useful urls: > Policy under discussion: > http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposals > Policy proposals: > http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposals > About the policy development process: > http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/pdwg > > Regards > --- > Seun Ojedeji & Adam Nelson > PDWG Co-Chairs > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2014 18:14:56 +0200 From: "Dr Paulos Nyirenda" Subject: Re: [rpd] New proposal - "Mandatory requirements for registering assignments and sub-allocations" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-003-DRAFT-01) To: Seun Ojedeji , rpd Message-ID: <54259100.16256.1F32FCF at paulos.sdnp.org.mw> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Seun, While I am still considering the proposal, I would like to comment on the process for this policy proposal. Normally, a proposal that ammends a policy like this has produced a full version of the ammended policy and not just a list of the ammendments as has been done here. The full version of the policy then replaces the previous version or as the saying goes "obsoletes" the previous version in a tracked histrory. This allows the ammendments to be considered in the context of the whole policy and not just bits of it like this. So, in this case I think the way forward would be to ask the author to insert the ammendments and to produce the full ammended version of AFPUB-2005-v4-001 which is what should be presented to RPD for discussion. The list of ammendments can be put in the problem section of the new proposal or however the author wants it done with the guidance of the co-chairs BUT it is the full policy that should be discussed on RPD and not just the ammendments like this. I am open to correction on the process but at least that is the way I recall its use. Regards, Paulos ====================== Dr Paulos B Nyirenda NIC.MW & .mw ccTLD http://www.registrar.mw On 26 Sep 2014 at 15:43, Seun Ojedeji wrote: > > Dear members, > > We have received a new policy Proposal - "Mandatory requirements for > registering assignments and sub-allocations" > (AFPUB-2014-GEN-003-DRAFT-01) > > Draft Policy name: Mandatory requirements for registering assignments > and sub-allocations Unique identifier: AFPUB-2014-GEN-003-DRAFT-01 > Status: New Submission Date: September 22, 2014 Author: Jean Robert > Hountomey URL: > http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposal > s/1215-mandatory-require > ments-for-registering-assignments-and-sub-allocations Short url: > http://goo.gl/vOJIrN > > Text Below: > > 1.Summary of the Problem Being Addressed by this Policy Proposal > > The AFRINIC IPv4 Allocation policy - AFPUB-2005-v4-001 (1) guides the > responsible management of unique IPv4 address space in the AFRINIC > region. The document was implemented in May 17, 2006. > > In a document called "Creating Customer Assignments" (2) last Updated > on Monday, 02 September 2013, AFRINIC has detailed the process of > registering LIR network infrastructure and customer IP address > assignments in the AFRINIC whois database. While the two documents are > still applicable, the AFRINIC community has questioned at several > occasions AFRINIC's allocations. In addition few, AFRINIC Resource > Members (3) have not registered their assignments in the AFRINIC > database. > > 2.Summary of How this Proposal Addresses the Problem > > This document merges the AFRINIC IPv4 Allocation policy and Creating > Customer Assignments by introducing a section (section 9.7) into > AFRINIC IPV4 Allocation Policy. In addition, the document makes > mandatory the registration of all allocations and assignments in the > AFRINIC database. Furthermore, the document gives the authority to > AFRINIC staff to conduct any process after approbation by the > community to reclaim resources from unregistered assignments / > allocations / sub-allocation since they are considered invalid. 3. > Proposal > > 3.1. Modification of section (8b) of the AFRINIC IPV4 Allocation > policy by replacing "will be" by "must be". > > a. All communication with AFRINIC must be in English. > b. All allocations and assignments must be registered in an AFRINIC > database. Any unregistered assignments / allocations / sub-allocation > will be considered invalid. > > The registration data (name, IP block/range, contacts, status, etc..) > must be correct at all times. This is necessary to support network > operations. > > 3.2 The proposal adds section (9.7) - "Mandatory Requirement for > registering assignments" to AFRINIC IPV4 Allocation Policy. > > Assignment registration is important for several reasons: > > -To inform the Internet community which organization is using the IPv4 > address space, including the point of contact in case of operation > problems, security > > -To ensure that the Resource Member has completed or is close to > completing address space allocation such that the allocation of > additional space is justified > > -Assignment Registration also helps AFRINIC in analyzing additional > IPV4 block request made by a Resource Member in an open transparent > process > > -Assignments must include the following mandatory attributes regarding > the assignee: inetnum, net name, descr, country, admin-c, tech-c, org > > and any other mandatory information required as defined by an AFRINIC > policy. > > 3.2.1 Size of block and timeframe > > All IP block assignments equal or larger than a /29 made by an AFRINIC > Resource Member for its own network or customer must be registered and > documented in AFRINIC Whois database no later than seven (7) business > days after the assignment. > > 3.2.2 Residential Customers > > When the assignment is for residential customers, the address blocks > that are being used by equipment or customer service areas, by service > must be registered (dialup access server, DSLAM/DSL access Server, > WIFI Access Point, WIMAX Cell, Cloud infrastructure etc..) The > Resource Member must specify in the AFRINIC whois database that the > block is used for Residential Customers (netname, desc) > > 3.3.3 Confidentiality. > > It is understandable that for business requirement and customer > information protection the Resource Member might be reluctant to > provide these information in the public database. The information must > be provided to AFRINIC for audit purpose under confidential agreement. > > The Resources assigned must still be registered in AFRINIC Whois > database with the following exception: > > -netname and descr must describe the usage of the block > -all other information can be the same as the Ressource Member's > information with the understanding that he is liable for any issue > related to the IP Block. > > 4.References: > > (1) IPv4 Allocation Policy (Assignment Policies and Guidelines) > http://AFRINIC.net/en/library/policies/126-policy-ipv4-address-allocat > ion-policies > > (2) Creating Customer Assignments > http://www.AFRINIC.net/en/library/membership-documents/214-creating-cu > stomer-assignments > > (3) Definition of AFRINIC Resource Member > http://www.AFRINIC.net/en/services/rs > > Useful urls: > Policy under discussion: > http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposal > s Policy proposals: > http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposal > s About the policy development process: > http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/pdwg > > Regards > --- > Seun Ojedeji & Adam Nelson > PDWG Co-Chairs -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20140926/61c73724/attachment.htm ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ rpd mailing list rpd at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd End of rpd Digest, Vol 96, Issue 37 *********************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From geier at geier.ne.tz Sat Sep 27 06:52:43 2014 From: geier at geier.ne.tz (Frank Habicht) Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2014 09:52:43 +0300 Subject: [rpd] New proposal - "Mandatory requirements for registering assignments and sub-allocations" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-003-DRAFT-01) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <54265EBB.3020308@geier.ne.tz> Hi, I'm very sorry, but I couldn't read beyond the first sentence. Because it is too ironic. A customer got "Error! Could not update the Whois Database. Hostmaster has been notified. Syntax error in 20140926source: AFRINIC" just yesterday, when trying to register an assignment. Regards, Frank On 9/26/2014 5:43 PM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: > Dear members, > > We have received a new policy Proposal - "Mandatory requirements for > registering assignments and sub-allocations" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-003-DRAFT-01) > > Draft Policy name: Mandatory requirements for registering assignments and > sub-allocations > Unique identifier: AFPUB-2014-GEN-003-DRAFT-01 > Status: New > Submission Date: September 22, 2014 > Author: Jean Robert Hountomey > URL: > http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposals/1215-mandatory-requirements-for-registering-assignments-and-sub-allocations > Short url: http://goo.gl/vOJIrN > > Text Below: > > 1.Summary of the Problem Being Addressed by this Policy Proposal > > The AFRINIC IPv4 Allocation policy - AFPUB-2005-v4-001 (1) guides the > responsible management of unique IPv4 address space in the AFRINIC region. > The document was implemented in May 17, 2006. > > In a document called ?Creating Customer Assignments? (2) last Updated on > Monday, 02 September 2013, AFRINIC has detailed the process of registering > LIR network infrastructure and customer IP address assignments in the > AFRINIC whois database. While the two documents are still applicable, the > AFRINIC community has questioned at several occasions AFRINIC?s > allocations. In addition few, AFRINIC Resource Members (3) have not > registered their assignments in the AFRINIC database. > > 2.Summary of How this Proposal Addresses the Problem > > This document merges the AFRINIC IPv4 Allocation policy and Creating > Customer Assignments by introducing a section (section 9.7) into AFRINIC > IPV4 Allocation Policy. In addition, the document makes mandatory the > registration of all allocations and assignments in the AFRINIC database. > Furthermore, the document gives the authority to AFRINIC staff to conduct > any process after approbation by the community to reclaim resources from > unregistered assignments / allocations / sub-allocation since they are > considered invalid. > 3. Proposal > > 3.1. Modification of section (8b) of the AFRINIC IPV4 Allocation policy by > replacing ?will be? by ?must be". > > a. All communication with AFRINIC must be in English. > b. All allocations and assignments must be registered in an AFRINIC > database. Any unregistered assignments / allocations / sub-allocation will > be considered invalid. > > The registration data (name, IP block/range, contacts, status, etc..) must > be correct at all times. This is necessary to support network operations. > > 3.2 The proposal adds section (9.7) ? ?Mandatory Requirement for > registering assignments? to AFRINIC IPV4 Allocation Policy. > > Assignment registration is important for several reasons: > > -To inform the Internet community which organization is using the IPv4 > address space, including the point of contact in case of operation > problems, security > > -To ensure that the Resource Member has completed or is close to completing > address space allocation such that the allocation of additional space is > justified > > -Assignment Registration also helps AFRINIC in analyzing additional IPV4 > block request made by a Resource Member in an open transparent process > > -Assignments must include the following mandatory attributes regarding the > assignee: inetnum, net name, descr, country, admin-c, tech-c, org > > and any other mandatory information required as defined by an AFRINIC policy. > > 3.2.1 Size of block and timeframe > > All IP block assignments equal or larger than a /29 made by an AFRINIC > Resource Member for its own network or customer must be registered and > documented in AFRINIC Whois database no later than seven (7) business days > after the assignment. > > 3.2.2 Residential Customers > > When the assignment is for residential customers, the address blocks that > are being used by equipment or customer service areas, by service must be > registered (dialup access server, DSLAM/DSL access Server, WIFI Access > Point, WIMAX Cell, Cloud infrastructure etc..) The Resource Member must > specify in the AFRINIC whois database that the block is used for > Residential Customers (netname, desc) > > 3.3.3 Confidentiality. > > It is understandable that for business requirement and customer information > protection the Resource Member might be reluctant to provide these > information in the public database. The information must be provided to > AFRINIC for audit purpose under confidential agreement. > > The Resources assigned must still be registered in AFRINIC Whois database > with the following exception: > > -netname and descr must describe the usage of the block > -all other information can be the same as the Ressource Member's > information with the understanding that he is liable for any issue related > to the IP Block. > > 4.References: > > (1) IPv4 Allocation Policy (Assignment Policies and Guidelines) > http://AFRINIC.net/en/library/policies/126-policy-ipv4-address-allocation-policies > > > (2) Creating Customer Assignments > http://www.AFRINIC.net/en/library/membership-documents/214-creating-customer-assignments > > > (3) Definition of AFRINIC Resource Member > http://www.AFRINIC.net/en/services/rs > > *Useful urls:* > Policy under discussion: > http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposals > Policy proposals: > http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposals > About the policy development process: > http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/pdwg > > Regards > --- > Seun Ojedeji & Adam Nelson > PDWG Co-Chairs > > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > From ernest at afrinic.net Sat Sep 27 10:06:15 2014 From: ernest at afrinic.net (Ernest (AFRINIC)) Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2014 03:06:15 -0700 Subject: [rpd] New proposal - "Mandatory requirements for registering assignments and sub-allocations" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-003-DRAFT-01) In-Reply-To: <54265EBB.3020308@geier.ne.tz> References: <54265EBB.3020308@geier.ne.tz> Message-ID: Hi Frank, Sorry to see that you are having some issues while managing customer assignment information in the whois database. We shall contact you off list to have the issue addressed and resolved. Regards, Ernest. On 27 Sep 2014 09:52, "Frank Habicht" wrote: > Hi, > > I'm very sorry, but I couldn't read beyond the first sentence. > Because it is too ironic. A customer got > "Error! Could not update the Whois Database. Hostmaster has been notified. > Syntax error in 20140926source: AFRINIC" > just yesterday, when trying to register an assignment. > > Regards, > Frank > > On 9/26/2014 5:43 PM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: > > Dear members, > > > > We have received a new policy Proposal - "Mandatory requirements for > > registering assignments and sub-allocations" > (AFPUB-2014-GEN-003-DRAFT-01) > > > > Draft Policy name: Mandatory requirements for registering assignments and > > sub-allocations > > Unique identifier: AFPUB-2014-GEN-003-DRAFT-01 > > Status: New > > Submission Date: September 22, 2014 > > Author: Jean Robert Hountomey > > URL: > > > http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposals/1215-mandatory-requirements-for-registering-assignments-and-sub-allocations > > Short url: http://goo.gl/vOJIrN > > > > Text Below: > > > > 1.Summary of the Problem Being Addressed by this Policy Proposal > > > > The AFRINIC IPv4 Allocation policy - AFPUB-2005-v4-001 (1) guides the > > responsible management of unique IPv4 address space in the AFRINIC > region. > > The document was implemented in May 17, 2006. > > > > In a document called ?Creating Customer Assignments? (2) last Updated on > > Monday, 02 September 2013, AFRINIC has detailed the process of > registering > > LIR network infrastructure and customer IP address assignments in the > > AFRINIC whois database. While the two documents are still applicable, the > > AFRINIC community has questioned at several occasions AFRINIC?s > > allocations. In addition few, AFRINIC Resource Members (3) have not > > registered their assignments in the AFRINIC database. > > > > 2.Summary of How this Proposal Addresses the Problem > > > > This document merges the AFRINIC IPv4 Allocation policy and Creating > > Customer Assignments by introducing a section (section 9.7) into AFRINIC > > IPV4 Allocation Policy. In addition, the document makes mandatory the > > registration of all allocations and assignments in the AFRINIC database. > > Furthermore, the document gives the authority to AFRINIC staff to conduct > > any process after approbation by the community to reclaim resources from > > unregistered assignments / allocations / sub-allocation since they are > > considered invalid. > > 3. Proposal > > > > 3.1. Modification of section (8b) of the AFRINIC IPV4 Allocation policy > by > > replacing ?will be? by ?must be". > > > > a. All communication with AFRINIC must be in English. > > b. All allocations and assignments must be registered in an AFRINIC > > database. Any unregistered assignments / allocations / sub-allocation > will > > be considered invalid. > > > > The registration data (name, IP block/range, contacts, status, etc..) > must > > be correct at all times. This is necessary to support network operations. > > > > 3.2 The proposal adds section (9.7) ? ?Mandatory Requirement for > > registering assignments? to AFRINIC IPV4 Allocation Policy. > > > > Assignment registration is important for several reasons: > > > > -To inform the Internet community which organization is using the IPv4 > > address space, including the point of contact in case of operation > > problems, security > > > > -To ensure that the Resource Member has completed or is close to > completing > > address space allocation such that the allocation of additional space is > > justified > > > > -Assignment Registration also helps AFRINIC in analyzing additional IPV4 > > block request made by a Resource Member in an open transparent process > > > > -Assignments must include the following mandatory attributes regarding > the > > assignee: inetnum, net name, descr, country, admin-c, tech-c, org > > > > and any other mandatory information required as defined by an AFRINIC > policy. > > > > 3.2.1 Size of block and timeframe > > > > All IP block assignments equal or larger than a /29 made by an AFRINIC > > Resource Member for its own network or customer must be registered and > > documented in AFRINIC Whois database no later than seven (7) business > days > > after the assignment. > > > > 3.2.2 Residential Customers > > > > When the assignment is for residential customers, the address blocks that > > are being used by equipment or customer service areas, by service must be > > registered (dialup access server, DSLAM/DSL access Server, WIFI Access > > Point, WIMAX Cell, Cloud infrastructure etc..) The Resource Member must > > specify in the AFRINIC whois database that the block is used for > > Residential Customers (netname, desc) > > > > 3.3.3 Confidentiality. > > > > It is understandable that for business requirement and customer > information > > protection the Resource Member might be reluctant to provide these > > information in the public database. The information must be provided to > > AFRINIC for audit purpose under confidential agreement. > > > > The Resources assigned must still be registered in AFRINIC Whois database > > with the following exception: > > > > -netname and descr must describe the usage of the block > > -all other information can be the same as the Ressource Member's > > information with the understanding that he is liable for any issue > related > > to the IP Block. > > > > 4.References: > > > > (1) IPv4 Allocation Policy (Assignment Policies and Guidelines) > > > http://AFRINIC.net/en/library/policies/126-policy-ipv4-address-allocation-policies > > > > > > (2) Creating Customer Assignments > > > http://www.AFRINIC.net/en/library/membership-documents/214-creating-customer-assignments > > > > > > (3) Definition of AFRINIC Resource Member > > http://www.AFRINIC.net/en/services/rs > > > > *Useful urls:* > > Policy under discussion: > > http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposals > > Policy proposals: > > http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposals > > About the policy development process: > > http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/pdwg > > > > Regards > > --- > > Seun Ojedeji & Adam Nelson > > PDWG Co-Chairs > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > rpd mailing list > > rpd at afrinic.net > > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mje at posix.co.za Sat Sep 27 11:22:56 2014 From: mje at posix.co.za (Mark Elkins) Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2014 13:22:56 +0200 Subject: [rpd] RE: rpd Digest, Vol 96, Issue 37 In-Reply-To: <13f22cc21daf4af9aae2addbfb0e8b4a@AMSPR03MB241.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com> References: <201409261616.s8QGGVD4021321@mail.afrinic.net> <13f22cc21daf4af9aae2addbfb0e8b4a@AMSPR03MB241.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com> Message-ID: <1411816976.8301.8.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> On Sat, 2014-09-27 at 06:22 +0000, Akeem MUFUTAU wrote: > This seems to be okay, but we may need to reconsider the clause in 3.1 > a ". All communication with AFRINIC must be in English." for the sake > of our francophone colleagues. I think this clause should be made less > heavy to enhance their participation Thanks I think you'll find every RIR states that all communications should be in English... including RIPE. This is a pretty fundamental aspect of running the RIR's. I'm sure informal communications to AFRINIC can be in French though. > > Sent from my Windows Phone > > > ______________________________________________________________________ > From:rpd-request at afrinic.net > Sent:26-Sep-14 5:18 PM > To:rpd at afrinic.net > Subject:rpd Digest, Vol 96, Issue 37 > > > Send rpd mailing list submissions to > rpd at afrinic.net > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > rpd-request at afrinic.net > > You can reach the person managing the list at > rpd-owner at afrinic.net > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of rpd digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. New proposal - "Mandatory requirements for registering > assignments and sub-allocations" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-003-DRAFT-01) > (Seun Ojedeji) > 2. Re: New proposal - "Mandatory requirements for registering > assignments and sub-allocations" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-003-DRAFT-01) > (McTim) > 3. Re: New proposal - "Mandatory requirements for registering > assignments and sub-allocations" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-003-DRAFT-01) > (Dr Paulos Nyirenda) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2014 15:43:53 +0100 > From: Seun Ojedeji > Subject: [rpd] New proposal - "Mandatory requirements for registering > assignments and sub-allocations" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-003-DRAFT-01) > To: rpd > Message-ID: > +qL=7czseKNyBw at mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Dear members, > > We have received a new policy Proposal - "Mandatory requirements for > registering assignments and > sub-allocations" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-003-DRAFT-01) > > Draft Policy name: Mandatory requirements for registering assignments > and > sub-allocations > Unique identifier: AFPUB-2014-GEN-003-DRAFT-01 > Status: New > Submission Date: September 22, 2014 > Author: Jean Robert Hountomey > URL: > http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposals/1215-mandatory-requirements-for-registering-assignments-and-sub-allocations > Short url: http://goo.gl/vOJIrN > > Text Below: > > 1.Summary of the Problem Being Addressed by this Policy Proposal > > The AFRINIC IPv4 Allocation policy - AFPUB-2005-v4-001 (1) guides the > responsible management of unique IPv4 address space in the AFRINIC > region. > The document was implemented in May 17, 2006. > > In a document called ?Creating Customer Assignments? (2) last Updated > on > Monday, 02 September 2013, AFRINIC has detailed the process of > registering > LIR network infrastructure and customer IP address assignments in the > AFRINIC whois database. While the two documents are still applicable, > the > AFRINIC community has questioned at several occasions AFRINIC?s > allocations. In addition few, AFRINIC Resource Members (3) have not > registered their assignments in the AFRINIC database. > > 2.Summary of How this Proposal Addresses the Problem > > This document merges the AFRINIC IPv4 Allocation policy and Creating > Customer Assignments by introducing a section (section 9.7) into > AFRINIC > IPV4 Allocation Policy. In addition, the document makes mandatory the > registration of all allocations and assignments in the AFRINIC > database. > Furthermore, the document gives the authority to AFRINIC staff to > conduct > any process after approbation by the community to reclaim resources > from > unregistered assignments / allocations / sub-allocation since they are > considered invalid. > 3. Proposal > > 3.1. Modification of section (8b) of the AFRINIC IPV4 Allocation > policy by > replacing ?will be? by ?must be". > > a. All communication with AFRINIC must be in English. > b. All allocations and assignments must be registered in an AFRINIC > database. Any unregistered assignments / allocations / sub-allocation > will > be considered invalid. > > The registration data (name, IP block/range, contacts, status, etc..) > must > be correct at all times. This is necessary to support network > operations. > > 3.2 The proposal adds section (9.7) ? ?Mandatory Requirement for > registering assignments? to AFRINIC IPV4 Allocation Policy. > > Assignment registration is important for several reasons: > > -To inform the Internet community which organization is using the IPv4 > address space, including the point of contact in case of operation > problems, security > > -To ensure that the Resource Member has completed or is close to > completing > address space allocation such that the allocation of additional space > is > justified > > -Assignment Registration also helps AFRINIC in analyzing additional > IPV4 > block request made by a Resource Member in an open transparent process > > -Assignments must include the following mandatory attributes regarding > the > assignee: inetnum, net name, descr, country, admin-c, tech-c, org > > and any other mandatory information required as defined by an AFRINIC > policy. > > 3.2.1 Size of block and timeframe > > All IP block assignments equal or larger than a /29 made by an AFRINIC > Resource Member for its own network or customer must be registered and > documented in AFRINIC Whois database no later than seven (7) business > days > after the assignment. > > 3.2.2 Residential Customers > > When the assignment is for residential customers, the address blocks > that > are being used by equipment or customer service areas, by service must > be > registered (dialup access server, DSLAM/DSL access Server, WIFI Access > Point, WIMAX Cell, Cloud infrastructure etc..) The Resource Member > must > specify in the AFRINIC whois database that the block is used for > Residential Customers (netname, desc) > > 3.3.3 Confidentiality. > > It is understandable that for business requirement and customer > information > protection the Resource Member might be reluctant to provide these > information in the public database. The information must be provided > to > AFRINIC for audit purpose under confidential agreement. > > The Resources assigned must still be registered in AFRINIC Whois > database > with the following exception: > > -netname and descr must describe the usage of the block > -all other information can be the same as the Ressource Member's > information with the understanding that he is liable for any issue > related > to the IP Block. > > 4.References: > > (1) IPv4 Allocation Policy (Assignment Policies and Guidelines) > http://AFRINIC.net/en/library/policies/126-policy-ipv4-address-allocation-policies > > (2) Creating Customer Assignments > http://www.AFRINIC.net/en/library/membership-documents/214-creating-customer-assignments > > (3) Definition of AFRINIC Resource Member > http://www.AFRINIC.net/en/services/rs > > *Useful urls:* > Policy under discussion: > http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposals > Policy proposals: > http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposals > About the policy development process: > http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/pdwg > > Regards > --- > Seun Ojedeji & Adam Nelson > PDWG Co-Chairs > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20140926/6c7760b6/attachment-0001.htm > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2014 09:58:31 -0500 > From: McTim > Subject: Re: [rpd] New proposal - "Mandatory requirements for > registering assignments and sub-allocations" > (AFPUB-2014-GEN-003-DRAFT-01) > To: Seun Ojedeji > Cc: rpd > Message-ID: > +QSOH4NBOrmUCcfvr=Rw=mSXtHDup9gkvBj6Vw at mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > I support this proposal. > > On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 9:43 AM, Seun Ojedeji > wrote: > > Dear members, > > > > We have received a new policy Proposal - "Mandatory requirements for > > registering assignments and > sub-allocations" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-003-DRAFT-01) > > > > Draft Policy name: Mandatory requirements for registering > assignments and > > sub-allocations > > Unique identifier: AFPUB-2014-GEN-003-DRAFT-01 > > Status: New > > Submission Date: September 22, 2014 > > Author: Jean Robert Hountomey > > URL: > > > http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposals/1215-mandatory-requirements-for-registering-assignments-and-sub-allocations > > Short url: http://goo.gl/vOJIrN > > > > Text Below: > > > > 1.Summary of the Problem Being Addressed by this Policy Proposal > > > > The AFRINIC IPv4 Allocation policy - AFPUB-2005-v4-001 (1) guides > the > > responsible management of unique IPv4 address space in the AFRINIC > region. > > The document was implemented in May 17, 2006. > > > > In a document called ?Creating Customer Assignments? (2) last > Updated on > > Monday, 02 September 2013, AFRINIC has detailed the process of > registering > > LIR network infrastructure and customer IP address assignments in > the > > AFRINIC whois database. While the two documents are still > applicable, the > > AFRINIC community has questioned at several occasions AFRINIC?s > allocations. > > In addition few, AFRINIC Resource Members (3) have not registered > their > > assignments in the AFRINIC database. > > > > 2.Summary of How this Proposal Addresses the Problem > > > > This document merges the AFRINIC IPv4 Allocation policy and Creating > > Customer Assignments by introducing a section (section 9.7) into > AFRINIC > > IPV4 Allocation Policy. In addition, the document makes mandatory > the > > registration of all allocations and assignments in the AFRINIC > database. > > Furthermore, the document gives the authority to AFRINIC staff to > conduct > > any process after approbation by the community to reclaim resources > from > > unregistered assignments / allocations / sub-allocation since they > are > > considered invalid. > > 3. Proposal > > > > 3.1. Modification of section (8b) of the AFRINIC IPV4 Allocation > policy by > > replacing ?will be? by ?must be". > > > > a. All communication with AFRINIC must be in English. > > b. All allocations and assignments must be registered in an AFRINIC > > database. Any unregistered assignments / allocations / > sub-allocation will > > be considered invalid. > > > > The registration data (name, IP block/range, contacts, status, > etc..) must > > be correct at all times. This is necessary to support network > operations. > > > > 3.2 The proposal adds section (9.7) ? ?Mandatory Requirement for > registering > > assignments? to AFRINIC IPV4 Allocation Policy. > > > > Assignment registration is important for several reasons: > > > > -To inform the Internet community which organization is using the > IPv4 > > address space, including the point of contact in case of operation > problems, > > security > > > > -To ensure that the Resource Member has completed or is close to > completing > > address space allocation such that the allocation of additional > space is > > justified > > > > -Assignment Registration also helps AFRINIC in analyzing additional > IPV4 > > block request made by a Resource Member in an open transparent > process > > > > -Assignments must include the following mandatory attributes > regarding the > > assignee: inetnum, net name, descr, country, admin-c, tech-c, org > > > > and any other mandatory information required as defined by an > AFRINIC > > policy. > > > > 3.2.1 Size of block and timeframe > > > > All IP block assignments equal or larger than a /29 made by an > AFRINIC > > Resource Member for its own network or customer must be registered > and > > documented in AFRINIC Whois database no later than seven (7) > business days > > after the assignment. > > > > 3.2.2 Residential Customers > > > > When the assignment is for residential customers, the address blocks > that > > are being used by equipment or customer service areas, by service > must be > > registered (dialup access server, DSLAM/DSL access Server, WIFI > Access > > Point, WIMAX Cell, Cloud infrastructure etc..) The Resource Member > must > > specify in the AFRINIC whois database that the block is used for > Residential > > Customers (netname, desc) > > > > 3.3.3 Confidentiality. > > > > It is understandable that for business requirement and customer > information > > protection the Resource Member might be reluctant to provide these > > information in the public database. The information must be provided > to > > AFRINIC for audit purpose under confidential agreement. > > > > The Resources assigned must still be registered in AFRINIC Whois > database > > with the following exception: > > > > -netname and descr must describe the usage of the block > > -all other information can be the same as the Ressource Member's > information > > with the understanding that he is liable for any issue related to > the IP > > Block. > > > > 4.References: > > > > (1) IPv4 Allocation Policy (Assignment Policies and Guidelines) > > > http://AFRINIC.net/en/library/policies/126-policy-ipv4-address-allocation-policies > > > > (2) Creating Customer Assignments > > > http://www.AFRINIC.net/en/library/membership-documents/214-creating-customer-assignments > > > > (3) Definition of AFRINIC Resource Member > > http://www.AFRINIC.net/en/services/rs > > > > Useful urls: > > Policy under discussion: > > > http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposals > > Policy proposals: > > > http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposals > > About the policy development process: > > http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/pdwg > > > > Regards > > --- > > Seun Ojedeji & Adam Nelson > > PDWG Co-Chairs > > > > _______________________________________________ > > rpd mailing list > > rpd at afrinic.net > > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd -- Mark James ELKINS - Posix Systems - (South) Africa mje at posix.co.za Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: https://ftth.posix.co.za -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 5810 bytes Desc: not available URL: From boubakarbarry at gmail.com Sat Sep 27 11:46:35 2014 From: boubakarbarry at gmail.com (Boubakar Barry) Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2014 11:46:35 +0000 Subject: [rpd] RE: rpd Digest, Vol 96, Issue 37 In-Reply-To: <1411816976.8301.8.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> References: <201409261616.s8QGGVD4021321@mail.afrinic.net> <13f22cc21daf4af9aae2addbfb0e8b4a@AMSPR03MB241.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com> <1411816976.8301.8.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> Message-ID: On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 11:22 AM, Mark Elkins wrote: > On Sat, 2014-09-27 at 06:22 +0000, Akeem MUFUTAU wrote: > > This seems to be okay, but we may need to reconsider the clause in 3.1 > > a ". All communication with AFRINIC must be in English." for the sake > > of our francophone colleagues. I think this clause should be made less > > heavy to enhance their participation Thanks > > I think you'll find every RIR states that all communications should be > in English... including RIPE. This is a pretty fundamental aspect of > running the RIR's. > > I'm sure informal communications to AFRINIC can be in French though. > I hate this Anglophone/Francophone thing that other use to distract us. Having said that, I think it's in the interest of AfriNIC to be as inclusive as possible. When AfriNIC hires people at certain level, it's stated that speaking another language than English is a plus. Given the number of French speaking countries, I think that communication with AfriNIC shouldn't be restricted to English. Because of the fact that French speaking members of our community do the effort of speaking English tend to get many of our English speaking community members to think that all should be able to do so. Wrong! In fact, all forms and other documents should be (at least) in French as well. I may be wrong, but I think AfriNIC has enough resources to make this happen, for the sake of a broader inclusion. Well, try to go to the French version of the AfriNIC website now and find the result yourself. On a lighter note, something I have experienced with English speaking brothers/sisters at several meetings: Me: Bonjour! Response : Bonjour! Me: Comment ca va? Response: comment ca va? Best, Boubakar > > > > Sent from my Windows Phone > > > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ > > From:rpd-request at afrinic.net > > Sent:26-Sep-14 5:18 PM > > To:rpd at afrinic.net > > Subject:rpd Digest, Vol 96, Issue 37 > > > > > > Send rpd mailing list submissions to > > rpd at afrinic.net > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > rpd-request at afrinic.net > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > rpd-owner at afrinic.net > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of rpd digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. New proposal - "Mandatory requirements for registering > > assignments and sub-allocations" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-003-DRAFT-01) > > (Seun Ojedeji) > > 2. Re: New proposal - "Mandatory requirements for registering > > assignments and sub-allocations" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-003-DRAFT-01) > > (McTim) > > 3. Re: New proposal - "Mandatory requirements for registering > > assignments and sub-allocations" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-003-DRAFT-01) > > (Dr Paulos Nyirenda) > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2014 15:43:53 +0100 > > From: Seun Ojedeji > > Subject: [rpd] New proposal - "Mandatory requirements for registering > > assignments and sub-allocations" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-003-DRAFT-01) > > To: rpd > > Message-ID: > > > +qL=7czseKNyBw at mail.gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > > > Dear members, > > > > We have received a new policy Proposal - "Mandatory requirements for > > registering assignments and > > sub-allocations" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-003-DRAFT-01) > > > > Draft Policy name: Mandatory requirements for registering assignments > > and > > sub-allocations > > Unique identifier: AFPUB-2014-GEN-003-DRAFT-01 > > Status: New > > Submission Date: September 22, 2014 > > Author: Jean Robert Hountomey > > URL: > > > http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposals/1215-mandatory-requirements-for-registering-assignments-and-sub-allocations > > Short url: http://goo.gl/vOJIrN > > > > Text Below: > > > > 1.Summary of the Problem Being Addressed by this Policy Proposal > > > > The AFRINIC IPv4 Allocation policy - AFPUB-2005-v4-001 (1) guides the > > responsible management of unique IPv4 address space in the AFRINIC > > region. > > The document was implemented in May 17, 2006. > > > > In a document called ?Creating Customer Assignments? (2) last Updated > > on > > Monday, 02 September 2013, AFRINIC has detailed the process of > > registering > > LIR network infrastructure and customer IP address assignments in the > > AFRINIC whois database. While the two documents are still applicable, > > the > > AFRINIC community has questioned at several occasions AFRINIC?s > > allocations. In addition few, AFRINIC Resource Members (3) have not > > registered their assignments in the AFRINIC database. > > > > 2.Summary of How this Proposal Addresses the Problem > > > > This document merges the AFRINIC IPv4 Allocation policy and Creating > > Customer Assignments by introducing a section (section 9.7) into > > AFRINIC > > IPV4 Allocation Policy. In addition, the document makes mandatory the > > registration of all allocations and assignments in the AFRINIC > > database. > > Furthermore, the document gives the authority to AFRINIC staff to > > conduct > > any process after approbation by the community to reclaim resources > > from > > unregistered assignments / allocations / sub-allocation since they are > > considered invalid. > > 3. Proposal > > > > 3.1. Modification of section (8b) of the AFRINIC IPV4 Allocation > > policy by > > replacing ?will be? by ?must be". > > > > a. All communication with AFRINIC must be in English. > > b. All allocations and assignments must be registered in an AFRINIC > > database. Any unregistered assignments / allocations / sub-allocation > > will > > be considered invalid. > > > > The registration data (name, IP block/range, contacts, status, etc..) > > must > > be correct at all times. This is necessary to support network > > operations. > > > > 3.2 The proposal adds section (9.7) ? ?Mandatory Requirement for > > registering assignments? to AFRINIC IPV4 Allocation Policy. > > > > Assignment registration is important for several reasons: > > > > -To inform the Internet community which organization is using the IPv4 > > address space, including the point of contact in case of operation > > problems, security > > > > -To ensure that the Resource Member has completed or is close to > > completing > > address space allocation such that the allocation of additional space > > is > > justified > > > > -Assignment Registration also helps AFRINIC in analyzing additional > > IPV4 > > block request made by a Resource Member in an open transparent process > > > > -Assignments must include the following mandatory attributes regarding > > the > > assignee: inetnum, net name, descr, country, admin-c, tech-c, org > > > > and any other mandatory information required as defined by an AFRINIC > > policy. > > > > 3.2.1 Size of block and timeframe > > > > All IP block assignments equal or larger than a /29 made by an AFRINIC > > Resource Member for its own network or customer must be registered and > > documented in AFRINIC Whois database no later than seven (7) business > > days > > after the assignment. > > > > 3.2.2 Residential Customers > > > > When the assignment is for residential customers, the address blocks > > that > > are being used by equipment or customer service areas, by service must > > be > > registered (dialup access server, DSLAM/DSL access Server, WIFI Access > > Point, WIMAX Cell, Cloud infrastructure etc..) The Resource Member > > must > > specify in the AFRINIC whois database that the block is used for > > Residential Customers (netname, desc) > > > > 3.3.3 Confidentiality. > > > > It is understandable that for business requirement and customer > > information > > protection the Resource Member might be reluctant to provide these > > information in the public database. The information must be provided > > to > > AFRINIC for audit purpose under confidential agreement. > > > > The Resources assigned must still be registered in AFRINIC Whois > > database > > with the following exception: > > > > -netname and descr must describe the usage of the block > > -all other information can be the same as the Ressource Member's > > information with the understanding that he is liable for any issue > > related > > to the IP Block. > > > > 4.References: > > > > (1) IPv4 Allocation Policy (Assignment Policies and Guidelines) > > > http://AFRINIC.net/en/library/policies/126-policy-ipv4-address-allocation-policies > > > > (2) Creating Customer Assignments > > > http://www.AFRINIC.net/en/library/membership-documents/214-creating-customer-assignments > > > > (3) Definition of AFRINIC Resource Member > > http://www.AFRINIC.net/en/services/rs > > > > *Useful urls:* > > Policy under discussion: > > http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposals > > Policy proposals: > > http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposals > > About the policy development process: > > http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/pdwg > > > > Regards > > --- > > Seun Ojedeji & Adam Nelson > > PDWG Co-Chairs > > -------------- next part -------------- > > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > > URL: > > > https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20140926/6c7760b6/attachment-0001.htm > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 2 > > Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2014 09:58:31 -0500 > > From: McTim > > Subject: Re: [rpd] New proposal - "Mandatory requirements for > > registering assignments and sub-allocations" > > (AFPUB-2014-GEN-003-DRAFT-01) > > To: Seun Ojedeji > > Cc: rpd > > Message-ID: > > > +QSOH4NBOrmUCcfvr=Rw=mSXtHDup9gkvBj6Vw at mail.gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > > > I support this proposal. > > > > On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 9:43 AM, Seun Ojedeji > > wrote: > > > Dear members, > > > > > > We have received a new policy Proposal - "Mandatory requirements for > > > registering assignments and > > sub-allocations" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-003-DRAFT-01) > > > > > > Draft Policy name: Mandatory requirements for registering > > assignments and > > > sub-allocations > > > Unique identifier: AFPUB-2014-GEN-003-DRAFT-01 > > > Status: New > > > Submission Date: September 22, 2014 > > > Author: Jean Robert Hountomey > > > URL: > > > > > > http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposals/1215-mandatory-requirements-for-registering-assignments-and-sub-allocations > > > Short url: http://goo.gl/vOJIrN > > > > > > Text Below: > > > > > > 1.Summary of the Problem Being Addressed by this Policy Proposal > > > > > > The AFRINIC IPv4 Allocation policy - AFPUB-2005-v4-001 (1) guides > > the > > > responsible management of unique IPv4 address space in the AFRINIC > > region. > > > The document was implemented in May 17, 2006. > > > > > > In a document called ?Creating Customer Assignments? (2) last > > Updated on > > > Monday, 02 September 2013, AFRINIC has detailed the process of > > registering > > > LIR network infrastructure and customer IP address assignments in > > the > > > AFRINIC whois database. While the two documents are still > > applicable, the > > > AFRINIC community has questioned at several occasions AFRINIC?s > > allocations. > > > In addition few, AFRINIC Resource Members (3) have not registered > > their > > > assignments in the AFRINIC database. > > > > > > 2.Summary of How this Proposal Addresses the Problem > > > > > > This document merges the AFRINIC IPv4 Allocation policy and Creating > > > Customer Assignments by introducing a section (section 9.7) into > > AFRINIC > > > IPV4 Allocation Policy. In addition, the document makes mandatory > > the > > > registration of all allocations and assignments in the AFRINIC > > database. > > > Furthermore, the document gives the authority to AFRINIC staff to > > conduct > > > any process after approbation by the community to reclaim resources > > from > > > unregistered assignments / allocations / sub-allocation since they > > are > > > considered invalid. > > > 3. Proposal > > > > > > 3.1. Modification of section (8b) of the AFRINIC IPV4 Allocation > > policy by > > > replacing ?will be? by ?must be". > > > > > > a. All communication with AFRINIC must be in English. > > > b. All allocations and assignments must be registered in an AFRINIC > > > database. Any unregistered assignments / allocations / > > sub-allocation will > > > be considered invalid. > > > > > > The registration data (name, IP block/range, contacts, status, > > etc..) must > > > be correct at all times. This is necessary to support network > > operations. > > > > > > 3.2 The proposal adds section (9.7) ? ?Mandatory Requirement for > > registering > > > assignments? to AFRINIC IPV4 Allocation Policy. > > > > > > Assignment registration is important for several reasons: > > > > > > -To inform the Internet community which organization is using the > > IPv4 > > > address space, including the point of contact in case of operation > > problems, > > > security > > > > > > -To ensure that the Resource Member has completed or is close to > > completing > > > address space allocation such that the allocation of additional > > space is > > > justified > > > > > > -Assignment Registration also helps AFRINIC in analyzing additional > > IPV4 > > > block request made by a Resource Member in an open transparent > > process > > > > > > -Assignments must include the following mandatory attributes > > regarding the > > > assignee: inetnum, net name, descr, country, admin-c, tech-c, org > > > > > > and any other mandatory information required as defined by an > > AFRINIC > > > policy. > > > > > > 3.2.1 Size of block and timeframe > > > > > > All IP block assignments equal or larger than a /29 made by an > > AFRINIC > > > Resource Member for its own network or customer must be registered > > and > > > documented in AFRINIC Whois database no later than seven (7) > > business days > > > after the assignment. > > > > > > 3.2.2 Residential Customers > > > > > > When the assignment is for residential customers, the address blocks > > that > > > are being used by equipment or customer service areas, by service > > must be > > > registered (dialup access server, DSLAM/DSL access Server, WIFI > > Access > > > Point, WIMAX Cell, Cloud infrastructure etc..) The Resource Member > > must > > > specify in the AFRINIC whois database that the block is used for > > Residential > > > Customers (netname, desc) > > > > > > 3.3.3 Confidentiality. > > > > > > It is understandable that for business requirement and customer > > information > > > protection the Resource Member might be reluctant to provide these > > > information in the public database. The information must be provided > > to > > > AFRINIC for audit purpose under confidential agreement. > > > > > > The Resources assigned must still be registered in AFRINIC Whois > > database > > > with the following exception: > > > > > > -netname and descr must describe the usage of the block > > > -all other information can be the same as the Ressource Member's > > information > > > with the understanding that he is liable for any issue related to > > the IP > > > Block. > > > > > > 4.References: > > > > > > (1) IPv4 Allocation Policy (Assignment Policies and Guidelines) > > > > > > http://AFRINIC.net/en/library/policies/126-policy-ipv4-address-allocation-policies > > > > > > (2) Creating Customer Assignments > > > > > > http://www.AFRINIC.net/en/library/membership-documents/214-creating-customer-assignments > > > > > > (3) Definition of AFRINIC Resource Member > > > http://www.AFRINIC.net/en/services/rs > > > > > > Useful urls: > > > Policy under discussion: > > > > > http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposals > > > Policy proposals: > > > > > http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposals > > > About the policy development process: > > > http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/pdwg > > > > > > Regards > > > --- > > > Seun Ojedeji & Adam Nelson > > > PDWG Co-Chairs > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > rpd mailing list > > > rpd at afrinic.net > > > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > rpd mailing list > > rpd at afrinic.net > > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > -- > Mark James ELKINS - Posix Systems - (South) Africa > mje at posix.co.za Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 > For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: https://ftth.posix.co.za > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ebothompson at gmail.com Sat Sep 27 13:19:07 2014 From: ebothompson at gmail.com (Ebo Thompson) Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2014 13:19:07 +0000 Subject: [rpd] RE: rpd Digest, Vol 96, Issue 37 In-Reply-To: References: <201409261616.s8QGGVD4021321@mail.afrinic.net> <13f22cc21daf4af9aae2addbfb0e8b4a@AMSPR03MB241.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com> <1411816976.8301.8.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> Message-ID: Perhaps substituting "official AfriNic language" for "English" should help ? Ps. What are the official languages for communicating with afrinic? On Sep 27, 2014 11:49 AM, "Boubakar Barry" wrote: > On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 11:22 AM, Mark Elkins wrote: > >> On Sat, 2014-09-27 at 06:22 +0000, Akeem MUFUTAU wrote: >> > This seems to be okay, but we may need to reconsider the clause in 3.1 >> > a ". All communication with AFRINIC must be in English." for the sake >> > of our francophone colleagues. I think this clause should be made less >> > heavy to enhance their participation Thanks >> >> I think you'll find every RIR states that all communications should be >> in English... including RIPE. This is a pretty fundamental aspect of >> running the RIR's. >> >> I'm sure informal communications to AFRINIC can be in French though. >> > > I hate this Anglophone/Francophone thing that other use to distract us. > Having said that, I think it's in the interest of AfriNIC to be as > inclusive as possible. > > When AfriNIC hires people at certain level, it's stated that speaking > another language than English is a plus. Given the number of French > speaking countries, I think that communication with AfriNIC shouldn't be > restricted to English. > > Because of the fact that French speaking members of our community do the > effort of speaking English tend to get many of our English speaking > community members to think that all should be able to do so. Wrong! > > In fact, all forms and other documents should be (at least) in French as > well. I may be wrong, but I think AfriNIC has enough resources to make this > happen, for the sake of a broader inclusion. > > Well, try to go to the French version of the AfriNIC website now and find > the result yourself. > > On a lighter note, something I have experienced with English speaking > brothers/sisters at several meetings: > > Me: Bonjour! > Response : Bonjour! > Me: Comment ca va? > Response: comment ca va? > > Best, > Boubakar > > > >> > >> > Sent from my Windows Phone >> > >> > >> > ______________________________________________________________________ >> > From:rpd-request at afrinic.net >> > Sent:26-Sep-14 5:18 PM >> > To:rpd at afrinic.net >> > Subject:rpd Digest, Vol 96, Issue 37 >> > >> > >> > Send rpd mailing list submissions to >> > rpd at afrinic.net >> > >> > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >> > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >> > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to >> > rpd-request at afrinic.net >> > >> > You can reach the person managing the list at >> > rpd-owner at afrinic.net >> > >> > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >> > than "Re: Contents of rpd digest..." >> > >> > >> > Today's Topics: >> > >> > 1. New proposal - "Mandatory requirements for registering >> > assignments and sub-allocations" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-003-DRAFT-01) >> > (Seun Ojedeji) >> > 2. Re: New proposal - "Mandatory requirements for registering >> > assignments and sub-allocations" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-003-DRAFT-01) >> > (McTim) >> > 3. Re: New proposal - "Mandatory requirements for registering >> > assignments and sub-allocations" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-003-DRAFT-01) >> > (Dr Paulos Nyirenda) >> > >> > >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > >> > Message: 1 >> > Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2014 15:43:53 +0100 >> > From: Seun Ojedeji >> > Subject: [rpd] New proposal - "Mandatory requirements for registering >> > assignments and sub-allocations" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-003-DRAFT-01) >> > To: rpd >> > Message-ID: >> > > > +qL=7czseKNyBw at mail.gmail.com> >> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" >> > >> > Dear members, >> > >> > We have received a new policy Proposal - "Mandatory requirements for >> > registering assignments and >> > sub-allocations" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-003-DRAFT-01) >> > >> > Draft Policy name: Mandatory requirements for registering assignments >> > and >> > sub-allocations >> > Unique identifier: AFPUB-2014-GEN-003-DRAFT-01 >> > Status: New >> > Submission Date: September 22, 2014 >> > Author: Jean Robert Hountomey >> > URL: >> > >> http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposals/1215-mandatory-requirements-for-registering-assignments-and-sub-allocations >> > Short url: http://goo.gl/vOJIrN >> > >> > Text Below: >> > >> > 1.Summary of the Problem Being Addressed by this Policy Proposal >> > >> > The AFRINIC IPv4 Allocation policy - AFPUB-2005-v4-001 (1) guides the >> > responsible management of unique IPv4 address space in the AFRINIC >> > region. >> > The document was implemented in May 17, 2006. >> > >> > In a document called ?Creating Customer Assignments? (2) last Updated >> > on >> > Monday, 02 September 2013, AFRINIC has detailed the process of >> > registering >> > LIR network infrastructure and customer IP address assignments in the >> > AFRINIC whois database. While the two documents are still applicable, >> > the >> > AFRINIC community has questioned at several occasions AFRINIC?s >> > allocations. In addition few, AFRINIC Resource Members (3) have not >> > registered their assignments in the AFRINIC database. >> > >> > 2.Summary of How this Proposal Addresses the Problem >> > >> > This document merges the AFRINIC IPv4 Allocation policy and Creating >> > Customer Assignments by introducing a section (section 9.7) into >> > AFRINIC >> > IPV4 Allocation Policy. In addition, the document makes mandatory the >> > registration of all allocations and assignments in the AFRINIC >> > database. >> > Furthermore, the document gives the authority to AFRINIC staff to >> > conduct >> > any process after approbation by the community to reclaim resources >> > from >> > unregistered assignments / allocations / sub-allocation since they are >> > considered invalid. >> > 3. Proposal >> > >> > 3.1. Modification of section (8b) of the AFRINIC IPV4 Allocation >> > policy by >> > replacing ?will be? by ?must be". >> > >> > a. All communication with AFRINIC must be in English. >> > b. All allocations and assignments must be registered in an AFRINIC >> > database. Any unregistered assignments / allocations / sub-allocation >> > will >> > be considered invalid. >> > >> > The registration data (name, IP block/range, contacts, status, etc..) >> > must >> > be correct at all times. This is necessary to support network >> > operations. >> > >> > 3.2 The proposal adds section (9.7) ? ?Mandatory Requirement for >> > registering assignments? to AFRINIC IPV4 Allocation Policy. >> > >> > Assignment registration is important for several reasons: >> > >> > -To inform the Internet community which organization is using the IPv4 >> > address space, including the point of contact in case of operation >> > problems, security >> > >> > -To ensure that the Resource Member has completed or is close to >> > completing >> > address space allocation such that the allocation of additional space >> > is >> > justified >> > >> > -Assignment Registration also helps AFRINIC in analyzing additional >> > IPV4 >> > block request made by a Resource Member in an open transparent process >> > >> > -Assignments must include the following mandatory attributes regarding >> > the >> > assignee: inetnum, net name, descr, country, admin-c, tech-c, org >> > >> > and any other mandatory information required as defined by an AFRINIC >> > policy. >> > >> > 3.2.1 Size of block and timeframe >> > >> > All IP block assignments equal or larger than a /29 made by an AFRINIC >> > Resource Member for its own network or customer must be registered and >> > documented in AFRINIC Whois database no later than seven (7) business >> > days >> > after the assignment. >> > >> > 3.2.2 Residential Customers >> > >> > When the assignment is for residential customers, the address blocks >> > that >> > are being used by equipment or customer service areas, by service must >> > be >> > registered (dialup access server, DSLAM/DSL access Server, WIFI Access >> > Point, WIMAX Cell, Cloud infrastructure etc..) The Resource Member >> > must >> > specify in the AFRINIC whois database that the block is used for >> > Residential Customers (netname, desc) >> > >> > 3.3.3 Confidentiality. >> > >> > It is understandable that for business requirement and customer >> > information >> > protection the Resource Member might be reluctant to provide these >> > information in the public database. The information must be provided >> > to >> > AFRINIC for audit purpose under confidential agreement. >> > >> > The Resources assigned must still be registered in AFRINIC Whois >> > database >> > with the following exception: >> > >> > -netname and descr must describe the usage of the block >> > -all other information can be the same as the Ressource Member's >> > information with the understanding that he is liable for any issue >> > related >> > to the IP Block. >> > >> > 4.References: >> > >> > (1) IPv4 Allocation Policy (Assignment Policies and Guidelines) >> > >> http://AFRINIC.net/en/library/policies/126-policy-ipv4-address-allocation-policies >> > >> > (2) Creating Customer Assignments >> > >> http://www.AFRINIC.net/en/library/membership-documents/214-creating-customer-assignments >> > >> > (3) Definition of AFRINIC Resource Member >> > http://www.AFRINIC.net/en/services/rs >> > >> > *Useful urls:* >> > Policy under discussion: >> > http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposals >> > Policy proposals: >> > http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposals >> > About the policy development process: >> > http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/pdwg >> > >> > Regards >> > --- >> > Seun Ojedeji & Adam Nelson >> > PDWG Co-Chairs >> > -------------- next part -------------- >> > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >> > URL: >> > >> https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20140926/6c7760b6/attachment-0001.htm >> > >> > ------------------------------ >> > >> > Message: 2 >> > Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2014 09:58:31 -0500 >> > From: McTim >> > Subject: Re: [rpd] New proposal - "Mandatory requirements for >> > registering assignments and sub-allocations" >> > (AFPUB-2014-GEN-003-DRAFT-01) >> > To: Seun Ojedeji >> > Cc: rpd >> > Message-ID: >> > > > +QSOH4NBOrmUCcfvr=Rw=mSXtHDup9gkvBj6Vw at mail.gmail.com> >> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 >> > >> > I support this proposal. >> > >> > On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 9:43 AM, Seun Ojedeji >> > wrote: >> > > Dear members, >> > > >> > > We have received a new policy Proposal - "Mandatory requirements for >> > > registering assignments and >> > sub-allocations" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-003-DRAFT-01) >> > > >> > > Draft Policy name: Mandatory requirements for registering >> > assignments and >> > > sub-allocations >> > > Unique identifier: AFPUB-2014-GEN-003-DRAFT-01 >> > > Status: New >> > > Submission Date: September 22, 2014 >> > > Author: Jean Robert Hountomey >> > > URL: >> > > >> > >> http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposals/1215-mandatory-requirements-for-registering-assignments-and-sub-allocations >> > > Short url: http://goo.gl/vOJIrN >> > > >> > > Text Below: >> > > >> > > 1.Summary of the Problem Being Addressed by this Policy Proposal >> > > >> > > The AFRINIC IPv4 Allocation policy - AFPUB-2005-v4-001 (1) guides >> > the >> > > responsible management of unique IPv4 address space in the AFRINIC >> > region. >> > > The document was implemented in May 17, 2006. >> > > >> > > In a document called ?Creating Customer Assignments? (2) last >> > Updated on >> > > Monday, 02 September 2013, AFRINIC has detailed the process of >> > registering >> > > LIR network infrastructure and customer IP address assignments in >> > the >> > > AFRINIC whois database. While the two documents are still >> > applicable, the >> > > AFRINIC community has questioned at several occasions AFRINIC?s >> > allocations. >> > > In addition few, AFRINIC Resource Members (3) have not registered >> > their >> > > assignments in the AFRINIC database. >> > > >> > > 2.Summary of How this Proposal Addresses the Problem >> > > >> > > This document merges the AFRINIC IPv4 Allocation policy and Creating >> > > Customer Assignments by introducing a section (section 9.7) into >> > AFRINIC >> > > IPV4 Allocation Policy. In addition, the document makes mandatory >> > the >> > > registration of all allocations and assignments in the AFRINIC >> > database. >> > > Furthermore, the document gives the authority to AFRINIC staff to >> > conduct >> > > any process after approbation by the community to reclaim resources >> > from >> > > unregistered assignments / allocations / sub-allocation since they >> > are >> > > considered invalid. >> > > 3. Proposal >> > > >> > > 3.1. Modification of section (8b) of the AFRINIC IPV4 Allocation >> > policy by >> > > replacing ?will be? by ?must be". >> > > >> > > a. All communication with AFRINIC must be in English. >> > > b. All allocations and assignments must be registered in an AFRINIC >> > > database. Any unregistered assignments / allocations / >> > sub-allocation will >> > > be considered invalid. >> > > >> > > The registration data (name, IP block/range, contacts, status, >> > etc..) must >> > > be correct at all times. This is necessary to support network >> > operations. >> > > >> > > 3.2 The proposal adds section (9.7) ? ?Mandatory Requirement for >> > registering >> > > assignments? to AFRINIC IPV4 Allocation Policy. >> > > >> > > Assignment registration is important for several reasons: >> > > >> > > -To inform the Internet community which organization is using the >> > IPv4 >> > > address space, including the point of contact in case of operation >> > problems, >> > > security >> > > >> > > -To ensure that the Resource Member has completed or is close to >> > completing >> > > address space allocation such that the allocation of additional >> > space is >> > > justified >> > > >> > > -Assignment Registration also helps AFRINIC in analyzing additional >> > IPV4 >> > > block request made by a Resource Member in an open transparent >> > process >> > > >> > > -Assignments must include the following mandatory attributes >> > regarding the >> > > assignee: inetnum, net name, descr, country, admin-c, tech-c, org >> > > >> > > and any other mandatory information required as defined by an >> > AFRINIC >> > > policy. >> > > >> > > 3.2.1 Size of block and timeframe >> > > >> > > All IP block assignments equal or larger than a /29 made by an >> > AFRINIC >> > > Resource Member for its own network or customer must be registered >> > and >> > > documented in AFRINIC Whois database no later than seven (7) >> > business days >> > > after the assignment. >> > > >> > > 3.2.2 Residential Customers >> > > >> > > When the assignment is for residential customers, the address blocks >> > that >> > > are being used by equipment or customer service areas, by service >> > must be >> > > registered (dialup access server, DSLAM/DSL access Server, WIFI >> > Access >> > > Point, WIMAX Cell, Cloud infrastructure etc..) The Resource Member >> > must >> > > specify in the AFRINIC whois database that the block is used for >> > Residential >> > > Customers (netname, desc) >> > > >> > > 3.3.3 Confidentiality. >> > > >> > > It is understandable that for business requirement and customer >> > information >> > > protection the Resource Member might be reluctant to provide these >> > > information in the public database. The information must be provided >> > to >> > > AFRINIC for audit purpose under confidential agreement. >> > > >> > > The Resources assigned must still be registered in AFRINIC Whois >> > database >> > > with the following exception: >> > > >> > > -netname and descr must describe the usage of the block >> > > -all other information can be the same as the Ressource Member's >> > information >> > > with the understanding that he is liable for any issue related to >> > the IP >> > > Block. >> > > >> > > 4.References: >> > > >> > > (1) IPv4 Allocation Policy (Assignment Policies and Guidelines) >> > > >> > >> http://AFRINIC.net/en/library/policies/126-policy-ipv4-address-allocation-policies >> > > >> > > (2) Creating Customer Assignments >> > > >> > >> http://www.AFRINIC.net/en/library/membership-documents/214-creating-customer-assignments >> > > >> > > (3) Definition of AFRINIC Resource Member >> > > http://www.AFRINIC.net/en/services/rs >> > > >> > > Useful urls: >> > > Policy under discussion: >> > > >> > http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposals >> > > Policy proposals: >> > > >> > http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposals >> > > About the policy development process: >> > > http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/pdwg >> > > >> > > Regards >> > > --- >> > > Seun Ojedeji & Adam Nelson >> > > PDWG Co-Chairs >> > > >> > > _______________________________________________ >> > > rpd mailing list >> > > rpd at afrinic.net >> > > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > rpd mailing list >> > rpd at afrinic.net >> > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >> >> -- >> Mark James ELKINS - Posix Systems - (South) Africa >> mje at posix.co.za Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 >> For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: https://ftth.posix.co.za >> >> _______________________________________________ >> rpd mailing list >> rpd at afrinic.net >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ernest at afrinic.net Mon Sep 29 19:17:59 2014 From: ernest at afrinic.net (Ernest) Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2014 22:17:59 +0300 Subject: [rpd] Call for Nominations: AFRINIC region representative to the ICANN ASO-AC Message-ID: <5429B067.4040404@afrinic.net> Colleagues, The AFRINIC Nominations Committee (NomCom) is pleased to invite nominations for candidates to run for an open seat on the NRO NC (ICANN ASO AC) for the AFRINIC region. The term for the elected candidate will be from 1 January 2015 to 31 December 2018 (3 years). The NRO-NC serves as the ICANN ASO-AC according to the ICANN ASO Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) at https://aso.icann.org/documents/memorandums-of-understanding/memorandum-of-understanding/ The current representatives from the AFRINIC region on the ICANN ASO-AC (and their respective terms) are: Fiona Asonga (01/2014 ? 12/2017) Douglas Onyango (01/2012 ? 12/2014) - Open Seat Alan P. Barrett (01/2014 - 12/2015) - Appointed by the AFRINIC Board 1. Responsibilities of the ICANN ASO-AC: * Undertaking a role in the global policy development process * Providing recommendations to the Board of ICANN concerning the recognition of new RIRs, according to agreed requirements and policies as currently described in ICP-2. * Defining procedures for selection of individuals to serve on other ICANN bodies, in particular on the ICANN Board, and implementing any roles assigned to the Address Council in such procedures. * Providing advice to the Board of ICANN on number resource allocation policy, in conjunction with the RIRs. * Developing procedures for conducting business in support of their responsibilities, in particular for the appointment of an Address Council Chair and definition of the Chair?s responsibilities. For more information about the NRO-NC and the ASO-AC, please go to: http://www.nro.net and http://aso.icann.org/ 2. Eligibility * Open to individuals residing within the AFRINIC service region. * Self-nominations are permitted and must be supported by a minimum of one active AFRINIC member. * A person may only nominate one candidate - and, in case of multiple nominations by the same person, only the last nomination will be considered valid. AFRINIC or other RIR staff can neither nominate candidates nor be nominated for an ASO AC seat. 3. Nominating Procedure: To nominate yourself or a person of your choice, please browse to: http://meeting.afrinic.net/afrinic-21/en/elections/community-elections If you experience any issues with the nomination form, please submit the following nominee information to nomcom2014 at afrinic.net a. Nominator Full Name: Organization: b. Nominee Full Name: Organisation (or Affiliation): Current Position: Physical address : E-mail address: Phone number: c. Secondment (in case of Self Nominations): Organisation: Full Name of Seconder: E-mail address: Brief supporting statement (not more than 400 words): Candidates must provide two valid references who will be contacted by the NomCom for further information and background checks if necessary. Also required: A copy of candidate?s Resume (CV) A photo of the candidate. 4. Deadline for Nominations: All nominations should be submitted by 20:00H UTC on 19 October 2014. Please note that the election will take place during the AFRINIC-21 meeting scheduled to happen in Mauritius on 28 November 2014. An eligible voter shall be any non-AFRINIC or non-RIR staff who has registered to attend (and is present at) the AFRINIC-21 meeting. A registration badge shall be requested as proof. Should you have any questions or comments about the process, please mail nomcom2014 at afrinic.net More information: AFRINIC region ASO AC Election Process: http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/elections/nro-aso-election?showall=1 Full text of this announcement: https://www.afrinic.net/en/library/news/1217-call-for-nominations-afrinic-region-representative-to-the-icann-aso-ac Sent on behalf of the Chair, 2014 Nominations Committee. From aalain at trstech.net Tue Sep 30 19:06:10 2014 From: aalain at trstech.net (ALAIN AINA) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2014 19:06:10 +0000 Subject: [rpd] New proposal - "Mandatory requirements for registering assignments and sub-allocations" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-003-DRAFT-01) In-Reply-To: <5425FED8.2050400@gmail.com> References: <54259100.16256.1F32FCF@paulos.sdnp.org.mw> <5425FED8.2050400@gmail.com> Message-ID: JR, Looking forward to this document. In the meantime, i think the problem statement may not be clear enough, even if i try to understand it that it is about encouraging members to register assignments/sub-allocations in the whois. On the other hand, it's not clear how this policy solves this problem as it fundamentally changes nothing. Yes, i see the change of the "will " to must" and others. Shall a policy be made and community approval needed before enforcing the section 4 of the RSA [1]? Merging a policy with a support document is not a good idea. Support document describes how we do things to comply to policies and evolve over time with technologies and solutions. Update the support document and call for the enforcement of the RSA after an awareness period ? [1]: http://www.afrinic.net/en/services/rs/rsa --Alain On Sep 27, 2014, at 12:03 AM, Jean Robert Hountomey wrote: > Thank you Dr Paulos, I will submit the new version. > Best Regards. > Jean Robert. > > On 9/26/14, 11:14 AM, Dr Paulos Nyirenda wrote: >> >> Seun, >> >> While I am still considering the proposal, I would like to comment on the process for this policy proposal. >> >> Normally, a proposal that ammends a policy like this has produced a full version of the ammended policy and not just a list of the ammendments as has been done here. The full version of the policy then replaces the previous version or as the saying goes "obsoletes" the previous version in a tracked histrory. This allows the ammendments to be considered in the context of the whole policy and not just bits of it like this. >> >> So, in this case I think the way forward would be to ask the author to insert the ammendments and to produce the full ammended version of AFPUB-2005-v4-001 which is what should be presented to RPD for discussion. >> >> The list of ammendments can be put in the problem section of the new proposal or however the author wants it done with the guidance of the co-chairs BUT it is the full policy that should be discussed on RPD and not just the ammendments like this. >> >> I am open to correction on the process but at least that is the way I recall its use. >> >> Regards, >> >> Paulos >> ====================== >> Dr Paulos B Nyirenda >> NIC.MW & .mw ccTLD >> http://www.registrar.mw >> >> >> On 26 Sep 2014 at 15:43, Seun Ojedeji wrote: >> >> > >> > Dear members, >> > >> > We have received a new policy Proposal - "Mandatory requirements for >> > registering assignments and sub-allocations" >> > (AFPUB-2014-GEN-003-DRAFT-01) >> > >> > Draft Policy name: Mandatory requirements for registering assignments >> > and sub-allocations Unique identifier: AFPUB-2014-GEN-003-DRAFT-01 >> > Status: New Submission Date: September 22, 2014 Author: Jean Robert >> > Hountomey URL: >> > http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposal >> > s/1215-mandatory-require >> > ments-for-registering-assignments-and-sub-allocations Short url: >> > http://goo.gl/vOJIrN >> > >> > Text Below: >> > >> > 1.Summary of the Problem Being Addressed by this Policy Proposal >> > >> > The AFRINIC IPv4 Allocation policy - AFPUB-2005-v4-001 (1) guides the >> > responsible management of unique IPv4 address space in the AFRINIC >> > region. The document was implemented in May 17, 2006. >> > >> > In a document called "Creating Customer Assignments" (2) last Updated >> > on Monday, 02 September 2013, AFRINIC has detailed the process of >> > registering LIR network infrastructure and customer IP address >> > assignments in the AFRINIC whois database. While the two documents are >> > still applicable, the AFRINIC community has questioned at several >> > occasions AFRINIC's allocations. In addition few, AFRINIC Resource >> > Members (3) have not registered their assignments in the AFRINIC >> > database. >> > >> > 2.Summary of How this Proposal Addresses the Problem >> > >> > This document merges the AFRINIC IPv4 Allocation policy and Creating >> > Customer Assignments by introducing a section (section 9.7) into >> > AFRINIC IPV4 Allocation Policy. In addition, the document makes >> > mandatory the registration of all allocations and assignments in the >> > AFRINIC database. Furthermore, the document gives the authority to >> > AFRINIC staff to conduct any process after approbation by the >> > community to reclaim resources from unregistered assignments / >> > allocations / sub-allocation since they are considered invalid. 3. >> > Proposal >> > >> > 3.1. Modification of section (8b) of the AFRINIC IPV4 Allocation >> > policy by replacing "will be" by "must be". >> > >> > a. All communication with AFRINIC must be in English. >> > b. All allocations and assignments must be registered in an AFRINIC >> > database. Any unregistered assignments / allocations / sub-allocation >> > will be considered invalid. >> > >> > The registration data (name, IP block/range, contacts, status, etc..) >> > must be correct at all times. This is necessary to support network >> > operations. >> > >> > 3.2 The proposal adds section (9.7) - "Mandatory Requirement for >> > registering assignments" to AFRINIC IPV4 Allocation Policy. >> > >> > Assignment registration is important for several reasons: >> > >> > -To inform the Internet community which organization is using the IPv4 >> > address space, including the point of contact in case of operation >> > problems, security >> > >> > -To ensure that the Resource Member has completed or is close to >> > completing address space allocation such that the allocation of >> > additional space is justified >> > >> > -Assignment Registration also helps AFRINIC in analyzing additional >> > IPV4 block request made by a Resource Member in an open transparent >> > process >> > >> > -Assignments must include the following mandatory attributes regarding >> > the assignee: inetnum, net name, descr, country, admin-c, tech-c, org >> > >> > and any other mandatory information required as defined by an AFRINIC >> > policy. >> > >> > 3.2.1 Size of block and timeframe >> > >> > All IP block assignments equal or larger than a /29 made by an AFRINIC >> > Resource Member for its own network or customer must be registered and >> > documented in AFRINIC Whois database no later than seven (7) business >> > days after the assignment. >> > >> > 3.2.2 Residential Customers >> > >> > When the assignment is for residential customers, the address blocks >> > that are being used by equipment or customer service areas, by service >> > must be registered (dialup access server, DSLAM/DSL access Server, >> > WIFI Access Point, WIMAX Cell, Cloud infrastructure etc..) The >> > Resource Member must specify in the AFRINIC whois database that the >> > block is used for Residential Customers (netname, desc) >> > >> > 3.3.3 Confidentiality. >> > >> > It is understandable that for business requirement and customer >> > information protection the Resource Member might be reluctant to >> > provide these information in the public database. The information must >> > be provided to AFRINIC for audit purpose under confidential agreement. >> > >> > The Resources assigned must still be registered in AFRINIC Whois >> > database with the following exception: >> > >> > -netname and descr must describe the usage of the block >> > -all other information can be the same as the Ressource Member's >> > information with the understanding that he is liable for any issue >> > related to the IP Block. >> > >> > 4.References: >> > >> > (1) IPv4 Allocation Policy (Assignment Policies and Guidelines) >> > http://AFRINIC.net/en/library/policies/126-policy-ipv4-address-allocat >> > ion-policies >> > >> > (2) Creating Customer Assignments >> > http://www.AFRINIC.net/en/library/membership-documents/214-creating-cu >> > stomer-assignments >> > >> > (3) Definition of AFRINIC Resource Member >> > http://www.AFRINIC.net/en/services/rs >> > >> > Useful urls: >> > Policy under discussion: >> > http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposal >> > s Policy proposals: >> > http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposal >> > s About the policy development process: >> > http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/pdwg >> > >> > Regards >> > --- >> > Seun Ojedeji & Adam Nelson >> > PDWG Co-Chairs >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> rpd mailing list >> rpd at afrinic.net >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From list-admin at afrinic.net Wed Oct 1 05:11:11 2014 From: list-admin at afrinic.net (list-admin at afrinic.net) Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2014 05:11:11 GMT Subject: [rpd] Monthly statistics for mailing-list: rpd@afrinic.net Message-ID: <201410010511.s915BBTC026254@ns1.afrinic.net> Monthly statistics for mailing-list: rpd at afrinic.net (Generated at: Wed Oct 1 05:11:00 UTC 2014) Statistics for month: September 2014 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ***** Authors with the most number of messages posted: +----+-----Author-----------------------------------+--Msg-+-Percent-+ | 1 | kofi.ansa at gmail.com | 17 | 14.53 % | | 2 | sfolayan at gmail.com | 16 | 13.68 % | | 3 | mainanoa at gmail.com | 11 | 9.40 % | | 4 | keshwarsingh.nadan at millenium.mu | 8 | 6.84 % | | 5 | steve.wilcox at ixreach.com | 6 | 5.13 % | | 6 | omo at wacren.net | 6 | 5.13 % | | 7 | seun.ojedeji at gmail.com | 6 | 5.13 % | | 8 | h.lu at anytimechinese.com | 5 | 4.27 % | | 9 | Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com | 4 | 3.42 % | | 10 | boubakarbarry at gmail.com | 4 | 3.42 % | | 11 | ernest at afrinic.net | 4 | 3.42 % | | 12 | badru.ntege at nftconsult.com | 3 | 2.56 % | | 13 | adiel at afrinic.net | 3 | 2.56 % | | 14 | owen at delong.com | 3 | 2.56 % | | 15 | ndonnang at nvconsulting.biz | 2 | 1.71 % | | 16 | psmata2g8 at yahoo.com | 2 | 1.71 % | | 17 | dogwallah at gmail.com | 2 | 1.71 % | | 18 | list-admin at afrinic.net | 1 | 0.85 % | | 19 | quaynor at ghana.com | 1 | 0.85 % | | 20 | comm-announce at afrinic.net | 1 | 0.85 % | +----+----------------------------------------------+------+---------+ | | other | 12 | 10.26 % | +----+----------------------------------------------+------+---------+ ***** Authors with the largest total size of messages posted: +----+-----Author-------------------------------------------+-KBytes-+ | 1 | Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com | 138.9 | | 2 | kofi.ansa at gmail.com | 136.8 | | 3 | keshwarsingh.nadan at millenium.mu | 59.0 | | 4 | h.lu at anytimechinese.com | 37.1 | | 5 | akeem at futa.edu.ng | 36.8 | | 6 | boubakarbarry at gmail.com | 34.5 | | 7 | aalain at trstech.net | 34.3 | | 8 | jrhountomey at gmail.com | 30.9 | | 9 | seun.ojedeji at gmail.com | 30.2 | | 10 | omo at wacren.net | 28.2 | | 11 | steve.wilcox at ixreach.com | 26.5 | | 12 | paulos at sdnp.org.mw | 26.2 | | 13 | ebothompson at gmail.com | 23.6 | | 14 | mainanoa at gmail.com | 23.6 | | 15 | owen at delong.com | 21.5 | | 16 | sfolayan at gmail.com | 18.3 | | 17 | ernest at afrinic.net | 18.1 | | 18 | ndonnang at nvconsulting.biz | 16.3 | | 19 | psmata2g8 at yahoo.com | 16.2 | | 20 | mje at posix.co.za | 8.7 | +----+------------------------------------------------------+--------+ ***** Authors with the largest average size of messages posted: +----+-----Author--------------------------------------------+-bytes-+ | 1 | akeem at futa.edu.ng | 37677 | | 2 | Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com | 35553 | | 3 | aalain at trstech.net | 35102 | | 4 | jrhountomey at gmail.com | 31641 | | 5 | paulos at sdnp.org.mw | 26869 | | 6 | ebothompson at gmail.com | 24190 | | 7 | mje at posix.co.za | 8906 | | 8 | boubakarbarry at gmail.com | 8833 | | 9 | ndonnang at nvconsulting.biz | 8360 | | 10 | psmata2g8 at yahoo.com | 8284 | | 11 | kofi.ansa at gmail.com | 8238 | | 12 | jwalu at yahoo.com | 7693 | | 13 | h.lu at anytimechinese.com | 7592 | | 14 | keshwarsingh.nadan at millenium.mu | 7549 | | 15 | owen at delong.com | 7332 | | 16 | quaynor at ghana.com | 5389 | | 17 | list-admin at afrinic.net | 5384 | | 18 | seun.ojedeji at gmail.com | 5159 | | 19 | omo at wacren.net | 4808 | | 20 | ernest at afrinic.net | 4628 | +----+-------------------------------------------------------+-------+ ***** Top subjects by popularity: +----+----Subject-----------------------------------+--Msg-+-Percent-+ | 1 | [rpd] Re: [afnog] A typical case of abuse of | 50 | 42.74 % | | 2 | [rpd] [afnog] A typical case of abuse of our | 21 | 17.95 % | | 3 | [afnog] [rpd] Re: A typical case of abuse of | 19 | 16.24 % | | 4 | [rpd] New proposal - "Mandatory requirements | 7 | 5.98 % | | 5 | [rpd] RE: rpd Digest, Vol 96, Issue 37 | 4 | 3.42 % | | 6 | [rpd] Re: [Board-Discuss] Re: [afnog] A typi | 2 | 1.71 % | | 7 | [rpd] A typical case of abuse of our resour | 2 | 1.71 % | | 8 | [rpd] Monthly statistics for mailing-list: r | 1 | 0.85 % | | 9 | Staff Assessment for AFPUB-2014-GEN-002-DRAF | 1 | 0.85 % | | 10 | [rpd] Re: [Board-Discuss] Re: [afnog] A typi | 1 | 0.85 % | | 11 | [rpd] Implementation of the ?No Reverse Unle | 1 | 0.85 % | | 12 | [rpd] A buzz phrase from ARIN strategic plan | 1 | 0.85 % | | 13 | [rpd] Re: rpd Digest, Vol 96, Issue 19 | 1 | 0.85 % | | 14 | [afnog] [rpd] Re: A typical case of abuse o | 1 | 0.85 % | | 15 | [members-discuss] Re: [rpd] [afnog] A typica | 1 | 0.85 % | | 16 | [rpd] Re: rpd Digest, Vol 96, Issue 29 | 1 | 0.85 % | | 17 | [rpd] rpd Digest, Vol 96, Issue 29 | 1 | 0.85 % | | 18 | [members-discuss] [rpd] [afnog] A typical ca | 1 | 0.85 % | | 19 | [rpd] Call for Nominations: AFRINIC region r | 1 | 0.85 % | +----+----------------------------------------------+------+---------+ | | other | 0 | 0.00 % | +----+----------------------------------------------+------+---------+ ***** Graph showing number of messages written during hours of day: 100% -------------------------------------#---#------- - 11 90% -------------------------------------#---#------- msgs 80% -------------------------------------#-#-#---#--- 70% -----------------------------------#-#-#-#-#-#--- 60% -------------------------------#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#--- 50% -------------#---------------#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#--- 40% -------------#-----#---#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#--- 30% -------------#-----#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#--- 20% -#-----#-----#-----#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#--- 10% -#-----#-----#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#--- * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * hour 0 5 11 17 23 ***** Graph showing number of messages written during days of month: 100% -------------------------------------#------------------------- - 38 90% -------------------------------------#------------------------- msgs 80% -------------------------------------#------------------------- 70% -------------------------------------#-#----------------------- 60% -------------------------------------#-#----------------------- 50% -------------------------------------#-#----------------------- 40% -------------------------------------#-#----------------------- 30% -------------------------------------#-#-#--------------------- 20% -------------------------------------#-#-#-#------------------- 10% ---------------------------------#---#-#-#-#---#---#-#--------- * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * day 1 6 12 18 24 31 ***** Graph showing number of messages written during days of week: 100% -----------------#----------- - 42 90% -----------------#----------- msgs 80% -----------------#----------- 70% -----------------#---#------- 60% -----------------#---#------- 50% -----------------#---#------- 40% -----------------#---#------- 30% -----------------#---#---#--- 20% -#-------#-------#---#---#--- 10% -#-------#-------#---#---#--- * * * * * * * Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun ***** Longest message: Author : akeem at futa.edu.ng Subject : [rpd] RE: rpd Digest, Vol 96, Issue 37 Date : Sat, 27 Sep 2014 06:22:36 +0000 Size : 51199 bytes ***** Most popular subject: Subject : [rpd] Re: [afnog] A typical case of abuse of our resources!!! No. of msgs: 50 Total size : 420238 bytes ***** Final summary: Total number of messages: 117 Total number of different authors: 32 Total number of different subjects: 19 Total size of messages (w/o headers): 1173510 bytes Average size of a message: 10030 bytes -- Regards, AFRINIC _____________________ powered by grepmail and MailListStat From jrhountomey at gmail.com Wed Oct 1 12:27:26 2014 From: jrhountomey at gmail.com (Jean Robert Hountomey) Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2014 07:27:26 -0500 Subject: [rpd] New proposal - "Mandatory requirements for registering assignments and sub-allocations" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-003-DRAFT-01) In-Reply-To: References: <54259100.16256.1F32FCF@paulos.sdnp.org.mw> <5425FED8.2050400@gmail.com> Message-ID: <542BF32E.6050904@gmail.com> Hi Alain, thank you. > Update the support document and call for the enforcement of the RSA after an awareness period ? What is the best way to do this? Best Regards. Jean Robert. On 9/30/14, 2:06 PM, ALAIN AINA wrote: > > JR, > > Looking forward to this document. In the meantime, i think the > problem statement may not be clear enough, even if i try to > understand it that it is about encouraging members to register > assignments/sub-allocations in the whois. On the other hand, it's not > clear how this policy solves this problem as it fundamentally changes > nothing. Yes, i see the change of the "will " to must" and others. > > Shall a policy be made and community approval needed before enforcing > the section 4 of the RSA [1]? > > Merging a policy with a support document is not a good idea. Support > document describes how we do things to comply to policies and evolve > over time with technologies and solutions. > > Update the support document and call for the enforcement of the RSA > after an awareness period ? > > [1]: http://www.afrinic.net/en/services/rs/rsa > > > --Alain > > > On Sep 27, 2014, at 12:03 AM, Jean Robert Hountomey wrote: > >> Thank you Dr Paulos, I will submit the new version. >> Best Regards. >> Jean Robert. >> >> On 9/26/14, 11:14 AM, Dr Paulos Nyirenda wrote: >>> >>> Seun, >>> >>> While I am still considering the proposal, I would like to comment >>> on the process for this policy proposal. >>> >>> Normally, a proposal that ammends a policy like this has produced a >>> full version of the ammended policy and not just a list of the >>> ammendments as has been done here. The full version of the policy >>> then replaces the previous version or as the saying goes "obsoletes" >>> the previous version in a tracked histrory. This allows the >>> ammendments to be considered in the context of the whole policy and >>> not just bits of it like this. >>> >>> So, in this case I think the way forward would be to ask the author >>> to insert the ammendments and to produce the full ammended version >>> of AFPUB-2005-v4-001 which is what should be presented to RPD for >>> discussion. >>> >>> The list of ammendments can be put in the problem section of the new >>> proposal or however the author wants it done with the guidance of >>> the co-chairs BUT it is the full policy that should be discussed on >>> RPD and not just the ammendments like this. >>> >>> I am open to correction on the process but at least that is the way >>> I recall its use. >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Paulos >>> ====================== >>> Dr Paulos B Nyirenda >>> NIC.MW & .mw ccTLD >>> http://www.registrar.mw >>> >>> >>> On 26 Sep 2014 at 15:43, Seun Ojedeji wrote: >>> >>> > >>> > Dear members, >>> > >>> > We have received a new policy Proposal - "Mandatory requirements for >>> > registering assignments and sub-allocations" >>> > (AFPUB-2014-GEN-003-DRAFT-01) >>> > >>> > Draft Policy name: Mandatory requirements for registering assignments >>> > and sub-allocations Unique identifier: AFPUB-2014-GEN-003-DRAFT-01 >>> > Status: New Submission Date: September 22, 2014 Author: Jean Robert >>> > Hountomey URL: >>> >http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposal >>> > s/1215-mandatory-require >>> > ments-for-registering-assignments-and-sub-allocations Short url: >>> >http://goo.gl/vOJIrN >>> > >>> > Text Below: >>> > >>> > 1.Summary of the Problem Being Addressed by this Policy Proposal >>> > >>> > The AFRINIC IPv4 Allocation policy - AFPUB-2005-v4-001 (1) guides the >>> > responsible management of unique IPv4 address space in the AFRINIC >>> > region. The document was implemented in May 17, 2006. >>> > >>> > In a document called "Creating Customer Assignments" (2) last Updated >>> > on Monday, 02 September 2013, AFRINIC has detailed the process of >>> > registering LIR network infrastructure and customer IP address >>> > assignments in the AFRINIC whois database. While the two documents are >>> > still applicable, the AFRINIC community has questioned at several >>> > occasions AFRINIC's allocations. In addition few, AFRINIC Resource >>> > Members (3) have not registered their assignments in the AFRINIC >>> > database. >>> > >>> > 2.Summary of How this Proposal Addresses the Problem >>> > >>> > This document merges the AFRINIC IPv4 Allocation policy and Creating >>> > Customer Assignments by introducing a section (section 9.7) into >>> > AFRINIC IPV4 Allocation Policy. In addition, the document makes >>> > mandatory the registration of all allocations and assignments in the >>> > AFRINIC database. Furthermore, the document gives the authority to >>> > AFRINIC staff to conduct any process after approbation by the >>> > community to reclaim resources from unregistered assignments / >>> > allocations / sub-allocation since they are considered invalid. 3. >>> > Proposal >>> > >>> > 3.1. Modification of section (8b) of the AFRINIC IPV4 Allocation >>> > policy by replacing "will be" by "must be". >>> > >>> > a. All communication with AFRINIC must be in English. >>> > b. All allocations and assignments must be registered in an AFRINIC >>> > database. Any unregistered assignments / allocations / sub-allocation >>> > will be considered invalid. >>> > >>> > The registration data (name, IP block/range, contacts, status, etc..) >>> > must be correct at all times. This is necessary to support network >>> > operations. >>> > >>> > 3.2 The proposal adds section (9.7) - "Mandatory Requirement for >>> > registering assignments" to AFRINIC IPV4 Allocation Policy. >>> > >>> > Assignment registration is important for several reasons: >>> > >>> > -To inform the Internet community which organization is using the IPv4 >>> > address space, including the point of contact in case of operation >>> > problems, security >>> > >>> > -To ensure that the Resource Member has completed or is close to >>> > completing address space allocation such that the allocation of >>> > additional space is justified >>> > >>> > -Assignment Registration also helps AFRINIC in analyzing additional >>> > IPV4 block request made by a Resource Member in an open transparent >>> > process >>> > >>> > -Assignments must include the following mandatory attributes regarding >>> > the assignee: inetnum, net name, descr, country, admin-c, tech-c, org >>> > >>> > and any other mandatory information required as defined by an AFRINIC >>> > policy. >>> > >>> > 3.2.1 Size of block and timeframe >>> > >>> > All IP block assignments equal or larger than a /29 made by an AFRINIC >>> > Resource Member for its own network or customer must be registered and >>> > documented in AFRINIC Whois database no later than seven (7) business >>> > days after the assignment. >>> > >>> > 3.2.2 Residential Customers >>> > >>> > When the assignment is for residential customers, the address blocks >>> > that are being used by equipment or customer service areas, by service >>> > must be registered (dialup access server, DSLAM/DSL access Server, >>> > WIFI Access Point, WIMAX Cell, Cloud infrastructure etc..) The >>> > Resource Member must specify in the AFRINIC whois database that the >>> > block is used for Residential Customers (netname, desc) >>> > >>> > 3.3.3 Confidentiality. >>> > >>> > It is understandable that for business requirement and customer >>> > information protection the Resource Member might be reluctant to >>> > provide these information in the public database. The information must >>> > be provided to AFRINIC for audit purpose under confidential agreement. >>> > >>> > The Resources assigned must still be registered in AFRINIC Whois >>> > database with the following exception: >>> > >>> > -netname and descr must describe the usage of the block >>> > -all other information can be the same as the Ressource Member's >>> > information with the understanding that he is liable for any issue >>> > related to the IP Block. >>> > >>> > 4.References: >>> > >>> > (1) IPv4 Allocation Policy (Assignment Policies and Guidelines) >>> >http://AFRINIC.net/en/library/policies/126-policy-ipv4-address-allocat >>> > ion-policies >>> > >>> > (2) Creating Customer Assignments >>> >http://www.AFRINIC.net/en/library/membership-documents/214-creating-cu >>> > stomer-assignments >>> > >>> > (3) Definition of AFRINIC Resource Member >>> >http://www.AFRINIC.net/en/services/rs >>> > >>> > Useful urls: >>> > Policy under discussion: >>> >http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposal >>> > s Policy proposals: >>> >http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposal >>> > s About the policy development process: >>> >http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/pdwg >>> > >>> > Regards >>> > --- >>> > Seun Ojedeji & Adam Nelson >>> > PDWG Co-Chairs >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> rpd mailing list >>> rpd at afrinic.net >>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >> >> _______________________________________________ >> rpd mailing list >> rpd at afrinic.net >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ernest at afrinic.net Thu Oct 2 12:04:59 2014 From: ernest at afrinic.net (Ernest) Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2014 15:04:59 +0300 Subject: [rpd] Re: Staff Assessment for AFPUB-2014-GEN-002-DRAFT-01 In-Reply-To: <5406D9AF.9080300@afrinic.net> References: <1404494578.17253.11.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> <5406D9AF.9080300@afrinic.net> Message-ID: <542D3F6B.8040705@afrinic.net> Hi Douglas, We are expecting some feedback from you regarding the staff's assessment of your proposal. Our comments were sent earlier below for your perusal. (Comments from others are of-course welcome too) Regards, Ernest. Ernest wrote thus on 9/3/14, 12:04 PM: > Dear All, > > Below are the points of interest that staff have noted in the policy > proposal Out-Of-Region Use of AFRINIC Internet Number Resources" > (AFPUB-2014-GEN-002-DRAFT-01): > > > ======================================== > > Chapter 2, Paragraph 1: "This policy allows up to 40% of Internet > number resources in use by a member to be outside the region..." > > Staff Comment(s): The policy should be restricted to LIR allocations > and not End-User PI Space. There is no provision in the current > policies for AFRINIC staff to measure usage of End User (PI) space. > The staff's main basis of number resource usage assessment today is > by looking at PA assignments and sub-allocations registered by an > LIR in the WHOIS database as provided for in Section 9 of the "IPv4 > Allocation Policy - AFPUB-2005-v4-001 at > http://afrinic.net/en/library/policies/126-afpub-2005-v4-001. This > method of registering usage in the whois db only applies to LIRs. > Staff recommends that this sentence therefore be changed to "This > policy allows up to 40% of Internet number resources in use by an > AFRINIC LIR member to be outside the region..." > > _________________________________________ > > Chapter 2, Paragraph 2: ?For the avoidance of doubt, the author does > not seek to prolong the lifespan of IPv4 with this proposal but > rather, to ensure that number resources allocated/assigned by > AFRINIC are used by legitimate members from the service region to > support their network operations, regardless of physical location?. > > Staff Comment(s): Author should clarify about what is the intended > meaning of the words ?legitimate members?. Staff shall otherwise > interpret it as ?members in good standing?). > > _________________________________________ > > Clause 3b: ?Notwithstanding (3.a), the number resources used outside > the region at any given point in time shall not exceed 40% of the > total space in use by a member. Total space in use shall be > calculated as follows: if x be the allocation/assignment size; and > x-y the amount of space in use at time z, then 40% of (x-y) shall be > the ceiling)?. > > Staff comment(s): The author should clarify further on the > formula/variables, by explicitly defining what ?y? stands for. > > _________________________________________ > > Clause 3c: "c. AFRINIC staff shall at their discretion, and using > whatever means are available, assess compliance.." > > Staff comment(s): The staff's main basis of number resource usage > assessment today is by looking at PA assignments and sub-allocations > registered by the LIR in the WHOIS database as provided for in > Section 9 of the "IPv4 Allocation Policy - AFPUB-2005-v4-001 at > http://afrinic.net/en/library/policies/126-afpub-2005-v4-001. (We > may only take a step further when there are some doubt regarding > registered information). > > _________________________________________ > > Clause 3f: ?This policy shall apply to past, present and future > allocations and assignments made by AFRINIC?. > > Staff comment(s): After the policy proposal is ratified and > implemented, there could be some existing members in breach of the > new policy. In-line with 6(d) of the RSA, breach or non-compliance > with this policy should ultimately result in cancellation of the RSA > and consequent reclamation of associated resources. The proposal > should clearly state the time frame (duration) that should be > allowed for members in breach, and should also propose what steps > AFRINIC should take during this time frame in reaching out to > non-compliant members before revoking/cancelling their RSAs and > reclaiming their resources if they remain in breach after the stated > time period. > > ======================================== From tespok at tespok.co.ke Fri Oct 3 11:28:51 2014 From: tespok at tespok.co.ke (Fiona Asonga) Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2014 14:28:51 +0300 (EAT) Subject: [rpd] New proposal - "Mandatory requirements for registering assignments and sub-allocations" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-003-DRAFT-01) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1768884252.76261.1412335731175.JavaMail.zimbra@tespok.co.ke> I support this proposal Fiona Asonga Chief Executive Officer Telecommunications Service Providers Association of Kenya/ Kenya Internet Exchange Point Member Strategic Committee of the Africa Computer Emergency Response Team NRO Number Council http://www.nro.net/about/number-council.html ASO Address Council http://aso.icann.org/ac/ 14 th Floor, Bruce House Standard Street Tel: +254 20 2245 036 Cell: +254 721 713 504 Website: www.tespok.or.ke ----- Original Message ----- From: "Seun Ojedeji" To: "rpd" Sent: Friday, 26 September, 2014 5:43:53 PM Subject: [rpd] New proposal - "Mandatory requirements for registering assignments and sub-allocations" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-003-DRAFT-01) Dear members, We have received a new policy Proposal - "Mandatory requirements for registering assignments and sub-allocations" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-003-DRAFT-01) Draft Policy name: Mandatory requirements for registering assignments and sub-allocations Unique identifier: AFPUB-2014-GEN-003-DRAFT-01 Status: New Submission Date: September 22, 2014 Author: Jean Robert Hountomey URL: http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposals/1215-mandatory-requirements-for-registering-assignments-and-sub-allocations Short url: http://goo.gl/vOJIrN Text Below: 1.Summary of the Problem Being Addressed by this Policy Proposal The AFRINIC IPv4 Allocation policy - AFPUB-2005-v4-001 (1) guides the responsible management of unique IPv4 address space in the AFRINIC region. The document was implemented in May 17, 2006. In a document called ?Creating Customer Assignments? (2) last Updated on Monday, 02 September 2013, AFRINIC has detailed the process of registering LIR network infrastructure and customer IP address assignments in the AFRINIC whois database. While the two documents are still applicable, the AFRINIC community has questioned at several occasions AFRINIC?s allocations. In addition few, AFRINIC Resource Members (3) have not registered their assignments in the AFRINIC database. 2.Summary of How this Proposal Addresses the Problem This document merges the AFRINIC IPv4 Allocation policy and Creating Customer Assignments by introducing a section (section 9.7) into AFRINIC IPV4 Allocation Policy. In addition, the document makes mandatory the registration of all allocations and assignments in the AFRINIC database. Furthermore, the document gives the authority to AFRINIC staff to conduct any process after approbation by the community to reclaim resources from unregistered assignments / allocations / sub-allocation since they are considered invalid. 3. Proposal 3.1. Modification of section (8b) of the AFRINIC IPV4 Allocation policy by replacing ?will be? by ?must be". a. All communication with AFRINIC must be in English. b. All allocations and assignments must be registered in an AFRINIC database. Any unregistered assignments / allocations / sub-allocation will be considered invalid. The registration data (name, IP block/range, contacts, status, etc..) must be correct at all times. This is necessary to support network operations. 3.2 The proposal adds section (9.7) ? ?Mandatory Requirement for registering assignments? to AFRINIC IPV4 Allocation Policy. Assignment registration is important for several reasons: -To inform the Internet community which organization is using the IPv4 address space, including the point of contact in case of operation problems, security -To ensure that the Resource Member has completed or is close to completing address space allocation such that the allocation of additional space is justified -Assignment Registration also helps AFRINIC in analyzing additional IPV4 block request made by a Resource Member in an open transparent process -Assignments must include the following mandatory attributes regarding the assignee: inetnum, net name, descr, country, admin-c, tech-c, org and any other mandatory information required as defined by an AFRINIC policy. 3.2.1 Size of block and timeframe All IP block assignments equal or larger than a /29 made by an AFRINIC Resource Member for its own network or customer must be registered and documented in AFRINIC Whois database no later than seven (7) business days after the assignment. 3.2.2 Residential Customers When the assignment is for residential customers, the address blocks that are being used by equipment or customer service areas, by service must be registered (dialup access server, DSLAM/DSL access Server, WIFI Access Point, WIMAX Cell, Cloud infrastructure etc..) The Resource Member must specify in the AFRINIC whois database that the block is used for Residential Customers (netname, desc) 3.3.3 Confidentiality. It is understandable that for business requirement and customer information protection the Resource Member might be reluctant to provide these information in the public database. The information must be provided to AFRINIC for audit purpose under confidential agreement. The Resources assigned must still be registered in AFRINIC Whois database with the following exception: -netname and descr must describe the usage of the block -all other information can be the same as the Ressource Member's information with the understanding that he is liable for any issue related to the IP Block. 4.References: (1) IPv4 Allocation Policy (Assignment Policies and Guidelines) http://AFRINIC.net/en/library/policies/126-policy-ipv4-address-allocation-policies (2) Creating Customer Assignments http://www.AFRINIC.net/en/library/membership-documents/214-creating-customer-assignments (3) Definition of AFRINIC Resource Member http://www.AFRINIC.net/en/services/rs Useful urls: Policy under discussion: http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposals Policy proposals: http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposals About the policy development process: http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/pdwg Regards --- Seun Ojedeji & Adam Nelson PDWG Co-Chairs _______________________________________________ rpd mailing list rpd at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mje at posix.co.za Fri Oct 3 11:53:28 2014 From: mje at posix.co.za (Mark Elkins) Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2014 13:53:28 +0200 Subject: [rpd] New proposal - "Mandatory requirements for registering assignments and sub-allocations" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-003-DRAFT-01) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1412337208.3847.1.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> Seems fine to me. I support the proposal. On Fri, 2014-09-26 at 15:43 +0100, Seun Ojedeji wrote: > Dear members, > > We have received a new policy Proposal - "Mandatory requirements for > registering assignments and > sub-allocations" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-003-DRAFT-01) > > Draft Policy name: Mandatory requirements for registering assignments > and sub-allocations > Unique identifier: AFPUB-2014-GEN-003-DRAFT-01 > Status: New > Submission Date: September 22, 2014 > Author: Jean Robert Hountomey > URL: > http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposals/1215-mandatory-requirements-for-registering-assignments-and-sub-allocations > Short url: http://goo.gl/vOJIrN -- Mark James ELKINS - Posix Systems - (South) Africa mje at posix.co.za Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: https://ftth.posix.co.za -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 5810 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mje at posix.co.za Thu Oct 9 09:08:30 2014 From: mje at posix.co.za (Mark Elkins) Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2014 11:08:30 +0200 Subject: [rpd] AnyCast assignments - Update Message-ID: <1412845710.3847.251.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> Hello community, I was one of the co-authors for AFPUB-2012-V4-001 (Anycast assignments) It has been strongly suggested to me that the current proposal be extended to include both IPv6 and ASN resources as well. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1) Summary of the Problem Being Addressed by this Policy Proposal The current policy (AFPUB-2012-V4-001) that lets AFRINIC members acquire space for anycast service deployment purposes does not provide the ability to request IPv6 anycast space (and for AFRINIC to issue it to anyone). There's also no provision for issuing AS Numbers for anycast purposes. This proposal attempts to modify AFPUB-2012-V4-001 to fix these issues. 2) Summary of How this Proposal Addresses the Problem The proposal modifies AFPUB-2012-V4-001 to include the option to request IPv6 space and AS Numbers for anycast purposes from AFRINIC and for AFRINIC to issue these resources to the requestors. For the avoidance of doubt, the author does not seek to prolong the lifespan of IPv4 with this proposal but rather, to ensure that number resources allocated/assigned by AFRINIC are used by legitimate members from the service region to support their network operations, regardless of physical location. 3) Proposal AFPUB-2012-V4-001 is modified from the original version to the following version: ........................................................... 1. Summary of the problem being addressed by the policy proposal This proposal allows an organization to receive an IPv4/IPv6 allocation or assignment and an AS Number purely for anycast or GPRS Roaming Exchange (GRX) usage. 2. Summary of how this proposal addresses the problem This proposal allows the use of: a. One (1) /24 of IPv4 for anycast services from a PA allocation of an LIR or direct end-user assignment. b. One /48 of IPv6 for anycast services from an IPv6 LIR allocation or direct end-user assignment. c. An AS Number for anycast purposes. AFRINIC staff will consider anycast IPv4/IPv6 blocks assigned to be "fully utilised" by the LIR when considering utilisation for first allocation or for an additional allocation to an LIR. 3. Proposal 3.1 An organization may obtain one (1) /24 IPv4 and/or one (1) /48 IPv6 prefix for anycast or GRX purposes from an allocation or an AFRINIC issued direct end-user assignment. An AS Number should also be issued for the same purposes if requested. These resources must be used for the sole purpose of anycasting web or authoritative DNS servers as described in BCP126/RFC 4786 (http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4786.txt) or for GPRS Roaming Exchange. The IPv4/IPv6 prefixes will count as being fully utilised when an organization applies for additional resources. The utilization criteria that apply to all IPv4 and IPv6 initial allocation or assignment requests shall be waived for anycast assignment requests. 3.2 Blocks used for anycast services cannot be further assigned or sub-allocated. They shall be tagged with the status attribute in the AFRINIC whois service as "ASSIGNED ANYCAST". 4.0 Revision History Version 00 Submitted 2014-10-07 by author. ........................................................... The proposal is now published at: https://afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposals/1219-anycast-resource-assignments-in-the-afrinic-region -- Mark James ELKINS - Posix Systems - (South) Africa mje at posix.co.za Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: https://ftth.posix.co.za -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 5810 bytes Desc: not available URL: From owen at delong.com Thu Oct 9 15:32:44 2014 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2014 08:32:44 -0700 Subject: [rpd] AnyCast assignments - Update In-Reply-To: <1412845710.3847.251.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> References: <1412845710.3847.251.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> Message-ID: <36D16396-4D67-479E-A991-4A0BF63D7D2B@delong.com> If there is to be such a policy (which I am not convinced is a good idea), then said policy certainly needs to enable IPv6 and is sort of pointless without the ability to acquire an ASN. Owen On Oct 9, 2014, at 2:08 AM, Mark Elkins wrote: > Hello community, > > I was one of the co-authors for AFPUB-2012-V4-001 (Anycast assignments) > It has been strongly suggested to me that the current proposal be > extended to include both IPv6 and ASN resources as well. > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > 1) Summary of the Problem Being Addressed by this Policy Proposal > > The current policy (AFPUB-2012-V4-001) that lets AFRINIC members > acquire space for anycast service deployment purposes does not > provide the ability to request IPv6 anycast space (and for AFRINIC > to issue it to anyone). There's also no provision for issuing AS > Numbers for anycast purposes. This proposal attempts to modify > AFPUB-2012-V4-001 to fix these issues. > > > 2) Summary of How this Proposal Addresses the Problem > > The proposal modifies AFPUB-2012-V4-001 to include the option to > request IPv6 space and AS Numbers for anycast purposes from AFRINIC > and for AFRINIC to issue these resources to the requestors. > > For the avoidance of doubt, the author does not seek to prolong the > lifespan of IPv4 with this proposal but rather, to ensure that > number resources allocated/assigned by AFRINIC are used by > legitimate members from the service region to support their network > operations, regardless of physical location. > > > 3) Proposal > > AFPUB-2012-V4-001 is modified from the original version to the > following version: > > ........................................................... > > 1. Summary of the problem being addressed by the policy proposal > > This proposal allows an organization to receive an IPv4/IPv6 > allocation or assignment and an AS Number purely for anycast or GPRS > Roaming Exchange (GRX) usage. > > > 2. Summary of how this proposal addresses the problem > > This proposal allows the use of: > > a. One (1) /24 of IPv4 for anycast services from a PA allocation of > an LIR or direct end-user assignment. > b. One /48 of IPv6 for anycast services from an IPv6 LIR allocation > or direct end-user assignment. > c. An AS Number for anycast purposes. > > AFRINIC staff will consider anycast IPv4/IPv6 blocks assigned to be > "fully utilised" by the LIR when considering utilisation for first > allocation or for an additional allocation to an LIR. > > > 3. Proposal > > 3.1 An organization may obtain one (1) /24 IPv4 and/or one (1) /48 > IPv6 prefix for anycast or GRX purposes from an allocation or an > AFRINIC issued direct end-user assignment. An AS Number should also > be issued for the same purposes if requested. These resources must > be used for the sole purpose of anycasting web or authoritative DNS > servers as described in BCP126/RFC 4786 > (http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4786.txt) or for GPRS Roaming Exchange. > The IPv4/IPv6 prefixes will count as being fully utilised when an > organization applies for additional resources. The utilization > criteria that apply to all IPv4 and IPv6 initial allocation or > assignment requests shall be waived for anycast assignment requests. > > > 3.2 Blocks used for anycast services cannot be further assigned or > sub-allocated. They shall be tagged with the status attribute in the > AFRINIC whois service as "ASSIGNED ANYCAST". > > > 4.0 Revision History > > Version 00 Submitted 2014-10-07 by author. > > ........................................................... > > The proposal is now published at: > > https://afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposals/1219-anycast-resource-assignments-in-the-afrinic-region > -- > Mark James ELKINS - Posix Systems - (South) Africa > mje at posix.co.za Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 > For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: https://ftth.posix.co.za > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd From nishal at controlfreak.co.za Fri Oct 10 14:34:59 2014 From: nishal at controlfreak.co.za (Nishal Goburdhan) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2014 10:34:59 -0400 Subject: [rpd] AnyCast assignments - Update In-Reply-To: <1412845710.3847.251.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> References: <1412845710.3847.251.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> Message-ID: On 09 Oct 2014, at 5:08 AM, Mark Elkins wrote: > Hello community, hi mark, > 3) Proposal > AFPUB-2012-V4-001 is modified from the original version to the > following version: > ........................................................... > 1. Summary of the problem being addressed by the policy proposal > This proposal allows an organization to receive an IPv4/IPv6 > allocation or assignment and an AS Number purely for anycast or GPRS > Roaming Exchange (GRX) usage. > > 2. Summary of how this proposal addresses the problem > This proposal allows the use of: > a. One (1) /24 of IPv4 for anycast services from a PA allocation of > an LIR or direct end-user assignment. > b. One /48 of IPv6 for anycast services from an IPv6 LIR allocation > or direct end-user assignment. > c. An AS Number for anycast purposes. i'd like some clarification on the (1)x /24. specifically, i would like to ensure the following: * legitimate operators are able to get resources for anycast; (the existing policy does this already, so nothing needed here, great !) * there is no limitation made to AfriNIC allocating _only_ a single block for anycast. let me explain the second request. the policy, as is worded, is potentially ambiguous. hostmasters _may_ be tempted to say that, as per policy, they have satisfied the requirement to allocate one, and only one prefix for anycast purposes, to an organisation, when, a forward thinking organisation might wish to have more than one anycast cloud. while having one prefix, is obviously better than zero, it would be _wrong_ to limit this to just one anycast cloud. so, while the current policy doesn't _disallow_ more than a single allocation, it's not clear (i think) to the hostmaster team, that more than one allocation might be allowed. (i guess, the other way of looking at this, is that there is no requirement to _change_ policy if, there is acknowledgement from the hostmaster team that they understand this - perhaps we can get them to comment here. the task of determining valid usage will still be up to the hostmasters of course) > AFRINIC staff will consider anycast IPv4/IPv6 blocks assigned to be > "fully utilised" by the LIR when considering utilisation for first > allocation or for an additional allocation to an LIR. > > 3. Proposal > 3.1 An organization may obtain one (1) /24 IPv4 and/or one (1) /48 > IPv6 prefix for anycast or GRX purposes from an allocation or an > AFRINIC issued direct end-user assignment. An AS Number should also > be issued for the same purposes if requested. These resources must > be used for the sole purpose of anycasting web or authoritative DNS > servers as described in BCP126/RFC 4786 > (http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4786.txt) or for GPRS Roaming Exchange. > The IPv4/IPv6 prefixes will count as being fully utilised when an > organization applies for additional resources. The utilization > criteria that apply to all IPv4 and IPv6 initial allocation or > assignment requests shall be waived for anycast assignment requests. i would like you to remove the words: "sole purpose of anycasting web or authoritative DNS..." since there are other services that someone might want to anycast, and restricting this to two protocols, is, well...quite limiting ... and, i don't think that policy should limit innovation. i think what you likely mean is: "solely for anycast" .. which is subtly different. i suggest: "These resources must be used for the sole purposes of providing anycast services". (i would even remove the reference to BCP126; that's an operational thing...) that aside - i _support_ the change to policy to include IPv6 and an ASN as part of the anycast assignment. thanks for fix^H^H^H updating this. > 3.2 Blocks used for anycast services cannot be further assigned or > sub-allocated. They shall be tagged with the status attribute in the > AFRINIC whois service as "ASSIGNED ANYCAST". > > > 4.0 Revision History > Version 00 Submitted 2014-10-07 by author. From owen at delong.com Sat Oct 11 12:21:06 2014 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2014 08:21:06 -0400 Subject: [rpd] AnyCast assignments - Update In-Reply-To: References: <1412845710.3847.251.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> Message-ID: <09E8A626-14B1-4E28-ABBC-2B0EFAA02D48@delong.com> I support removing the single prefix limitation for IPv6. I do not support removing it for IPv4. I believe it to be a reasonable safeguard for scarce addressing. I agree that the application layer protocols should not be restricted or limited (for one thing, anycast for web is just a bad idea from the word go, so including it is questionable at best), but also, Nishal is right that policy should not restrict innovation if it can be avoided. Owen > On Oct 10, 2014, at 10:34 AM, Nishal Goburdhan wrote: > >> On 09 Oct 2014, at 5:08 AM, Mark Elkins wrote: >> >> Hello community, > > hi mark, > > >> 3) Proposal >> AFPUB-2012-V4-001 is modified from the original version to the >> following version: >> ........................................................... >> 1. Summary of the problem being addressed by the policy proposal >> This proposal allows an organization to receive an IPv4/IPv6 >> allocation or assignment and an AS Number purely for anycast or GPRS >> Roaming Exchange (GRX) usage. >> >> 2. Summary of how this proposal addresses the problem >> This proposal allows the use of: >> a. One (1) /24 of IPv4 for anycast services from a PA allocation of >> an LIR or direct end-user assignment. >> b. One /48 of IPv6 for anycast services from an IPv6 LIR allocation >> or direct end-user assignment. >> c. An AS Number for anycast purposes. > > i'd like some clarification on the (1)x /24. > specifically, i would like to ensure the following: > * legitimate operators are able to get resources for anycast; (the existing policy does this already, so nothing needed here, great !) > * there is no limitation made to AfriNIC allocating _only_ a single block for anycast. > > let me explain the second request. > the policy, as is worded, is potentially ambiguous. hostmasters _may_ be tempted to say that, as per policy, they have satisfied the requirement to allocate one, and only one prefix for anycast purposes, to an organisation, when, a forward thinking organisation might wish to have more than one anycast cloud. while having one prefix, is obviously better than zero, it would be _wrong_ to limit this to just one anycast cloud. > > so, while the current policy doesn't _disallow_ more than a single allocation, it's not clear (i think) to the hostmaster team, that more than one allocation might be allowed. > (i guess, the other way of looking at this, is that there is no requirement to _change_ policy if, there is acknowledgement from the hostmaster team that they understand this - perhaps we can get them to comment here. the task of determining valid usage will still be up to the hostmasters of course) > > > >> AFRINIC staff will consider anycast IPv4/IPv6 blocks assigned to be >> "fully utilised" by the LIR when considering utilisation for first >> allocation or for an additional allocation to an LIR. >> >> 3. Proposal >> 3.1 An organization may obtain one (1) /24 IPv4 and/or one (1) /48 >> IPv6 prefix for anycast or GRX purposes from an allocation or an >> AFRINIC issued direct end-user assignment. An AS Number should also >> be issued for the same purposes if requested. These resources must >> be used for the sole purpose of anycasting web or authoritative DNS >> servers as described in BCP126/RFC 4786 >> (http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4786.txt) or for GPRS Roaming Exchange. >> The IPv4/IPv6 prefixes will count as being fully utilised when an >> organization applies for additional resources. The utilization >> criteria that apply to all IPv4 and IPv6 initial allocation or >> assignment requests shall be waived for anycast assignment requests. > > i would like you to remove the words: "sole purpose of anycasting web or authoritative DNS..." since there are other services that someone might want to anycast, and restricting this to two protocols, is, well...quite limiting ... and, i don't think that policy should limit innovation. > i think what you likely mean is: "solely for anycast" .. which is subtly different. i suggest: > "These resources must be used for the sole purposes of providing anycast services". > (i would even remove the reference to BCP126; that's an operational thing...) > > > that aside - i _support_ the change to policy to include IPv6 and an ASN as part of the anycast assignment. > thanks for fix^H^H^H updating this. > > >> 3.2 Blocks used for anycast services cannot be further assigned or >> sub-allocated. They shall be tagged with the status attribute in the >> AFRINIC whois service as "ASSIGNED ANYCAST". >> >> >> 4.0 Revision History >> Version 00 Submitted 2014-10-07 by author. > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd From geier at geier.ne.tz Mon Oct 13 04:17:25 2014 From: geier at geier.ne.tz (Frank Habicht) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 07:17:25 +0300 Subject: [rpd] AnyCast assignments - Update In-Reply-To: References: <1412845710.3847.251.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> Message-ID: <543B5255.9090906@geier.ne.tz> Hi, I support the proposal _and_ Nishal's remarks. Frank On 10/10/2014 5:34 PM, Nishal Goburdhan wrote: > On 09 Oct 2014, at 5:08 AM, Mark Elkins wrote: > >> Hello community, > > hi mark, > > >> 3) Proposal >> AFPUB-2012-V4-001 is modified from the original version to the >> following version: >> ........................................................... >> 1. Summary of the problem being addressed by the policy proposal >> This proposal allows an organization to receive an IPv4/IPv6 >> allocation or assignment and an AS Number purely for anycast or GPRS >> Roaming Exchange (GRX) usage. >> >> 2. Summary of how this proposal addresses the problem >> This proposal allows the use of: >> a. One (1) /24 of IPv4 for anycast services from a PA allocation of >> an LIR or direct end-user assignment. >> b. One /48 of IPv6 for anycast services from an IPv6 LIR allocation >> or direct end-user assignment. >> c. An AS Number for anycast purposes. > > i'd like some clarification on the (1)x /24. > specifically, i would like to ensure the following: > * legitimate operators are able to get resources for anycast; (the existing policy does this already, so nothing needed here, great !) > * there is no limitation made to AfriNIC allocating _only_ a single block for anycast. > > let me explain the second request. > the policy, as is worded, is potentially ambiguous. hostmasters _may_ be tempted to say that, as per policy, they have satisfied the requirement to allocate one, and only one prefix for anycast purposes, to an organisation, when, a forward thinking organisation might wish to have more than one anycast cloud. while having one prefix, is obviously better than zero, it would be _wrong_ to limit this to just one anycast cloud. > > so, while the current policy doesn't _disallow_ more than a single allocation, it's not clear (i think) to the hostmaster team, that more than one allocation might be allowed. > (i guess, the other way of looking at this, is that there is no requirement to _change_ policy if, there is acknowledgement from the hostmaster team that they understand this - perhaps we can get them to comment here. the task of determining valid usage will still be up to the hostmasters of course) > > > >> AFRINIC staff will consider anycast IPv4/IPv6 blocks assigned to be >> "fully utilised" by the LIR when considering utilisation for first >> allocation or for an additional allocation to an LIR. >> >> 3. Proposal >> 3.1 An organization may obtain one (1) /24 IPv4 and/or one (1) /48 >> IPv6 prefix for anycast or GRX purposes from an allocation or an >> AFRINIC issued direct end-user assignment. An AS Number should also >> be issued for the same purposes if requested. These resources must >> be used for the sole purpose of anycasting web or authoritative DNS >> servers as described in BCP126/RFC 4786 >> (http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4786.txt) or for GPRS Roaming Exchange. >> The IPv4/IPv6 prefixes will count as being fully utilised when an >> organization applies for additional resources. The utilization >> criteria that apply to all IPv4 and IPv6 initial allocation or >> assignment requests shall be waived for anycast assignment requests. > > i would like you to remove the words: "sole purpose of anycasting web or authoritative DNS..." since there are other services that someone might want to anycast, and restricting this to two protocols, is, well...quite limiting ... and, i don't think that policy should limit innovation. > i think what you likely mean is: "solely for anycast" .. which is subtly different. i suggest: > "These resources must be used for the sole purposes of providing anycast services". > (i would even remove the reference to BCP126; that's an operational thing...) > > > that aside - i _support_ the change to policy to include IPv6 and an ASN as part of the anycast assignment. > thanks for fix^H^H^H updating this. > > >> 3.2 Blocks used for anycast services cannot be further assigned or >> sub-allocated. They shall be tagged with the status attribute in the >> AFRINIC whois service as "ASSIGNED ANYCAST". >> >> >> 4.0 Revision History >> Version 00 Submitted 2014-10-07 by author. > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > From ondouglas at gmail.com Thu Oct 16 08:57:46 2014 From: ondouglas at gmail.com (Douglas Onyango) Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 11:57:46 +0300 Subject: [rpd] Re: Staff Assessment for AFPUB-2014-GEN-002-DRAFT-01 In-Reply-To: References: <1404494578.17253.11.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> <5406D9AF.9080300@afrinic.net> <542D3F6B.8040705@afrinic.net> Message-ID: Hi Ernest, On 16 October 2014 11:54, Douglas Onyango wrote: > Hi Ernest, > On 2 October 2014 15:04, Ernest wrote: >> We are expecting some feedback from you regarding the staff's >> assessment of your proposal. Sorry for the delay. My comments are inline: >>> Chapter 2, Paragraph 1: "This policy allows up to 40% of Internet >>> number resources in use by a member to be outside the region..." >>> >>> Staff Comment(s): The policy should be restricted to LIR allocations >>> and not End-User PI Space. There is no provision in the current >>> policies for AFRINIC staff to measure usage of End User (PI) space. >>> The staff's main basis of number resource usage assessment today is >>> by looking at PA assignments and sub-allocations registered by an >>> LIR in the WHOIS database as provided for in Section 9 of the "IPv4 >>> Allocation Policy - AFPUB-2005-v4-001 at >>> http://afrinic.net/en/library/policies/126-afpub-2005-v4-001. This >>> method of registering usage in the whois db only applies to LIRs. >>> Staff recommends that this sentence therefore be changed to "This >>> policy allows up to 40% of Internet number resources in use by an >>> AFRINIC LIR member to be outside the region..." I think the issue the policy is trying to resolve is as valid for PA as it is with PI space. I am reluctant to remove this clause just because AFRINIC doesn't have an enforcement mechanism at the moment. I would challenge AFRINIC to revert if PI space wouldn't be vulnerable, else an enforcement mechanism should be sought in parallel, but outside this policy. >>> Chapter 2, Paragraph 2: "For the avoidance of doubt, the author does >>> not seek to prolong the lifespan of IPv4 with this proposal but >>> rather, to ensure that number resources allocated/assigned by >>> AFRINIC are used by legitimate members from the service region to >>> support their network operations, regardless of physical location". >>> >>> Staff Comment(s): Author should clarify about what is the intended >>> meaning of the words "legitimate members". Staff shall otherwise >>> interpret it as "members in good standing"). I have removed "legitimate" and revised the statement to read: ...he seeks to ensure that number resources allocated/assigned by AFRINIC are used by members from the service region to support their legitimate network operations, regardless of physical location >>> Clause 3b: "Notwithstanding (3.a), the number resources used outside >>> the region at any given point in time shall not exceed 40% of the >>> total space in use by a member. Total space in use shall be >>> calculated as follows: if x be the allocation/assignment size; and >>> x-y the amount of space in use at time z, then 40% of (x-y) shall be >>> the ceiling)". >>> >>> Staff comment(s): The author should clarify further on the >>> formula/variables, by explicitly defining what "y" stands for. Done. Now reads: Total space in use shall be calculated as follows: if x be the allocation/assignment size; and y the amount of space in use at time z, then 40% of y shall be the ceiling). >>> Clause 3c: "c. AFRINIC staff shall at their discretion, and using >>> whatever means are available, assess compliance.." >>> >>> Staff comment(s): The staff's main basis of number resource usage >>> assessment today is by looking at PA assignments and sub-allocations >>> registered by the LIR in the WHOIS database as provided for in >>> Section 9 of the "IPv4 Allocation Policy - AFPUB-2005-v4-001 at >>> http://afrinic.net/en/library/policies/126-afpub-2005-v4-001. (We >>> may only take a step further when there are some doubt regarding >>> registered information). > > >>> Clause 3f: "This policy shall apply to past, present and future >>> allocations and assignments made by AFRINIC". >>> >>> Staff comment(s): After the policy proposal is ratified and >>> implemented, there could be some existing members in breach of the >>> new policy. In-line with 6(d) of the RSA, breach or non-compliance >>> with this policy should ultimately result in cancellation of the RSA >>> and consequent reclamation of associated resources. The proposal >>> should clearly state the time frame (duration) that should be >>> allowed for members in breach, and should also propose what steps >>> AFRINIC should take during this time frame in reaching out to >>> non-compliant members before revoking/cancelling their RSAs and >>> reclaiming their resources if they remain in breach after the stated >>> time period. I am averse to the idea of a separate enforcement mechanism as it may create disharmony with already existing RSA breach procedure. I need this to be uniform and consistent with the already existing one. If the status quo is found to be wanting, I would rather it be revised in uniform and appropriate manner. Regards, -- Douglas Onyango, PRINCE 2, ITILv3 UG: +256 776 716 138 | NG: +234 706 202 8375 -- Douglas Onyango, PRINCE 2, ITILv3 UG: +256 776 716 138 | NG: +234 706 202 8375 From jrhountomey at gmail.com Fri Oct 17 23:43:46 2014 From: jrhountomey at gmail.com (Jean Robert Hountomey) Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2014 18:43:46 -0500 Subject: [rpd] New proposal - "Mandatory requirements for registering assignments and sub-allocations" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-003-DRAFT-01) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5441A9B2.8020909@gmail.com> Dear Al, Thanks a lot for those who support this policy. Taking into consideration the comments, I would like to withdraw "Mandatory requirements for registering assignments and sub-allocations" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-003-DRAFT-01) Thanks again for your support. Regards. Jean Robert Hountomey. On 9/26/14, 9:43 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: > Dear members, > > We have received a new policy Proposal - "Mandatory requirements for > registering assignments and sub-allocations" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-003-DRAFT-01) > > Draft Policy name: Mandatory requirements for registering assignments > and sub-allocations > Unique identifier: AFPUB-2014-GEN-003-DRAFT-01 > Status: New > Submission Date: September 22, 2014 > Author: Jean Robert Hountomey > URL: > http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposals/1215-mandatory-requirements-for-registering-assignments-and-sub-allocations > Short url: http://goo.gl/vOJIrN > > Text Below: > > 1.Summary of the Problem Being Addressed by this Policy Proposal > > The AFRINIC IPv4 Allocation policy - AFPUB-2005-v4-001 (1) guides the > responsible management of unique IPv4 address space in the AFRINIC > region. The document was implemented in May 17, 2006. > > In a document called "Creating Customer Assignments" (2) last Updated > on Monday, 02 September 2013, AFRINIC has detailed the process of > registering LIR network infrastructure and customer IP address > assignments in the AFRINIC whois database. While the two documents are > still applicable, the AFRINIC community has questioned at several > occasions AFRINIC's allocations. In addition few, AFRINIC Resource > Members (3) have not registered their assignments in the AFRINIC > database. > > 2.Summary of How this Proposal Addresses the Problem > > This document merges the AFRINIC IPv4 Allocation policy and Creating > Customer Assignments by introducing a section (section 9.7) into > AFRINIC IPV4 Allocation Policy. In addition, the document makes > mandatory the registration of all allocations and assignments in the > AFRINIC database. Furthermore, the document gives the authority to > AFRINIC staff to conduct any process after approbation by the > community to reclaim resources from unregistered assignments / > allocations / sub-allocation since they are considered invalid. > 3. Proposal > > 3.1. Modification of section (8b) of the AFRINIC IPV4 Allocation > policy by replacing "will be" by "must be". > > a. All communication with AFRINIC must be in English. > b. All allocations and assignments must be registered in an AFRINIC > database. Any unregistered assignments / allocations / sub-allocation > will be considered invalid. > > The registration data (name, IP block/range, contacts, status, etc..) > must be correct at all times. This is necessary to support network > operations. > > 3.2 The proposal adds section (9.7) -- "Mandatory Requirement for > registering assignments" to AFRINIC IPV4 Allocation Policy. > > Assignment registration is important for several reasons: > > -To inform the Internet community which organization is using the IPv4 > address space, including the point of contact in case of operation > problems, security > > -To ensure that the Resource Member has completed or is close to > completing address space allocation such that the allocation of > additional space is justified > > -Assignment Registration also helps AFRINIC in analyzing additional > IPV4 block request made by a Resource Member in an open transparent > process > > -Assignments must include the following mandatory attributes regarding > the assignee: inetnum, net name, descr, country, admin-c, tech-c, org > > and any other mandatory information required as defined by an AFRINIC > policy. > > 3.2.1 Size of block and timeframe > > All IP block assignments equal or larger than a /29 made by an AFRINIC > Resource Member for its own network or customer must be registered and > documented in AFRINIC Whois database no later than seven (7) business > days after the assignment. > > 3.2.2 Residential Customers > > When the assignment is for residential customers, the address blocks > that are being used by equipment or customer service areas, by service > must be registered (dialup access server, DSLAM/DSL access Server, > WIFI Access Point, WIMAX Cell, Cloud infrastructure etc..) The > Resource Member must specify in the AFRINIC whois database that the > block is used for Residential Customers (netname, desc) > > 3.3.3 Confidentiality. > > It is understandable that for business requirement and customer > information protection the Resource Member might be reluctant to > provide these information in the public database. The information must > be provided to AFRINIC for audit purpose under confidential agreement. > > The Resources assigned must still be registered in AFRINIC Whois > database with the following exception: > > -netname and descr must describe the usage of the block > -all other information can be the same as the Ressource Member's > information with the understanding that he is liable for any issue > related to the IP Block. > > 4.References: > > (1) IPv4 Allocation Policy (Assignment Policies and Guidelines) > http://AFRINIC.net/en/library/policies/126-policy-ipv4-address-allocation-policies > > > (2) Creating Customer Assignments > http://www.AFRINIC.net/en/library/membership-documents/214-creating-customer-assignments > > > (3) Definition of AFRINIC Resource Member > http://www.AFRINIC.net/en/services/rs > > *Useful urls:* > Policy under discussion: > http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposals > Policy proposals: > http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposals > About the policy development process: > http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/pdwg > > Regards > --- > Seun Ojedeji & Adam Nelson > PDWG Co-Chairs > > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From v at kangin.org Sun Oct 19 03:52:14 2014 From: v at kangin.org (Vladimir Kangin) Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2014 11:52:14 +0800 Subject: [rpd] AfriNIC policy AFPUB-2014-GEN-002-DRAFT-01 reject Message-ID: <1413690734.28338.81.camel@localhost.localdomain> Dear Community Members, I would like to comment on AFPUB-2014-GEN-002-DRAFT-01 In my humble opinion the split 40/60% is not appropriate and "Out-Of-Region use" definition is something inappropriate for Internet in general. Why you do not offer 30/70% or 50/50%? How did you come up with 40/60% figures? The percentage of "Out-Of-Region use" cannot be indifferent to type of business companies do. For instance we take an African local ISP. Why they could need 40% of allocated space for use outside of Africa? It would eventually seduce them into sell/rent IPs only. Normally they would need less then 1% and in very rare cases only. Or for instance take a satellite services company that would like to focus on serving customers that Out-Of-Region. Then all is opposite and they need 1% of allocated space for infrastructure use at African Satellite HUB and the rest 99% will be on customer end. Will you close the door for such business? We can discuss many other options like VPNs, Clouds, CDNs etc but obviously 40% of Internet number resources for use by a member to be outside the region is not a solution. The approach shall be beneficial for Afrinic in a way of controlling resources as well as maintain attractiveness for businesses. I kindly request to consider my reject on AFPUB-2014-GEN-002-DRAFT-01. -- Best regards, Vladimir Kangin From apb at cequrux.com Sun Oct 19 14:47:07 2014 From: apb at cequrux.com (Alan Barrett) Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2014 07:47:07 -0700 Subject: [rpd] IANA transition process Message-ID: <20141019144706.GE2800@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> I would like to remind everybody of the ongoing IANA transition process. On 14 March 2014, the US Department of Commerce?s National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) announced the intention to transition the oversight of key Internet functions, including the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA), to the global Internet multi-stakeholder community. See for the NRO's summary of the process. In the Afrinic region, a new "ianaoversight" mailing list was set up to discuss this. See for links to the archives, and for information on how to subscribe. There are also discussions in the "africann" mailing list. See . Most recently, the NRO proposed to create a team with members from all RIRs to draft a coordinated proposal. See . --apb (Alan Barrett) From ernest at afrinic.net Mon Oct 20 19:11:42 2014 From: ernest at afrinic.net (Ernest) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2014 22:11:42 +0300 Subject: [rpd] AnyCast assignments - Update In-Reply-To: References: <1412845710.3847.251.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> Message-ID: <54455E6E.1020909@afrinic.net> >> 3) Proposal >> AFPUB-2012-V4-001 is modified from the original version to the >> following version: >> ........................................................... >> 1. Summary of the problem being addressed by the policy proposal >> This proposal allows an organization to receive an IPv4/IPv6 >> allocation or assignment and an AS Number purely for anycast or GPRS >> Roaming Exchange (GRX) usage. >> >> 2. Summary of how this proposal addresses the problem >> This proposal allows the use of: >> a. One (1) /24 of IPv4 for anycast services from a PA allocation of >> an LIR or direct end-user assignment. >> b. One /48 of IPv6 for anycast services from an IPv6 LIR allocation >> or direct end-user assignment. >> c. An AS Number for anycast purposes. > > let me explain the second request. the policy, as is worded, is > potentially ambiguous. hostmasters _may_ be tempted to say that, > as per policy, they have satisfied the requirement to allocate > one, and only one prefix for anycast purposes, to an > organisation, when, a forward thinking organisation might wish to > have more than one anycast cloud. while having one prefix, is > obviously better than zero, it would be _wrong_ to limit this to > just one anycast cloud. > > so, while the current policy doesn't _disallow_ more than a > single allocation, it's not clear (i think) to the hostmaster > team, that more than one allocation might be allowed. (i guess, > the other way of looking at this, is that there is no requirement > to _change_ policy if, there is acknowledgement from the > hostmaster team that they understand this - perhaps we can get > them to comment here. the task of determining valid usage will > still be up to the hostmasters of course) As there are no explicitly indicated limitations in the current policy, we implemented this such that an organization can request and be granted one /24 *per request*. The frequency of the anycast requests however (from the same organization) is unlimited per our interpretation. While reading through the new proposal - we also interpret it such that one /24 v4, one /48 v6 prefix and one ASN will be assigned with *each* anycast request from the same organization, and there is no limit on the number of times the same org can request such resources. Regards, Ernest. From mje at posix.co.za Mon Oct 20 19:45:00 2014 From: mje at posix.co.za (Mark Elkins) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2014 21:45:00 +0200 Subject: [rpd] AnyCast assignments - Update In-Reply-To: <54455E6E.1020909@afrinic.net> References: <1412845710.3847.251.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> <54455E6E.1020909@afrinic.net> Message-ID: <1413834300.21858.0.camel@posix.co.za> On Mon, 2014-10-20 at 22:11 +0300, Ernest wrote: > >> 3) Proposal > >> AFPUB-2012-V4-001 is modified from the original version to the > >> following version: > >> ........................................................... > >> 1. Summary of the problem being addressed by the policy proposal > >> This proposal allows an organization to receive an IPv4/IPv6 > >> allocation or assignment and an AS Number purely for anycast or GPRS > >> Roaming Exchange (GRX) usage. > >> > >> 2. Summary of how this proposal addresses the problem > >> This proposal allows the use of: > >> a. One (1) /24 of IPv4 for anycast services from a PA allocation of > >> an LIR or direct end-user assignment. > >> b. One /48 of IPv6 for anycast services from an IPv6 LIR allocation > >> or direct end-user assignment. > >> c. An AS Number for anycast purposes. > > > > let me explain the second request. the policy, as is worded, is > > potentially ambiguous. hostmasters _may_ be tempted to say that, > > as per policy, they have satisfied the requirement to allocate > > one, and only one prefix for anycast purposes, to an > > organisation, when, a forward thinking organisation might wish to > > have more than one anycast cloud. while having one prefix, is > > obviously better than zero, it would be _wrong_ to limit this to > > just one anycast cloud. > > > > so, while the current policy doesn't _disallow_ more than a > > single allocation, it's not clear (i think) to the hostmaster > > team, that more than one allocation might be allowed. (i guess, > > the other way of looking at this, is that there is no requirement > > to _change_ policy if, there is acknowledgement from the > > hostmaster team that they understand this - perhaps we can get > > them to comment here. the task of determining valid usage will > > still be up to the hostmasters of course) > > As there are no explicitly indicated limitations in the current > policy, we implemented this such that an organization can request > and be granted one /24 *per request*. The frequency of the anycast > requests however (from the same organization) is unlimited per our > interpretation. > > While reading through the new proposal - we also interpret it such > that one /24 v4, one /48 v6 prefix and one ASN will be assigned with > *each* anycast request from the same organization, and there is no > limit on the number of times the same org can request such resources. Which should mean there is nothing wrong with the wording! -- Mark James ELKINS - Posix Systems - (South) Africa mje at posix.co.za Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: https://ftth.posix.co.za -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 5810 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mje at posix.co.za Mon Oct 20 20:41:08 2014 From: mje at posix.co.za (Mark Elkins) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2014 22:41:08 +0200 Subject: [rpd] Re: [afnog] Call for Nominations: AFRINIC region representative to the ICANN ASO-AC In-Reply-To: <5429B0AA.3060207@afrinic.net> References: <5429B0AA.3060207@afrinic.net> Message-ID: <1413837668.26921.2.camel@posix.co.za> On Mon, 2014-09-29 at 22:19 +0300, Ernest wrote: > Colleagues, > > The AFRINIC Nominations Committee (NomCom) is pleased to invite > nominations for candidates to run for an open seat on the NRO NC > (ICANN ASO AC) for the AFRINIC region. The term for the elected > candidate will be from 1 January 2015 to 31 December 2018 (3 years). Colleagues, Please note that the deadline for receiving nominations for the open ASO-AC seat has been extended to 21-Oct-2014 2000UTC. Nominations can be submitted online at http://meeting.afrinic.net/afrinic-21/en/elections/community-elections Regards, -- Mark James ELKINS - Posix Systems - (South) Africa mje at posix.co.za Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: https://ftth.posix.co.za -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 5810 bytes Desc: not available URL: From nishal at controlfreak.co.za Mon Oct 20 21:51:24 2014 From: nishal at controlfreak.co.za (Nishal Goburdhan) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2014 23:51:24 +0200 Subject: [rpd] AnyCast assignments - Update In-Reply-To: <1413834300.21858.0.camel@posix.co.za> References: <1412845710.3847.251.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> <54455E6E.1020909@afrinic.net> <1413834300.21858.0.camel@posix.co.za> Message-ID: On 20 Oct 2014, at 21:45, Mark Elkins wrote: > On Mon, 2014-10-20 at 22:11 +0300, Ernest wrote: >> >> >> As there are no explicitly indicated limitations in the current >> policy, we implemented this such that an organization can request >> and be granted one /24 *per request*. The frequency of the anycast >> requests however (from the same organization) is unlimited per our >> interpretation. >> >> While reading through the new proposal - we also interpret it such >> that one /24 v4, one /48 v6 prefix and one ASN will be assigned with >> *each* anycast request from the same organization, and there is no >> limit on the number of times the same org can request such resources. ernest, thanks for clearing that up! > Which should mean there is nothing wrong with the wording! mark, if you make the subtle adjustments to remove "web" as requested earlier, then i have no more useful suggestions. so, +support. --n. From kc.touching at gmail.com Wed Oct 22 05:12:24 2014 From: kc.touching at gmail.com (Victor) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2014 13:12:24 +0800 Subject: [rpd] AfriNIC policy AFPUB-2014-GEN-002-DRAFT-01 reject In-Reply-To: <544733BC.5040702@iptp.net> References: <1413690734.28338.81.camel@localhost.localdomain> <544733BC.5040702@iptp.net> Message-ID: In my opinion, the proposal itself intended to keep the resources within the region and may prevent business investment in Africa which is not good at all. Technically how to define out-of-region is another question to discuss. Without proper definition, this policy will NOT solve any problem which stated initially "leaving staff to arbitrarily decide how to handle Out-Of-Region requests". It simply create another problem "leaving staff to arbitrarily decide how to DEFINE Out-Of-Region", providing extra execute to reject some resources applications. There is no reason to get it implement. -- Victor On 10/19/2014 11:52 AM, Vladimir Kangin wrote: > > > Dear Community Members, > > I would like to comment on AFPUB-2014-GEN-002-DRAFT-01 > > In my humble opinion the split 40/60% is not appropriate and > "Out-Of-Region use" definition is something inappropriate for Internet > in general. Why you do not offer 30/70% or 50/50%? How did you come up > with 40/60% figures? > > The percentage of "Out-Of-Region use" cannot be indifferent to type of > business companies do. > > For instance we take an African local ISP. Why they could need 40% of > allocated space for use outside of Africa? It would eventually seduce > them into sell/rent IPs only. Normally they would need less then 1% > and in very rare cases only. > > Or for instance take a satellite services company that would like to > focus on serving customers that Out-Of-Region. Then all is opposite and > they need 1% of allocated space for infrastructure use at African > Satellite HUB and the rest 99% will be on customer end. Will you close > the door for such business? > > We can discuss many other options like VPNs, Clouds, CDNs etc but > obviously 40% of Internet number resources for use by a member to be > outside the region is not a solution. The approach shall be beneficial > for Afrinic in a way of controlling resources as well as maintain > attractiveness for businesses. > > I kindly request to consider my reject on AFPUB-2014-GEN-002-DRAFT-01. > > -- > Best regards, > Vladimir Kangin > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From virtual.borg at gmail.com Wed Oct 22 06:48:53 2014 From: virtual.borg at gmail.com (Borg) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2014 10:48:53 +0400 Subject: [rpd] AfriNIC policy AFPUB-2014-GEN-002-DRAFT-01 reject In-Reply-To: References: <1413690734.28338.81.camel@localhost.localdomain> <544733BC.5040702@iptp.net> Message-ID: Borg le Chevalier ___________________________________ "Common sense is what tells us the world is flat" On 22 October 2014 09:12, Victor wrote: > In my opinion, the proposal itself intended to keep the resources within > the region and may prevent business investment in Africa which is not good > at all. > And this gentlemen is red herring, as ridiculous as it is preposterous. Business investment in Afrique that depends on IPv4 addresses??! It ok to protect IPv4 business, but please stop pretending any of this has to do with what is good for Afrique. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com Wed Oct 22 07:31:27 2014 From: Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com (Andrew Alston) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2014 08:31:27 +0100 Subject: [rpd] AfriNIC policy AFPUB-2014-GEN-002-DRAFT-01 reject In-Reply-To: References: <1413690734.28338.81.camel@localhost.localdomain> <544733BC.5040702@iptp.net> Message-ID: <7FF93785BD2D534EA45841A8AAA1D89B51322817C6@liquid-exch.liquidtelecom.local> (Before writing this, I need to state that what follows is NOT written in my capacity as an AfriNIC director nor should it be read as portraying the views of the AfriNIC board in any way shape or form) Actually Borg, I can concretely demonstrate that the availability of IPv4 addressing can have an impact on business investment. Let me give you an example, since this is already in the media. Liquid is planning to invest $200 MILLION in African expansion over the next 24 months, this was published here: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-09-11/liquid-telecom-to-invest-200-million-in-african-expansion.html While we are dual-stacking *everything* with v4 and v6 as a standard rule, like it or not, we still need IPv4 space to do this. (Without v4 addressing, there are a number of things we cannot accomplish at the moment). This however also raises the debate on the proposed AFPUB-2014-GEN-002-DRAFT-01 policy. On a personal level (and representing Liquid) I oppose this policy, on the grounds that I do not believe it will actually serve to protect African interests. I have long opposed geographic restrictions on where space can be used by legitimate African entities, for a variety of reasons and will continue to do so. I do not believe that placing arbitrary numbers (be they 10%, 20% or any other number) on the percentage of space that can be used in region or out of region is a helpful thing to do. Particularly since none of these policies actually contain a proper definition of what constitutes in-region vs out-of-region use. (For example, if I originate a /16 in Africa via a BGP network statement or via redistribution, the space was originated in Africa, nothing stops me internally using more specifics to keep routing to that space out of continent though) I also believe very strongly that large African multi-nationals that are expanding both in the African region and outside of the African region should be able to get space for ALL their operations irrespective of where they are geographically based, since the expansion of these companies does benefit Africa as a whole, both in terms of economic growth and in terms of African employment to run equipment located off continent). But believe me, coming from an environment where having address space is critical to the business, there is a correlation between investment and address space, and it can be clearly demonstrated. I do believe that we need to protect the African resources from being pillaged by non-African entities and IP Brokers. I will strongly support policy that prevents African resources flowing off continent into the hands of those who have absolutely no link to Africa AND where there is no benefit (quantitative) to the continent. I just do not believe at this point we have a policy proposal that fulfills these objectives. Thanks Andrew Alston Andrew Alston Head of IP Strategy Liquid Telecommunications Limited, 6 New Street Square, London EC4A 3BF T: +27 76 219 7933 (ZA) T: +254 733 2222 04 (KE) E: andrew.alston at liquidtelecom.com> - Skype: symm001 From: rpd-bounces at afrinic.net [mailto:rpd-bounces at afrinic.net] On Behalf Of Borg Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2014 9:49 AM To: Victor Cc: AfriNIC RPD MList. Subject: Re: [rpd] AfriNIC policy AFPUB-2014-GEN-002-DRAFT-01 reject Borg le Chevalier ___________________________________ "Common sense is what tells us the world is flat" On 22 October 2014 09:12, Victor > wrote: In my opinion, the proposal itself intended to keep the resources within the region and may prevent business investment in Africa which is not good at all. And this gentlemen is red herring, as ridiculous as it is preposterous. Business investment in Afrique that depends on IPv4 addresses??! It ok to protect IPv4 business, but please stop pretending any of this has to do with what is good for Afrique. ________________________________ DISCLAIMER: This email contains proprietary information some or all of which may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this email, please notify the author by replying to this email. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose, copy, print, or rely on this email. We cannot accept liability for any statements made which are clearly the sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of this company or one of its agents. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From h.lu at anytimechinese.com Wed Oct 22 09:23:04 2014 From: h.lu at anytimechinese.com (H.Lu) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2014 17:23:04 +0800 Subject: [rpd] AfriNIC policy AFPUB-2014-GEN-002-DRAFT-01 reject In-Reply-To: <7FF93785BD2D534EA45841A8AAA1D89B51322817C6@liquid-exch.liquidtelecom.local> References: <1413690734.28338.81.camel@localhost.localdomain> <544733BC.5040702@iptp.net> <7FF93785BD2D534EA45841A8AAA1D89B51322817C6@liquid-exch.liquidtelecom.local> Message-ID: <1E149BC0-BB08-4357-A366-70404372DC9E@anytimechinese.com> Hi I would rather Africa internet remain open and transparent. Kind regards Lu > ? 2014?10?22????3:31?Andrew Alston ??? > > (Before writing this, I need to state that what follows is NOT written in my capacity as an AfriNIC director nor should it be read as portraying the views of the AfriNIC board in any way shape or form) > > Actually Borg, > > I can concretely demonstrate that the availability of IPv4 addressing can have an impact on business investment. > > Let me give you an example, since this is already in the media. > > Liquid is planning to invest $200 MILLION in African expansion over the next 24 months, this was published here: > > http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-09-11/liquid-telecom-to-invest-200-million-in-african-expansion.html > > While we are dual-stacking *everything* with v4 and v6 as a standard rule, like it or not, we still need IPv4 space to do this. (Without v4 addressing, there are a number of things we cannot accomplish at the moment). > > This however also raises the debate on the proposed AFPUB-2014-GEN-002-DRAFT-01 policy. On a personal level (and representing Liquid) I oppose this policy, on the grounds that I do not believe it will actually serve to protect African interests. I have long opposed geographic restrictions on where space can be used by legitimate African entities, for a variety of reasons and will continue to do so. I do not believe that placing arbitrary numbers (be they 10%, 20% or any other number) on the percentage of space that can be used in region or out of region is a helpful thing to do. Particularly since none of these policies actually contain a proper definition of what constitutes in-region vs out-of-region use. (For example, if I originate a /16 in Africa via a BGP network statement or via redistribution, the space was originated in Africa, nothing stops me internally using more specifics to keep routing to that space out of continent though) > > I also believe very strongly that large African multi-nationals that are expanding both in the African region and outside of the African region should be able to get space for ALL their operations irrespective of where they are geographically based, since the expansion of these companies does benefit Africa as a whole, both in terms of economic growth and in terms of African employment to run equipment located off continent). > > But believe me, coming from an environment where having address space is critical to the business, there is a correlation between investment and address space, and it can be clearly demonstrated. > > I do believe that we need to protect the African resources from being pillaged by non-African entities and IP Brokers. I will strongly support policy that prevents African resources flowing off continent into the hands of those who have absolutely no link to Africa AND where there is no benefit (quantitative) to the continent. I just do not believe at this point we have a policy proposal that fulfills these objectives. > > Thanks > > Andrew Alston > > Andrew Alston > Head of IP Strategy > Liquid Telecommunications Limited, 6 New Street Square, London EC4A 3BF > T: +27 76 219 7933 (ZA) T: +254 733 2222 04 (KE) > E: andrew.alston at liquidtelecom.com - Skype: symm001 > > > > From: rpd-bounces at afrinic.net [mailto:rpd-bounces at afrinic.net] On Behalf Of Borg > Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2014 9:49 AM > To: Victor > Cc: AfriNIC RPD MList. > Subject: Re: [rpd] AfriNIC policy AFPUB-2014-GEN-002-DRAFT-01 reject > > > > Borg le Chevalier > ___________________________________ > "Common sense is what tells us the world is flat" > > On 22 October 2014 09:12, Victor wrote: > In my opinion, the proposal itself intended to keep the resources within the region and may prevent business investment in Africa which is not good at all. > > > And this gentlemen is red herring, as ridiculous as it is preposterous. Business investment in Afrique that depends on IPv4 addresses??! It ok to protect IPv4 business, but please stop pretending any of this has to do with what is good for Afrique. > > > > DISCLAIMER: This email contains proprietary information some or all of which may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this email, please notify the author by replying to this email. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose, copy, print, or rely on this email. We cannot accept liability for any statements made which are clearly the sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of this company or one of its agents. > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com Wed Oct 22 11:42:38 2014 From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2014 12:42:38 +0100 Subject: [rpd] AfriNIC policy AFPUB-2014-GEN-002-DRAFT-01 reject In-Reply-To: <7FF93785BD2D534EA45841A8AAA1D89B51322817C6@liquid-exch.liquidtelecom.local> References: <1413690734.28338.81.camel@localhost.localdomain> <544733BC.5040702@iptp.net> <7FF93785BD2D534EA45841A8AAA1D89B51322817C6@liquid-exch.liquidtelecom.local> Message-ID: Hi Andrew, On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 8:31 AM, Andrew Alston < Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com> wrote: > (Before writing this, I need to state that what follows is NOT written > in my capacity as an AfriNIC director nor should it be read as portraying > the views of the AfriNIC board in any way shape or form) > > > > Actually Borg, > > > > I can concretely demonstrate that the availability of IPv4 addressing can > have an impact on business investment. > Just to be clear, do you think this policy will deny availability of IP resource to organisations that intend to expand their growth in Africa? How will the example below be affected by this policy, if the $200million is indeed for growth/expansion within the region? Cheers! PS: An individual's layman question. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng * The key to understanding is humility - my view ! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mje at posix.co.za Wed Oct 22 11:44:38 2014 From: mje at posix.co.za (Mark Elkins) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2014 13:44:38 +0200 Subject: [rpd] AfriNIC policy AFPUB-2014-GEN-002-DRAFT-01 reject In-Reply-To: References: <1413690734.28338.81.camel@localhost.localdomain> <544733BC.5040702@iptp.net> Message-ID: <1413978278.14622.13.camel@posix.co.za> Can I please ask you - in which African Country do you live? If a non African company moves into Africa - why would the policy not allow them IPv4 address space? On Wed, 2014-10-22 at 13:12 +0800, Victor wrote: > In my opinion, the proposal itself intended to keep the resources > within the region and may prevent business investment in Africa which > is not good at all. > > > Technically how to define out-of-region is another question to > discuss. Without proper definition, this policy will NOT solve any > problem which stated initially "leaving staff to arbitrarily decide > how to handle Out-Of-Region requests". It simply create another > problem "leaving staff to arbitrarily decide how to DEFINE > Out-Of-Region", providing extra execute to reject some resources > applications. > > > There is no reason to get it implement. > > > -- > Victor > > > On 10/19/2014 11:52 AM, Vladimir Kangin wrote: > > > Dear Community Members, > > I would like to comment on AFPUB-2014-GEN-002-DRAFT-01 > > In my humble opinion the split 40/60% is not appropriate and > "Out-Of-Region use" definition is something inappropriate for > Internet > in general. Why you do not offer 30/70% or 50/50%? How did you > come up > with 40/60% figures? > > The percentage of "Out-Of-Region use" cannot be indifferent to > type of > business companies do. > > For instance we take an African local ISP. Why they could need > 40% of > allocated space for use outside of Africa? It would eventually > seduce > them into sell/rent IPs only. Normally they would need less > then 1% > and in very rare cases only. > > Or for instance take a satellite services company that would > like to > focus on serving customers that Out-Of-Region. Then all is > opposite and > they need 1% of allocated space for infrastructure use at > African > Satellite HUB and the rest 99% will be on customer end. Will > you close > the door for such business? > > We can discuss many other options like VPNs, Clouds, CDNs etc > but > obviously 40% of Internet number resources for use by a member > to be > outside the region is not a solution. The approach shall be > beneficial > for Afrinic in a way of controlling resources as well as > maintain > attractiveness for businesses. > > I kindly request to consider my reject on > AFPUB-2014-GEN-002-DRAFT-01. > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > -- Mark James ELKINS - Posix Systems - (South) Africa mje at posix.co.za Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: https://ftth.posix.co.za -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 5810 bytes Desc: not available URL: From Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com Wed Oct 22 12:00:25 2014 From: Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com (Andrew Alston) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2014 13:00:25 +0100 Subject: [rpd] AfriNIC policy AFPUB-2014-GEN-002-DRAFT-01 reject In-Reply-To: References: <1413690734.28338.81.camel@localhost.localdomain> <544733BC.5040702@iptp.net> <7FF93785BD2D534EA45841A8AAA1D89B51322817C6@liquid-exch.liquidtelecom.local> Message-ID: <7FF93785BD2D534EA45841A8AAA1D89B5132281878@liquid-exch.liquidtelecom.local> Hi Seun, Let me expand on this slightly. If you look at a large international organization serving multiple African countries. They typically have offices that are off continent as well as on-continent. Those off-shore offices still need IP space and are critical to the functioning of the organizations in question. Then we have the issues of points of presence internationally, some of which can be pretty large, which include routers, switches, and potentially servers which are directly related to the functioning of the network on the African continent. Then we start looking at satellite infrastructure, where an organization is providing satellite access to customers in Africa, the satellite base stations potentially sit in Europe, the space is handed out from Europe to clients on the ground (often dynamically), but it is routed via Europe because of the way Sattelite works. There are simply too many possibilities and my view is that the policy as proposed doesn?t take these into account. It also doesn?t address how we define in-region vs out-of-region usage. The numbers in the policy with regards to the split between in-region and out-of-region are also unquantified, what lead to these numbers? What is the reasoning and justification behind them? Are they just arbitrary numbers we dreamt up to put numbers on paper to make people feel good? Because if we?re going to put numbers like that, my view is, substantiate them, let us, as a community, understand where those numbers came from and what the basis is. Again, written in my personal capacity and in no way representative of the AfriNIC board positions on the matter. Thanks Andrew From: Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2014 2:43 PM To: Andrew Alston Cc: Borg; Victor; AfriNIC RPD MList. Subject: Re: [rpd] AfriNIC policy AFPUB-2014-GEN-002-DRAFT-01 reject Hi Andrew, On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 8:31 AM, Andrew Alston > wrote: (Before writing this, I need to state that what follows is NOT written in my capacity as an AfriNIC director nor should it be read as portraying the views of the AfriNIC board in any way shape or form) Actually Borg, I can concretely demonstrate that the availability of IPv4 addressing can have an impact on business investment. Just to be clear, do you think this policy will deny availability of IP resource to organisations that intend to expand their growth in Africa? How will the example below be affected by this policy, if the $200million is indeed for growth/expansion within the region? Cheers! PS: An individual's layman question. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Seun Ojedeji, Federal University Oye-Ekiti web: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535 alt email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng The key to understanding is humility - my view ! ________________________________ DISCLAIMER: This email contains proprietary information some or all of which may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this email, please notify the author by replying to this email. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose, copy, print, or rely on this email. We cannot accept liability for any statements made which are clearly the sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of this company or one of its agents. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From virtual.borg at gmail.com Wed Oct 22 13:05:46 2014 From: virtual.borg at gmail.com (Borg) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2014 17:05:46 +0400 Subject: [rpd] AfriNIC policy AFPUB-2014-GEN-002-DRAFT-01 reject In-Reply-To: <7FF93785BD2D534EA45841A8AAA1D89B51322817C6@liquid-exch.liquidtelecom.local> References: <1413690734.28338.81.camel@localhost.localdomain> <544733BC.5040702@iptp.net> <7FF93785BD2D534EA45841A8AAA1D89B51322817C6@liquid-exch.liquidtelecom.local> Message-ID: Borg le Chevalier ___________________________________ "Common sense is what tells us the world is flat" On 22 October 2014 11:31, Andrew Alston wrote: > (Before writing this, I need to state that what follows is NOT written > in my capacity as an AfriNIC director nor should it be read as portraying > the views of the AfriNIC board in any way shape or form) > > > > Actually Borg, > > > > I can concretely demonstrate that the availability of IPv4 addressing can > have an impact on business investment. > Impact, sure. but not determining factor in any significant investment that can be said to be "developing africa". It the arrogance of the statement I mention. > > > Let me give you an example, since this is already in the media. > > > > Liquid is planning to invest $200 MILLION in African expansion over the > next 24 months, this was published here: > > > > > http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-09-11/liquid-telecom-to-invest-200-million-in-african-expansion.html > Liquid investing $200m in Africa is NOT because of IPv4 address availability, rather it because of market opportunity. I not sure that "availability of IPv4 address" is make or break condition for making such investments. Maybe I'm wrong but i sure that there will still be invesitment in Internet infrastructure in africa with or without IPv4. It is however a good red herring for IPv4 brokers and arrogant IT people who over-value IT in general and IPv4 in particulier. > > While we are dual-stacking **everything** with v4 and v6 as a standard > rule, like it or not, we still need IPv4 space to do this. (Without v4 > addressing, there are a number of things we cannot accomplish at the > moment). > Agree 100% and thank Liquid for leading in this way. > > > But believe me, coming from an environment where having address space is > critical to the business, there is a correlation between investment and > address space, and it can be clearly demonstrated. > Correlation != Causation. I be happy to be show both. The attractiveness of IT infrastructure in Afrique is based more on business opportunity. link to a IPv4 resource that is quick running out is very shady at best. Or put different - will these investments stop if afrinic run out of ipv4? (we might look to see weather investments in infrastructure in india and Chine have stopped because of lack of ipv4. > > > I do believe that we need to protect the African resources from being > pillaged by non-African entities and IP Brokers. I will strongly support > policy that prevents African resources flowing off continent into the hands > of those who have absolutely no link to Africa AND where there is no > benefit (quantitative) to the continent. > That seem to me to be a goal many people in the community share. but i wander , with such small IPv4 space compared to other part of world, why is afrinic consumption so small? > I just do not believe at this point we have a policy proposal that > fulfills these objectives. > maybe. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From virtual.borg at gmail.com Wed Oct 22 13:09:21 2014 From: virtual.borg at gmail.com (Borg) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2014 17:09:21 +0400 Subject: [rpd] AfriNIC policy AFPUB-2014-GEN-002-DRAFT-01 reject In-Reply-To: <1E149BC0-BB08-4357-A366-70404372DC9E@anytimechinese.com> References: <1413690734.28338.81.camel@localhost.localdomain> <544733BC.5040702@iptp.net> <7FF93785BD2D534EA45841A8AAA1D89B51322817C6@liquid-exch.liquidtelecom.local> <1E149BC0-BB08-4357-A366-70404372DC9E@anytimechinese.com> Message-ID: On 22 October 2014 13:23, H.Lu wrote: > Hi > > I would rather Africa internet remain open and transparent. > goal which many people hear share. but don't see how preventing abuse of address by brokers make internet close and non-transparent > > Kind regards > > Lu > > ? 2014?10?22????3:31?Andrew Alston ??? > > (Before writing this, I need to state that what follows is NOT written > in my capacity as an AfriNIC director nor should it be read as portraying > the views of the AfriNIC board in any way shape or form) > > > > Actually Borg, > > > > I can concretely demonstrate that the availability of IPv4 addressing can > have an impact on business investment. > > > > Let me give you an example, since this is already in the media. > > > > Liquid is planning to invest $200 MILLION in African expansion over the > next 24 months, this was published here: > > > > > http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-09-11/liquid-telecom-to-invest-200-million-in-african-expansion.html > > > > While we are dual-stacking **everything** with v4 and v6 as a standard > rule, like it or not, we still need IPv4 space to do this. (Without v4 > addressing, there are a number of things we cannot accomplish at the > moment). > > > > This however also raises the debate on the proposed > AFPUB-2014-GEN-002-DRAFT-01 policy. On a personal level (and representing > Liquid) I oppose this policy, on the grounds that I do not believe it will > actually serve to protect African interests. I have long opposed > geographic restrictions on where space can be used by legitimate African > entities, for a variety of reasons and will continue to do so. I do not > believe that placing arbitrary numbers (be they 10%, 20% or any other > number) on the percentage of space that can be used in region or out of > region is a helpful thing to do. Particularly since none of these policies > actually contain a proper definition of what constitutes in-region vs > out-of-region use. (For example, if I originate a /16 in Africa via a BGP > network statement or via redistribution, the space was originated in > Africa, nothing stops me internally using more specifics to keep routing to > that space out of continent though) > > > > I also believe very strongly that large African multi-nationals that are > expanding both in the African region and outside of the African region > should be able to get space for ALL their operations irrespective of where > they are geographically based, since the expansion of these companies does > benefit Africa as a whole, both in terms of economic growth and in terms of > African employment to run equipment located off continent). > > > > But believe me, coming from an environment where having address space is > critical to the business, there is a correlation between investment and > address space, and it can be clearly demonstrated. > > > > I do believe that we need to protect the African resources from being > pillaged by non-African entities and IP Brokers. I will strongly support > policy that prevents African resources flowing off continent into the hands > of those who have absolutely no link to Africa AND where there is no > benefit (quantitative) to the continent. I just do not believe at this > point we have a policy proposal that fulfills these objectives. > > > > Thanks > > > > Andrew Alston > > > > Andrew Alston > Head of IP Strategy > Liquid Telecommunications Limited, 6 New Street Square, London EC4A 3BF > T: +27 76 219 7933 (ZA) T: +254 733 2222 04 (KE) > E: andrew.alston at liquidtelecom.com > - Skype: symm001 > > > > > > > > *From:* rpd-bounces at afrinic.net [mailto:rpd-bounces at afrinic.net > ] *On Behalf Of *Borg > *Sent:* Wednesday, October 22, 2014 9:49 AM > *To:* Victor > *Cc:* AfriNIC RPD MList. > *Subject:* Re: [rpd] AfriNIC policy AFPUB-2014-GEN-002-DRAFT-01 reject > > > > > > > Borg le Chevalier > ___________________________________ > "Common sense is what tells us the world is flat" > > > > On 22 October 2014 09:12, Victor wrote: > > In my opinion, the proposal itself intended to keep the resources within > the region and may prevent business investment in Africa which is not good > at all. > > > > > > And this gentlemen is red herring, as ridiculous as it is preposterous. > Business investment in Afrique that depends on IPv4 addresses??! It ok > to protect IPv4 business, but please stop pretending any of this has to do > with what is good for Afrique. > > > > > > ------------------------------ > DISCLAIMER: This email contains proprietary information some or all of > which may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. If > an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this email, please > notify the author by replying to this email. If you are not the intended > recipient, you must not use, disclose, copy, print, or rely on this email. > We cannot accept liability for any statements made which are clearly the > sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of this company or one of its > agents. > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ernest at afrinic.net Wed Oct 22 13:20:24 2014 From: ernest at afrinic.net (Ernest) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2014 16:20:24 +0300 Subject: [rpd] Re: Staff Assessment for AFPUB-2014-GEN-002-DRAFT-01 In-Reply-To: References: <1404494578.17253.11.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> <5406D9AF.9080300@afrinic.net> <542D3F6B.8040705@afrinic.net> Message-ID: <5447AF18.4090502@afrinic.net> Hi Douglas, >>>> Chapter 2, Paragraph 1: "This policy allows up to 40% of Internet >>>> number resources in use by a member to be outside the region..." >>>> >>>> Staff Comment(s): The policy should be restricted to LIR allocations >>>> and not End-User PI Space. There is no provision in the current >>>> policies for AFRINIC staff to measure usage of End User (PI) space. >>>> The staff's main basis of number resource usage assessment today is >>>> by looking at PA assignments and sub-allocations registered by an >>>> LIR in the WHOIS database as provided for in Section 9 of the "IPv4 >>>> Allocation Policy - AFPUB-2005-v4-001 at >>>> http://afrinic.net/en/library/policies/126-afpub-2005-v4-001. This >>>> method of registering usage in the whois db only applies to LIRs. >>>> Staff recommends that this sentence therefore be changed to "This >>>> policy allows up to 40% of Internet number resources in use by an >>>> AFRINIC LIR member to be outside the region..." > > I think the issue the policy is trying to resolve is as valid for PA > as it is with PI space. I am reluctant to remove this clause just > because AFRINIC doesn't have an enforcement mechanism at the moment. I > would challenge AFRINIC to revert if PI space wouldn't be vulnerable, > else an enforcement mechanism should be sought in parallel, but > outside this policy. The (IPv4 allocation) policy clearly states measurement parameters for PA space - by way of what has been registered in the whois db, which is not the same for PI space and hence, there is no possible "enforcement mechanism" we can base ourselves on for PI space purely from the viewpoint of whois database records. An 'enforcement mechanism' outside the policy is not possible in the first place as it's the policy that should clearly determine (like is the case with PA space) how to determine and measure the degree of breach. >>>> Chapter 2, Paragraph 2: "For the avoidance of doubt, the author does >>>> not seek to prolong the lifespan of IPv4 with this proposal but >>>> rather, to ensure that number resources allocated/assigned by >>>> AFRINIC are used by legitimate members from the service region to >>>> support their network operations, regardless of physical location". >>>> >>>> Staff Comment(s): Author should clarify about what is the intended >>>> meaning of the words "legitimate members". Staff shall otherwise >>>> interpret it as "members in good standing"). > > I have removed "legitimate" and revised the statement to read: ...he > seeks to ensure that number resources allocated/assigned by AFRINIC > are used by members from the service region to support their > legitimate network operations, regardless of physical location > >>>> Clause 3b: "Notwithstanding (3.a), the number resources used outside >>>> the region at any given point in time shall not exceed 40% of the >>>> total space in use by a member. Total space in use shall be >>>> calculated as follows: if x be the allocation/assignment size; and >>>> x-y the amount of space in use at time z, then 40% of (x-y) shall be >>>> the ceiling)". >>>> >>>> Staff comment(s): The author should clarify further on the >>>> formula/variables, by explicitly defining what "y" stands for. > > Done. Now reads: Total space in use shall be calculated as follows: if > x be the allocation/assignment size; and y the amount of space in use > at time z, then 40% of y shall be the ceiling). Noted - we'll effect the revisions. >>>> Staff comment(s): After the policy proposal is ratified and >>>> implemented, there could be some existing members in breach of the >>>> new policy. In-line with 6(d) of the RSA, breach or non-compliance >>>> with this policy should ultimately result in cancellation of the RSA >>>> and consequent reclamation of associated resources. The proposal >>>> should clearly state the time frame (duration) that should be >>>> allowed for members in breach, and should also propose what steps >>>> AFRINIC should take during this time frame in reaching out to >>>> non-compliant members before revoking/cancelling their RSAs and >>>> reclaiming their resources if they remain in breach after the stated >>>> time period. > > I am averse to the idea of a separate enforcement mechanism as it may > create disharmony with already existing RSA breach procedure. I need > this to be uniform and consistent with the already existing one. If > the status quo is found to be wanting, I would rather it be revised in > uniform and appropriate manner. We think it's not unreasonable for the proposal to suggest how much time should be allowed for non-complying members to correct the breach. Regards, Ernest. From owen at delong.com Wed Oct 22 20:28:16 2014 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2014 13:28:16 -0700 Subject: [rpd] AfriNIC policy AFPUB-2014-GEN-002-DRAFT-01 reject In-Reply-To: References: <1413690734.28338.81.camel@localhost.localdomain> <544733BC.5040702@iptp.net> <7FF93785BD2D534EA45841A8AAA1D89B51322817C6@liquid-exch.liquidtelecom.local> Message-ID: <2DC52176-59A6-409F-A08E-B46B72024521@delong.com> > > I can concretely demonstrate that the availability of IPv4 addressing can have an impact on business investment. > > > > Impact, sure. but not determining factor in any significant investment that can be said to be "developing africa". It the arrogance of the statement I mention. Actually, it could well be a determining factor. Nobody in their right mind is launching a new IPv4 ISP in Asia right now. The lack of available addressing makes such a venture foolhardy at best. Africa has more IPv4 space available than anywhere else in the world right now. That makes it more reasonable for new market entrants to invest in Africa, but it also makes Africa a target for pulling resources out to exploit them in other regions. While I agree with Andrew to a large extent that African companies must be allowed to use AfriNIC space to compete globally, I also believe that a lack of limitations on the exportation of address space by pseudo-African companies[1] and/or non-African companies[2] will lead to exploitation that does not particularly benefit Africa or Africans. Full disclosure, while I am active (and have been active for several years) in the Afrinic RPD, I do not live in the region and have never lived in the region. > Liquid investing $200m in Africa is NOT because of IPv4 address availability, rather it because of market opportunity. I not sure that "availability of IPv4 address" is make or break condition for making such investments. Maybe I'm wrong but i sure that there will still be invesitment in Internet infrastructure in africa with or without IPv4. Lack of IPv4 address availability could well render that investment untenable. Nobody is going to make that kind of investment unless there?s a potential ROI. In order to have an ROI, one must be able to provision customers. If you cannot provide IPv4 addresses to those customers, you are unlikely to be able to recruit customers and/or provision them with the services necessary to obtain the necessary ROI. > It is however a good red herring for IPv4 brokers and arrogant IT people who over-value IT in general and IPv4 in particulier. It?s really not. It?s really just a red herring? A distraction from productive discussion. I?m not sure where brokers came into this or what you mean by arrogant IT people who over-value IT in general and IPv4 in particular, so I?m not sure how to answer that. However, I think that the goal of the policy at hand (whether it would achieve the goal or not) and what Andrew is saying and what you are saying are generally in agreement? To prevent AfriNIC resources from being plundered and exploited by organizations without ties to the African continent or with specious or limited ties created solely for the purpose of exploiting resources. > But believe me, coming from an environment where having address space is critical to the business, there is a correlation between investment and address space, and it can be clearly demonstrated. > > > > Correlation != Causation. I be happy to be show both. The attractiveness of IT infrastructure in Afrique is based more on business opportunity. link to a IPv4 resource that is quick running out is very shady at best. Or put different - will these investments stop if afrinic run out of ipv4? (we might look to see weather investments in infrastructure in india and Chine have stopped because of lack of ipv4. Addresses are a critical component of internet services. Liquid is an ISP. If they can?t provide addresses for their infrastructure and their customers, they will not be able to sell services and thus will not have an ROI. Therefore, a lack of address availability will, in fact, prevent future investment. That?s causation, not merely correlation. > I do believe that we need to protect the African resources from being pillaged by non-African entities and IP Brokers. I will strongly support policy that prevents African resources flowing off continent into the hands of those who have absolutely no link to Africa AND where there is no benefit (quantitative) to the continent. > > > > That seem to me to be a goal many people in the community share. but i wander , with such small IPv4 space compared to other part of world, why is afrinic consumption so small? There are a number of historic reasons relating to the following problem areas: 1. Difficulty qualifying for resources under ARIN policies of the past (pre-AfriNIC) 2. Perception problems created by 1 3. Cost and the perceived cost-savings of NAT (artificial, though they are) 4. Perceived security/control/etc. advantages of NAT (also artificial) 5. Limited understanding of the process of obtaining addresses and fee structures > I just do not believe at this point we have a policy proposal that fulfills these objectives. > Rather than merely state that the current proposal doesn?t meet the objectives, perhaps it would be more useful if you could propose language or modifications that could be made to the current proposal in order to achieve what I think almost everyone agrees is the valid goal. Owen -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From virtual.borg at gmail.com Fri Oct 24 03:51:27 2014 From: virtual.borg at gmail.com (Borg) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 07:51:27 +0400 Subject: [rpd] AfriNIC policy AFPUB-2014-GEN-002-DRAFT-01 reject In-Reply-To: <2DC52176-59A6-409F-A08E-B46B72024521@delong.com> References: <1413690734.28338.81.camel@localhost.localdomain> <544733BC.5040702@iptp.net> <7FF93785BD2D534EA45841A8AAA1D89B51322817C6@liquid-exch.liquidtelecom.local> <2DC52176-59A6-409F-A08E-B46B72024521@delong.com> Message-ID: Borg le Chevalier ___________________________________ "Common sense is what tells us the world is flat" On 23 October 2014 00:28, Owen DeLong wrote: > >> I can concretely demonstrate that the availability of IPv4 addressing can >> have an impact on business investment. >> > > > Impact, sure. but not determining factor in any significant investment > that can be said to be "developing africa". It the arrogance of the > statement I mention. > > > Actually, it could well be a determining factor. > For mature market maybe, but for new market, no really. > > Nobody in their right mind is launching a new IPv4 ISP in Asia right now. > The lack of available addressing makes such a venture foolhardy at best. > The service is Internet, not IPv4-based Internet. Any big investiment in Internet infrastructure in Africa will target non-consumption. Those people who has never have Internet - anything (IPv6, NAT) will be better and still make the investiment worth it. NOBODY invests invests in networking infrastrasture in large scale in Africa just because of availability of IPv4. > > Africa has more IPv4 space available than anywhere else in the world right > now. That makes it more reasonable for new market entrants to invest in > Africa, > The opportunity for investment is because lots of africans are still offline, NOT because there is IPv4. And for those people offline, any Internet (IPv6, NAT) will be sufficient. What investor (except IPv4 brokers) bases an investment decision on a resource that is known to be not sustainable to get in the futur? > but it also makes Africa a target for pulling resources out to exploit > them in other regions. > That the biggest concern and i think a legitime one for africans. Policy might just be an ineffective way - better have the resources being used by legitimate african interests (gouvenments, universities, etc) > > While I agree with Andrew to a large extent that African companies must be > allowed to use AfriNIC space to compete globally, > me too agree with Andrew and you 100% on this. > I also believe that a lack of limitations on the exportation of address > space by pseudo-African companies[1] and/or non-African companies[2] will > lead to exploitation that does not particularly benefit Africa or Africans. > ++1 and that is the problem these proposal try to address (not sure how effective it would have be) > > I?m not sure where brokers came into this or what you mean by arrogant IT > people who over-value IT in general and IPv4 in particular, so I?m not sure > how to answer that. > Arrogance = attitude that get someone to say "I am a member of afrinic, investing an making africa a better place" --- Arrogance = believe that in grande scheme of developmental challenges, Internet (particularly IPv4-based one) ranks in even the top 3 of priorities. Don't get me wrong, IT is very important .... depending on existing infrastructure and context. It not a silver bullet to 'make africa a better place' > > But believe me, coming from an environment where having address space is >> critical to the business, there is a correlation between investment and >> address space, and it can be clearly demonstrated. >> > > > Correlation != Causation. I be happy to be show both. The attractiveness > of IT infrastructure in Afrique is based more on business opportunity. > link to a IPv4 resource that is quick running out is very shady at best. > Or put different - will these investments stop if afrinic run out of ipv4? > (we might look to see weather investments in infrastructure in india and > Chine have stopped because of lack of ipv4. > > > Addresses are a critical component of internet services. Liquid is an ISP. > If they can?t provide addresses for their infrastructure and their > customers, they will not be able to sell services and thus will not have an > ROI. Therefore, a lack of address availability will, in fact, prevent > future investment. That?s causation, not merely correlation. > You forget a) Addresses != IPv4 (thankfully Liquid also do v6) b) Going with your model - that business strategy is going to be dead in 4 - 5 years as v6 run out. c) In term of numbers, Liquid may not have more customers than the mobile operators in africa and somehow they still in business and thriving. > > I do believe that we need to protect the African resources from being >> pillaged by non-African entities and IP Brokers. I will strongly support >> policy that prevents African resources flowing off continent into the hands >> of those who have absolutely no link to Africa AND where there is no >> benefit (quantitative) to the continent. >> > > > That seem to me to be a goal many people in the community share. but i > wander , with such small IPv4 space compared to other part of world, why is > afrinic consumption so small? > > > There are a number of historic reasons relating to the following problem > areas: > > 1. Difficulty qualifying for resources under ARIN policies of the past > (pre-AfriNIC) > 2. Perception problems created by 1 > 3. Cost and the perceived cost-savings of NAT (artificial, though they > are) > 4. Perceived security/control/etc. advantages of NAT (also artificial) > 5. Limited understanding of the process of obtaining addresses and fee > structures > > I just do not believe at this point we have a policy proposal that >> fulfills these objectives. >> > Rather than merely state that the current proposal doesn?t meet the > objectives, perhaps it would be more useful if you could propose language > or modifications that could be made to the current proposal in order to > achieve what I think almost everyone agrees is the valid goal. > that phrase was andrew, not me. :-) but with your nice list of reasons - i think - policy (one that establish and discourage abuse of afrinic resources for pseudo-african companies) is good start. - problems (2,3,4,5) can be solve by education and communication and training - standardize process so legitime companies can get address quicker and cheaper > > Owen > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gehoumi at benintelecoms.bj Fri Oct 24 23:37:55 2014 From: gehoumi at benintelecoms.bj (gehoumi) Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2014 00:37:55 +0100 Subject: [rpd] Re: rpd Digest, Vol 97, Issue 17 In-Reply-To: <201410221313.s9MDDDsM008814@mail.afrinic.net> References: <201410221313.s9MDDDsM008814@mail.afrinic.net> Message-ID: <3BB1EEC3-83D6-4A87-B86B-3A38E71418D8@benintelecoms.bj> Hi Andrew, > > If you look at a large international organization serving multiple African countries. They typically have offices that are off continent as well as on-continent. Those off-shore offices still need IP space and are critical to the functioning of the organizations in question. Then we have the issues of points of presence internationally, some of which can be pretty large, which include routers, switches, and potentially servers which are directly related to the functioning of the network on the African continent. Why these offices that are off continent, can't ask IP addresses from the RIR who serve that region ? Best Regard Gr?goire EHOUMI BENIN TELECOMS +229 90036576 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 496 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com Fri Oct 24 23:49:43 2014 From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji) Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2014 00:49:43 +0100 Subject: [rpd] AfriNIC policy AFPUB-2014-GEN-002-DRAFT-01 reject In-Reply-To: <7FF93785BD2D534EA45841A8AAA1D89B5132281878@liquid-exch.liquidtelecom.local> References: <1413690734.28338.81.camel@localhost.localdomain> <544733BC.5040702@iptp.net> <7FF93785BD2D534EA45841A8AAA1D89B51322817C6@liquid-exch.liquidtelecom.local> <7FF93785BD2D534EA45841A8AAA1D89B5132281878@liquid-exch.liquidtelecom.local> Message-ID: Hello Andrew, In summary you are saying offshore offices and pops devices will require so much IP resource than the customers being served by the organisation [1] Cheers! PS: An individual layman internet user's view. 1. Since you indicated that those international pops are intended for serving this region. sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 22 Oct 2014 13:00, "Andrew Alston" wrote: > Hi Seun, > > > > Let me expand on this slightly. > > > > If you look at a large international organization serving multiple African > countries. They typically have offices that are off continent as well as > on-continent. Those off-shore offices still need IP space and are critical > to the functioning of the organizations in question. Then we have the > issues of points of presence internationally, some of which can be pretty > large, which include routers, switches, and potentially servers which are > directly related to the functioning of the network on the African > continent. > > > > Then we start looking at satellite infrastructure, where an organization > is providing satellite access to customers in Africa, the satellite base > stations potentially sit in Europe, the space is handed out from Europe to > clients on the ground (often dynamically), but it is routed via Europe > because of the way Sattelite works. > > > > There are simply too many possibilities and my view is that the policy as > proposed doesn?t take these into account. It also doesn?t address how we > define in-region vs out-of-region usage. The numbers in the policy with > regards to the split between in-region and out-of-region are also > unquantified, what lead to these numbers? What is the reasoning and > justification behind them? Are they just arbitrary numbers we dreamt up to > put numbers on paper to make people feel good? Because if we?re going to > put numbers like that, my view is, substantiate them, let us, as a > community, understand where those numbers came from and what the basis is. > > > > Again, written in my personal capacity and in no way representative of the > AfriNIC board positions on the matter. > > > > Thanks > > > > Andrew > > > > > > *From:* Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com] > *Sent:* Wednesday, October 22, 2014 2:43 PM > *To:* Andrew Alston > *Cc:* Borg; Victor; AfriNIC RPD MList. > *Subject:* Re: [rpd] AfriNIC policy AFPUB-2014-GEN-002-DRAFT-01 reject > > > > Hi Andrew, > > On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 8:31 AM, Andrew Alston < > Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com> wrote: > > (Before writing this, I need to state that what follows is NOT written > in my capacity as an AfriNIC director nor should it be read as portraying > the views of the AfriNIC board in any way shape or form) > > > > Actually Borg, > > > > I can concretely demonstrate that the availability of IPv4 addressing can > have an impact on business investment. > > > > Just to be clear, do you think this policy will deny availability of IP > resource to organisations that intend to expand their growth in Africa? How > will the example below be affected by this policy, if the $200million is > indeed for growth/expansion within the region? > > Cheers! > > PS: An individual's layman question. > -- > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > *Seun Ojedeji, Federal University Oye-Ekiti web: * > *http://www.fuoye.edu.ng* > *Mobile: +2348035233535 <%2B2348035233535>* > *alt email:* *seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng* > > > The key to understanding is humility - my view ! > > > > ------------------------------ > DISCLAIMER: This email contains proprietary information some or all of > which may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. If > an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this email, please > notify the author by replying to this email. If you are not the intended > recipient, you must not use, disclose, copy, print, or rely on this email. > We cannot accept liability for any statements made which are clearly the > sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of this company or one of its > agents. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mark.tinka at seacom.mu Sat Oct 25 05:27:37 2014 From: mark.tinka at seacom.mu (Mark Tinka) Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2014 07:27:37 +0200 Subject: [rpd] AfriNIC policy AFPUB-2014-GEN-002-DRAFT-01 reject In-Reply-To: References: <1413690734.28338.81.camel@localhost.localdomain> <7FF93785BD2D534EA45841A8AAA1D89B5132281878@liquid-exch.liquidtelecom.local> Message-ID: <201410250727.38173.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> On Saturday, October 25, 2014 01:49:43 AM Seun Ojedeji wrote: > Hello Andrew, > > In summary you are saying offshore offices and pops > devices will require so much IP resource than the > customers being served by the organisation [1] Those off-continent PoP's will require IP addresses. Whether it is "so much" or "so few" is beside the point. Mark. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. URL: From h.lu at anytimechinese.com Sun Oct 26 08:51:33 2014 From: h.lu at anytimechinese.com (Lu Heng) Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2014 16:51:33 +0800 Subject: [rpd] AfriNIC policy AFPUB-2014-GEN-002-DRAFT-01 reject In-Reply-To: <201410250727.38173.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> References: <1413690734.28338.81.camel@localhost.localdomain> <7FF93785BD2D534EA45841A8AAA1D89B5132281878@liquid-exch.liquidtelecom.local> <201410250727.38173.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> Message-ID: I think less limit to the internet the better the world. On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 1:27 PM, Mark Tinka wrote: > On Saturday, October 25, 2014 01:49:43 AM Seun Ojedeji > wrote: > >> Hello Andrew, >> >> In summary you are saying offshore offices and pops >> devices will require so much IP resource than the >> customers being served by the organisation [1] > > Those off-continent PoP's will require IP addresses. Whether > it is "so much" or "so few" is beside the point. > > Mark. > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > -- -- Kind regards. Lu This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this message and including the text of the transmission received. From karmann.olumomo at gmail.com Sun Oct 26 16:26:00 2014 From: karmann.olumomo at gmail.com (Karmann Olumomo) Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 00:26:00 +0800 Subject: [rpd] =?utf-8?q?Afrinic_policy_proposal=E2=80=94Afrinic_Service_?= =?utf-8?q?guild_lines?= Message-ID: Dear Community Members, I would like to make a proposal for Afrinic Service guild lines as following. 1) Summary of the Problem Being Addressed by this Policy Proposal Some member are experiencing extreme long wait for their additional allocation request to get passed, some members are experiencing none technical information requested from Afrinic(customer data, marketing channel etc), in order to improve overall service quality of Afrinic, here is the policy. 2) Summary of How this Proposal Addresses the Problem To improve overall service quality and transparency of Afrinic?s number resource services by documenting roles and responsibilities of AFRINIC. 3) Proposal 1.Afrinic should make decision on subsequent allocation requests based on Afrinic policy, and conclude a request no longer than the 20% of the total period AFRNIC approves the resources for. (E.g. If Afrinic is issuing resources to its member to meet its 12 months needs, the longest waiting time for Afrinic allocation process should not be longer than 20%*12month, to cope with 80% utilization requirement for additional allocation). If Afrinic was not able to make decision on a certain request within this period, for each additional month beyond this period, the requesting member should receive percentage of the requested period of the total request until such decision has been made, in order to protect member from smooth running of its business. 2.Afrinic should publish standardized base information request for each typical type of resource allocation. 3.Afrinic should not store, request any marketing or business related none-technical information from its member, for example, customer data, marketing channel, and marketing budget. 4.Afrinic allocations should be solely made based on current policy, no other factor other than policy should infer with afrinic?s decision on processing allocation requests. 5.Unless otherwise appealed, Afrinic board should not be directly involved in IP allocation process. 6.For the interest of overall policy development process, other RIR staff as well as it's governing body personnel(advisor or board member, for example) should not be involve in Afrinic policy development process. 7.Afrinic policy working group chair election should be conducted independent from Afrinic board nomination committee, candidates should be free of any requirement. Best regards, Karmann Olumomo -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com Sun Oct 26 16:48:59 2014 From: Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com (Andrew Alston) Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2014 16:48:59 +0000 Subject: =?Windows-1252?Q?Re:_[rpd]_Afrinic_policy_proposal=8BAfrinic_Service_guil?= =?Windows-1252?Q?d_lines?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Writing in my personal capacity and in no way should what follows be construed as representative of the board of AfriNIC or any other organisation with which I am associated. Comments inline below 1.Afrinic should make decision on subsequent allocation requests based on Afrinic policy, and conclude a request no longer than the 20% of the total period AFRNIC approves the resources for. (E.g. If Afrinic is issuing resources to its member to meet its 12 months needs, the longest waiting time for Afrinic allocation process should not be longer than 20%*12month, to cope with 80% utilization requirement for additional allocation). If Afrinic was not able to make decision on a certain request within this period, for each additional month beyond this period, the requesting member should receive percentage of the requested period of the total request until such decision has been made, in order to protect member from smooth running of its business. I don?t see the need for this, and I don?t agree with the premise behind it. I think all allocation processing times should be standardised and a suitable SLA to members implemented and adhered to. 2.Afrinic should publish standardized base information request for each typical type of resource allocation. I have no issue with this point, though I would request the author to be a LOT more specific in exactly what type of base should be published here. 3.Afrinic should not store, request any marketing or business related none-technical information from its member, for example, customer data, marketing channel, and marketing budget. I have no real objection to this point 4.Afrinic allocations should be solely made based on current policy, no other factor other than policy should infer with afrinic?s decision on processing allocation requests. This is already covered in the bylaws and in the current PdP process, so this point is redundant. 5.Unless otherwise appealed, Afrinic board should not be directly involved in IP allocation process. That is currently the case and the bylaws back it up, again the point is redundant 6.For the interest of overall policy development process, other RIR staff as well as it's governing body personnel(advisor or board member, for example) should not be involve in Afrinic policy development process. I have a strong problem with this, board members are also generally community members, and while they may not be involved wearing their board hats, this would exclude someone who gets elected to the board from participating in the PdP in their personal/business capacity. This would discourage strong voices in the community for ever applying to run for board. I would oppose ANY policy that had something similar to this in it. 7.Afrinic policy working group chair election should be conducted independent from Afrinic board nomination committee, candidates should be free of any requirement. That would violate the current bylaws, and the PdP does not override the bylaws. If you want this point, request a change in the bylaws and get it passed at an AGMM by a 2/3rds majority via a special resolution (the process for changing the bylaws is well documented in the bylaws). Thanks Andrew ________________________________ DISCLAIMER: This email contains proprietary information some or all of which may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this email, please notify the author by replying to this email. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose, copy, print, or rely on this email. We cannot accept liability for any statements made which are clearly the sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of this company or one of its agents. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From drc at virtualized.org Sun Oct 26 18:22:26 2014 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2014 11:22:26 -0700 Subject: =?windows-1252?Q?Re=3A_=5Brpd=5D_Afrinic_policy_proposal=97Afrin?= =?windows-1252?Q?ic_Service_guild_lines?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1B27840E-C9B7-4514-9B7B-1E34AFECEB3E@virtualized.org> Karmann, Some personal opinions: On Oct 26, 2014, at 9:26 AM, Karmann Olumomo wrote: > 1) Summary of the Problem Being Addressed by this Policy Proposal > > Some member are experiencing extreme long wait for their additional allocation request to get passed, some members are experiencing none technical information requested from Afrinic(customer data, marketing channel etc), in order to improve overall service quality of Afrinic, here is the policy. > > 2) Summary of How this Proposal Addresses the Problem > > To improve overall service quality and transparency of Afrinic?s number resource services by documenting roles and responsibilities of AFRINIC. > 3) Proposal > > 1.Afrinic should make decision on subsequent allocation requests based on Afrinic policy, and conclude a request no longer than the 20% of the total period AFRNIC approves the resources for. (E.g. If Afrinic is issuing resources to its member to meet its 12 months needs, the longest waiting time for Afrinic allocation process should not be longer than 20%*12month, to cope with 80% utilization requirement for additional allocation). If Afrinic was not able to make decision on a certain request within this period, for each additional month beyond this period, the requesting member should receive percentage of the requested period of the total request until such decision has been made, in order to protect member from smooth running of its business. Having once worked at an RIR, I can say that trying to put processing time limits is fine as long as there are sufficient resources to permit the processing. However, if the request load is outstripping the ability for staff to process that load, adding processing time limits will make things worse. I would recommend asking staff for more information regarding processing times of all additional allocation requests (I'd actually recommend a public dashboard-style website showing aggregate request processing time statistics) and, if there appear to be consistent delays, asking staff for a root cause analysis and a mitigation plan. Note that I suspect if request processing time is being impacted by load, this will only get worse as the additional policy requirements the community is putting (or is proposing to put) on staff implies increased work in reviewing requests. > 2.Afrinic should publish standardized base information request for each typical type of resource allocation. I disagree. AfriNIC staff are being placed in a position of being investigators, trying to discover if a requester is lying to them about their need, where they are located, what they intend to do with the address space, etc. While a base set of information requesters can be expected to provide would be useful, if the community expects AfriNIC staff to do the investigations policy demands, I believe staff are going to need to be able to ask whatever questions they feel are necessary. > 3.Afrinic should not store, request any marketing or business related none-technical information from its member, for example, customer data, marketing channel, and marketing budget. I disagree. One of the ways in which you catch folks lying is because it is actually hard to be consistent when lying. If AfriNIC staff is going to be in the investigatory business, they need to look at what a requester told them in the past and compare it to what they're telling them now and ask questions when there is significant deviation. > 4.Afrinic allocations should be solely made based on current policy, no other factor other than policy should infer with afrinic?s decision on processing allocation requests. Agreed. > 5.Unless otherwise appealed, Afrinic board should not be directly involved in IP allocation process. Agreed, although I do not think the board should be involved in appeals. It used to be that in at least two other RIRs that I'm familiar with (APNIC and ARIN), the board would _never_ be directly involved in the IP allocation process. The role of the boards of those two RIRs was to ensure the policy development process was followed correctly and to be ultimately responsible for the operation of the organization. I don't know if that's still the case. > 6.For the interest of overall policy development process, other RIR staff as well as it's governing body personnel(advisor or board member, for example) should not be involve in Afrinic policy development process. I believe the role of staff in a PDP is to facilitate and provide unbiased, neutral, and data-backed information. This can be seen as being involved in the PDP. In the case of board members, if they are NOT involved in the IP allocation process (including appeals), then I believe it is acceptable to provide their opinions during a PDP since, after all, they are presumably quite knowledgeable about IP addressing policy (or they wouldn't be on the board). However, if they _are_ involved in the IP allocation process, then their involvement should be the same as staff, that is, providing unbiased, neutral, and data-backed information. > 7.Afrinic policy working group chair election should be conducted independent from Afrinic board nomination committee, candidates should be free of any requirement. I agree, however I believe the board should be ultimately responsible to ensure the policies developed by the policy working group meet the interests of AfriNIC and the AfriNIC community. Regards, -drc (ICANN CTO but speaking only for myself) -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 496 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com Sun Oct 26 18:41:56 2014 From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji) Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2014 19:41:56 +0100 Subject: =?UTF-8?Q?Re=3A_=5Brpd=5D_Afrinic_policy_proposal=E2=80=94Afrinic_Service_?= =?UTF-8?Q?guild_lines?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hello Karmann, Thanks for your interest to submit a proposal, in accordance to the process to submitting a proposal[1] kindly send a copy of your proposal to policy-submission[at]AFRINIC.net. This is how/when your proposal will be formerly received, assigned an ID, processed and published accordingly. Regards Seun Ojedeji - PDWG Co-Chair 1. http://afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development?start=1 On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 5:26 PM, Karmann Olumomo wrote: > Dear Community Members, > > I would like to make a proposal for Afrinic Service guild lines as > following. > > 1) Summary of the Problem Being Addressed by this Policy Proposal Some > member are experiencing extreme long wait for their additional allocation > request to get passed, some members are experiencing none technical > information requested from Afrinic(customer data, marketing channel etc), > in order to improve overall service quality of Afrinic, here is the policy. > 2) Summary of How this Proposal Addresses the Problem To improve overall > service quality and transparency of Afrinic?s number resource services by > documenting roles and responsibilities of AFRINIC. 3) Proposal > > 1.Afrinic should make decision on subsequent allocation requests based on > Afrinic policy, and conclude a request no longer than the 20% of the > total period AFRNIC approves the resources for. (E.g. If Afrinic is issuing > resources to its member to meet its 12 months needs, the longest waiting > time for Afrinic allocation process should not be longer than 20%*12month, > to cope with 80% utilization requirement for additional allocation). If > Afrinic was not able to make decision on a certain request within this > period, for each additional month beyond this period, the requesting member > should receive percentage of the requested period of the total request > until such decision has been made, in order to protect member from smooth > running of its business. > > > > 2.Afrinic should publish standardized base information request for each > typical type of resource allocation. > > > 3.Afrinic should not store, request any marketing or business related > none-technical information from its member, for example, customer data, > marketing channel, and marketing budget. > > > 4.Afrinic allocations should be solely made based on current policy, no > other factor other than policy should infer with afrinic?s decision on > processing allocation requests. > > > 5.Unless otherwise appealed, Afrinic board should not be directly involved > in IP allocation process. > > > 6.For the interest of overall policy development process, other RIR staff > as well as it's governing body personnel(advisor or board member, for > example) should not be involve in Afrinic policy development process. > > > 7.Afrinic policy working group chair election should be conducted > independent from Afrinic board nomination committee, candidates should be > free of any requirement. > > > > Best regards, > Karmann Olumomo > > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng * The key to understanding is humility - my view ! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From woody at pch.net Mon Oct 27 00:13:31 2014 From: woody at pch.net (Bill Woodcock) Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 09:13:31 +0900 Subject: =?windows-1252?Q?Re=3A_=5Brpd=5D_Afrinic_policy_proposal=97Afrin?= =?windows-1252?Q?ic_Service_guild_lines?= In-Reply-To: <1B27840E-C9B7-4514-9B7B-1E34AFECEB3E@virtualized.org> References: <1B27840E-C9B7-4514-9B7B-1E34AFECEB3E@virtualized.org> Message-ID: <537C4394-A668-4867-97B7-4C9865FFDBBF@pch.net> On Oct 27, 2014, at 3:22 AM, David Conrad wrote: >> 5.Unless otherwise appealed, Afrinic board should not be directly involved in IP allocation process. > > Agreed, although I do not think the board should be involved in appeals. > > It used to be that in at least two other RIRs that I'm familiar with (APNIC and ARIN), the board would _never_ be directly involved in the IP allocation process. The role of the boards of those two RIRs was to ensure the policy development process was followed correctly and to be ultimately responsible for the operation of the organization. I don't know if that's still the case. That is the case. In ARIN, there is an explicit wall between the board and the resource allocation process, so that the board is never involved in specific resource requests, reviews, or fulfillment. I believe that to be the case in other RIRs as well. -Bill -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 841 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From h.lu at anytimechinese.com Mon Oct 27 04:51:46 2014 From: h.lu at anytimechinese.com (Lu) Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 08:51:46 +0400 Subject: =?utf-8?Q?Re:_[rpd]_Afrinic_policy_proposal=E2=80=94Afrinic_Serv?= =?utf-8?Q?ice_guild_lines?= In-Reply-To: <537C4394-A668-4867-97B7-4C9865FFDBBF@pch.net> References: <1B27840E-C9B7-4514-9B7B-1E34AFECEB3E@virtualized.org> <537C4394-A668-4867-97B7-4C9865FFDBBF@pch.net> Message-ID: <569C9CC0-784B-4B3E-87E5-947AAC147427@anytimechinese.com> Hi W have been told our allocation is "under board review" for past 2 month, I wonder how's that to be possible if board ha nothing to do with this? This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this message and including the text of the transmission received. > On 2014?10?27?, at ??4:13, Bill Woodcock wrote: > > > On Oct 27, 2014, at 3:22 AM, David Conrad wrote: >>> 5.Unless otherwise appealed, Afrinic board should not be directly involved in IP allocation process. >> >> Agreed, although I do not think the board should be involved in appeals. >> >> It used to be that in at least two other RIRs that I'm familiar with (APNIC and ARIN), the board would _never_ be directly involved in the IP allocation process. The role of the boards of those two RIRs was to ensure the policy development process was followed correctly and to be ultimately responsible for the operation of the organization. I don't know if that's still the case. > > That is the case. In ARIN, there is an explicit wall between the board and the resource allocation process, so that the board is never involved in specific resource requests, reviews, or fulfillment. I believe that to be the case in other RIRs as well. > > -Bill > > > > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd From kofi.ansa at gmail.com Mon Oct 27 09:25:11 2014 From: kofi.ansa at gmail.com (Kofi ANSA AKUFO) Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 13:25:11 +0400 Subject: =?UTF-8?Q?Re=3A_=5Brpd=5D_Afrinic_policy_proposal=E2=80=94Afrinic_Service_?= =?UTF-8?Q?guild_lines?= In-Reply-To: <569C9CC0-784B-4B3E-87E5-947AAC147427@anytimechinese.com> References: <1B27840E-C9B7-4514-9B7B-1E34AFECEB3E@virtualized.org> <537C4394-A668-4867-97B7-4C9865FFDBBF@pch.net> <569C9CC0-784B-4B3E-87E5-947AAC147427@anytimechinese.com> Message-ID: Hello Lu On 27 October 2014 08:51, Lu wrote: > Hi > > W have been told our allocation is "under board review" for past 2 month, > I wonder how's that to be possible if board ha nothing to do with this? > > Amazing you have exhausted the /12 IPv4 (over a million IPv4 addresses) Allocated to you within a year and requesting for more. What size are you requesting now? > This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. > It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or > otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use > of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the intended > addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission > in error, please notify this office immediately and e-mail the original at > the sender's address above by replying to this message and including the > text of the transmission received. > > > On 2014?10?27?, at ??4:13, Bill Woodcock wrote: > > > > > > On Oct 27, 2014, at 3:22 AM, David Conrad wrote: > >>> 5.Unless otherwise appealed, Afrinic board should not be directly > involved in IP allocation process. > >> > >> Agreed, although I do not think the board should be involved in appeals. > >> > >> It used to be that in at least two other RIRs that I'm familiar with > (APNIC and ARIN), the board would _never_ be directly involved in the IP > allocation process. The role of the boards of those two RIRs was to ensure > the policy development process was followed correctly and to be ultimately > responsible for the operation of the organization. I don't know if that's > still the case. > > > > That is the case. In ARIN, there is an explicit wall between the board > and the resource allocation process, so that the board is never involved in > specific resource requests, reviews, or fulfillment. I believe that to be > the case in other RIRs as well. > > > > -Bill > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > rpd mailing list > > rpd at afrinic.net > > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kofi.ansa at gmail.com Mon Oct 27 09:59:59 2014 From: kofi.ansa at gmail.com (Kofi ANSA AKUFO) Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 13:59:59 +0400 Subject: [rpd] What are the major challenges in enabling Services to run on IPv6? Message-ID: Hello Folks, What are the major challenges in enabling Services to run on IPv6 in our region? Could a hierarchical (top - down) deployment strategy with respect to connectivity and exchage of content be identified? If yes which groups should be encourage to make the transition (dual stack) first in our region? Are these groups IPv6 ready? What about our tertiary institutions and Research and Education Networks (RENs)? I recently noticed none of the top tertiary instutuions have basic net services running on IPv6. See attached except from some raw data gathered by a student. Cheers -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ip-stats-african-uni.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 82646 bytes Desc: not available URL: From keshwarsingh.nadan at millenium.mu Mon Oct 27 10:24:27 2014 From: keshwarsingh.nadan at millenium.mu (Keshwarsingh Nadan) Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 10:24:27 +0000 Subject: =?utf-8?B?UkU6IFtycGRdIEFmcmluaWMgcG9saWN5IHByb3Bvc2Fs4oCUQWZyaW5pYyBT?= =?utf-8?Q?ervice_guild_lines?= In-Reply-To: References: <1B27840E-C9B7-4514-9B7B-1E34AFECEB3E@virtualized.org> <537C4394-A668-4867-97B7-4C9865FFDBBF@pch.net> <569C9CC0-784B-4B3E-87E5-947AAC147427@anytimechinese.com> Message-ID: <8139A2D4BA5CE94C98E1A584DDEA6793BAE2DC@exchange1.prod.servihoo.net> Exhausting a /12 within a year is nothing.. In other words, Lu?s business is flourishing. From: rpd-bounces at afrinic.net [mailto:rpd-bounces at afrinic.net] On Behalf Of Kofi ANSA AKUFO Sent: 27 October 2014 13:25 To: Lu Cc: rpd Subject: Re: [rpd] Afrinic policy proposal?Afrinic Service guild lines Hello Lu On 27 October 2014 08:51, Lu > wrote: Hi W have been told our allocation is "under board review" for past 2 month, I wonder how's that to be possible if board ha nothing to do with this? Amazing you have exhausted the /12 IPv4 (over a million IPv4 addresses) Allocated to you within a year and requesting for more. What size are you requesting now? This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this message and including the text of the transmission received. > On 2014?10?27?, at ??4:13, Bill Woodcock > wrote: > > > On Oct 27, 2014, at 3:22 AM, David Conrad > wrote: >>> 5.Unless otherwise appealed, Afrinic board should not be directly involved in IP allocation process. >> >> Agreed, although I do not think the board should be involved in appeals. >> >> It used to be that in at least two other RIRs that I'm familiar with (APNIC and ARIN), the board would _never_ be directly involved in the IP allocation process. The role of the boards of those two RIRs was to ensure the policy development process was followed correctly and to be ultimately responsible for the operation of the organization. I don't know if that's still the case. > > That is the case. In ARIN, there is an explicit wall between the board and the resource allocation process, so that the board is never involved in specific resource requests, reviews, or fulfillment. I believe that to be the case in other RIRs as well. > > -Bill > > > > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd _______________________________________________ rpd mailing list rpd at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kofi.ansa at gmail.com Mon Oct 27 11:34:16 2014 From: kofi.ansa at gmail.com (Kofi ANSA AKUFO) Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 15:34:16 +0400 Subject: =?UTF-8?Q?RE=3A_=5Brpd=5D_Afrinic_policy_proposal=E2=80=94Afrinic_Service_?= =?UTF-8?Q?guild_lines?= In-Reply-To: <8139A2D4BA5CE94C98E1A584DDEA6793BAE2DC@exchange1.prod.servihoo.net> References: <1B27840E-C9B7-4514-9B7B-1E34AFECEB3E@virtualized.org> <537C4394-A668-4867-97B7-4C9865FFDBBF@pch.net> <569C9CC0-784B-4B3E-87E5-947AAC147427@anytimechinese.com> <8139A2D4BA5CE94C98E1A584DDEA6793BAE2DC@exchange1.prod.servihoo.net> Message-ID: Hi Keshwarsingh, On Oct 27, 2014 2:22 PM, "Keshwarsingh Nadan" < keshwarsingh.nadan at millenium.mu> wrote: > > Exhausting a /12 within a year is nothing.. In other words, Lu?s business is flourishing. > > In deed "its nothing" - the last time I checked not even a mobile telco had achieved that in our region. We must be tapping ourselves on the shoulder then if this translates to content beneficial to our region. > > From: rpd-bounces at afrinic.net [mailto:rpd-bounces at afrinic.net] On Behalf Of Kofi ANSA AKUFO > Sent: 27 October 2014 13:25 > To: Lu > Cc: rpd > Subject: Re: [rpd] Afrinic policy proposal?Afrinic Service guild lines > > > > Hello Lu > > > > On 27 October 2014 08:51, Lu wrote: > > Hi > > W have been told our allocation is "under board review" for past 2 month, I wonder how's that to be possible if board ha nothing to do with this? > > > > Amazing you have exhausted the /12 IPv4 (over a million IPv4 addresses) Allocated to you within a year and requesting for more. What size are you requesting now? > > >> >> This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. >> It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or >> otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use >> of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this message and including the text of the transmission received. >> >> > On 2014?10?27?, at ??4:13, Bill Woodcock wrote: >> > >> > >> > On Oct 27, 2014, at 3:22 AM, David Conrad wrote: >> >>> 5.Unless otherwise appealed, Afrinic board should not be directly involved in IP allocation process. >> >> >> >> Agreed, although I do not think the board should be involved in appeals. >> >> >> >> It used to be that in at least two other RIRs that I'm familiar with (APNIC and ARIN), the board would _never_ be directly involved in the IP allocation process. The role of the boards of those two RIRs was to ensure the policy development process was followed correctly and to be ultimately responsible for the operation of the organization. I don't know if that's still the case. >> > >> > That is the case. In ARIN, there is an explicit wall between the board and the resource allocation process, so that the board is never involved in specific resource requests, reviews, or fulfillment. I believe that to be the case in other RIRs as well. >> > >> > -Bill >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > rpd mailing list >> > rpd at afrinic.net >> > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >> _______________________________________________ >> rpd mailing list >> rpd at afrinic.net >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From adam at varud.com Mon Oct 27 12:16:11 2014 From: adam at varud.com (Adam Nelson) Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 15:16:11 +0300 Subject: [rpd] Policy ID format Message-ID: Dear community, For the past few months, the Policy Development Working Group co-chairs along with the Secretariat have been discussing the restructuring of Policy IDs. We currently have a very verbose system that embeds a bunch of metadata into the ID. While this metadata is useful, it is also cumbersome to have within the ID and simply remembering the policy ID is almost impossible. After much deliberation, we have come to agree on the following format for all future policy proposals (where YYYY is the year, NNN is an incremental number starting at 1 at the beginning of each year, and VVV is the version of the proposal): afYYYY-NNN-vVVV For example, the 2nd draft of the 3rd proposal of next year would be: af2015-3-v2 If the above policy proposal were to be finalized, the version would then be dropped: af2015-3 Hopefully this is short enough for people to remember easily. All prior policies will be updated to the new ID with a field for the old ID preserved for archival purposes. If anybody has any specific concerns, please let us know. Cheers, Adam -- Kili - Cloud for Africa: kili.io Musings: twitter.com/varud More Musings: varud.com About Adam: www.linkedin.com/in/adamcnelson -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From keshwarsingh.nadan at millenium.mu Mon Oct 27 14:31:06 2014 From: keshwarsingh.nadan at millenium.mu (Keshwarsingh Nadan) Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 14:31:06 +0000 Subject: =?utf-8?B?UkU6IFtycGRdIEFmcmluaWMgcG9saWN5IHByb3Bvc2Fs4oCUQWZyaW5pYyBT?= =?utf-8?Q?ervice_guild_lines?= In-Reply-To: References: <1B27840E-C9B7-4514-9B7B-1E34AFECEB3E@virtualized.org> <537C4394-A668-4867-97B7-4C9865FFDBBF@pch.net> <569C9CC0-784B-4B3E-87E5-947AAC147427@anytimechinese.com> <8139A2D4BA5CE94C98E1A584DDEA6793BAE2DC@exchange1.prod.servihoo.net> Message-ID: <8139A2D4BA5CE94C98E1A584DDEA6793BAE4E8@exchange1.prod.servihoo.net> A mobile telco operator in our region would never achieve such a usage due to: a) Bandwidth pricing over HSDPA/HSPA or whatever technology is crazy. b) Most of them still use carrier grade nat. The company I worked for previously (ARIN region) would eat up a /13 quarterly, VPN services sold on the Asian market. ARIN never cared about content beneficial to their region or whatsoever. I believe same applies to our service region, unless of course a policy specifying ?resources are evaluated based on beneficial content to our region? ? From: Kofi ANSA AKUFO [mailto:kofi.ansa at gmail.com] Sent: 27 October 2014 15:34 To: Keshwarsingh Nadan Cc: rpd List; h.lu at anytimechinese.com Subject: RE: [rpd] Afrinic policy proposal?Afrinic Service guild lines Hi Keshwarsingh, On Oct 27, 2014 2:22 PM, "Keshwarsingh Nadan" > wrote: > > Exhausting a /12 within a year is nothing.. In other words, Lu?s business is flourishing. > > In deed "its nothing" - the last time I checked not even a mobile telco had achieved that in our region. We must be tapping ourselves on the shoulder then if this translates to content beneficial to our region. > > From: rpd-bounces at afrinic.net [mailto:rpd-bounces at afrinic.net] On Behalf Of Kofi ANSA AKUFO > Sent: 27 October 2014 13:25 > To: Lu > Cc: rpd > Subject: Re: [rpd] Afrinic policy proposal?Afrinic Service guild lines > > > > Hello Lu > > > > On 27 October 2014 08:51, Lu > wrote: > > Hi > > W have been told our allocation is "under board review" for past 2 month, I wonder how's that to be possible if board ha nothing to do with this? > > > > Amazing you have exhausted the /12 IPv4 (over a million IPv4 addresses) Allocated to you within a year and requesting for more. What size are you requesting now? > > >> >> This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. >> It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or >> otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use >> of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this message and including the text of the transmission received. >> >> > On 2014?10?27?, at ??4:13, Bill Woodcock > wrote: >> > >> > >> > On Oct 27, 2014, at 3:22 AM, David Conrad > wrote: >> >>> 5.Unless otherwise appealed, Afrinic board should not be directly involved in IP allocation process. >> >> >> >> Agreed, although I do not think the board should be involved in appeals. >> >> >> >> It used to be that in at least two other RIRs that I'm familiar with (APNIC and ARIN), the board would _never_ be directly involved in the IP allocation process. The role of the boards of those two RIRs was to ensure the policy development process was followed correctly and to be ultimately responsible for the operation of the organization. I don't know if that's still the case. >> > >> > That is the case. In ARIN, there is an explicit wall between the board and the resource allocation process, so that the board is never involved in specific resource requests, reviews, or fulfillment. I believe that to be the case in other RIRs as well. >> > >> > -Bill >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > rpd mailing list >> > rpd at afrinic.net >> > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >> _______________________________________________ >> rpd mailing list >> rpd at afrinic.net >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kofi.ansa at gmail.com Mon Oct 27 15:48:48 2014 From: kofi.ansa at gmail.com (Kofi ANSA AKUFO) Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 19:48:48 +0400 Subject: =?UTF-8?Q?Re=3A_=5Brpd=5D_Afrinic_policy_proposal=E2=80=94Afrinic_Service_?= =?UTF-8?Q?guild_lines?= In-Reply-To: <8139A2D4BA5CE94C98E1A584DDEA6793BAE4E8@exchange1.prod.servihoo.net> References: <1B27840E-C9B7-4514-9B7B-1E34AFECEB3E@virtualized.org> <537C4394-A668-4867-97B7-4C9865FFDBBF@pch.net> <569C9CC0-784B-4B3E-87E5-947AAC147427@anytimechinese.com> <8139A2D4BA5CE94C98E1A584DDEA6793BAE2DC@exchange1.prod.servihoo.net> <8139A2D4BA5CE94C98E1A584DDEA6793BAE4E8@exchange1.prod.servihoo.net> Message-ID: Keshwarsingh On 27 October 2014 18:31, Keshwarsingh Nadan < keshwarsingh.nadan at millenium.mu> wrote: > A mobile telco operator in our region would never achieve such a usage > due to: > > > > a) Bandwidth pricing over HSDPA/HSPA or whatever technology is crazy. > > b) Most of them still use carrier grade nat. > > > > The company I worked for previously (ARIN region) would eat up a /13 > quarterly, VPN services sold on the Asian market. ARIN never cared about > content beneficial to their region or whatsoever. > > Exactly but we face different challenges in our region one of them being the level of ICT infrastucture development. Its stragtegically wrong to align or follow such policies. It will be prudent and wise to exploit our resources and such markets to bridge the gaps - (build solid infrastrucutres in our region, create jobs etc). I guess its difficult to put "Africa First" when it comes business right? > > > I believe same applies to our service region, unless of course a policy > specifying ?resources are evaluated based on beneficial content to our > region? ? > > > > *From:* Kofi ANSA AKUFO [mailto:kofi.ansa at gmail.com] > *Sent:* 27 October 2014 15:34 > *To:* Keshwarsingh Nadan > *Cc:* rpd List; h.lu at anytimechinese.com > *Subject:* RE: [rpd] Afrinic policy proposal?Afrinic Service guild lines > > > > Hi Keshwarsingh, > > On Oct 27, 2014 2:22 PM, "Keshwarsingh Nadan" < > keshwarsingh.nadan at millenium.mu> wrote: > > > > Exhausting a /12 within a year is nothing.. In other words, Lu?s > business is flourishing. > > > > > > In deed "its nothing" - the last time I checked not even a mobile telco > had achieved that in our region. > > We must be tapping ourselves on the shoulder then if this translates to > content beneficial to our region. > > > > > From: rpd-bounces at afrinic.net [mailto:rpd-bounces at afrinic.net] On > Behalf Of Kofi ANSA AKUFO > > Sent: 27 October 2014 13:25 > > To: Lu > > Cc: rpd > > Subject: Re: [rpd] Afrinic policy proposal?Afrinic Service guild lines > > > > > > > > Hello Lu > > > > > > > > On 27 October 2014 08:51, Lu wrote: > > > > Hi > > > > W have been told our allocation is "under board review" for past 2 > month, I wonder how's that to be possible if board ha nothing to do with > this? > > > > > > > > Amazing you have exhausted the /12 IPv4 (over a million IPv4 addresses) > Allocated to you within a year and requesting for more. What size are you > requesting now? > > > > > >> > >> This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. > >> It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or > >> otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use > >> of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the intended > addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission > in error, please notify this office immediately and e-mail the original at > the sender's address above by replying to this message and including the > text of the transmission received. > >> > >> > On 2014?10?27?, at ??4:13, Bill Woodcock wrote: > >> > > >> > > >> > On Oct 27, 2014, at 3:22 AM, David Conrad > wrote: > >> >>> 5.Unless otherwise appealed, Afrinic board should not be directly > involved in IP allocation process. > >> >> > >> >> Agreed, although I do not think the board should be involved in > appeals. > >> >> > >> >> It used to be that in at least two other RIRs that I'm familiar with > (APNIC and ARIN), the board would _never_ be directly involved in the IP > allocation process. The role of the boards of those two RIRs was to ensure > the policy development process was followed correctly and to be ultimately > responsible for the operation of the organization. I don't know if that's > still the case. > >> > > >> > That is the case. In ARIN, there is an explicit wall between the > board and the resource allocation process, so that the board is never > involved in specific resource requests, reviews, or fulfillment. I believe > that to be the case in other RIRs as well. > >> > > >> > -Bill > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > _______________________________________________ > >> > rpd mailing list > >> > rpd at afrinic.net > >> > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > >> _______________________________________________ > >> rpd mailing list > >> rpd at afrinic.net > >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From owen at delong.com Mon Oct 27 15:52:58 2014 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 08:52:58 -0700 Subject: [rpd] AfriNIC policy AFPUB-2014-GEN-002-DRAFT-01 reject In-Reply-To: References: <1413690734.28338.81.camel@localhost.localdomain> <544733BC.5040702@iptp.net> <7FF93785BD2D534EA45841A8AAA1D89B51322817C6@liquid-exch.liquidtelecom.local> <2DC52176-59A6-409F-A08E-B46B72024521@delong.com> Message-ID: > On Oct 23, 2014, at 8:51 PM, Borg wrote: > > > > Borg le Chevalier > ___________________________________ > "Common sense is what tells us the world is flat" > > On 23 October 2014 00:28, Owen DeLong > wrote: >> >> I can concretely demonstrate that the availability of IPv4 addressing can have an impact on business investment. >> >> >> >> Impact, sure. but not determining factor in any significant investment that can be said to be "developing africa". It the arrogance of the statement I mention. > > Actually, it could well be a determining factor. > > > For mature market maybe, but for new market, no really. I disagree? If I were considering investing in any sort of network infrastructure company and became aware that getting the addresses necessary to make a business viable may be difficult, I?d want to insure access to those addresses or withdraw my investment. If that doesn?t meet your definition of a determining factor, I?m not sure what does. I will agree that addresses alone will not create investment, but, I think it is absurd to claim that a lack of addresses cannot prevent investment. > > Nobody in their right mind is launching a new IPv4 ISP in Asia right now. The lack of available addressing makes such a venture foolhardy at best. > > > The service is Internet, not IPv4-based Internet. Any big investiment in Internet infrastructure in Africa will target non-consumption. Those people who has never have Internet - anything (IPv6, NAT) will be better and still make the investiment worth it. NOBODY invests invests in networking infrastrasture in large scale in Africa just because of availability of IPv4. ROFLMAO ? I wish that was true. However, internet service today, as much as I wish it were otherwise, is pretty much defined in terms of IPv4. If you don?t provide IPv4 services to your customers, you won?t get customers, no matter how much IPv6 you deploy. That will change in the next few years, but today, that is the essential reality. I?m not saying anyone will invest in large scale infrastructure just because of IPv4 availability. I?m saying that lack of IPv4 availability can certainly prevent investment. I don?t think we are actually disagreeing so much as we are approaching from different aspects of the words ?determining factor?. You seem to define ?determining factor? as an item whose presence or absence is, by itself, sufficient to cause a positive decision to invest. I don?t believe any such item exists in any business. OTOH, I am defining ?determining factor? as an item whose presence or absence can, by itself, cause a negative decision and prevent one from making an investment. For example, if I were opening a cell-phone store, knowing that a company had a 75% retail tax rate on handsets and a cap on the retail price of said handsets might be sufficient to prevent me from doing so. I would consider that a determining factor. If I?m considering building out a $20,000,000 network infrastructure, the fact that I can?t get enough numbers to satisfy my anticipated customer base would certainly give me pause, if not outright eliminate my investment. > Africa has more IPv4 space available than anywhere else in the world right now. That makes it more reasonable for new market entrants to invest in Africa, > > The opportunity for investment is because lots of africans are still offline, NOT because there is IPv4. And for those people offline, any Internet (IPv6, NAT) will be sufficient. We should probably agree to disagree here. I doubt either of us will convince the other. > What investor (except IPv4 brokers) bases an investment decision on a resource that is known to be not sustainable to get in the futur? Shell Chevron BP to name but a few. > but it also makes Africa a target for pulling resources out to exploit them in other regions. > > > That the biggest concern and i think a legitime one for africans. Policy might just be an ineffective way - better have the resources being used by legitimate african interests (gouvenments, universities, etc) I?m all for that, but this mailing list is about address policy and that?s the only tool we have to effect that. While policy may prove not to be 100% effective, isn?t it best to codify our intent and desire in that policy and try to make it work rather than simply avoid doing anything on the basis that policy might not solve the entire problem? It seems to me that your approach here is akin to saying ?I?m not going to build an engine because without brakes, a car cannot be safely driven.? I prefer to build the engine and also try to find a supplier or build some brakes too. > I also believe that a lack of limitations on the exportation of address space by pseudo-African companies[1] and/or non-African companies[2] will lead to exploitation that does not particularly benefit Africa or Africans. > > ++1 and that is the problem these proposal try to address (not sure how effective it would have be) > > > I?m not sure where brokers came into this or what you mean by arrogant IT people who over-value IT in general and IPv4 in particular, so I?m not sure how to answer that. > > > Arrogance = attitude that get someone to say "I am a member of afrinic, investing an making africa a better place" --- > Arrogance = believe that in grande scheme of developmental challenges, Internet (particularly IPv4-based one) ranks in even the top 3 of priorities. > > Don't get me wrong, IT is very important .... depending on existing infrastructure and context. It not a silver bullet to 'make africa a better place? I don?t think anyone believes for one second that IT or the Internet is a silver bullet. However, the simple fact is that it is a positive force for change and does make a difference. It is a technology that can be leveraged to facilitate many other improvements. > You forget > > a) Addresses != IPv4 (thankfully Liquid also do v6) I?ll leave it to Andrew to clarify if I am wrong, but I am pretty sure that Liquid would not consider it economically viable to build out an IPv6-only service at this time. If you?re not building an IPv6-only service, then, IPv4 addresses are a critical component in your business. Look up what I did for the last 5 years, and I think you?ll find that your statement above really doesn?t hold water. > b) Going with your model - that business strategy is going to be dead in 4 - 5 years as v6 run out. I don?t expect v6 to run out in 4-5 years. I expect v4 to run out, but I also expect that to drive more v6 implementation. The state of the network today is that an investment in an v6-only infrastructure is not economically viable. In 4-5 years, a v6-only infrastructure will probably be much more viable than it is today. > c) In term of numbers, Liquid may not have more customers than the mobile operators in africa and somehow they still in business and thriving. Sure, you don?t need as many high-margin customers to make a profit as you do low-margin customers. This is a long standing reality of many businesses. I don?t know an appropriate set of brand comparisons for Africa, but I?m pretty sure you can look up the US brand names? Morton?s doesn?t sell very many hamburgers, but they make a lot more on every one than Burger King. However, getting back to Liquid, you actually need more IPv4 addresses per high-margin customer than you do for low-margin customers like mobile phone users. It is viable, for example, to run an IPv6-only mobile phone network using NAT64 to provide what few IPv4 services you offer. It?s not viable to do that for, say, a cable access provider, DSL provider, or GPON provider. It?s certainly not viable for a B2B provider. Why? Well, first, people take limitations on their internet capabilities on mobile phones for granted. They aren?t so accepting of such limitations in residential or business broadband. Second, mobile is a volume business, so as long as 95% of customers get 80% of what they want, chances are you?re not going to have too many people leaving just on account of the internet limitations. OTOH, as a residential or business access provider, failing to deliver all the internet capabilities that the customers expect (or even falling short of what your competitors can deliver which includes things like Skype, Amazon.com , QQ.com , and others which are unfortunately still not at all IPv6 enabled. You can argue about immature markets all you want, but the reality is that as soon as anyone gets any level of internet access, they start talking to people about it and they quickly learn if their access is less than what is available elsewhere and it does, in fact, lead to dissatisfaction. >> I do believe that we need to protect the African resources from being pillaged by non-African entities and IP Brokers. I will strongly support policy that prevents African resources flowing off continent into the hands of those who have absolutely no link to Africa AND where there is no benefit (quantitative) to the continent. >> >> >> >> That seem to me to be a goal many people in the community share. but i wander , with such small IPv4 space compared to other part of world, why is afrinic consumption so small? > > There are a number of historic reasons relating to the following problem areas: > > 1. Difficulty qualifying for resources under ARIN policies of the past (pre-AfriNIC) > 2. Perception problems created by 1 > 3. Cost and the perceived cost-savings of NAT (artificial, though they are) > 4. Perceived security/control/etc. advantages of NAT (also artificial) > 5. Limited understanding of the process of obtaining addresses and fee structures >> I just do not believe at this point we have a policy proposal that fulfills these objectives. >> > Rather than merely state that the current proposal doesn?t meet the objectives, perhaps it would be more useful if you could propose language or modifications that could be made to the current proposal in order to achieve what I think almost everyone agrees is the valid goal. > > that phrase was andrew, not me. :-) > > but with your nice list of reasons - i think > > - policy (one that establish and discourage abuse of afrinic resources for pseudo-african companies) is good start. Agreed? So let?s come up with wording for one. If this isn?t it, how does it differ from what you and Andrew want? How can we either make this proposal better, or, what would we need in a new proposal in order to match those requirements better than this proposal? > - problems (2,3,4,5) can be solve by education and communication and training And those efforts are ongoing, but they?re out of scope for this list. > - standardize process so legitime companies can get address quicker and cheaper Sounds great as a theory, but the reality is quite a bit harder? What changes to current process, exactly, would you propose in order to accomplish that? Owen -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From keshwarsingh.nadan at millenium.mu Mon Oct 27 16:07:38 2014 From: keshwarsingh.nadan at millenium.mu (Keshwarsingh Nadan) Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 16:07:38 +0000 Subject: =?utf-8?B?UkU6IFtycGRdIEFmcmluaWMgcG9saWN5IHByb3Bvc2Fs4oCUQWZyaW5pYyBT?= =?utf-8?Q?ervice_guild_lines?= In-Reply-To: References: <1B27840E-C9B7-4514-9B7B-1E34AFECEB3E@virtualized.org> <537C4394-A668-4867-97B7-4C9865FFDBBF@pch.net> <569C9CC0-784B-4B3E-87E5-947AAC147427@anytimechinese.com> <8139A2D4BA5CE94C98E1A584DDEA6793BAE2DC@exchange1.prod.servihoo.net> <8139A2D4BA5CE94C98E1A584DDEA6793BAE4E8@exchange1.prod.servihoo.net> Message-ID: <8139A2D4BA5CE94C98E1A584DDEA6793BAE5E3@exchange1.prod.servihoo.net> I guess it will be really easy to put ?Africa First? when it comes to business, the day internet access is ?truly? deregulated. I sign the preference of being prudent and wise to exploit our resources and such markets to bridge the gaps. From: Kofi ANSA AKUFO [mailto:kofi.ansa at gmail.com] Sent: 27 October 2014 19:49 To: Keshwarsingh Nadan Cc: rpd List; h.lu at anytimechinese.com Subject: Re: [rpd] Afrinic policy proposal?Afrinic Service guild lines Keshwarsingh On 27 October 2014 18:31, Keshwarsingh Nadan > wrote: A mobile telco operator in our region would never achieve such a usage due to: a) Bandwidth pricing over HSDPA/HSPA or whatever technology is crazy. b) Most of them still use carrier grade nat. The company I worked for previously (ARIN region) would eat up a /13 quarterly, VPN services sold on the Asian market. ARIN never cared about content beneficial to their region or whatsoever. Exactly but we face different challenges in our region one of them being the level of ICT infrastucture development. Its stragtegically wrong to align or follow such policies. It will be prudent and wise to exploit our resources and such markets to bridge the gaps - (build solid infrastrucutres in our region, create jobs etc). I guess its difficult to put "Africa First" when it comes business right? I believe same applies to our service region, unless of course a policy specifying ?resources are evaluated based on beneficial content to our region? ? From: Kofi ANSA AKUFO [mailto:kofi.ansa at gmail.com] Sent: 27 October 2014 15:34 To: Keshwarsingh Nadan Cc: rpd List; h.lu at anytimechinese.com Subject: RE: [rpd] Afrinic policy proposal?Afrinic Service guild lines Hi Keshwarsingh, On Oct 27, 2014 2:22 PM, "Keshwarsingh Nadan" > wrote: > > Exhausting a /12 within a year is nothing.. In other words, Lu?s business is flourishing. > > In deed "its nothing" - the last time I checked not even a mobile telco had achieved that in our region. We must be tapping ourselves on the shoulder then if this translates to content beneficial to our region. > > From: rpd-bounces at afrinic.net [mailto:rpd-bounces at afrinic.net] On Behalf Of Kofi ANSA AKUFO > Sent: 27 October 2014 13:25 > To: Lu > Cc: rpd > Subject: Re: [rpd] Afrinic policy proposal?Afrinic Service guild lines > > > > Hello Lu > > > > On 27 October 2014 08:51, Lu > wrote: > > Hi > > W have been told our allocation is "under board review" for past 2 month, I wonder how's that to be possible if board ha nothing to do with this? > > > > Amazing you have exhausted the /12 IPv4 (over a million IPv4 addresses) Allocated to you within a year and requesting for more. What size are you requesting now? > > >> >> This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. >> It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or >> otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use >> of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this message and including the text of the transmission received. >> >> > On 2014?10?27?, at ??4:13, Bill Woodcock > wrote: >> > >> > >> > On Oct 27, 2014, at 3:22 AM, David Conrad > wrote: >> >>> 5.Unless otherwise appealed, Afrinic board should not be directly involved in IP allocation process. >> >> >> >> Agreed, although I do not think the board should be involved in appeals. >> >> >> >> It used to be that in at least two other RIRs that I'm familiar with (APNIC and ARIN), the board would _never_ be directly involved in the IP allocation process. The role of the boards of those two RIRs was to ensure the policy development process was followed correctly and to be ultimately responsible for the operation of the organization. I don't know if that's still the case. >> > >> > That is the case. In ARIN, there is an explicit wall between the board and the resource allocation process, so that the board is never involved in specific resource requests, reviews, or fulfillment. I believe that to be the case in other RIRs as well. >> > >> > -Bill >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > rpd mailing list >> > rpd at afrinic.net >> > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >> _______________________________________________ >> rpd mailing list >> rpd at afrinic.net >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sfolayan at gmail.com Mon Oct 27 18:01:40 2014 From: sfolayan at gmail.com (Sunday Folayan) Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 19:01:40 +0100 Subject: [rpd] Re: [afnog] What are the major challenges in enabling Services to run on IPv6? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <544E8884.3010409@gmail.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi, Please talk to the Training folks at AfriNIC. They seem to have trained a lot of African businesses and Institutions, and should have ideas of where the shoe pinches. Best. Sunday. On 27/10/2014 10:59, Kofi ANSA AKUFO wrote: > Hello Folks, > > What are the major challenges in enabling Services to run on IPv6 > in our region? > > Could a hierarchical (top - down) deployment strategy with respect > to connectivity and exchage of content be identified? > > If yes which groups should be encourage to make the transition > (dual stack) first in our region? Are these groups IPv6 ready? > > What about our tertiary institutions and Research and Education > Networks (RENs)? I recently noticed none of the top tertiary > instutuions have basic net services running on IPv6. See attached > except from some raw data gathered by a student. > > Cheers > > > > _______________________________________________ afnog mailing list > http://afnog.org/mailman/listinfo/afnog > - -- - ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sunday Adekunle Folayan blog: http://www.sundayfolayan.name.ng email: sfolayan at skannet.com.ng, sfolayan at gmail.com phone: +234-816-866-7523, +234-802-291-2202 skype: sfolayan fcbk: www.facebook.com/sfolayan tweet: sfolayan linkedin: sfolayan : http://free.lanci.ng - Anyone, Anyjob, Anywhere, Anytime - ------------------------------------------------------------------ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUToiEAAoJEH6UvSz6fA25p34H/igbkY3ZeB4aIY9E+PblsaE3 JZ21FbAxLRnHKTAbgawHURQeQ8mAeNZC8/sQ/1zgLaEhdQ+jrCW6X/SJgCFjjb7M f0qumas6bCGSrN1XhIxqkO7f3xig483Fk9TyCIc8MKpONjY7tXZOzZI8nao9Jr1s rUtxtucA0Z3HiD3nLY8rtmdBamXQ0+Q35fn2SGyKzb+pqY5lLBbO6BVPxbD2s/6V OhX0CAZ+TQR3+UFYWyuxKeYj/AToF9JP/NlffrWvw0bMpoWn7968KsNmaDWjUs63 apofqOonqBLIrNDljEJLkFSxBTpBGRpi+D6dQfCIxuCsOmDXXVYTMG+1UNAxqmM= =uU8x -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From sfolayan at gmail.com Mon Oct 27 19:27:59 2014 From: sfolayan at gmail.com (Sunday Folayan) Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 20:27:59 +0100 Subject: [rpd] CRISP team selection Process in AfriNIC In-Reply-To: <89FC0230-CBFA-428B-8DF9-8946B62C3446@afrinic.net> References: <89FC0230-CBFA-428B-8DF9-8946B62C3446@afrinic.net> Message-ID: <544E9CBF.1090005@gmail.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Dear colleagues, As you know the NRO, the coordinating organisation of the five RIR?s, is putting together the Consolidated RIR IANA Stewardship Proposal (CRISP) Team, composed of 15 individuals, to prepare the consolidated proposal for the Number community. Each RIR will appoint 3 people from their region (2 from the community and 1 staff member). More information about the RIR?s IANA Transition process and the CRISP team is available at: http://www.nro.net/news/iana-stewardship-consolidated-rir-iana-stewardship-proposal-team https://www.nro.net/nro-and-internet-governance/iana-oversight/consolidated-rir-iana-stewardship-proposal-team-crisp-team Each Regional Internet Registry is expected to appoint their CRISP team members by a method of its own choosing by the latest 15th November 2014. The AFRINIC Board has decided that it will select the two communities representatives to the CRISP Team from a list volunteers nominated by the community. Because of the urgency and the need for transparency, the Board has approved the following timelines for the selection of the member from the community: 1. Call for Nominations to be issued - 27 Oct 2014 2. Expression of Interest by Candidates, latest 7td Nov 2014 3. Selection of AFRINIC representative by the Boards , latest 12th Nov 2014 4. Communication of the final selection to the community, latest 14th Nov 2014. A call for nomination will be sent shortly after this message. Sunday Folayan Vice Chair AfriNIC Board -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUTpy/AAoJEH6UvSz6fA25ZFQH/j/pNKf3i85WSlhJjFr3PPsg +7v3bv6IP22onp/gZfCP2jc8MN3t616DVrg94aMDHqku4f6TlMePS327x/FMtnQi aF8uAJtVV3pY6ooQrxgAKJChmK46baHoMffKaoNVpW8uqmdOU5ALyEtPESN/J/cM gSnJ2XCeO1IxoxWl23Z7RKNGC2NjN5k54WF770QKXlevWO8MYSMJoVtNxpNOG0hh oBO3VaGyuVtd6nJlFetlTX3pZG6iFT8HFm7FVStHJRSYT8dflpsYNkKtzMd3sf8x CxxUI8Xnr1Y2od7OlqnJVxkNmi/YbO3XF8iRh91TPd3aOrlu0eavTC9Uuka5jLA= =bM3B -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owen at delong.com Mon Oct 27 21:11:36 2014 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 14:11:36 -0700 Subject: [rpd] rpd Digest, Vol 97, Issue 17 In-Reply-To: <3BB1EEC3-83D6-4A87-B86B-3A38E71418D8@benintelecoms.bj> References: <201410221313.s9MDDDsM008814@mail.afrinic.net> <3BB1EEC3-83D6-4A87-B86B-3A38E71418D8@benintelecoms.bj> Message-ID: > On Oct 24, 2014, at 4:37 PM, gehoumi wrote: > > Hi Andrew, > >> >> If you look at a large international organization serving multiple African countries. They typically have offices that are off continent as well as on-continent. Those off-shore offices still need IP space and are critical to the functioning of the organizations in question. Then we have the issues of points of presence internationally, some of which can be pretty large, which include routers, switches, and potentially servers which are directly related to the functioning of the network on the African continent. > > > Why these offices that are off continent, can't ask IP addresses from the RIR who serve that region ? 1. It?s a pain to have to manage relationships for your global company?s satellite offices with 4 RIRs that aren?t in your timezone. 2. Most of them have no space left. Owen -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com Tue Oct 28 05:05:33 2014 From: Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com (Andrew Alston) Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 05:05:33 +0000 Subject: [rpd] Re: [afnog] What are the major challenges in enabling Services to run on IPv6? In-Reply-To: <544E8884.3010409@gmail.com> References: <544E8884.3010409@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi There, Couple of comments here. Firstly, I know at least one tertiary institution who is running IPv6 to the edge all the way through the network. Infact, the majority of their traffic is on IPv6. They however DID have a problem making things like their web server run on IPv6 (so instead of doing what a lot of places do, putting v6 on the core and on a couple of internet facing services), they went the other way, enabled it to the desktop and the users and worry about the rest afterwards. (I did a presentation on this remotely during the Khartoum meeting I believe). With regards to the challenges, honestly, I believe its a resistance for people to actually acknowledge its necessary and put in the time and effort. Technically, the challenges aren?t huge. With regards to international content providers running in Africa (Akamai, Google etc), most of these are IPv6 enabled already and work fine. With regards to providers, I see a lot of providers V6 enabling in the core, but there is limited deployment to the edge and to the users. Part of this is due to lack of demand. I can tell you that from our side, we are v6 enabled end to end, and we?re quite prepared to let any customer of ours who wants it have IPv6. Its there, its ready. Getting customers to actually take it up and use it though is a challenge. That challenge also prevents a lot of providers from actually putting in the effort (and sometimes expense) of rolling IPv6 all the way to the edge with a lack of demand. Its kinda a chicken and egg situation for many, no IPv6 at the edge decreases the number of people running IPv6, we decreases the demand for IPv6, which decreases the motivation to roll IPv6 to the edge. Just my thoughts Andrew Alston Group Head of IP Strategy Sameer business Park, Block A, Mombasa Road. Nairobi, Kenya T: +254 205000000 - M: +254 733 2222 04 - E: andrew.alston at liquidtelecom.com On 10/27/14, 9:01 PM, "Sunday Folayan" wrote: >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >Hash: SHA1 > >Hi, > >Please talk to the Training folks at AfriNIC. > >They seem to have trained a lot of African businesses and >Institutions, and should have ideas of where the shoe pinches. > >Best. > >Sunday. > >On 27/10/2014 10:59, Kofi ANSA AKUFO wrote: >> Hello Folks, >> >> What are the major challenges in enabling Services to run on IPv6 >> in our region? >> >> Could a hierarchical (top - down) deployment strategy with respect >> to connectivity and exchage of content be identified? >> >> If yes which groups should be encourage to make the transition >> (dual stack) first in our region? Are these groups IPv6 ready? >> >> What about our tertiary institutions and Research and Education >> Networks (RENs)? I recently noticed none of the top tertiary >> instutuions have basic net services running on IPv6. See attached >> except from some raw data gathered by a student. >> >> Cheers >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ afnog mailing list >> http://afnog.org/mailman/listinfo/afnog >> > > >- -- >- ---------------------------------------------------------------- >Sunday Adekunle Folayan > blog: http://www.sundayfolayan.name.ng > email: sfolayan at skannet.com.ng, sfolayan at gmail.com > phone: +234-816-866-7523, +234-802-291-2202 > skype: sfolayan > fcbk: www.facebook.com/sfolayan > tweet: sfolayan >linkedin: sfolayan > : http://free.lanci.ng - Anyone, Anyjob, Anywhere, Anytime >- ------------------------------------------------------------------ >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) > >iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUToiEAAoJEH6UvSz6fA25p34H/igbkY3ZeB4aIY9E+PblsaE3 >JZ21FbAxLRnHKTAbgawHURQeQ8mAeNZC8/sQ/1zgLaEhdQ+jrCW6X/SJgCFjjb7M >f0qumas6bCGSrN1XhIxqkO7f3xig483Fk9TyCIc8MKpONjY7tXZOzZI8nao9Jr1s >rUtxtucA0Z3HiD3nLY8rtmdBamXQ0+Q35fn2SGyKzb+pqY5lLBbO6BVPxbD2s/6V >OhX0CAZ+TQR3+UFYWyuxKeYj/AToF9JP/NlffrWvw0bMpoWn7968KsNmaDWjUs63 >apofqOonqBLIrNDljEJLkFSxBTpBGRpi+D6dQfCIxuCsOmDXXVYTMG+1UNAxqmM= >=uU8x >-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > >_______________________________________________ >afnog mailing list >http://afnog.org/mailman/listinfo/afnog DISCLAIMER: This email contains proprietary information some or all of which may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this email, please notify the author by replying to this email. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose, copy, print, or rely on this email. We cannot accept liability for any statements made which are clearly the sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of this company or one of its agents. From mark.tinka at seacom.mu Tue Oct 28 06:18:29 2014 From: mark.tinka at seacom.mu (Mark Tinka) Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 08:18:29 +0200 Subject: [rpd] Re: [afnog] What are the major challenges in enabling Services to run on IPv6? In-Reply-To: References: <544E8884.3010409@gmail.com> Message-ID: <201410280818.29636.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> On Tuesday, October 28, 2014 07:05:33 AM Andrew Alston wrote: > That challenge also prevents a > lot of providers from actually putting in the effort > (and sometimes expense) of rolling IPv6 all the way to > the edge with a lack of demand. Its kinda a chicken and > egg situation for many, no IPv6 at the edge decreases > the number of people running IPv6, we decreases the > demand for IPv6, which decreases the motivation to roll > IPv6 to the edge. I'm still reasonably disappointed in the lack of drive from retail providers to offer IPv6 to their customers, i.e., the broadband/consumer space. Granted, it is a lot more challenging to deliver IPv6 to large scale consumers (more so in Africa, where a lot of consumers are running data off the mobile networks). But I think that deployment of IPv6 toward end customers in a manner where they do not have to directly participate in the process is where we shall see the most gains. The old mantra still holds true - users don't care, as long as it works. Mark. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. URL: From boubakarbarry at gmail.com Tue Oct 28 07:59:57 2014 From: boubakarbarry at gmail.com (Boubakar Barry) Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 07:59:57 +0000 Subject: [rpd] Re: [afnog] What are the major challenges in enabling Services to run on IPv6? In-Reply-To: <201410280818.29636.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> References: <544E8884.3010409@gmail.com> <201410280818.29636.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> Message-ID: Hi All, As for the academic/REN community, an action has been initiated to support RENs and higher ed/research institutions for applying for resources (including IPv6) and deploying them in their networks. This was after the AIS in Djibouti and it has triggered actions in some countries. For those interested, the volunteers of the support team are still reachable at iprm at wacren.net and happy to give necessary advice and support. Best, Boubakar On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 6:18 AM, Mark Tinka wrote: > On Tuesday, October 28, 2014 07:05:33 AM Andrew Alston > wrote: > > > That challenge also prevents a > > lot of providers from actually putting in the effort > > (and sometimes expense) of rolling IPv6 all the way to > > the edge with a lack of demand. Its kinda a chicken and > > egg situation for many, no IPv6 at the edge decreases > > the number of people running IPv6, we decreases the > > demand for IPv6, which decreases the motivation to roll > > IPv6 to the edge. > > I'm still reasonably disappointed in the lack of drive from > retail providers to offer IPv6 to their customers, i.e., the > broadband/consumer space. > > Granted, it is a lot more challenging to deliver IPv6 to > large scale consumers (more so in Africa, where a lot of > consumers are running data off the mobile networks). > > But I think that deployment of IPv6 toward end customers in > a manner where they do not have to directly participate in > the process is where we shall see the most gains. > > The old mantra still holds true - users don't care, as long > as it works. > > Mark. > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From paulos at sdnp.org.mw Tue Oct 28 08:10:22 2014 From: paulos at sdnp.org.mw (Dr Paulos Nyirenda) Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 10:10:22 +0200 Subject: [rpd] Policy ID format In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <544F4F6E.4176.14BCFB0F@paulos.sdnp.org.mw> Adam, I have a concern that the NNN will most likely be confused with a month of the years YYYY if this is not properly put. In you example below, 3 looks like the month March of the years 2015 and that would not be right if the incident time of the discussion was in January of 2015 or even November of 2015 - it would get very confusing. Did the co-chairs consider that? Regards, Paulos (as myself) ====================== Dr Paulos B Nyirenda NIC.MW & .mw ccTLD http://www.registrar.mw On 27 Oct 2014 at 15:16, Adam Nelson wrote: > Dear community, > > For the past few months, the Policy Development Working Group > co-chairs along with the Secretariat have been discussing the > restructuring of Policy IDs. We currently have a very verbose system > that embeds a bunch of metadata into the ID. While this metadata is > useful, it is also cumbersome to have within the ID and simply > remembering the policy ID is almost impossible. > > After much deliberation, we have come to agree on the following format > for all future policy proposals (where YYYY is the year, NNN is an > incremental number starting at 1 at the beginning of each year, and > VVV is the version of the proposal): > > afYYYY-NNN-vVVV > > For example, the 2nd draft of the 3rd proposal of next year would be: > > af2015-3-v2 > > If the above policy proposal were to be finalized, the version would > then be dropped: > > af2015-3 > > Hopefully this is short enough for people to remember easily. > > All prior policies will be updated to the new ID with a field for the > old ID preserved for archival purposes. > > If anybody has any specific concerns, please let us know. > > Cheers, > Adam > > -- > Kili - Cloud for Africa: kili.io > Musings: twitter.com/varud > More Musings: varud.com > About Adam: www.linkedin.com/in/adamcnelson From adam at varud.com Tue Oct 28 08:24:25 2014 From: adam at varud.com (Adam Nelson) Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 11:24:25 +0300 Subject: [rpd] Policy ID format In-Reply-To: <544F4F6E.4176.14BCFB0F@paulos.sdnp.org.mw> References: <544F4F6E.4176.14BCFB0F@paulos.sdnp.org.mw> Message-ID: Paulos, We did indeed consider that. Putting in the year opens us up to that issue but: 1. The 'af' prefix is not delimited from the year. This helps people know it's not a date (i.e. af2015-4 instead of af-2015-4). 2. The final version will only have the year and number and so it won't look like a date (i.e. af2015-4). 3. Draft versions have the 'v' prefix - which helps disambiguate the format from a date (i.e. af2015-4-v3). Context should also help here. These IDs will typically only be used on the rpd list, on the Afrinic website, or on sites aggregating RIR policies. Although the year being included gives 'dateness' to the ID, we really wanted that metadata in there in order to show some timeframe to the reader. Does that address your concern? Cheers, Adam -- Kili - Cloud for Africa: kili.io Musings: twitter.com/varud More Musings: varud.com About Adam: www.linkedin.com/in/adamcnelson On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Dr Paulos Nyirenda wrote: > > Adam, > > I have a concern that the NNN will most likely be confused with a month of > the years YYYY if > this is not properly put. > > In you example below, 3 looks like the month March of the years 2015 and > that would not be > right if the incident time of the discussion was in January of 2015 or > even November of 2015 > - it would get very confusing. > > Did the co-chairs consider that? > > Regards, > > Paulos (as myself) > ====================== > Dr Paulos B Nyirenda > NIC.MW & .mw ccTLD > http://www.registrar.mw > > > On 27 Oct 2014 at 15:16, Adam Nelson wrote: > > > Dear community, > > > > For the past few months, the Policy Development Working Group > > co-chairs along with the Secretariat have been discussing the > > restructuring of Policy IDs. We currently have a very verbose system > > that embeds a bunch of metadata into the ID. While this metadata is > > useful, it is also cumbersome to have within the ID and simply > > remembering the policy ID is almost impossible. > > > > After much deliberation, we have come to agree on the following format > > for all future policy proposals (where YYYY is the year, NNN is an > > incremental number starting at 1 at the beginning of each year, and > > VVV is the version of the proposal): > > > > afYYYY-NNN-vVVV > > > > For example, the 2nd draft of the 3rd proposal of next year would be: > > > > af2015-3-v2 > > > > If the above policy proposal were to be finalized, the version would > > then be dropped: > > > > af2015-3 > > > > Hopefully this is short enough for people to remember easily. > > > > All prior policies will be updated to the new ID with a field for the > > old ID preserved for archival purposes. > > > > If anybody has any specific concerns, please let us know. > > > > Cheers, > > Adam > > > > -- > > Kili - Cloud for Africa: kili.io > > Musings: twitter.com/varud > > More Musings: varud.com > > About Adam: www.linkedin.com/in/adamcnelson > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mark.tinka at seacom.mu Tue Oct 28 10:33:19 2014 From: mark.tinka at seacom.mu (Mark Tinka) Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 12:33:19 +0200 Subject: [rpd] Re: [afnog] What are the major challenges in enabling Services to run on IPv6? In-Reply-To: References: <201410280818.29636.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> Message-ID: <201410281233.19825.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> On Tuesday, October 28, 2014 12:21:12 PM Malick.Sy at swisscom.com wrote: > I was wondering, what good business need is there to push > IPv6 to the network edge, specifically in Africa? Continued access to the Internet - you know, those pesky IP addresses that devices need in order to be online? > What would be the direct benefit to the customer or the > service provider, of investing in configuring, deploying > and migrating to v6. Not migrating, but integrating. Benefit for the customer - their Facebook continues to work. Benefit for the service provider - the customer's Facebook continues to work (customer's Facebook working = $$ into service provider's favorite bank). > V4 address depletion is a reality, > but in the Africa region, is there really a shortage of > IP addresses to assign or is there more a lack of > services to run on these IP addresses? All the IPv4 addresses in Africa mean nothing if the rest of the world has run out and are moving to IPv6. Not sure if you noticed, but IPv4 and IPv6 are not backwards (or forwards) compatible. Well, not without some serious weight lifting... > Also, wouldn?t > the effort and expense to move to v6 In Africa, be > better used, if spent on harnessing WiMax? rolling out > fibre where possible? I creasing Wifi coverage? rolling > out DSL/VDSL/xDSL? Increasing peering points? creating > alternatives to the current under sea cable transits > (and reduce reliance on ACE, etc)? With the relatively > small penetration of broadband in Africa, should not > efforts be spent addressing broadband penetration rates > and access to information, rather than ?keeping up with > the Jones? and rolling out technology for the sake of > technology? It all comes together, Malick. All the cable, wireless and routers on the ground mean nothing if there aren't any IP addresses. It's not an either or situation. IPv6 needs as much attention as broadband penetration. > In Europe, I am only aware of France?s Free who have a > full native IPv6 deployment, Good, that Free... > all other providers are > managing to provide services without too big an IPv6 > footprint. Good, that Free... > In the Americas, I believe a number of > educational institutions have native v6, and most Sps > can probably provide it. My contention, IPv6 rollouts > globally have been quite low speed and that is probably > because there are other priorities for the Service > providers. That is life - but so is life without IP addresses (or with kludges that try to get different IP protocols to talk). > So major challenges to enabling services on v6, I guess > the demand for such services, is probably going to be a > major factor.If there is no demand or minimal demand, > and a current working system exists, why waste time on > it? Ever had a customer coming to you demanding for IPv4? Mark. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. URL: From Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com Tue Oct 28 10:53:55 2014 From: Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com (Andrew Alston) Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 10:53:55 +0000 Subject: [rpd] RE: [afnog] What are the major challenges in enabling Services to run on IPv6? In-Reply-To: References: <544E8884.3010409@gmail.com> <201410280818.29636.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> Message-ID: <7FF93785BD2D534EA45841A8AAA1D89B51324DD5A4@liquid-exch.liquidtelecom.local> Hi Malick, This is kind of a short sighted view in my opinion. Why you ask? Because the rest of the world has to go V6 and V6 doesn't talk to V4, unless you want to take a huge step backwards and start running translation mechanisms and other dodgy kludges which will further degrade the African internet experience. Money is being spent on fiber, wimax and all the other things you mention, in vast quantities. Infact I would hazard a guess that the investment levels into African infrastructure at the moment are probably outstripping what is being spent upgrading systems in other more developed parts of the world. That should not stop us trying to get to a point where the internet in Africa has parity with the rest of the world, and parity means we get the V6 in or risk being left behind when the rest of the world goes that way (as they have to do, since there is no more v4). Further to this, it is far cheaper to implement V6 as the infrastructure is expanded than have to go back and retrofit, if we don't do it now, we'll be facing a HUGE bill later when we're forced to do it anyway Andrew -----Original Message----- From: Malick.Sy at swisscom.com [mailto:Malick.Sy at swisscom.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2014 1:21 PM To: mark.tinka at seacom.mu; Andrew Alston Cc: rpd at afrinic.net; afnog at afnog.org Subject: Re: [afnog] What are the major challenges in enabling Services to run on IPv6? Hi, I was wondering, what good business need is there to push IPv6 to the network edge, specifically in Africa? What would be the direct benefit to the customer or the service provider, of investing in configuring, deploying and migrating to v6. V4 address depletion is a reality, but in the Africa region, is there really a shortage of IP addresses to assign or is there more a lack of services to run on these IP addresses? Also, wouldn?t the effort and expense to move to v6 In Africa, be better used, if spent on harnessing WiMax? rolling out fibre where possible? I creasing Wifi coverage? rolling out DSL/VDSL/xDSL? Increasing peering points? creating alternatives to the current under sea cable transits (and reduce reliance on ACE, etc)? With the relatively small penetration of broadband in Africa, should not efforts be spent addressing broadband penetration rates and access to information, rather than ?keeping up with the Jones? and rolling out technology for the sake of technology? In Europe, I am only aware of France?s Free who have a full native IPv6 deployment, all other providers are managing to provide services without too big an IPv6 footprint. In the Americas, I believe a number of educational institutions have native v6, and most Sps can probably provide it. My contention, IPv6 rollouts globally have been quite low speed and that is probably because there are other priorities for the Service providers. So major challenges to enabling services on v6, I guess the demand for such services, is probably going to be a major factor.If there is no demand or minimal demand, and a current working system exists, why waste time on it? Just my 2 cents. .......................................... Best Regards, Malick Sy Sr. Network Engineer Swisscom (Switzerland) Ltd. Hospitality Services 2, chemin du Pavillon Case Postale 2200 CH-1211 Gen?ve 2 Desk Phone:+41 227 407 585 Cellular Phone:+ 41 794 426 765 Fax Number: +41 227 740 7542 Internet: www.swisscom.com/hospitality ............................................ This message contains confidential or privileged information and is intended solely for the use of the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you must not use, copy, disclose, forward or take any action based on this message or information herein. If you have received this message by error, please advise the sender immediately and delete this message. On 28/10/2014 07:18, "Mark Tinka" wrote: >On Tuesday, October 28, 2014 07:05:33 AM Andrew Alston >wrote: > >> That challenge also prevents a >> lot of providers from actually putting in the effort (and sometimes >> expense) of rolling IPv6 all the way to the edge with a lack of >> demand. Its kinda a chicken and egg situation for many, no IPv6 at >> the edge decreases the number of people running IPv6, we decreases >> the demand for IPv6, which decreases the motivation to roll >> IPv6 to the edge. > >I'm still reasonably disappointed in the lack of drive from retail >providers to offer IPv6 to their customers, i.e., the >broadband/consumer space. > >Granted, it is a lot more challenging to deliver IPv6 to large scale >consumers (more so in Africa, where a lot of consumers are running data >off the mobile networks). > >But I think that deployment of IPv6 toward end customers in a manner >where they do not have to directly participate in the process is where >we shall see the most gains. > >The old mantra still holds true - users don't care, as long as it >works. > >Mark. DISCLAIMER: This email contains proprietary information some or all of which may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this email, please notify the author by replying to this email. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose, copy, print, or rely on this email. We cannot accept liability for any statements made which are clearly the sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of this company or one of its agents. From mark.tinka at seacom.mu Tue Oct 28 11:14:24 2014 From: mark.tinka at seacom.mu (Mark Tinka) Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 13:14:24 +0200 Subject: [rpd] Re: [afnog] What are the major challenges in enabling Services to run on IPv6? In-Reply-To: References: <201410281233.19825.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> Message-ID: <201410281314.24917.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> On Tuesday, October 28, 2014 01:03:48 PM Malick.Sy at swisscom.com wrote: > Mark, > Your basic premise is flawed. There is no cutoff date for > IPv4 address so Facebook (if that is your customer?s way > of making money) will keep working and that has nothing > to do with v4 or v6. V4 to v6 tunnel also brokers exist > and are doing fine at the moment > (https://tunnelbroker.net for example) and dual stack > platforms also exist. So your panic about never getting > to post on Facebook again, is misplaced and at worse, > premature. You mean like there is no cut-off date for BGP-3, RIP or IPX? > I find it rather patronising while adding Zero value. > > This bit too > So in my humble opinion, another major obstacle to > enabling service on v6 (in Africa) or any form of > technology, is the ?smart-aleck? african mentality that > keeps the continent in mental chains and subservient. > The African trait which means they listen to respond, > not to understand or evolve and they patronise ad > nauseum. > > v6 should not yet be a priority to Africa as the reasons > for the creation of v6 are not realities on the ground > in Africa. Of course, we can flame all day about who is > smarter or who has the quickest responses, the fact of > the matter is African economies and brains should be > focusing on ebola eradication, appropriate technology > rather than ?wishy washy? statements that only fill up > our mailboxes with junk and only manifest the ?always > trying to keep up with the West? mentality. My 2 cents. I am an African. I may or may not have Ebola. But you're safe, it's high-tech version only communicable over IPv6. > And yes, customers constantly ask me for IPv4 addresses, > the more security conscious ones don?t want to have > anything to do with v6. (for the record, I have v6 > enabled on my home router and have not yet found a > compelling use case for it, NONE..NADA so that was the > reason for my initial mail asking about the priority of > v6 in Africa, if you can give me a compelling use case > for v6 at the access layer, not the core or the > distribution layer, that would be great.) *sigh* Mark. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. URL: From Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com Tue Oct 28 11:29:37 2014 From: Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com (Andrew Alston) Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 11:29:37 +0000 Subject: [rpd] RE: [afnog] What are the major challenges in enabling Services to run on IPv6? In-Reply-To: References: <544E8884.3010409@gmail.com> <201410280818.29636.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> <7FF93785BD2D534EA45841A8AAA1D89B51324DD5A4@liquid-exch.liquidtelecom.local> Message-ID: <7FF93785BD2D534EA45841A8AAA1D89B51324DD5BA@liquid-exch.liquidtelecom.local> Malick, Laugh, from what you write here, you patently obviously know little about me. You made a reference to the money being spent to implement v6, I pointed out that the financial constraints in terms of OPEX to do it as we deploy are lower than deploying it as a retro-fit, I stand by that statement. Secondly, if you have V6 only, you can't communicate to V4 only systems, and vice versa. So yes, dual-stack is the answer and it's what I've been actively doing for years. That does not mean it makes sense to ignore v6 for now and at some vast future date add v6 as an afterthought when you are already in problem mode because you've started to lose access to systems that have gone v6 only. Thirdly, as for finding solutions to real world problems, I can say very confidently that I know something about the infrastructure and the network deployments going on in Africa (and in particular East and Southern Africa), and I can say that what is being deployed actively and heavily is probably far beyond what you imagine. I merely believe that deploying IPv6 while doing these infrastructure upgrades is a sensible and sane thing to do. You talk about fiber infrastructure investment and other such investment, so let me enlighten you as to some facts on the African continent. So far this year: Rwanda, Tanzania, Uganda and Kenya are now on a fiber ring with full redundancy. Capacity into Uganda through Kenya is now running full DWDM systems with multiple 10G waves Capacity into Rwanda has been drastically expanded Metro fiber networks are being actively rolled out (or have been rolled out) in Nairobi, Mombasa, Kampala, Kigali, Kisumu, Nakuru, Eldoret and the list continues. Undersea capacity is there, we have SEACOM, we have EASSY, we can route around the west coast via WACS, and if Im correct that totals in excess of 10 terabit of capacity. My employer has publically committed to a further $200 million investment in the next 24 months in infrastructure as well in the region. Now, considering all of this, as infrastructure is put in place, isn't it the smart choice to roll up to date infrastructure with up to date protocols instead of continuing to deploy legacy v4 that the world at large is being forced to move away from, since it is a dying beast? This has nothing to do with "what my formal colonial masters" are doing or have done, this is about wanting world class networking on the continent, that is in line with global standards and best practices and protocols. As far as I'm concerned, if Africa gets the opportunity, we should SURPASS the former colonial masters, and if we ever hope to do that, letting ourselves stick with v4 is suicidal. I would suggest though before you speak out, you actually show a modicum of understanding of what is actually going on on this continent. Andrew -----Original Message----- From: Malick.Sy at swisscom.com [mailto:Malick.Sy at swisscom.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2014 2:15 PM To: Andrew Alston; mark.tinka at seacom.mu Cc: rpd at afrinic.net; afnog at afnog.org Subject: Re: [afnog] What are the major challenges in enabling Services to run on IPv6? Andrew, Maybe you have not heard of dual stack systems. This has been a reality at OS level (at least on Linux and FreeBSD) for years and all decent network vendors support dual stacks.. RFC 2766 also provides a transalation mechanism for v6 to v4 packets as well, it is possible to tunnel one protocol within another. So, I don't agree that "Because my former colonial master is doing it, I have to do it too" mentality or outlook. We need to take a deep look at what we prioritise. Solutions should be found for real world problems and issues on the ground, not perceived or imported views of "problems". 1)http://www.networkworld.com/article/2235990/cisco-subnet/the-dual-stack-d ilemma.html 2)http://www.cisco.com/c/dam/en/us/products/collateral/ios-nx-os-software/e nterprise-ipv6-solution/aag_c45-625513.pdf 3)https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2766.txt 4)http://ipv6.com/articles/gateways/IPv6-Tunnelling.htm .......................................... Best Regards, Malick Sy Sr. Network Engineer Swisscom (Switzerland) Ltd. Hospitality Services 2, chemin du Pavillon Case Postale 2200 CH-1211 Gen?ve 2 Desk Phone:+41 227 407 585 Cellular Phone:+ 41 794 426 765 Fax Number: +41 227 740 7542 Internet: www.swisscom.com/hospitality ............................................ This message contains confidential or privileged information and is intended solely for the use of the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you must not use, copy, disclose, forward or take any action based on this message or information herein. If you have received this message by error, please advise the sender immediately and delete this message. On 28/10/2014 11:53, "Andrew Alston" wrote: >Hi Malick, > >This is kind of a short sighted view in my opinion. Why you ask? >Because the rest of the world has to go V6 and V6 doesn't talk to V4, >unless you want to take a huge step backwards and start running >translation mechanisms and other dodgy kludges which will further >degrade the African internet experience. > >Money is being spent on fiber, wimax and all the other things you >mention, in vast quantities. Infact I would hazard a guess that the >investment levels into African infrastructure at the moment are >probably outstripping what is being spent upgrading systems in other >more developed parts of the world. That should not stop us trying to >get to a point where the internet in Africa has parity with the rest of >the world, and parity means we get the V6 in or risk being left behind >when the rest of the world goes that way (as they have to do, since >there is no more v4). > >Further to this, it is far cheaper to implement V6 as the >infrastructure is expanded than have to go back and retrofit, if we >don't do it now, we'll be facing a HUGE bill later when we're forced to >do it anyway > >Andrew > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Malick.Sy at swisscom.com [mailto:Malick.Sy at swisscom.com] >Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2014 1:21 PM >To: mark.tinka at seacom.mu; Andrew Alston >Cc: rpd at afrinic.net; afnog at afnog.org >Subject: Re: [afnog] What are the major challenges in enabling Services >to run on IPv6? > >Hi, >I was wondering, what good business need is there to push IPv6 to the >network edge, specifically in Africa? >What would be the direct benefit to the customer or the service >provider, of investing in configuring, deploying and migrating to v6. >V4 address depletion is a reality, but in the Africa region, is there >really a shortage of IP addresses to assign or is there more a lack of >services to run on these IP addresses? Also, wouldn?t the effort and >expense to move to v6 In Africa, be better used, if spent on harnessing >WiMax? rolling out fibre where possible? I creasing Wifi coverage? >rolling out DSL/VDSL/xDSL? Increasing peering points? creating >alternatives to the current under sea cable transits (and reduce reliance on ACE, etc)? >With the relatively small penetration of broadband in Africa, should >not efforts be spent addressing broadband penetration rates and access >to information, rather than ?keeping up with the Jones? and rolling out >technology for the sake of technology? > >In Europe, I am only aware of France?s Free who have a full native IPv6 >deployment, all other providers are managing to provide services >without too big an IPv6 footprint. In the Americas, I believe a number >of educational institutions have native v6, and most Sps can probably >provide it. My contention, IPv6 rollouts globally have been quite low >speed and that is probably because there are other priorities for the >Service providers. > >So major challenges to enabling services on v6, I guess the demand for >such services, is probably going to be a major factor.If there is no >demand or minimal demand, and a current working system exists, why >waste time on it? >Just my 2 cents. > >.......................................... >Best Regards, >Malick Sy >Sr. Network Engineer > >Swisscom (Switzerland) Ltd. >Hospitality Services >2, chemin du Pavillon >Case Postale 2200 >CH-1211 Gen?ve 2 > > >Desk Phone:+41 227 407 585 >Cellular Phone:+ 41 794 426 765 >Fax Number: +41 227 740 7542 >Internet: www.swisscom.com/hospitality >............................................ >This message contains confidential or privileged information and is >intended solely for the use of the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. >If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you >must not use, copy, disclose, forward or take any action based on this >message or information herein. If you have received this message by >error, please advise the sender immediately and delete this message. > > > > > >On 28/10/2014 07:18, "Mark Tinka" wrote: > >>On Tuesday, October 28, 2014 07:05:33 AM Andrew Alston >>wrote: >> >>> That challenge also prevents a >>> lot of providers from actually putting in the effort (and sometimes >>> expense) of rolling IPv6 all the way to the edge with a lack of >>> demand. Its kinda a chicken and egg situation for many, no IPv6 at >>> the edge decreases the number of people running IPv6, we decreases >>> the demand for IPv6, which decreases the motivation to roll >>> IPv6 to the edge. >> >>I'm still reasonably disappointed in the lack of drive from retail >>providers to offer IPv6 to their customers, i.e., the >>broadband/consumer space. >> >>Granted, it is a lot more challenging to deliver IPv6 to large scale >>consumers (more so in Africa, where a lot of consumers are running >>data off the mobile networks). >> >>But I think that deployment of IPv6 toward end customers in a manner >>where they do not have to directly participate in the process is where >>we shall see the most gains. >> >>The old mantra still holds true - users don't care, as long as it >>works. >> >>Mark. > > >DISCLAIMER: This email contains proprietary information some or all of >which may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. >If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this email, >please notify the author by replying to this email. If you are not the >intended recipient, you must not use, disclose, copy, print, or rely on >this email. We cannot accept liability for any statements made which >are clearly the sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of this >company or one of its agents. > DISCLAIMER: This email contains proprietary information some or all of which may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this email, please notify the author by replying to this email. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose, copy, print, or rely on this email. We cannot accept liability for any statements made which are clearly the sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of this company or one of its agents. From mark.tinka at seacom.mu Tue Oct 28 11:30:37 2014 From: mark.tinka at seacom.mu (Mark Tinka) Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 13:30:37 +0200 Subject: [rpd] Re: [afnog] What are the major challenges in enabling Services to run on IPv6? In-Reply-To: <20141028112155.GD97584@macbook.bluepipe.net> References: <201410281233.19825.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> <20141028112155.GD97584@macbook.bluepipe.net> Message-ID: <201410281330.38224.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> On Tuesday, October 28, 2014 01:21:55 PM Phil Regnauld wrote: > Well, technically, no one's moved to IPv6 yet. They've > *added* IPv6, but I don't know of anyone off v4 yet :) Crap, I knew someone would catch that :-)... Seriously, "are moving" is the operative term here. Those who are moving are the (new) ones that can't get IPv4 anymore, and/or the (new) ones that can't get IPv4 anymore and don't want to mess about with translating 464646464... I know, for example, that Facebook's backend communications are 95% based on IPv6, as of March this year. It's likely this could be 100% by now, but I have no updates since then. My point is if new customers in the rest of the world are only getting IPv6, all the IPv4 configured on African devices won't help communications between Africa and those new customers. Of course, I'm thinking a couple of years from now - but one has to start now. Mark. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. URL: From Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com Tue Oct 28 11:31:36 2014 From: Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com (Andrew Alston) Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 11:31:36 +0000 Subject: [rpd] RE: [afnog] What are the major challenges in enabling Services to run on IPv6? In-Reply-To: <20141028112155.GD97584@macbook.bluepipe.net> References: <201410280818.29636.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> <201410281233.19825.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> <20141028112155.GD97584@macbook.bluepipe.net> Message-ID: <7FF93785BD2D534EA45841A8AAA1D89B51324DD5BB@liquid-exch.liquidtelecom.local> Hi Phil, Actually that's in the pipeline for what we want to do. There are large segments of our network that I could comfortably run V6 only on *IF* I had an ability to do Martini PW over v6, but sadly, since Martini PW still requires LDP in most vendor implementations, this is not possible yet. I believe that LDPv6 is on the Juniper and Cisco roadmaps for 2015 (though I am open to correction on this), and if that happens, I can tell you right now, that for at least 1500 devices I can think of off the top of my head, v4 will be a thing of the past. Andrew -----Original Message----- From: afnog [mailto:afnog-bounces at afnog.org] On Behalf Of Phil Regnauld Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2014 2:22 PM To: Mark Tinka Cc: rpd at afrinic.net; afnog at afnog.org Subject: Re: [afnog] What are the major challenges in enabling Services to run on IPv6? Mark Tinka (mark.tinka) writes: > > All the IPv4 addresses in Africa mean nothing if the rest of the world > has run out and are moving to IPv6. Well, technically, no one's moved to IPv6 yet. They've *added* IPv6, but I don't know of anyone off v4 yet :) _______________________________________________ afnog mailing list http://afnog.org/mailman/listinfo/afnog DISCLAIMER: This email contains proprietary information some or all of which may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this email, please notify the author by replying to this email. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose, copy, print, or rely on this email. We cannot accept liability for any statements made which are clearly the sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of this company or one of its agents. From mark.tinka at seacom.mu Tue Oct 28 11:33:03 2014 From: mark.tinka at seacom.mu (Mark Tinka) Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 13:33:03 +0200 Subject: [rpd] Re: [afnog] What are the major challenges in enabling Services to run on IPv6? In-Reply-To: <7FF93785BD2D534EA45841A8AAA1D89B51324DD5BA@liquid-exch.liquidtelecom.local> References: <7FF93785BD2D534EA45841A8AAA1D89B51324DD5BA@liquid-exch.liquidtelecom.local> Message-ID: <201410281333.03685.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> On Tuesday, October 28, 2014 01:29:37 PM Andrew Alston wrote: > Laugh, from what you write here, you patently obviously > know little about me. Andrew, please don't feed the troll. Anyone who references vendor promises with reliability, I don't know... Mark. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. URL: From kofi.ansa at gmail.com Tue Oct 28 11:36:39 2014 From: kofi.ansa at gmail.com (Kofi ANSA AKUFO) Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 15:36:39 +0400 Subject: [rpd] Re: [afnog] What are the major challenges in enabling Services to run on IPv6? In-Reply-To: <7FF93785BD2D534EA45841A8AAA1D89B51324DD5A4@liquid-exch.liquidtelecom.local> References: <544E8884.3010409@gmail.com> <201410280818.29636.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> <7FF93785BD2D534EA45841A8AAA1D89B51324DD5A4@liquid-exch.liquidtelecom.local> Message-ID: Hi Andrew On 28 October 2014 14:53, Andrew Alston wrote: > Hi Malick, > > This is kind of a short sighted view in my opinion. Why you ask? Because > the rest of the world has to go V6 and V6 doesn't talk to V4, unless you > want to take a huge step backwards and start running translation mechanisms > and other dodgy kludges which will further degrade the African internet > experience. > > Money is being spent on fiber, wimax and all the other things you mention, > in vast quantities. Infact I would hazard a guess that the investment > levels into African infrastructure at the moment are probably outstripping > what is being spent upgrading systems in other more developed parts of the > world. That should not stop us trying to get to a point where the internet > in Africa has parity with the rest of the world, and parity means we get > the V6 in or risk being left behind when the rest of the world goes that > way (as they have to do, since there is no more v4). > > I thought you mentioned you are dual stack ready or that does not include your TLD - liquidtelecom.com a quick check here seems to be contrary - http://ip6.nl/#!liquidtelecom.com I know you make have enabled service on your core network -- just picking on you :) > Further to this, it is far cheaper to implement V6 as the infrastructure > is expanded than have to go back and retrofit, if we don't do it now, we'll > be facing a HUGE bill later when we're forced to do it anyway > > Andrew > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Malick.Sy at swisscom.com [mailto:Malick.Sy at swisscom.com] > Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2014 1:21 PM > To: mark.tinka at seacom.mu; Andrew Alston > Cc: rpd at afrinic.net; afnog at afnog.org > Subject: Re: [afnog] What are the major challenges in enabling Services to > run on IPv6? > > Hi, > I was wondering, what good business need is there to push IPv6 to the > network edge, specifically in Africa? > What would be the direct benefit to the customer or the service provider, > of investing in configuring, deploying and migrating to v6. V4 address > depletion is a reality, but in the Africa region, is there really a > shortage of IP addresses to assign or is there more a lack of services to > run on these IP addresses? Also, wouldn?t the effort and expense to move to > v6 In Africa, be better used, if spent on harnessing WiMax? rolling out > fibre where possible? I creasing Wifi coverage? rolling out DSL/VDSL/xDSL? > Increasing peering points? creating alternatives to the current under sea > cable transits (and reduce reliance on ACE, etc)? > With the relatively small penetration of broadband in Africa, should not > efforts be spent addressing broadband penetration rates and access to > information, rather than ?keeping up with the Jones? and rolling out > technology for the sake of technology? > > In Europe, I am only aware of France?s Free who have a full native IPv6 > deployment, all other providers are managing to provide services without > too big an IPv6 footprint. In the Americas, I believe a number of > educational institutions have native v6, and most Sps can probably provide > it. My contention, IPv6 rollouts globally have been quite low speed and > that is probably because there are other priorities for the Service > providers. > > So major challenges to enabling services on v6, I guess the demand for > such services, is probably going to be a major factor.If there is no demand > or minimal demand, and a current working system exists, why waste time on > it? > Just my 2 cents. > > .......................................... > Best Regards, > Malick Sy > Sr. Network Engineer > > Swisscom (Switzerland) Ltd. > Hospitality Services > 2, chemin du Pavillon > Case Postale 2200 > CH-1211 Gen?ve 2 > > > Desk Phone:+41 227 407 585 > Cellular Phone:+ 41 794 426 765 > Fax Number: +41 227 740 7542 > Internet: www.swisscom.com/hospitality > ............................................ > This message contains confidential or privileged information and is > intended solely for the use of the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. > If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you > must not use, copy, disclose, forward or take any action based on this > message or information herein. If you have received this message by error, > please advise the sender immediately and delete this message. > > > > > > On 28/10/2014 07:18, "Mark Tinka" wrote: > > >On Tuesday, October 28, 2014 07:05:33 AM Andrew Alston > >wrote: > > > >> That challenge also prevents a > >> lot of providers from actually putting in the effort (and sometimes > >> expense) of rolling IPv6 all the way to the edge with a lack of > >> demand. Its kinda a chicken and egg situation for many, no IPv6 at > >> the edge decreases the number of people running IPv6, we decreases > >> the demand for IPv6, which decreases the motivation to roll > >> IPv6 to the edge. > > > >I'm still reasonably disappointed in the lack of drive from retail > >providers to offer IPv6 to their customers, i.e., the > >broadband/consumer space. > > > >Granted, it is a lot more challenging to deliver IPv6 to large scale > >consumers (more so in Africa, where a lot of consumers are running data > >off the mobile networks). > > > >But I think that deployment of IPv6 toward end customers in a manner > >where they do not have to directly participate in the process is where > >we shall see the most gains. > > > >The old mantra still holds true - users don't care, as long as it > >works. > > > >Mark. > > > DISCLAIMER: This email contains proprietary information some or all of > which may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. If > an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this email, please > notify the author by replying to this email. If you are not the intended > recipient, you must not use, disclose, copy, print, or rely on this email. > We cannot accept liability for any statements made which are clearly the > sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of this company or one of its > agents. > > > _______________________________________________ > afnog mailing list > http://afnog.org/mailman/listinfo/afnog > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mark.tinka at seacom.mu Tue Oct 28 11:38:38 2014 From: mark.tinka at seacom.mu (Mark Tinka) Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 13:38:38 +0200 Subject: [rpd] Re: [afnog] What are the major challenges in enabling Services to run on IPv6? In-Reply-To: <7FF93785BD2D534EA45841A8AAA1D89B51324DD5BB@liquid-exch.liquidtelecom.local> References: <20141028112155.GD97584@macbook.bluepipe.net> <7FF93785BD2D534EA45841A8AAA1D89B51324DD5BB@liquid-exch.liquidtelecom.local> Message-ID: <201410281338.39089.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> On Tuesday, October 28, 2014 01:31:36 PM Andrew Alston wrote: > Actually that's in the pipeline for what we want to do. > There are large segments of our network that I could > comfortably run V6 only on *IF* I had an ability to do > Martini PW over v6, but sadly, since Martini PW still > requires LDP in most vendor implementations, this is not > possible yet. I believe that LDPv6 is on the Juniper > and Cisco roadmaps for 2015 (though I am open to > correction on this), and if that happens, I can tell you > right now, that for at least 1500 devices I can think of > off the top of my head, v4 will be a thing of the past. This is the current state of the LDPv6 work: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-ipv6-14 It has come a long way since 2009, but there is still a very long way to go. Even though LDPv6 becomes available, there are still a number of applications that need to be brought up to snuff: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mpls-ipv6-only-gap-02 One possible path to a quick solution is SR (Segment Routing), but the community is looking at traffic engineering and SDN/NFV as immediate applications for SR - so MPLSv6 is taking a back seat for now. Mark. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. URL: From Ben.Roberts at liquidtelecom.com Tue Oct 28 11:39:28 2014 From: Ben.Roberts at liquidtelecom.com (Ben Roberts) Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 11:39:28 +0000 Subject: [rpd] Re: [afnog] What are the major challenges in enabling Services to run on IPv6? In-Reply-To: <201410281314.24917.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> References: <201410281233.19825.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> <201410281314.24917.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> Message-ID: <73566116BC183F43AF71613C042535AF03D7AA33E262@liquid-exch.liquidtelecom.local> Wow. I'm not African but I live in Africa and like Mark and Andrew (who are African) have dedicated the largest part of my career building Networks and specifically IP networks in Africa. Since it is a green playing field of investment then it?s a great job as we get to deploy the newest technology all the time. My company has spent several hundred million dollars and about to spend a few hundred more on rolling out more network, Wireless, fibre, data centres to drive internet growth. While I've done this I don?t think I have spent more than a few bucks on IPV6. A few training courses, and a bit of practical thinking. I really don?t see why you wouldn?t want to utilize the full features of the newest technology and equipment that 'We Africans' are laying out. I'm not an expert in medicine or ebola, nor is my company involved in healthcare. So I'll leave that to the experts in that subject, if nobody has objections. Regards Ben Ben Roberts Group Director of Network Strategy Liquid Telecommunications Liquid Telecommunications Limited, 6 New Street Square, London EC4A 3BF T: +44 (0) 20 7101 6100 - D: +44 (0) 20 7101 6203 - M: +44 (0) 7880 730 279 - E: ben.roberts at liquidtelecom.com W: www.liquidtelecom.com -----Original Message----- From: rpd-bounces at afrinic.net [mailto:rpd-bounces at afrinic.net] On Behalf Of Mark Tinka Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2014 2:14 PM To: Malick.Sy at swisscom.com Cc: afnog at afnog.org; rpd at afrinic.net; Andrew Alston Subject: [rpd] Re: [afnog] What are the major challenges in enabling Services to run on IPv6? On Tuesday, October 28, 2014 01:03:48 PM Malick.Sy at swisscom.com wrote: > Mark, > Your basic premise is flawed. There is no cutoff date for > IPv4 address so Facebook (if that is your customer?s way of making > money) will keep working and that has nothing to do with v4 or v6. V4 > to v6 tunnel also brokers exist and are doing fine at the moment > (https://tunnelbroker.net for example) and dual stack platforms also > exist. So your panic about never getting to post on Facebook again, is > misplaced and at worse, premature. You mean like there is no cut-off date for BGP-3, RIP or IPX? > I find it rather patronising while adding Zero value. > > This bit too > So in my humble opinion, another major obstacle to enabling service on > v6 (in Africa) or any form of technology, is the ?smart-aleck? african > mentality that keeps the continent in mental chains and subservient. > The African trait which means they listen to respond, not to > understand or evolve and they patronise ad nauseum. > > v6 should not yet be a priority to Africa as the reasons for the > creation of v6 are not realities on the ground in Africa. Of course, > we can flame all day about who is smarter or who has the quickest > responses, the fact of the matter is African economies and brains > should be focusing on ebola eradication, appropriate technology rather > than ?wishy washy? statements that only fill up our mailboxes with > junk and only manifest the ?always trying to keep up with the West? > mentality. My 2 cents. I am an African. I may or may not have Ebola. But you're safe, it's high-tech version only communicable over IPv6. > And yes, customers constantly ask me for IPv4 addresses, the more > security conscious ones don?t want to have anything to do with v6. > (for the record, I have v6 enabled on my home router and have not yet > found a compelling use case for it, NONE..NADA so that was the reason > for my initial mail asking about the priority of > v6 in Africa, if you can give me a compelling use case for v6 at the > access layer, not the core or the distribution layer, that would be > great.) *sigh* Mark. DISCLAIMER: This email contains proprietary information some or all of which may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this email, please notify the author by replying to this email. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose, copy, print, or rely on this email. We cannot accept liability for any statements made which are clearly the sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of this company or one of its agents. From Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com Tue Oct 28 11:52:21 2014 From: Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com (Andrew Alston) Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 11:52:21 +0000 Subject: [rpd] RE: [afnog] What are the major challenges in enabling Services to run on IPv6? In-Reply-To: References: <544E8884.3010409@gmail.com> <201410280818.29636.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> <7FF93785BD2D534EA45841A8AAA1D89B51324DD5A4@liquid-exch.liquidtelecom.local> <7FF93785BD2D534EA45841A8AAA1D89B51324DD5BA@liquid-exch.liquidtelecom.local> Message-ID: <7FF93785BD2D534EA45841A8AAA1D89B51324DD5D0@liquid-exch.liquidtelecom.local> Malick, How about before you start citing things, that you have read on a mailing list, get off your backside and come to Africa and see the situation on the ground for yourself. As for the 7%, I listed a few select examples, I could fill pages of what is going on in Africa if I had the time, or the inclination to do so, but I won't waste my breath with yet another colonialist mindset that believes they know the situation on the ground, know everything there is to know about my continent and spew drivel from an informed perspective based entirely on the reading of one mailing list. I find it insulting that your mails imply that we as Africans have no clue what is best for ourselves, that we as Africans do not have the mentality or the brains to understand how to develop our own region, that you as a European sitting a world away can somehow gaze into a crystal ball and tell us what is best. *THAT* is the very definition of a colonial mindset, and quite frankly, we don't need it Andrew -----Original Message----- From: Malick.Sy at swisscom.com [mailto:Malick.Sy at swisscom.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2014 2:38 PM To: Andrew Alston; mark.tinka at seacom.mu Cc: rpd at afrinic.net; afnog at afnog.org Subject: Re: [afnog] What are the major challenges in enabling Services to run on IPv6? Andrew, Thanks very much for the facts about what is going on in 4 African countries or 0.07 percent of the continent(Rwanda, Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania.) Hopefully, this level of deployment will eventually reach the remaining 50 countries or the 99 percent of Africa that is not on your current list. I am a member of a number of NOG mailing lists, the AfNOG one is the only one that resonates with self-righteousness and "people blowing their own trumpets". If we could look past the labels, name calling and self importance and stay focused, and maybe address more than 0.7 percent of a customer base, before jumping on a soap box, we will be in a much better posiiton vis a vis technology, economics, finance, farming, every domain that I can think of. My original statement was asking for the compelling use case for prioiritizing v6 deployments "to the access layer" in Africa. I have not yet read one. Thanks for your inputs though. Much appreciated .......................................... Best Regards, Malick Sy Sr. Network Engineer Swisscom (Switzerland) Ltd. Hospitality Services 2, chemin du Pavillon Case Postale 2200 CH-1211 Gen?ve 2 Desk Phone:+41 227 407 585 Cellular Phone:+ 41 794 426 765 Fax Number: +41 227 740 7542 Internet: www.swisscom.com/hospitality ............................................ This message contains confidential or privileged information and is intended solely for the use of the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you must not use, copy, disclose, forward or take any action based on this message or information herein. If you have received this message by error, please advise the sender immediately and delete this message. On 28/10/2014 12:29, "Andrew Alston" wrote: >Malick, > >Laugh, from what you write here, you patently obviously know little >about me. > >You made a reference to the money being spent to implement v6, I >pointed out that the financial constraints in terms of OPEX to do it as >we deploy are lower than deploying it as a retro-fit, I stand by that statement. > >Secondly, if you have V6 only, you can't communicate to V4 only >systems, and vice versa. So yes, dual-stack is the answer and it's >what I've been actively doing for years. That does not mean it makes >sense to ignore v6 for now and at some vast future date add v6 as an >afterthought when you are already in problem mode because you've >started to lose access to systems that have gone v6 only. > >Thirdly, as for finding solutions to real world problems, I can say >very confidently that I know something about the infrastructure and the >network deployments going on in Africa (and in particular East and >Southern Africa), and I can say that what is being deployed actively >and heavily is probably far beyond what you imagine. I merely believe >that deploying IPv6 while doing these infrastructure upgrades is a >sensible and sane thing to do. > >You talk about fiber infrastructure investment and other such >investment, so let me enlighten you as to some facts on the African continent. > >So far this year: > >Rwanda, Tanzania, Uganda and Kenya are now on a fiber ring with full >redundancy. >Capacity into Uganda through Kenya is now running full DWDM systems >with multiple 10G waves Capacity into Rwanda has been drastically >expanded Metro fiber networks are being actively rolled out (or have >been rolled >out) in Nairobi, Mombasa, Kampala, Kigali, Kisumu, Nakuru, Eldoret and >the list continues. > >Undersea capacity is there, we have SEACOM, we have EASSY, we can route >around the west coast via WACS, and if Im correct that totals in excess >of 10 terabit of capacity. > >My employer has publically committed to a further $200 million >investment in the next 24 months in infrastructure as well in the region. > >Now, considering all of this, as infrastructure is put in place, isn't >it the smart choice to roll up to date infrastructure with up to date >protocols instead of continuing to deploy legacy v4 that the world at >large is being forced to move away from, since it is a dying beast? > >This has nothing to do with "what my formal colonial masters" are doing >or have done, this is about wanting world class networking on the >continent, that is in line with global standards and best practices and >protocols. As far as I'm concerned, if Africa gets the opportunity, we >should SURPASS the former colonial masters, and if we ever hope to do >that, letting ourselves stick with v4 is suicidal. > >I would suggest though before you speak out, you actually show a >modicum of understanding of what is actually going on on this continent. > >Andrew > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Malick.Sy at swisscom.com [mailto:Malick.Sy at swisscom.com] >Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2014 2:15 PM >To: Andrew Alston; mark.tinka at seacom.mu >Cc: rpd at afrinic.net; afnog at afnog.org >Subject: Re: [afnog] What are the major challenges in enabling Services >to run on IPv6? > >Andrew, >Maybe you have not heard of dual stack systems. This has been a reality >at OS level (at least on Linux and FreeBSD) for years and all decent >network vendors support dual stacks.. RFC 2766 also provides a >transalation mechanism for v6 to v4 packets as well, it is possible to >tunnel one protocol within another. So, I don't agree that "Because my >former colonial master is doing it, I have to do it too" mentality or >outlook. We need to take a deep look at what we prioritise. > >Solutions should be found for real world problems and issues on the >ground, not perceived or imported views of "problems". > >1)http://www.networkworld.com/article/2235990/cisco-subnet/the-dual-sta >ck- >d >ilemma.html >2)http://www.cisco.com/c/dam/en/us/products/collateral/ios-nx-os-softwa >re/ >e >nterprise-ipv6-solution/aag_c45-625513.pdf >3)https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2766.txt >4)http://ipv6.com/articles/gateways/IPv6-Tunnelling.htm > >.......................................... >Best Regards, >Malick Sy >Sr. Network Engineer > >Swisscom (Switzerland) Ltd. >Hospitality Services >2, chemin du Pavillon >Case Postale 2200 >CH-1211 Gen?ve 2 > > >Desk Phone:+41 227 407 585 >Cellular Phone:+ 41 794 426 765 >Fax Number: +41 227 740 7542 >Internet: www.swisscom.com/hospitality >............................................ >This message contains confidential or privileged information and is >intended solely for the use of the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. >If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you >must not use, copy, disclose, forward or take any action based on this >message or information herein. If you have received this message by >error, please advise the sender immediately and delete this message. > > > > > >On 28/10/2014 11:53, "Andrew Alston" >wrote: > >>Hi Malick, >> >>This is kind of a short sighted view in my opinion. Why you ask? >>Because the rest of the world has to go V6 and V6 doesn't talk to V4, >>unless you want to take a huge step backwards and start running >>translation mechanisms and other dodgy kludges which will further >>degrade the African internet experience. >> >>Money is being spent on fiber, wimax and all the other things you >>mention, in vast quantities. Infact I would hazard a guess that the >>investment levels into African infrastructure at the moment are >>probably outstripping what is being spent upgrading systems in other >>more developed parts of the world. That should not stop us trying to >>get to a point where the internet in Africa has parity with the rest >>of the world, and parity means we get the V6 in or risk being left >>behind when the rest of the world goes that way (as they have to do, >>since there is no more v4). >> >>Further to this, it is far cheaper to implement V6 as the >>infrastructure is expanded than have to go back and retrofit, if we >>don't do it now, we'll be facing a HUGE bill later when we're forced >>to do it anyway >> >>Andrew >> >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Malick.Sy at swisscom.com [mailto:Malick.Sy at swisscom.com] >>Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2014 1:21 PM >>To: mark.tinka at seacom.mu; Andrew Alston >>Cc: rpd at afrinic.net; afnog at afnog.org >>Subject: Re: [afnog] What are the major challenges in enabling >>Services to run on IPv6? >> >>Hi, >>I was wondering, what good business need is there to push IPv6 to the >>network edge, specifically in Africa? >>What would be the direct benefit to the customer or the service >>provider, of investing in configuring, deploying and migrating to v6. >>V4 address depletion is a reality, but in the Africa region, is there >>really a shortage of IP addresses to assign or is there more a lack of >>services to run on these IP addresses? Also, wouldn?t the effort and >>expense to move to v6 In Africa, be better used, if spent on >>harnessing WiMax? rolling out fibre where possible? I creasing Wifi coverage? >>rolling out DSL/VDSL/xDSL? Increasing peering points? creating >>alternatives to the current under sea cable transits (and reduce >>reliance on ACE, etc)? >>With the relatively small penetration of broadband in Africa, should >>not efforts be spent addressing broadband penetration rates and access >>to information, rather than ?keeping up with the Jones? and rolling >>out technology for the sake of technology? >> >>In Europe, I am only aware of France?s Free who have a full native >>IPv6 deployment, all other providers are managing to provide services >>without too big an IPv6 footprint. In the Americas, I believe a number >>of educational institutions have native v6, and most Sps can probably >>provide it. My contention, IPv6 rollouts globally have been quite low >>speed and that is probably because there are other priorities for the >>Service providers. >> >>So major challenges to enabling services on v6, I guess the demand for >>such services, is probably going to be a major factor.If there is no >>demand or minimal demand, and a current working system exists, why >>waste time on it? >>Just my 2 cents. >> >>.......................................... >>Best Regards, >>Malick Sy >>Sr. Network Engineer >> >>Swisscom (Switzerland) Ltd. >>Hospitality Services >>2, chemin du Pavillon >>Case Postale 2200 >>CH-1211 Gen?ve 2 >> >> >>Desk Phone:+41 227 407 585 >>Cellular Phone:+ 41 794 426 765 >>Fax Number: +41 227 740 7542 >>Internet: www.swisscom.com/hospitality >>............................................ >>This message contains confidential or privileged information and is >>intended solely for the use of the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. >>If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that >>you must not use, copy, disclose, forward or take any action based on >>this message or information herein. If you have received this message >>by error, please advise the sender immediately and delete this message. >> >> >> >> >> >>On 28/10/2014 07:18, "Mark Tinka" wrote: >> >>>On Tuesday, October 28, 2014 07:05:33 AM Andrew Alston >>>wrote: >>> >>>> That challenge also prevents a >>>> lot of providers from actually putting in the effort (and sometimes >>>> expense) of rolling IPv6 all the way to the edge with a lack of >>>> demand. Its kinda a chicken and egg situation for many, no IPv6 at >>>> the edge decreases the number of people running IPv6, we decreases >>>> the demand for IPv6, which decreases the motivation to roll >>>> IPv6 to the edge. >>> >>>I'm still reasonably disappointed in the lack of drive from retail >>>providers to offer IPv6 to their customers, i.e., the >>>broadband/consumer space. >>> >>>Granted, it is a lot more challenging to deliver IPv6 to large scale >>>consumers (more so in Africa, where a lot of consumers are running >>>data off the mobile networks). >>> >>>But I think that deployment of IPv6 toward end customers in a manner >>>where they do not have to directly participate in the process is >>>where we shall see the most gains. >>> >>>The old mantra still holds true - users don't care, as long as it >>>works. >>> >>>Mark. >> >> >>DISCLAIMER: This email contains proprietary information some or all >>of which may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. >>If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this email, >>please notify the author by replying to this email. If you are not the >>intended recipient, you must not use, disclose, copy, print, or rely >>on this email. We cannot accept liability for any statements made >>which are clearly the sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of >>this company or one of its agents. >> > > >DISCLAIMER: This email contains proprietary information some or all of >which may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. >If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this email, >please notify the author by replying to this email. If you are not the >intended recipient, you must not use, disclose, copy, print, or rely on >this email. We cannot accept liability for any statements made which >are clearly the sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of this >company or one of its agents. > DISCLAIMER: This email contains proprietary information some or all of which may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this email, please notify the author by replying to this email. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose, copy, print, or rely on this email. We cannot accept liability for any statements made which are clearly the sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of this company or one of its agents. From Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com Tue Oct 28 11:55:01 2014 From: Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com (Andrew Alston) Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 11:55:01 +0000 Subject: [rpd] RE: [afnog] What are the major challenges in enabling Services to run on IPv6? In-Reply-To: References: <544E8884.3010409@gmail.com> <201410280818.29636.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> <7FF93785BD2D534EA45841A8AAA1D89B51324DD5A4@liquid-exch.liquidtelecom.local> Message-ID: <7FF93785BD2D534EA45841A8AAA1D89B51324DD5D6@liquid-exch.liquidtelecom.local> Kofi *grin* I have no problem with you picking on me, I can handle it. The current state of V6 on our network goes well beyond our core. We are V6 enabled all the way to the edge and are in a position to offer V6 services to all of our clients at any point in our network. It is true that the DNS has lagged behind and that will be rectified shortly, but I still believe it?s better to be a position to provide V6 native service than to have a few servers running v6 ? Andrew From: Kofi ANSA AKUFO [mailto:kofi.ansa at gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2014 2:37 PM To: Andrew Alston Cc: Malick.Sy at swisscom.com; mark.tinka at seacom.mu; rpd at afrinic.net; afnog at afnog.org Subject: Re: [afnog] What are the major challenges in enabling Services to run on IPv6? Hi Andrew On 28 October 2014 14:53, Andrew Alston > wrote: Hi Malick, This is kind of a short sighted view in my opinion. Why you ask? Because the rest of the world has to go V6 and V6 doesn't talk to V4, unless you want to take a huge step backwards and start running translation mechanisms and other dodgy kludges which will further degrade the African internet experience. Money is being spent on fiber, wimax and all the other things you mention, in vast quantities. Infact I would hazard a guess that the investment levels into African infrastructure at the moment are probably outstripping what is being spent upgrading systems in other more developed parts of the world. That should not stop us trying to get to a point where the internet in Africa has parity with the rest of the world, and parity means we get the V6 in or risk being left behind when the rest of the world goes that way (as they have to do, since there is no more v4). I thought you mentioned you are dual stack ready or that does not include your TLD - liquidtelecom.com a quick check here seems to be contrary - http://ip6.nl/#!liquidtelecom.com I know you make have enabled service on your core network -- just picking on you :) Further to this, it is far cheaper to implement V6 as the infrastructure is expanded than have to go back and retrofit, if we don't do it now, we'll be facing a HUGE bill later when we're forced to do it anyway Andrew -----Original Message----- From: Malick.Sy at swisscom.com [mailto:Malick.Sy at swisscom.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2014 1:21 PM To: mark.tinka at seacom.mu; Andrew Alston Cc: rpd at afrinic.net; afnog at afnog.org Subject: Re: [afnog] What are the major challenges in enabling Services to run on IPv6? Hi, I was wondering, what good business need is there to push IPv6 to the network edge, specifically in Africa? What would be the direct benefit to the customer or the service provider, of investing in configuring, deploying and migrating to v6. V4 address depletion is a reality, but in the Africa region, is there really a shortage of IP addresses to assign or is there more a lack of services to run on these IP addresses? Also, wouldn?t the effort and expense to move to v6 In Africa, be better used, if spent on harnessing WiMax? rolling out fibre where possible? I creasing Wifi coverage? rolling out DSL/VDSL/xDSL? Increasing peering points? creating alternatives to the current under sea cable transits (and reduce reliance on ACE, etc)? With the relatively small penetration of broadband in Africa, should not efforts be spent addressing broadband penetration rates and access to information, rather than ?keeping up with the Jones? and rolling out technology for the sake of technology? In Europe, I am only aware of France?s Free who have a full native IPv6 deployment, all other providers are managing to provide services without too big an IPv6 footprint. In the Americas, I believe a number of educational institutions have native v6, and most Sps can probably provide it. My contention, IPv6 rollouts globally have been quite low speed and that is probably because there are other priorities for the Service providers. So major challenges to enabling services on v6, I guess the demand for such services, is probably going to be a major factor.If there is no demand or minimal demand, and a current working system exists, why waste time on it? Just my 2 cents. .......................................... Best Regards, Malick Sy Sr. Network Engineer Swisscom (Switzerland) Ltd. Hospitality Services 2, chemin du Pavillon Case Postale 2200 CH-1211 Gen?ve 2 Desk Phone:+41 227 407 585 Cellular Phone:+ 41 794 426 765 Fax Number: +41 227 740 7542 Internet: www.swisscom.com/hospitality ............................................ This message contains confidential or privileged information and is intended solely for the use of the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you must not use, copy, disclose, forward or take any action based on this message or information herein. If you have received this message by error, please advise the sender immediately and delete this message. On 28/10/2014 07:18, "Mark Tinka" > wrote: >On Tuesday, October 28, 2014 07:05:33 AM Andrew Alston >wrote: > >> That challenge also prevents a >> lot of providers from actually putting in the effort (and sometimes >> expense) of rolling IPv6 all the way to the edge with a lack of >> demand. Its kinda a chicken and egg situation for many, no IPv6 at >> the edge decreases the number of people running IPv6, we decreases >> the demand for IPv6, which decreases the motivation to roll >> IPv6 to the edge. > >I'm still reasonably disappointed in the lack of drive from retail >providers to offer IPv6 to their customers, i.e., the >broadband/consumer space. > >Granted, it is a lot more challenging to deliver IPv6 to large scale >consumers (more so in Africa, where a lot of consumers are running data >off the mobile networks). > >But I think that deployment of IPv6 toward end customers in a manner >where they do not have to directly participate in the process is where >we shall see the most gains. > >The old mantra still holds true - users don't care, as long as it >works. > >Mark. DISCLAIMER: This email contains proprietary information some or all of which may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this email, please notify the author by replying to this email. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose, copy, print, or rely on this email. We cannot accept liability for any statements made which are clearly the sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of this company or one of its agents. _______________________________________________ afnog mailing list http://afnog.org/mailman/listinfo/afnog ________________________________ DISCLAIMER: This email contains proprietary information some or all of which may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this email, please notify the author by replying to this email. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose, copy, print, or rely on this email. We cannot accept liability for any statements made which are clearly the sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of this company or one of its agents. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From adam at varud.com Tue Oct 28 11:54:39 2014 From: adam at varud.com (Adam Nelson) Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 14:54:39 +0300 Subject: [rpd] RE: [afnog] What are the major challenges in enabling Services to run on IPv6? In-Reply-To: <7FF93785BD2D534EA45841A8AAA1D89B51324DD5BB@liquid-exch.liquidtelecom.local> References: <201410280818.29636.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> <201410281233.19825.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> <20141028112155.GD97584@macbook.bluepipe.net> <7FF93785BD2D534EA45841A8AAA1D89B51324DD5BB@liquid-exch.liquidtelecom.local> Message-ID: And just to add to all the great technical arguments here, there's also the career aspects. In 5 years, would you rather be applying to a job and saying "We had dual-stack across the network and I was in charge of that rollout." or "I've never worked with IPv6". I know I would rather be saying the former rather than the latter. There's a case to be made for pushing for a dual-stack approach purely from a career longevity approach and to be frank, it's also a sign that an organization is behind the curve if they aren't IPv6-capable. It's not infrequent that I choose a vendor based on a technology choice that shows institutional capacity and forward-thinking, even if I don't need that particular feature. -Adam -- Kili - Cloud for Africa: kili.io Musings: twitter.com/varud More Musings: varud.com About Adam: www.linkedin.com/in/adamcnelson On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 2:31 PM, Andrew Alston < Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com> wrote: > Hi Phil, > > Actually that's in the pipeline for what we want to do. There are large > segments of our network that I could comfortably run V6 only on *IF* I had > an ability to do Martini PW over v6, but sadly, since Martini PW still > requires LDP in most vendor implementations, this is not possible yet. I > believe that LDPv6 is on the Juniper and Cisco roadmaps for 2015 (though I > am open to correction on this), and if that happens, I can tell you right > now, that for at least 1500 devices I can think of off the top of my head, > v4 will be a thing of the past. > > Andrew > > > -----Original Message----- > From: afnog [mailto:afnog-bounces at afnog.org] On Behalf Of Phil Regnauld > Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2014 2:22 PM > To: Mark Tinka > Cc: rpd at afrinic.net; afnog at afnog.org > Subject: Re: [afnog] What are the major challenges in enabling Services to > run on IPv6? > > Mark Tinka (mark.tinka) writes: > > > > All the IPv4 addresses in Africa mean nothing if the rest of the world > > has run out and are moving to IPv6. > > Well, technically, no one's moved to IPv6 yet. They've > *added* IPv6, but I don't know of anyone off v4 yet :) > > > _______________________________________________ > afnog mailing list > http://afnog.org/mailman/listinfo/afnog > > DISCLAIMER: This email contains proprietary information some or all of > which may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. If > an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this email, please > notify the author by replying to this email. If you are not the intended > recipient, you must not use, disclose, copy, print, or rely on this email. > We cannot accept liability for any statements made which are clearly the > sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of this company or one of its > agents. > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From paulos at sdnp.org.mw Tue Oct 28 12:15:22 2014 From: paulos at sdnp.org.mw (Dr Paulos Nyirenda) Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 14:15:22 +0200 Subject: [rpd] Policy ID format In-Reply-To: References: , <544F4F6E.4176.14BCFB0F@paulos.sdnp.org.mw>, Message-ID: <544F88DA.4865.159D564D@paulos.sdnp.org.mw> On 28 Oct 2014 at 11:24, Adam Nelson wrote: > Paulos, > > We did indeed consider that. Putting in the year opens us up to that > issue but: > > 1. The 'af' prefix is not delimited from the year. This helps people > know it's not a date (i.e. af2015-4 instead of af-2015-4). 2. The > final version will only have the year and number and so it won't look > like a date (i.e. af2015-4). 3. Draft versions have the 'v' prefix - > which helps disambiguate the format from a date (i.e. af2015-4-v3). > > Context should also help here. These IDs will typically only be used > on the rpd list, on the Afrinic website, or on sites aggregating RIR > policies. Although the year being included gives 'dateness' to the ID, > we really wanted that metadata in there in order to show some > timeframe to the reader. > > Does that address your concern? I can live with it but potential for misunderstanding with date formats seems very big. It may seem trivial now but if there is a way to alleviate that they it would be better. The fact that it needs explaining or clarifying shows that it is not intuitive enough as an identifier and that seems to make this still worrying. Regards, Paulos ====================== Dr Paulos B Nyirenda NIC.MW & .mw ccTLD http://www.registrar.mw > > Cheers, > Adam > -- > Kili - Cloud for Africa: kili.io > Musings: twitter.com/varud > More Musings: varud.com > About Adam: www.linkedin.com/in/adamcnelson > > On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Dr Paulos Nyirenda > wrote: > > Adam, > > I have a concern that the NNN will most likely be confused with a > month of the years YYYY if this is not properly put. > > In you example below, 3 looks like the month March of the years > 2015 and that would not be right if the incident time of the > discussion was in January of 2015 or even November of 2015 - it > would get very confusing. > > Did the co-chairs consider that? > > Regards, > > Paulos (as myself) > ====================== > Dr Paulos B Nyirenda > NIC.MW & .mw ccTLD > http://www.registrar.mw > > > On 27 Oct 2014 at 15:16, Adam Nelson wrote: > > > Dear community, > > > > For the past few months, the Policy Development Working Group > > co-chairs along with the Secretariat have been discussing the > > restructuring of Policy IDs. We currently have a very verbose > system > that embeds a bunch of metadata into the ID. While this > metadata is > useful, it is also cumbersome to have within the ID > and simply > remembering the policy ID is almost impossible. > > > After much deliberation, we have come to agree on the following > format > for all future policy proposals (where YYYY is the year, > NNN is an > incremental number starting at 1 at the beginning of > each year, and > VVV is the version of the proposal): > > > afYYYY-NNN-vVVV > > For example, the 2nd draft of the 3rd proposal > of next year would be: > > af2015-3-v2 > > If the above policy > proposal were to be finalized, the version would > then be > dropped: > > af2015-3 > > Hopefully this is short enough for > people to remember easily. > > All prior policies will be updated > to the new ID with a field for the > old ID preserved for archival > purposes. > > If anybody has any specific concerns, please let us > know. > > Cheers, > Adam > > -- > Kili - Cloud for Africa: kili.io > > Musings: twitter.com/varud > More Musings: varud.com > About > Adam: www.linkedin.com/in/adamcnelson > > > > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 2015.0.5315 / Virus Database: 4189/8466 - Release Date: > 10/27/14 From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com Tue Oct 28 12:50:16 2014 From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji) Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 13:50:16 +0100 Subject: [rpd] Policy ID format In-Reply-To: <544F88DA.4865.159D564D@paulos.sdnp.org.mw> References: <544F4F6E.4176.14BCFB0F@paulos.sdnp.org.mw> <544F88DA.4865.159D564D@paulos.sdnp.org.mw> Message-ID: sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 28 Oct 2014 13:23, "Dr Paulos Nyirenda" wrote: > > On 28 Oct 2014 at 11:24, Adam Nelson wrote: > > > Paulos, > > > > Does that address your concern? > > I can live with it but potential for misunderstanding with date formats seems very big. It may > seem trivial now but if there is a way to alleviate that they it would be better. > > The fact that it needs explaining or clarifying shows that it is not intuitive enough as an > identifier and that seems to make this still worrying. > You have a point Dr Paulos, will be good to read from you or any member of the community suggestion on what other 2 octet[1] format can be used. We had considered using a dot instead but we felt that could have some implication incase we start using the identifier in our url in future. We then resolve to adding the "V" and "af" accordingly as explained by Adam. Cheers! 1. Octet loosely used here to mean an identifier with just one hyphen separating the items. > Regards, > > Paulos > ====================== > Dr Paulos B Nyirenda > NIC.MW & .mw ccTLD > http://www.registrar.mw > > > > > > Cheers, > > Adam > > -- > > Kili - Cloud for Africa: kili.io > > Musings: twitter.com/varud > > More Musings: varud.com > > About Adam: www.linkedin.com/in/adamcnelson > > > > On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Dr Paulos Nyirenda > > wrote: > > > > Adam, > > > > I have a concern that the NNN will most likely be confused with a > > month of the years YYYY if this is not properly put. > > > > In you example below, 3 looks like the month March of the years > > 2015 and that would not be right if the incident time of the > > discussion was in January of 2015 or even November of 2015 - it > > would get very confusing. > > > > Did the co-chairs consider that? > > > > Regards, > > > > Paulos (as myself) > > ====================== > > Dr Paulos B Nyirenda > > NIC.MW & .mw ccTLD > > http://www.registrar.mw > > > > > > On 27 Oct 2014 at 15:16, Adam Nelson wrote: > > > > > Dear community, > > > > > > For the past few months, the Policy Development Working Group > > > co-chairs along with the Secretariat have been discussing the > > > restructuring of Policy IDs. We currently have a very verbose > > system > that embeds a bunch of metadata into the ID. While this > > metadata is > useful, it is also cumbersome to have within the ID > > and simply > remembering the policy ID is almost impossible. > > > > After much deliberation, we have come to agree on the following > > format > for all future policy proposals (where YYYY is the year, > > NNN is an > incremental number starting at 1 at the beginning of > > each year, and > VVV is the version of the proposal): > > > > afYYYY-NNN-vVVV > > For example, the 2nd draft of the 3rd proposal > > of next year would be: > > af2015-3-v2 > > If the above policy > > proposal were to be finalized, the version would > then be > > dropped: > > af2015-3 > > Hopefully this is short enough for > > people to remember easily. > > All prior policies will be updated > > to the new ID with a field for the > old ID preserved for archival > > purposes. > > If anybody has any specific concerns, please let us > > know. > > Cheers, > Adam > > -- > Kili - Cloud for Africa: kili.io > > > Musings: twitter.com/varud > More Musings: varud.com > About > > Adam: www.linkedin.com/in/adamcnelson > > > > > > > > No virus found in this message. > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > > Version: 2015.0.5315 / Virus Database: 4189/8466 - Release Date: > > 10/27/14 > > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From geier at geier.ne.tz Tue Oct 28 13:07:46 2014 From: geier at geier.ne.tz (Frank Habicht) Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 16:07:46 +0300 Subject: [rpd] Re: [afnog] What are the major challenges in enabling Services to run on IPv6? In-Reply-To: References: <544E8884.3010409@gmail.com> <201410280818.29636.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> <7FF93785BD2D534EA45841A8AAA1D89B51324DD5A4@liquid-exch.liquidtelecom.local> Message-ID: <544F9522.1080905@geier.ne.tz> to join the picking: On 10/28/2014 2:36 PM, Kofi ANSA AKUFO wrote: > I thought you mentioned you are dual stack ready or that does not include > your TLD - liquidtelecom.com that's not a TLD! ("top level") Frank From apb at cequrux.com Tue Oct 28 13:41:58 2014 From: apb at cequrux.com (Alan Barrett) Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 09:41:58 -0400 Subject: [rpd] Policy ID format In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20141028134157.GB1184@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> On Mon, 27 Oct 2014, Adam Nelson wrote: >After much deliberation, we have come to agree on the following format for >all future policy proposals (where YYYY is the year, NNN is an incremental >number starting at 1 at the beginning of each year, and VVV is the version >of the proposal): > >afYYYY-NNN-vVVV > >For example, the 2nd draft of the 3rd proposal of next year would be: > >af2015-3-v2 > >If the above policy proposal were to be finalized, the version would then >be dropped: > >af2015-3 Thank you! I have been asking for this for several years. Please also make the URLs reasonably short, like http[s]://afrinic.net/policy/, possibly with a language code like "en" or "fr" between "afrinic.net" and "policy". --apb (Alan Barrett) From Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com Tue Oct 28 15:02:06 2014 From: Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com (Andrew Alston) Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 15:02:06 +0000 Subject: [rpd] Re: [afnog] What are the major challenges in enabling Services to run on IPv6? In-Reply-To: References: <544E8884.3010409@gmail.com> <201410280818.29636.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> <7FF93785BD2D534EA45841A8AAA1D89B51324DD5A4@liquid-exch.liquidtelecom.local> <7FF93785BD2D534EA45841A8AAA1D89B51324DD5BA@liquid-exch.liquidtelecom.local> <7FF93785BD2D534EA45841A8AAA1D89B51324DD5D0@liquid-exch.liquidtelecom.local> Message-ID: Hi Malick, I to apologise for my reaction to your posts, sometimes I get a little hot under the collar (I?m known for it haha). As others have eluded to, v6 migration is not the priority, deployment of high quality high speed networks is. I have long believed that when you do something though, you should do it properly, and I argue that there is no more effort to deploy a dual-stack network than there is deploying a new v4 only network. I argue that even deploying v6 on the current legacy v4 networks, is far less work than people make out (and far less expensive than most people make out). Yes there are challenges with deploying anything new, but that is the price of progress and progress is something we should welcome. The arguments that Africa has loads of v4 space left are also concerning to me, as we are seeing rapid depletion of the pool due to some pretty large requests (I won?t enter the debate here as to if these requests and where the space is going are legitimate or not), but I do not believe that we have anywhere near enough v4 space left in the AfriNIC pool to cater for the full needs of the African continent, particularly if we start eliminating NAT (and I am a very big proponent of NAT elimination, since I have long believed it is a hack that breaks many key things) If you take v4 vs v6 deployed in an identical way, functionally it is not a case of more securely, or one being better than the other, they should function identically. However, that is not how this really works. Every day I deal with the problems of heavily NAT?ed v4 networks and the problems caused by private address space, and they are numerous. Therefore what we are really looking at is a comparison between a network with live v6 space vs a network heavily reliant on translation mechanisms. I?ll take the v6 network any time any day. I also do not believe, or intend to suggest, that v6 has ever been given a priority over infrastructure deployment and not do I believe it should be given such. I believe the two go hand in hand, as you are deploying infrastructure, deploy v6 on top of it. The resources required to do so are minimal and will hardly have a significant impact on infrastructure deployment. To give you an example, I am currently in the middle of a MAJOR upgrade project in one particular place, a project that has a price tag of many millions. That project would go ahead with or without v6, but to do it with no v6 planning would have been insanity, since the v6 planning created absolutely zero increase in CAPEX cost and the increase in OPEX to do the v6 was negligent in the scope of the project. To further expand on this, being v6 ready to the edge on a project like this leaves me with an interesting opportunity further down the line, and that is to scrap v4 to the edge the moment LDPv6 and certain other capabilities become available. (By way of explanation, there are many devices that are used purely for MPLS based backhaul (e-line/xconnect style), and the moment the functionality exists to do this over v6, I can remove the v4 from these devices and redeploy it elsewhere, which in turn eliminates strain on the v4 pool and caters for where we do truly need v4. This would not be an option if I had to go and do the entire network v4 only now, and go back afterwards to do v6 (not where we are talking about in excess of 1500 devices to be reconfigured later if I don?t do it now). It is the same as people who ask me why the networks we deploy are deployed with 10G vs 1G, when the bandwidth utilisations TODAY do not necessarily necessitate the need for 10G circuits. The answer is simple, the major cost is in pulling the fiber, and the cost of upgrading segments of the network later when we hit a bandwidth problem are actually higher than doing the thing properly from day 1. It?s a very similar argument. I myself am pleasantly pleased with what I see in terms of development in terms of the growth in the regions in which I operate, and I think in coming months many new things will show up that will both please and excite people on the continent, but most importantly, in deploying this infrastructure, we are making sure that it is not just the physical that is deployed correctly, it is the logical and the IP layer that is also modern and deployed properly. The other thing to consider that I have given serious thought to, one of the problems we have struggled with in Africa is our routing and our BGP. For far to long deaggregation and other nasty hacks have been used for bandwidth controls and every other reason you could dream of. If we do v6 right, as we move into the v6 era, we can hopefully avoid the mistakes of the v4 past, and ensure that in the new era, we have this done properly. Just my thoughts. Andrew Alstont Group Head of IP Strategy Sameer business Park, Block A, Mombasa Road. Nairobi, Kenya T: +254 205000000 - M: +254 733 2222 04 - E: andrew.alston at liquidtelecom.com On 10/28/14, 4:31 PM, "Malick.Sy at swisscom.com" wrote: >Andrew, >Apologies if my tone may have come across ?colonialist? or aloof, (I wont >proceed to prove my African-ness with a list of achievements or my latest >itinerary, as I don?t think that is the purpose of this list.) Rest >assured, I (like all mankind) have African roots. > >Back to the earlier point I was trying to address, (on AFNOG, as I believe >this is meant to be African-centric NOG mailing list), I believe the >question was what are the major challenges to v6 service enablement? My >response and subsequent question (in a nutshell) was: Why is V6 a priority >and why are people rushing to enable it? Surely there are other priorities >that should and can be address on the global collaborative level (NOG >level) more pressing and region specific (I believe that was one of the >guiding principles behind setting up regional NOGs, to decentralise and >deal with ?regional? issues, if I may permit myself to use regional in >this globalised, region-agnostic domain that we are talking about.) > >So my question(s), were simply meant to ask: > >1)Why is V6 migration a priority in Africa? I am sure there may be valid >reasons, like next generation mobile infrastructure deployments and other >infrastructure that needs public IP addressing and will not be deployed in >a scalable manner using existing IPV4 addresses. I would love to learn >about these and how these are currently being enabled with v6 in a ?better >and more secure? manner than on v4. >2) Is the current urgency of V6 deployments in Africa a real priority or >has it been given ?false? priority over possibly more enabling >technologies and solutions (this is where I mentioned the current >healthcare case that is troubling the region and the globe). By more >enabling technologies I mean greater wifi expansion, 3G/4G expansion, more >fibre deployments (GPON, EPON, good old single mode to bridge relatively >small distances), power grid infrastructure support projects, educational >institute connectivity projects. > >Again, apologies if my statements came across a bit ?distant? (shall we >say), my underlying goal was to question and learn (the references to >Facebook and short sighted label may have rubbed me the wrong way, I was >hoping more for a holistic view of Africa as a continent and also answers >to the need for v6 so badly in Africa, today.) > >I hope this makes sense. >.......................................... >Best Regards, >Malick Sy >Sr. Network Engineer > >Swisscom (Switzerland) Ltd. >Hospitality Services >2, chemin du Pavillon >Case Postale 2200 >CH-1211 Gen?ve 2 > > >Desk Phone:+41 227 407 585 >Cellular Phone:+ 41 794 426 765 >Fax Number: +41 227 740 7542 >Internet: www.swisscom.com/hospitality >............................................ >This message contains confidential or privileged information and is >intended solely for the use of the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. >If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you >must not use, copy, disclose, forward or take any action based on this >message or information herein. If you have received this message by error, >please advise the sender immediately and delete this message. > > > > > >On 28/10/2014 12:52, "Andrew Alston" >wrote: > >>Malick, >> >>How about before you start citing things, that you have read on a mailing >>list, get off your backside and come to Africa and see the situation on >>the ground for yourself. As for the 7%, I listed a few select examples, >>I could fill pages of what is going on in Africa if I had the time, or >>the inclination to do so, but I won't waste my breath with yet another >>colonialist mindset that believes they know the situation on the ground, >>know everything there is to know about my continent and spew drivel from >>an informed perspective based entirely on the reading of one mailing >>list. >> >>I find it insulting that your mails imply that we as Africans have no >>clue what is best for ourselves, that we as Africans do not have the >>mentality or the brains to understand how to develop our own region, that >>you as a European sitting a world away can somehow gaze into a crystal >>ball and tell us what is best. >> >>*THAT* is the very definition of a colonial mindset, and quite frankly, >>we don't need it >> >>Andrew >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Malick.Sy at swisscom.com [mailto:Malick.Sy at swisscom.com] >>Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2014 2:38 PM >>To: Andrew Alston; mark.tinka at seacom.mu >>Cc: rpd at afrinic.net; afnog at afnog.org >>Subject: Re: [afnog] What are the major challenges in enabling Services >>to run on IPv6? >> >>Andrew, >>Thanks very much for the facts about what is going on in 4 African >>countries or 0.07 percent of the continent(Rwanda, Kenya, Uganda and >>Tanzania.) Hopefully, this level of deployment will eventually reach the >>remaining 50 countries or the 99 percent of Africa that is not on your >>current list. >> >>I am a member of a number of NOG mailing lists, the AfNOG one is the only >>one that resonates with self-righteousness and "people blowing their own >>trumpets". >>If we could look past the labels, name calling and self importance and >>stay focused, and maybe address more than 0.7 percent of a customer base, >>before jumping on a soap box, we will be in a much better posiiton vis a >>vis technology, economics, finance, farming, every domain that I can >>think of. >> >>My original statement was asking for the compelling use case for >>prioiritizing v6 deployments "to the access layer" in Africa. I have not >>yet read one. Thanks for your inputs though. Much appreciated >> >>.......................................... >>Best Regards, >>Malick Sy >>Sr. Network Engineer >> >>Swisscom (Switzerland) Ltd. >>Hospitality Services >>2, chemin du Pavillon >>Case Postale 2200 >>CH-1211 Gen?ve 2 >> >> >>Desk Phone:+41 227 407 585 >>Cellular Phone:+ 41 794 426 765 >>Fax Number: +41 227 740 7542 >>Internet: www.swisscom.com/hospitality >>............................................ >>This message contains confidential or privileged information and is >>intended solely for the use of the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. >>If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you >>must not use, copy, disclose, forward or take any action based on this >>message or information herein. If you have received this message by >>error, please advise the sender immediately and delete this message. >> >> >> >> >> >>On 28/10/2014 12:29, "Andrew Alston" >>wrote: >> >>>Malick, >>> >>>Laugh, from what you write here, you patently obviously know little >>>about me. >>> >>>You made a reference to the money being spent to implement v6, I >>>pointed out that the financial constraints in terms of OPEX to do it as >>>we deploy are lower than deploying it as a retro-fit, I stand by that >>>statement. >>> >>>Secondly, if you have V6 only, you can't communicate to V4 only >>>systems, and vice versa. So yes, dual-stack is the answer and it's >>>what I've been actively doing for years. That does not mean it makes >>>sense to ignore v6 for now and at some vast future date add v6 as an >>>afterthought when you are already in problem mode because you've >>>started to lose access to systems that have gone v6 only. >>> >>>Thirdly, as for finding solutions to real world problems, I can say >>>very confidently that I know something about the infrastructure and the >>>network deployments going on in Africa (and in particular East and >>>Southern Africa), and I can say that what is being deployed actively >>>and heavily is probably far beyond what you imagine. I merely believe >>>that deploying IPv6 while doing these infrastructure upgrades is a >>>sensible and sane thing to do. >>> >>>You talk about fiber infrastructure investment and other such >>>investment, so let me enlighten you as to some facts on the African >>>continent. >>> >>>So far this year: >>> >>>Rwanda, Tanzania, Uganda and Kenya are now on a fiber ring with full >>>redundancy. >>>Capacity into Uganda through Kenya is now running full DWDM systems >>>with multiple 10G waves Capacity into Rwanda has been drastically >>>expanded Metro fiber networks are being actively rolled out (or have >>>been rolled >>>out) in Nairobi, Mombasa, Kampala, Kigali, Kisumu, Nakuru, Eldoret and >>>the list continues. >>> >>>Undersea capacity is there, we have SEACOM, we have EASSY, we can route >>>around the west coast via WACS, and if Im correct that totals in excess >>>of 10 terabit of capacity. >>> >>>My employer has publically committed to a further $200 million >>>investment in the next 24 months in infrastructure as well in the >>>region. >>> >>>Now, considering all of this, as infrastructure is put in place, isn't >>>it the smart choice to roll up to date infrastructure with up to date >>>protocols instead of continuing to deploy legacy v4 that the world at >>>large is being forced to move away from, since it is a dying beast? >>> >>>This has nothing to do with "what my formal colonial masters" are doing >>>or have done, this is about wanting world class networking on the >>>continent, that is in line with global standards and best practices and >>>protocols. As far as I'm concerned, if Africa gets the opportunity, we >>>should SURPASS the former colonial masters, and if we ever hope to do >>>that, letting ourselves stick with v4 is suicidal. >>> >>>I would suggest though before you speak out, you actually show a >>>modicum of understanding of what is actually going on on this continent. >>> >>>Andrew >>> >>> >>>-----Original Message----- >>>From: Malick.Sy at swisscom.com [mailto:Malick.Sy at swisscom.com] >>>Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2014 2:15 PM >>>To: Andrew Alston; mark.tinka at seacom.mu >>>Cc: rpd at afrinic.net; afnog at afnog.org >>>Subject: Re: [afnog] What are the major challenges in enabling Services >>>to run on IPv6? >>> >>>Andrew, >>>Maybe you have not heard of dual stack systems. This has been a reality >>>at OS level (at least on Linux and FreeBSD) for years and all decent >>>network vendors support dual stacks.. RFC 2766 also provides a >>>transalation mechanism for v6 to v4 packets as well, it is possible to >>>tunnel one protocol within another. So, I don't agree that "Because my >>>former colonial master is doing it, I have to do it too" mentality or >>>outlook. We need to take a deep look at what we prioritise. >>> >>>Solutions should be found for real world problems and issues on the >>>ground, not perceived or imported views of "problems". >>> >>>1)http://www.networkworld.com/article/2235990/cisco-subnet/the-dual-sta >>>ck- >>>d >>>ilemma.html >>>2)http://www.cisco.com/c/dam/en/us/products/collateral/ios-nx-os-softwa >>>re/ >>>e >>>nterprise-ipv6-solution/aag_c45-625513.pdf >>>3)https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2766.txt >>>4)http://ipv6.com/articles/gateways/IPv6-Tunnelling.htm >>> >>>.......................................... >>>Best Regards, >>>Malick Sy >>>Sr. Network Engineer >>> >>>Swisscom (Switzerland) Ltd. >>>Hospitality Services >>>2, chemin du Pavillon >>>Case Postale 2200 >>>CH-1211 Gen?ve 2 >>> >>> >>>Desk Phone:+41 227 407 585 >>>Cellular Phone:+ 41 794 426 765 >>>Fax Number: +41 227 740 7542 >>>Internet: www.swisscom.com/hospitality >>>............................................ >>>This message contains confidential or privileged information and is >>>intended solely for the use of the individual(s) to whom it is >>>addressed. >>>If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you >>>must not use, copy, disclose, forward or take any action based on this >>>message or information herein. If you have received this message by >>>error, please advise the sender immediately and delete this message. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>On 28/10/2014 11:53, "Andrew Alston" >>>wrote: >>> >>>>Hi Malick, >>>> >>>>This is kind of a short sighted view in my opinion. Why you ask? >>>>Because the rest of the world has to go V6 and V6 doesn't talk to V4, >>>>unless you want to take a huge step backwards and start running >>>>translation mechanisms and other dodgy kludges which will further >>>>degrade the African internet experience. >>>> >>>>Money is being spent on fiber, wimax and all the other things you >>>>mention, in vast quantities. Infact I would hazard a guess that the >>>>investment levels into African infrastructure at the moment are >>>>probably outstripping what is being spent upgrading systems in other >>>>more developed parts of the world. That should not stop us trying to >>>>get to a point where the internet in Africa has parity with the rest >>>>of the world, and parity means we get the V6 in or risk being left >>>>behind when the rest of the world goes that way (as they have to do, >>>>since there is no more v4). >>>> >>>>Further to this, it is far cheaper to implement V6 as the >>>>infrastructure is expanded than have to go back and retrofit, if we >>>>don't do it now, we'll be facing a HUGE bill later when we're forced >>>>to do it anyway >>>> >>>>Andrew >>>> >>>> >>>>-----Original Message----- >>>>From: Malick.Sy at swisscom.com [mailto:Malick.Sy at swisscom.com] >>>>Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2014 1:21 PM >>>>To: mark.tinka at seacom.mu; Andrew Alston >>>>Cc: rpd at afrinic.net; afnog at afnog.org >>>>Subject: Re: [afnog] What are the major challenges in enabling >>>>Services to run on IPv6? >>>> >>>>Hi, >>>>I was wondering, what good business need is there to push IPv6 to the >>>>network edge, specifically in Africa? >>>>What would be the direct benefit to the customer or the service >>>>provider, of investing in configuring, deploying and migrating to v6. >>>>V4 address depletion is a reality, but in the Africa region, is there >>>>really a shortage of IP addresses to assign or is there more a lack of >>>>services to run on these IP addresses? Also, wouldn?t the effort and >>>>expense to move to v6 In Africa, be better used, if spent on >>>>harnessing WiMax? rolling out fibre where possible? I creasing Wifi >>>>coverage? >>>>rolling out DSL/VDSL/xDSL? Increasing peering points? creating >>>>alternatives to the current under sea cable transits (and reduce >>>>reliance on ACE, etc)? >>>>With the relatively small penetration of broadband in Africa, should >>>>not efforts be spent addressing broadband penetration rates and access >>>>to information, rather than ?keeping up with the Jones? and rolling >>>>out technology for the sake of technology? >>>> >>>>In Europe, I am only aware of France?s Free who have a full native >>>>IPv6 deployment, all other providers are managing to provide services >>>>without too big an IPv6 footprint. In the Americas, I believe a number >>>>of educational institutions have native v6, and most Sps can probably >>>>provide it. My contention, IPv6 rollouts globally have been quite low >>>>speed and that is probably because there are other priorities for the >>>>Service providers. >>>> >>>>So major challenges to enabling services on v6, I guess the demand for >>>>such services, is probably going to be a major factor.If there is no >>>>demand or minimal demand, and a current working system exists, why >>>>waste time on it? >>>>Just my 2 cents. >>>> >>>>.......................................... >>>>Best Regards, >>>>Malick Sy >>>>Sr. Network Engineer >>>> >>>>Swisscom (Switzerland) Ltd. >>>>Hospitality Services >>>>2, chemin du Pavillon >>>>Case Postale 2200 >>>>CH-1211 Gen?ve 2 >>>> >>>> >>>>Desk Phone:+41 227 407 585 >>>>Cellular Phone:+ 41 794 426 765 >>>>Fax Number: +41 227 740 7542 >>>>Internet: www.swisscom.com/hospitality >>>>............................................ >>>>This message contains confidential or privileged information and is >>>>intended solely for the use of the individual(s) to whom it is >>>>addressed. >>>>If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that >>>>you must not use, copy, disclose, forward or take any action based on >>>>this message or information herein. If you have received this message >>>>by error, please advise the sender immediately and delete this message. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>On 28/10/2014 07:18, "Mark Tinka" wrote: >>>> >>>>>On Tuesday, October 28, 2014 07:05:33 AM Andrew Alston >>>>>wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> That challenge also prevents a >>>>>> lot of providers from actually putting in the effort (and sometimes >>>>>> expense) of rolling IPv6 all the way to the edge with a lack of >>>>>> demand. Its kinda a chicken and egg situation for many, no IPv6 at >>>>>> the edge decreases the number of people running IPv6, we decreases >>>>>> the demand for IPv6, which decreases the motivation to roll >>>>>> IPv6 to the edge. >>>>> >>>>>I'm still reasonably disappointed in the lack of drive from retail >>>>>providers to offer IPv6 to their customers, i.e., the >>>>>broadband/consumer space. >>>>> >>>>>Granted, it is a lot more challenging to deliver IPv6 to large scale >>>>>consumers (more so in Africa, where a lot of consumers are running >>>>>data off the mobile networks). >>>>> >>>>>But I think that deployment of IPv6 toward end customers in a manner >>>>>where they do not have to directly participate in the process is >>>>>where we shall see the most gains. >>>>> >>>>>The old mantra still holds true - users don't care, as long as it >>>>>works. >>>>> >>>>>Mark. >>>> >>>> >>>>DISCLAIMER: This email contains proprietary information some or all >>>>of which may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient >>>>only. >>>>If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this email, >>>>please notify the author by replying to this email. If you are not the >>>>intended recipient, you must not use, disclose, copy, print, or rely >>>>on this email. We cannot accept liability for any statements made >>>>which are clearly the sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of >>>>this company or one of its agents. >>>> >>> >>> >>>DISCLAIMER: This email contains proprietary information some or all of >>>which may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. >>>If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this email, >>>please notify the author by replying to this email. If you are not the >>>intended recipient, you must not use, disclose, copy, print, or rely on >>>this email. We cannot accept liability for any statements made which >>>are clearly the sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of this >>>company or one of its agents. >>> >> >> >>DISCLAIMER: This email contains proprietary information some or all of >>which may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. >>If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this email, please >>notify the author by replying to this email. If you are not the intended >>recipient, you must not use, disclose, copy, print, or rely on this >>email. We cannot accept liability for any statements made which are >>clearly the sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of this company >>or one of its agents. >> > DISCLAIMER: This email contains proprietary information some or all of which may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this email, please notify the author by replying to this email. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose, copy, print, or rely on this email. We cannot accept liability for any statements made which are clearly the sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of this company or one of its agents. From kofi.ansa at inet.com.gh Tue Oct 28 20:37:32 2014 From: kofi.ansa at inet.com.gh (Kofi Ansa Akufo) Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 20:37:32 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [rpd] Re: [afnog] What are the major challenges in enabling Services to run on IPv6? In-Reply-To: <936514262.1963.1414528619427.JavaMail.zimbra@inet.com.gh> References: Message-ID: <337279605.1967.1414528652724.JavaMail.zimbra@inet.com.gh> Hi Geert Thanks very much for sharing insight in your region. Funny enough most cities and suburban towns in our african region are currently served by high speed broadband connectivity. At least its easy to get access to 20mbps/2mbps shared broadband internet in my home country. We have used technics like 6to4 tunnels to get connected and experiment with the v6 protocol for some time now (over 3 years) especially in areas where tunnel ends can be reached at less than 75ms (unfragmented v4 packet size of about 1492). Rural penetration is still low but it makes sense to enable both protocol stacks as services are rolled out in the rural communities. It will be great to see service providers transparently enable or turn-on native v6 support in their networks especially with the xdsl service providers. This will help localized v6 traffic. Ebola epidermic is a global concern and rather unfortunate some arguements unnecessarily sited analogies far fetched. Nevertheless its amazing how the community stood together defend the course. It would be nice to see that same community come out selflessly to charter policies that will exploit our resources for regional development even when it bites their corporate and marketing strategies Cheers. K. From: "Geert Jan de Groot" To: "kofi ansa" Cc: "rpd" , "afnog" Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2014 10:00:33 PM Subject: Re: [afnog] What are the major challenges in enabling Services to run on IPv6? On Mon, 27 Oct 2014 13:59:59 +0400 Kofi ANSA AKUFO wrote: What are the major challenges in enabling Services to run on IPv6 in our region? Let me try to shed some insight while typing this from a residential, native IPv4/IPv6 connection in the Netherlands. Not Africa, but I think there's still some lessons to learn. Setting up dual-stack webservices is easy, that has been done for 15 years or so. Techniques required for that are well understood and I won't elaborate here. The question, however, is how to make the services accessible to the users. My service provider, XS4all, started providing IPv6 connectivity in 2001 or so, initially through IPv4 tunnels (I've IPv6-connected the AfNOG network in Kampala this way, for instance) and since a number of years natively. IPv6 is enabled by default so if you enroll as customer you automatically get IPv4 and IPv6. That road was not easy. Getting the core routers to talk IPv4 and IPv6 is easy enough (I'm pretty sure that most of the routers of the African ISP community *can* to IPv6, perhaps a config option, perhaps an image update but that's it). There were several challenges getting customers connected. One issue is that XS4all doesn't do local loops to consumer customers themselves, they depend on DSL loops from the incumbent provider and add their ISP service on top of it. These days, that service is PPPoE and it's easy to do IPv4 and IPv6 over this DSL pipeline. The old DSL network (which, I'm told, will be switched off before the end of the year) used PPPoA and could not do this. The old network is at least 15 years old now and even I have migrated away from it now. Another issue is the CPE. Many CPE's won't / can't do IPv6, and XS4all had to work together with one that does. The result is actually cool: XS4all got to create the specs for the IPv6 functionality (there are RIPE documents about 'IPv6 CPE requirements') and they are now using prefix delegation, the PPPoE segment runs numberless, and, from what I hear, the helpdesk is pretty quiet about the whole issue. One thing that the CPE does, by default, is add a diode (only outgoing connections, no incoming connections, by default). That does help a lot for poorly patched domestic windows PC's (we all know them!). Like with IPv4 NAT, is it possible to make holes in the diodes to allow connections to certain hosts/ports but the defaults are 'safe' I do know that XS4all spent a lot of time and effort to make this all 'right', but it's there now and I, for one, would not notice if IPv4 would shut down tomorrow as nearly everything I talk to is IPv6 capable now. The net result is that a. most XS4all residential customers do have IPv6 (unless they manually switched it off or broke it), and b. new customers, by default, do have IPv6 as well. And there's hardly any additional effort - anymore - as the hard work was done years ago. I don't think the situation in Africa neccessary needs to be much different from here. Yes, you probably have braindead CPE's - we got those too. There are ill-advised 'reasons' not to do this - we got those too. But, ping6 works from here. Go figure! The architecture actually isn't bad. You can add more PPPoE sessions for closed networks (that's how IPtv apperently works, but I don't use it), or VoIP (as implemented by other ISP's using the same infrastructure), so there are other advantages. The key thing is to Just Do It and select your kit accordingly when you do. Geert Jan (and, for the record, I do worry about the current 'health issue'. My thoughts are with those affected, and I am hoping for more positive news from the continent!) _______________________________________________ afnog mailing list http://afnog.org/mailman/listinfo/afnog -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From owen at delong.com Tue Oct 28 22:50:13 2014 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 15:50:13 -0700 Subject: [rpd] Policy ID format In-Reply-To: <544F4F6E.4176.14BCFB0F@paulos.sdnp.org.mw> References: <544F4F6E.4176.14BCFB0F@paulos.sdnp.org.mw> Message-ID: <1498244E-E81F-4D44-9B03-AF6A7D5D3DCB@delong.com> We have been using the YYYY-NNN form for ARIN draft policy numbers for years and no such difficulty has been encountered. I don?t think it is a significant issue. Owen > On Oct 28, 2014, at 1:10 AM, Dr Paulos Nyirenda wrote: > > > Adam, > > I have a concern that the NNN will most likely be confused with a month of the years YYYY if > this is not properly put. > > In you example below, 3 looks like the month March of the years 2015 and that would not be > right if the incident time of the discussion was in January of 2015 or even November of 2015 > - it would get very confusing. > > Did the co-chairs consider that? > > Regards, > > Paulos (as myself) > ====================== > Dr Paulos B Nyirenda > NIC.MW & .mw ccTLD > http://www.registrar.mw > > > On 27 Oct 2014 at 15:16, Adam Nelson wrote: > >> Dear community, >> >> For the past few months, the Policy Development Working Group >> co-chairs along with the Secretariat have been discussing the >> restructuring of Policy IDs. We currently have a very verbose system >> that embeds a bunch of metadata into the ID. While this metadata is >> useful, it is also cumbersome to have within the ID and simply >> remembering the policy ID is almost impossible. >> >> After much deliberation, we have come to agree on the following format >> for all future policy proposals (where YYYY is the year, NNN is an >> incremental number starting at 1 at the beginning of each year, and >> VVV is the version of the proposal): >> >> afYYYY-NNN-vVVV >> >> For example, the 2nd draft of the 3rd proposal of next year would be: >> >> af2015-3-v2 >> >> If the above policy proposal were to be finalized, the version would >> then be dropped: >> >> af2015-3 >> >> Hopefully this is short enough for people to remember easily. >> >> All prior policies will be updated to the new ID with a field for the >> old ID preserved for archival purposes. >> >> If anybody has any specific concerns, please let us know. >> >> Cheers, >> Adam >> >> -- >> Kili - Cloud for Africa: kili.io >> Musings: twitter.com/varud >> More Musings: varud.com >> About Adam: www.linkedin.com/in/adamcnelson > > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd From owen at delong.com Tue Oct 28 22:58:32 2014 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 15:58:32 -0700 Subject: [rpd] [afnog] What are the major challenges in enabling Services to run on IPv6? In-Reply-To: <7FF93785BD2D534EA45841A8AAA1D89B51324DD5D6@liquid-exch.liquidtelecom.local> References: <544E8884.3010409@gmail.com> <201410280818.29636.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> <7FF93785BD2D534EA45841A8AAA1D89B51324DD5A4@liquid-exch.liquidtelecom.local> <7FF93785BD2D534EA45841A8AAA1D89B51324DD5D6@liquid-exch.liquidtelecom.local> Message-ID: Really? Owens-MacBook-Pro:vr-delegations owendelong$ host www.liquidtelecom.com www.liquidtelecom.com is an alias for liquidtelecom.com. liquidtelecom.com has address 185.25.211.28 liquidtelecom.com mail is handled by 20 mx1.liquidtelecom.com. liquidtelecom.com mail is handled by 20 mx2.liquidtelecom.com. Owens-MacBook-Pro:vr-delegations owendelong$ dig -t AAAA www.liquidtelecom.com ; <<>> DiG 9.8.3-P1 <<>> -t AAAA www.liquidtelecom.com ;; global options: +cmd ;; Got answer: ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 29862 ;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 1, AUTHORITY: 1, ADDITIONAL: 0 ;; QUESTION SECTION: ;www.liquidtelecom.com. IN AAAA ;; ANSWER SECTION: www.liquidtelecom.com. 86400 IN CNAME liquidtelecom.com. ;; AUTHORITY SECTION: liquidtelecom.com. 10784 IN SOA ns1.worldstream.com. ben\.roberts.liquidtelecom.com. 2014101400 10800 3600 604800 10800 ;; Query time: 163 msec ;; SERVER: 4.2.2.2#53(4.2.2.2) ;; WHEN: Tue Oct 28 15:58:10 2014 ;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 117 Owen > On Oct 28, 2014, at 4:55 AM, Andrew Alston wrote: > > Kofi *grin* > > I have no problem with you picking on me, I can handle it. > > The current state of V6 on our network goes well beyond our core. We are V6 enabled all the way to the edge and are in a position to offer V6 services to all of our clients at any point in our network. It is true that the DNS has lagged behind and that will be rectified shortly, but I still believe it?s better to be a position to provide V6 native service than to have a few servers running v6 J > > Andrew > > From: Kofi ANSA AKUFO [mailto:kofi.ansa at gmail.com ] > Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2014 2:37 PM > To: Andrew Alston > Cc: Malick.Sy at swisscom.com ; mark.tinka at seacom.mu ; rpd at afrinic.net ; afnog at afnog.org > Subject: Re: [afnog] What are the major challenges in enabling Services to run on IPv6? > > Hi Andrew > > On 28 October 2014 14:53, Andrew Alston > wrote: > Hi Malick, > > This is kind of a short sighted view in my opinion. Why you ask? Because the rest of the world has to go V6 and V6 doesn't talk to V4, unless you want to take a huge step backwards and start running translation mechanisms and other dodgy kludges which will further degrade the African internet experience. > > Money is being spent on fiber, wimax and all the other things you mention, in vast quantities. Infact I would hazard a guess that the investment levels into African infrastructure at the moment are probably outstripping what is being spent upgrading systems in other more developed parts of the world. That should not stop us trying to get to a point where the internet in Africa has parity with the rest of the world, and parity means we get the V6 in or risk being left behind when the rest of the world goes that way (as they have to do, since there is no more v4). > > > I thought you mentioned you are dual stack ready or that does not include your TLD - liquidtelecom.com > > a quick check here seems to be contrary - http://ip6.nl/#!liquidtelecom.com > > I know you make have enabled service on your core network -- just picking on you :) > > Further to this, it is far cheaper to implement V6 as the infrastructure is expanded than have to go back and retrofit, if we don't do it now, we'll be facing a HUGE bill later when we're forced to do it anyway > > Andrew > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Malick.Sy at swisscom.com [mailto:Malick.Sy at swisscom.com ] > Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2014 1:21 PM > To: mark.tinka at seacom.mu ; Andrew Alston > Cc: rpd at afrinic.net ; afnog at afnog.org > Subject: Re: [afnog] What are the major challenges in enabling Services to run on IPv6? > > Hi, > I was wondering, what good business need is there to push IPv6 to the network edge, specifically in Africa? > What would be the direct benefit to the customer or the service provider, of investing in configuring, deploying and migrating to v6. V4 address depletion is a reality, but in the Africa region, is there really a shortage of IP addresses to assign or is there more a lack of services to run on these IP addresses? Also, wouldn?t the effort and expense to move to v6 In Africa, be better used, if spent on harnessing WiMax? rolling out fibre where possible? I creasing Wifi coverage? rolling out DSL/VDSL/xDSL? Increasing peering points? creating alternatives to the current under sea cable transits (and reduce reliance on ACE, etc)? > With the relatively small penetration of broadband in Africa, should not efforts be spent addressing broadband penetration rates and access to information, rather than ?keeping up with the Jones? and rolling out technology for the sake of technology? > > In Europe, I am only aware of France?s Free who have a full native IPv6 deployment, all other providers are managing to provide services without too big an IPv6 footprint. In the Americas, I believe a number of educational institutions have native v6, and most Sps can probably provide it. My contention, IPv6 rollouts globally have been quite low speed and that is probably because there are other priorities for the Service providers. > > So major challenges to enabling services on v6, I guess the demand for such services, is probably going to be a major factor.If there is no demand or minimal demand, and a current working system exists, why waste time on it? > Just my 2 cents. > > .......................................... > Best Regards, > Malick Sy > Sr. Network Engineer > > Swisscom (Switzerland) Ltd. > Hospitality Services > 2, chemin du Pavillon > Case Postale 2200 > CH-1211 Gen?ve 2 > > > Desk Phone:+41 227 407 585 > Cellular Phone:+ 41 794 426 765 > Fax Number: +41 227 740 7542 > Internet: www.swisscom.com/hospitality > ............................................ > This message contains confidential or privileged information and is intended solely for the use of the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. > If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you must not use, copy, disclose, forward or take any action based on this message or information herein. If you have received this message by error, please advise the sender immediately and delete this message. > > > > > > On 28/10/2014 07:18, "Mark Tinka" > wrote: > > >On Tuesday, October 28, 2014 07:05:33 AM Andrew Alston > >wrote: > > > >> That challenge also prevents a > >> lot of providers from actually putting in the effort (and sometimes > >> expense) of rolling IPv6 all the way to the edge with a lack of > >> demand. Its kinda a chicken and egg situation for many, no IPv6 at > >> the edge decreases the number of people running IPv6, we decreases > >> the demand for IPv6, which decreases the motivation to roll > >> IPv6 to the edge. > > > >I'm still reasonably disappointed in the lack of drive from retail > >providers to offer IPv6 to their customers, i.e., the > >broadband/consumer space. > > > >Granted, it is a lot more challenging to deliver IPv6 to large scale > >consumers (more so in Africa, where a lot of consumers are running data > >off the mobile networks). > > > >But I think that deployment of IPv6 toward end customers in a manner > >where they do not have to directly participate in the process is where > >we shall see the most gains. > > > >The old mantra still holds true - users don't care, as long as it > >works. > > > >Mark. > > > DISCLAIMER: This email contains proprietary information some or all of which may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this email, please notify the author by replying to this email. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose, copy, print, or rely on this email. We cannot accept liability for any statements made which are clearly the sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of this company or one of its agents. > > > _______________________________________________ > afnog mailing list > http://afnog.org/mailman/listinfo/afnog > > > DISCLAIMER: This email contains proprietary information some or all of which may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this email, please notify the author by replying to this email. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose, copy, print, or rely on this email. We cannot accept liability for any statements made which are clearly the sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of this company or one of its agents. > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From owen at delong.com Tue Oct 28 23:04:18 2014 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 16:04:18 -0700 Subject: [rpd] Policy ID format In-Reply-To: <20141028134157.GB1184@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> References: <20141028134157.GB1184@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> Message-ID: <908150F5-6335-4F55-8EC7-0808155DCC84@delong.com> > On Oct 28, 2014, at 6:41 AM, Alan Barrett wrote: > > On Mon, 27 Oct 2014, Adam Nelson wrote: >> After much deliberation, we have come to agree on the following format for >> all future policy proposals (where YYYY is the year, NNN is an incremental >> number starting at 1 at the beginning of each year, and VVV is the version >> of the proposal): >> >> afYYYY-NNN-vVVV >> >> For example, the 2nd draft of the 3rd proposal of next year would be: >> >> af2015-3-v2 >> >> If the above policy proposal were to be finalized, the version would then >> be dropped: >> >> af2015-3 > > Thank you! I have been asking for this for several years. > > Please also make the URLs reasonably short, like > http[s]://afrinic.net/policy/, possibly with a language code > like "en" or "fr" between "afrinic.net" and "policy?. It would also be nice if the URL without a version number would retrieve the current version, but all prior versions were accessible by version, so, for example, if v4 was the most recent version of 2014-8, a URL of http://afrinic.net/policy/draft/2014-8 would get af2014-8-v4. I think that it is desirable to separate ?/policy/ which should contain only adopted policies from ?/policy/draft/ which should contain policies which are under development or history of policies which were adopted or abandoned. Obviously, each policy page should include a current state of the policy (Adopted/Abandoned/Under Discussion) I realize that the addition of a /draft/ level to the hierarchy is contrary to Alan?s request for short URLs, but I think it is a small amount of additional typing and that it is important to make it easy to distinguish drafts from policies. Owen -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kofi.ansa at inet.com.gh Wed Oct 29 03:05:35 2014 From: kofi.ansa at inet.com.gh (Kofi Ansa Akufo) Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 03:05:35 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [rpd] [afnog] What are the major challenges in enabling Services to run on IPv6? In-Reply-To: <702611608.2025.1414551889323.JavaMail.zimbra@inet.com.gh> References: <201410280818.29636.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> <7FF93785BD2D534EA45841A8AAA1D89B51324DD5A4@liquid-exch.liquidtelecom.local> <7FF93785BD2D534EA45841A8AAA1D89B51324DD5D6@liquid-exch.liquidtelecom.local> Message-ID: <568935774.2029.1414551935832.JavaMail.zimbra@inet.com.gh> And Owen whats this suppose to mean? Showing off your macbook and cli dexterity huh? Andrew has admitted they lagging behind in dns .... with all seriousness LiquidTelecom is really doing a great work in our region. cheers From: "Owen DeLong" To: "Andrew Alston" Cc: "Malick Sy" , "rpd" , "afnog" Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2014 2:58:32 AM Subject: Re: [rpd] [afnog] What are the major challenges in enabling Services to run on IPv6? Really? Owens-MacBook-Pro:vr-delegations owendelong$ host www.liquidtelecom.com www.liquidtelecom.com is an alias for liquidtelecom.com . liquidtelecom.com has address 185.25.211.28 liquidtelecom.com mail is handled by 20 mx1.liquidtelecom.com . liquidtelecom.com mail is handled by 20 mx2.liquidtelecom.com . Owens-MacBook-Pro:vr-delegations owendelong$ dig -t AAAA www.liquidtelecom.com ; <<>> DiG 9.8.3-P1 <<>> -t AAAA www.liquidtelecom.com ;; global options: +cmd ;; Got answer: ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 29862 ;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 1, AUTHORITY: 1, ADDITIONAL: 0 ;; QUESTION SECTION: ; www.liquidtelecom.com . IN AAAA ;; ANSWER SECTION: www.liquidtelecom.com . 86400 IN CNAME liquidtelecom.com . ;; AUTHORITY SECTION: liquidtelecom.com . 10784 IN SOA ns1.worldstream.com . ben\. roberts.liquidtelecom.com . 2014101400 10800 3600 604800 10800 ;; Query time: 163 msec ;; SERVER: 4.2.2.2#53(4.2.2.2) ;; WHEN: Tue Oct 28 15:58:10 2014 ;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 117 Owen On Oct 28, 2014, at 4:55 AM, Andrew Alston < Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com > wrote: Kofi * grin * I have no problem with you picking on me, I can handle it. The current state of V6 on our network goes well beyond our core. We are V6 enabled all the way to the edge and are in a position to offer V6 services to all of our clients at any point in our network. It is true that the DNS has lagged behind and that will be rectified shortly, but I still believe it?s better to be a position to provide V6 native service than to have a few servers running v6 J Andrew From: Kofi ANSA AKUFO [ mailto:kofi.ansa at gmail.com ] Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2014 2:37 PM To: Andrew Alston Cc: Malick.Sy at swisscom.com ; mark.tinka at seacom.mu ; rpd at afrinic.net ; afnog at afnog.org Subject: Re: [afnog] What are the major challenges in enabling Services to run on IPv6? Hi Andrew On 28 October 2014 14:53, Andrew Alston < Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com > wrote: BQ_BEGIN Hi Malick, This is kind of a short sighted view in my opinion. Why you ask? Because the rest of the world has to go V6 and V6 doesn't talk to V4, unless you want to take a huge step backwards and start running translation mechanisms and other dodgy kludges which will further degrade the African internet experience. Money is being spent on fiber, wimax and all the other things you mention, in vast quantities. Infact I would hazard a guess that the investment levels into African infrastructure at the moment are probably outstripping what is being spent upgrading systems in other more developed parts of the world. That should not stop us trying to get to a point where the internet in Africa has parity with the rest of the world, and parity means we get the V6 in or risk being left behind when the rest of the world goes that way (as they have to do, since there is no more v4). I thought you mentioned you are dual stack ready or that does not include your TLD - liquidtelecom.com a quick check here seems to be contrary - http://ip6.nl/#!liquidtelecom.com I know you make have enabled service on your core network -- just picking on you :) BQ_BEGIN Further to this, it is far cheaper to implement V6 as the infrastructure is expanded than have to go back and retrofit, if we don't do it now, we'll be facing a HUGE bill later when we're forced to do it anyway Andrew -----Original Message----- From: Malick.Sy at swisscom.com [mailto: Malick.Sy at swisscom.com ] Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2014 1:21 PM To: mark.tinka at seacom.mu ; Andrew Alston Cc: rpd at afrinic.net ; afnog at afnog.org Subject: Re: [afnog] What are the major challenges in enabling Services to run on IPv6? Hi, I was wondering, what good business need is there to push IPv6 to the network edge, specifically in Africa? What would be the direct benefit to the customer or the service provider, of investing in configuring, deploying and migrating to v6. V4 address depletion is a reality, but in the Africa region, is there really a shortage of IP addresses to assign or is there more a lack of services to run on these IP addresses? Also, wouldn?t the effort and expense to move to v6 In Africa, be better used, if spent on harnessing WiMax? rolling out fibre where possible? I creasing Wifi coverage? rolling out DSL/VDSL/xDSL? Increasing peering points? creating alternatives to the current under sea cable transits (and reduce reliance on ACE, etc)? With the relatively small penetration of broadband in Africa, should not efforts be spent addressing broadband penetration rates and access to information, rather than ?keeping up with the Jones? and rolling out technology for the sake of technology? In Europe, I am only aware of France?s Free who have a full native IPv6 deployment, all other providers are managing to provide services without too big an IPv6 footprint. In the Americas, I believe a number of educational institutions have native v6, and most Sps can probably provide it. My contention, IPv6 rollouts globally have been quite low speed and that is probably because there are other priorities for the Service providers. So major challenges to enabling services on v6, I guess the demand for such services, is probably going to be a major factor.If there is no demand or minimal demand, and a current working system exists, why waste time on it? Just my 2 cents. .......................................... Best Regards, Malick Sy Sr. Network Engineer Swisscom (Switzerland) Ltd. Hospitality Services 2, chemin du Pavillon Case Postale 2200 CH-1211 Gen?ve 2 Desk Phone:+41 227 407 585 Cellular Phone:+ 41 794 426 765 Fax Number: +41 227 740 7542 Internet: www.swisscom.com/hospitality ............................................ This message contains confidential or privileged information and is intended solely for the use of the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you must not use, copy, disclose, forward or take any action based on this message or information herein. If you have received this message by error, please advise the sender immediately and delete this message. On 28/10/2014 07:18, "Mark Tinka" < mark.tinka at seacom.mu > wrote: >On Tuesday, October 28, 2014 07:05:33 AM Andrew Alston >wrote: > >> That challenge also prevents a >> lot of providers from actually putting in the effort (and sometimes >> expense) of rolling IPv6 all the way to the edge with a lack of >> demand. Its kinda a chicken and egg situation for many, no IPv6 at >> the edge decreases the number of people running IPv6, we decreases >> the demand for IPv6, which decreases the motivation to roll >> IPv6 to the edge. > >I'm still reasonably disappointed in the lack of drive from retail >providers to offer IPv6 to their customers, i.e., the >broadband/consumer space. > >Granted, it is a lot more challenging to deliver IPv6 to large scale >consumers (more so in Africa, where a lot of consumers are running data >off the mobile networks). > >But I think that deployment of IPv6 toward end customers in a manner >where they do not have to directly participate in the process is where >we shall see the most gains. > >The old mantra still holds true - users don't care, as long as it >works. > >Mark. DISCLAIMER: This email contains proprietary information some or all of which may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this email, please notify the author by replying to this email. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose, copy, print, or rely on this email. We cannot accept liability for any statements made which are clearly the sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of this company or one of its agents. _______________________________________________ afnog mailing list http://afnog.org/mailman/listinfo/afnog BQ_END DISCLAIMER: This email contains proprietary information some or all of which may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this email, please notify the author by replying to this email. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose, copy, print, or rely on this email. We cannot accept liability for any statements made which are clearly the sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of this company or one of its agents. _______________________________________________ rpd mailing list rpd at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd BQ_END _______________________________________________ rpd mailing list rpd at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From adam at varud.com Wed Oct 29 08:26:41 2014 From: adam at varud.com (Adam Nelson) Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 11:26:41 +0300 Subject: [rpd] Policy ID format In-Reply-To: <908150F5-6335-4F55-8EC7-0808155DCC84@delong.com> References: <20141028134157.GB1184@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> <908150F5-6335-4F55-8EC7-0808155DCC84@delong.com> Message-ID: > > After much deliberation, we have come to agree on the following format for > all future policy proposals (where YYYY is the year, NNN is an incremental > number starting at 1 at the beginning of each year, and VVV is the version > of the proposal): > > afYYYY-NNN-vVVV > > For example, the 2nd draft of the 3rd proposal of next year would be: > > af2015-3-v2 > > If the above policy proposal were to be finalized, the version would then > be dropped: > > af2015-3 > > > Thank you! I have been asking for this for several years. > > Please also make the URLs reasonably short, like > http[s]://afrinic.net/policy/, possibly with a language code > like "en" or "fr" between "afrinic.net" and "policy?. > > > It would also be nice if the URL without a version number would retrieve > the current version, but all prior versions were accessible by version, so, > for example, if v4 was the most recent version of 2014-8, a URL of > http://afrinic.net/policy/draft/2014-8 would get af2014-8-v4. > > I think that it is desirable to separate ?/policy/ which should > contain only adopted policies from ?/policy/draft/ which should > contain policies which are under development or history of policies which > were adopted or abandoned. Obviously, each policy page should include a > current state of the policy (Adopted/Abandoned/Under Discussion) > > I realize that the addition of a /draft/ level to the hierarchy is > contrary to Alan?s request for short URLs, but I think it is a small amount > of additional typing and that it is important to make it easy to > distinguish drafts from policies. > > This seems like a few requests: 1. Fix SSL (https://afrinic.net is using outdated crypto - I noticed this when I tried the https url given by Alan) 2. Move the site to HTTPS only (I threw this in but it's really the way it should be - even for public resources) 3. Migrate https://afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposals/{{ID_STRING}} to https://afrinic.net/en/policy/{{ID_STRING}} (We'll have to see what can be done here) 4. Handle https://afrinic.net/en/policy/{{ID_STRING}} where the policy is a draft and return the latest version 5. Update to the new ID 6. Migrate the old IDs to the new IDs 7. Note in the old policies what the old ID was Are there any more comments? The first two items are out of the scope of this request but I'll forward them to the secretariat so that they can be addressed. -Adam -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From geier at geier.ne.tz Wed Oct 29 14:01:37 2014 From: geier at geier.ne.tz (Frank Habicht) Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 17:01:37 +0300 Subject: [rpd] proposed policy: reservation of resources for IXPs Message-ID: <5450F341.3070005@geier.ne.tz> Hello all, please find this proposed policy, which we (3 co-authors) have submitted to the pdpwg last week: Resource Reservation for Internet Exchange Points Author(s): a) Frank Habicht, Tanzania Internet Exchange b) Michuki Mwangi, Internet Society/KIXP c) Nishal Goburdhan, Packet Clearing House/JINX 1) Summary of the Problem being addressed by this proposal This policy reserves IPv4 and 2-byte ASNs resources for public Internet Exchange Points (IXPs) in the African region, ensuring that there would be discrete IPv4 resources to allow the establishment and growth of future IXPs. 2) Summary of How this Proposal Addresses the Problem This policy requests AfriNIC to reserve, and publish IPv4 resources, and 2-byte ASNs for use by IXPs only. 3) Proposal 3.1 Introduction It is widely considered that Internet Exchange Points (IXPs) are one of the critical elements needed for Internet economies to develop. Africa is still in the process of developing these, and is, at the same time, faced with the imminent exhaustion of its IPv4 resources. Not having IPv4 addresses to grow, or start new, IXPs would create unnecessary and unneeded routing complexity for Internet connected networks, looking to peer at IXPs to further their network scope. AfriNIC already has an existing policy to make allocations to IXPs [1], but that policy does not specifically reserve IPV4 space to ensure that there will be such, for future IXPs to grow and develop. Additionally, this policy reserves a set of 2-byte ASNs for use by IXPs for use at IXP BGP Route Servers. 3.2 Distinction between IXP peering and management networks We distinguish between two kinds of IP address resources needed and used at IXPs. An IXP peering LAN is the contiguous network address block that the IXP would use to assign unique IP addresses to each peering member, for each peering participant to exchange network traffic across the shared peering infrastructure. Best practice has the IXP peering LAN *not* being visible in a view of the global routing table, among other things to reduce the attack vectors for ISP border routers via the IXP. >From a network identification, monitoring and analysis perspective, it is thus desirable, that the "peering LAN" space be provided from a contiguous block. The IXP management LAN is the management network that the IXP uses to provision services at the IXP, like monitoring, statistics, mail, ticket systems, provisioning of transit to DNS Roots, etc. Management networks, are meant to be reachable globally, for instance to publish data and allow remote access for common good network infrastructure (such as root and TLD DNS servers) and research projects. 3.3 BGP Route Servers use Typically IXPs use BGP route servers to help manage peering sessions between different participants. The route servers implement IXP routing policy in the form of BGP communities, typically in the form of A:B, where A,B represent A=IXP BGP route server and B=participant ASN. Current BGP implementations utilise 6 bytes for the extended community attribute [RFC5668]. Therefore, an IXP with a 4-byte ASN in use at its route server would not be able to successfully implement the A:B BGP community mapping, if an IXP participant has a 4-byte ASN. This situation is likely to be experienced by more IXPs, as additional 4-byte ASNs are allocated through the current AfriNIC process. If, IXP route server communities include the IXP ASN and the peer's ASN (expected to be 4-byte), and a total of only 6 bytes are available, it follows that IXP route servers ASN could not be longer than a 2-byte ASN. 3.4 Proposal To ensure that there are sufficient resources for IXPs to develop, this policy proposes that AfriNIC reserve IPv4 addresses for IXP peering LANs out of an address block marked particularly, and exclusively, for IXP peering LAN use. Assignments for IXP peering LANs must be from one dedicated block, published as such by AfriNIC. Assignments for IXP management addresses should NOT be provided from the same block as the IXP peering LANs. It is proposed that a /16 block be reserved for future requirements for IXP peering LANs in the AfriNIC service region, and that AfriNIC publish this block as such. It is further proposed to reserve the equivalent of an additional /16 block for IXP management prefixes, separate from the peering LANs. It is proposed that AfriNIC reserves a block of 2-byte ASNs for use in BGP route servers at IXPs in the AfriNIC service region. The number of ASNs to be reserved should be the larger of 114, or half of the remaining 2-byte ASNs within AfriNIC's block at the date of ratification of this policy. AfriNIC will allocate these resources on a first come first served basis. 3.5 Evaluation criteria This policy does not suggest new evaluation criteria for what determines a valid IXP. 4.0 References [1] AfriNIC Policy for End User Assignments - AFPUB-2006-GEN-001 http://afrinic.net/en/library/policies/127-afpub-2006-gen-001 Sections 5) and 6) Note: proposal also available at http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposals/1231-resource-reservation-for-internet-exchange-points Regards, Frank From dogwallah at gmail.com Wed Oct 29 14:31:06 2014 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 09:31:06 -0500 Subject: [rpd] proposed policy: reservation of resources for IXPs In-Reply-To: <5450F341.3070005@geier.ne.tz> References: <5450F341.3070005@geier.ne.tz> Message-ID: I support this proposal. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 9:01 AM, Frank Habicht wrote: > Hello all, > > please find this proposed policy, which we (3 co-authors) have submitted to > the pdpwg last week: > > Resource Reservation for Internet Exchange Points > > Author(s): > a) Frank Habicht, Tanzania Internet Exchange > b) Michuki Mwangi, Internet Society/KIXP > c) Nishal Goburdhan, Packet Clearing House/JINX > > 1) Summary of the Problem being addressed by this proposal > > This policy reserves IPv4 and 2-byte ASNs resources for public Internet > Exchange Points (IXPs) in the African region, ensuring that there would be > discrete IPv4 resources to allow the establishment and growth of future IXPs. > > > 2) Summary of How this Proposal Addresses the Problem > > This policy requests AfriNIC to reserve, and publish IPv4 resources, and > 2-byte ASNs for use by IXPs only. > > > 3) Proposal > > 3.1 Introduction > > It is widely considered that Internet Exchange Points (IXPs) are one of the > critical elements needed for Internet economies to develop. Africa is still > in the process of developing these, and is, at the same time, faced with > the imminent exhaustion of its IPv4 resources. Not having IPv4 addresses to > grow, or start new, IXPs would create unnecessary and unneeded routing > complexity for Internet connected networks, looking to peer at IXPs to > further their network scope. AfriNIC already has an existing policy to make > allocations to IXPs [1], but that policy does not specifically reserve IPV4 > space to ensure that there will be such, for future IXPs to grow and > develop. Additionally, this policy reserves a set of 2-byte ASNs for use by > IXPs for use at IXP BGP Route Servers. > > > 3.2 Distinction between IXP peering and management networks > > We distinguish between two kinds of IP address resources needed and used at > IXPs. An IXP peering LAN is the contiguous network address block that the > IXP would use to assign unique IP addresses to each peering member, for > each peering participant to exchange network traffic across the shared > peering infrastructure. Best practice has the IXP peering LAN *not* being > visible in a view of the global routing table, among other things to reduce > the attack vectors for ISP border routers via the IXP. > > >From a network identification, monitoring and analysis perspective, it is > thus desirable, that the "peering LAN" space be provided from a contiguous > block. The IXP management LAN is the management network that the IXP uses > to provision services at the IXP, like monitoring, statistics, mail, ticket > systems, provisioning of transit to DNS Roots, etc. > > Management networks, are meant to be reachable globally, for instance to > publish data and allow remote access for common good network infrastructure > (such as root and TLD DNS servers) and research projects. > > > 3.3 BGP Route Servers use > > Typically IXPs use BGP route servers to help manage peering sessions > between different participants. The route servers implement IXP routing > policy in the form of BGP communities, typically in the form of A:B, where > A,B represent A=IXP BGP route server and B=participant ASN. Current BGP > implementations utilise 6 bytes for the extended community attribute > [RFC5668]. Therefore, an IXP with a 4-byte ASN in use at its route server > would not be able to successfully implement the A:B BGP community mapping, > if an IXP participant has a 4-byte ASN. This situation is likely to be > experienced by more IXPs, as additional 4-byte ASNs are allocated through > the current AfriNIC process. > > If, IXP route server communities include the IXP ASN and the peer's ASN > (expected to be 4-byte), and a total of only 6 bytes are available, it > follows that IXP route servers ASN could not be longer than a 2-byte ASN. > > > 3.4 Proposal > > To ensure that there are sufficient resources for IXPs to develop, this > policy proposes that AfriNIC reserve IPv4 addresses for IXP peering LANs > out of an address block marked particularly, and exclusively, for IXP > peering LAN use. Assignments for IXP peering LANs must be from one > dedicated block, published as such by AfriNIC. Assignments for IXP > management addresses should NOT be provided from the same block as the IXP > peering LANs. > > It is proposed that a /16 block be reserved for future requirements for IXP > peering LANs in the AfriNIC service region, and that AfriNIC publish this > block as such. > > It is further proposed to reserve the equivalent of an additional /16 block > for IXP management prefixes, separate from the peering LANs. It is proposed > that AfriNIC reserves a block of 2-byte ASNs for use in BGP route servers > at IXPs in the AfriNIC service region. > > The number of ASNs to be reserved should be the larger of 114, or half of > the remaining 2-byte ASNs within AfriNIC's block at the date of > ratification of this policy. > > AfriNIC will allocate these resources on a first come first served basis. > > > 3.5 Evaluation criteria > > This policy does not suggest new evaluation criteria for what determines a > valid IXP. > > > 4.0 References > > [1] AfriNIC Policy for End User Assignments - AFPUB-2006-GEN-001 > http://afrinic.net/en/library/policies/127-afpub-2006-gen-001 Sections 5) > and 6) > > > > > Note: proposal also available at > http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposals/1231-resource-reservation-for-internet-exchange-points > > > Regards, > Frank > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd From jacksonmuthi at gmail.com Wed Oct 29 14:49:16 2014 From: jacksonmuthi at gmail.com (Jackson Muthili) Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 17:49:16 +0300 Subject: [rpd] proposed policy: reservation of resources for IXPs In-Reply-To: References: <5450F341.3070005@geier.ne.tz> Message-ID: +1 On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 5:31 PM, McTim wrote: > I support this proposal. > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A > route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > > On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 9:01 AM, Frank Habicht wrote: >> Hello all, >> >> please find this proposed policy, which we (3 co-authors) have submitted to >> the pdpwg last week: >> >> Resource Reservation for Internet Exchange Points >> >> Author(s): >> a) Frank Habicht, Tanzania Internet Exchange >> b) Michuki Mwangi, Internet Society/KIXP >> c) Nishal Goburdhan, Packet Clearing House/JINX >> >> 1) Summary of the Problem being addressed by this proposal >> >> This policy reserves IPv4 and 2-byte ASNs resources for public Internet >> Exchange Points (IXPs) in the African region, ensuring that there would be >> discrete IPv4 resources to allow the establishment and growth of future IXPs. >> >> >> 2) Summary of How this Proposal Addresses the Problem >> >> This policy requests AfriNIC to reserve, and publish IPv4 resources, and >> 2-byte ASNs for use by IXPs only. >> >> >> 3) Proposal >> >> 3.1 Introduction >> >> It is widely considered that Internet Exchange Points (IXPs) are one of the >> critical elements needed for Internet economies to develop. Africa is still >> in the process of developing these, and is, at the same time, faced with >> the imminent exhaustion of its IPv4 resources. Not having IPv4 addresses to >> grow, or start new, IXPs would create unnecessary and unneeded routing >> complexity for Internet connected networks, looking to peer at IXPs to >> further their network scope. AfriNIC already has an existing policy to make >> allocations to IXPs [1], but that policy does not specifically reserve IPV4 >> space to ensure that there will be such, for future IXPs to grow and >> develop. Additionally, this policy reserves a set of 2-byte ASNs for use by >> IXPs for use at IXP BGP Route Servers. >> >> >> 3.2 Distinction between IXP peering and management networks >> >> We distinguish between two kinds of IP address resources needed and used at >> IXPs. An IXP peering LAN is the contiguous network address block that the >> IXP would use to assign unique IP addresses to each peering member, for >> each peering participant to exchange network traffic across the shared >> peering infrastructure. Best practice has the IXP peering LAN *not* being >> visible in a view of the global routing table, among other things to reduce >> the attack vectors for ISP border routers via the IXP. >> >> >From a network identification, monitoring and analysis perspective, it is >> thus desirable, that the "peering LAN" space be provided from a contiguous >> block. The IXP management LAN is the management network that the IXP uses >> to provision services at the IXP, like monitoring, statistics, mail, ticket >> systems, provisioning of transit to DNS Roots, etc. >> >> Management networks, are meant to be reachable globally, for instance to >> publish data and allow remote access for common good network infrastructure >> (such as root and TLD DNS servers) and research projects. >> >> >> 3.3 BGP Route Servers use >> >> Typically IXPs use BGP route servers to help manage peering sessions >> between different participants. The route servers implement IXP routing >> policy in the form of BGP communities, typically in the form of A:B, where >> A,B represent A=IXP BGP route server and B=participant ASN. Current BGP >> implementations utilise 6 bytes for the extended community attribute >> [RFC5668]. Therefore, an IXP with a 4-byte ASN in use at its route server >> would not be able to successfully implement the A:B BGP community mapping, >> if an IXP participant has a 4-byte ASN. This situation is likely to be >> experienced by more IXPs, as additional 4-byte ASNs are allocated through >> the current AfriNIC process. >> >> If, IXP route server communities include the IXP ASN and the peer's ASN >> (expected to be 4-byte), and a total of only 6 bytes are available, it >> follows that IXP route servers ASN could not be longer than a 2-byte ASN. >> >> >> 3.4 Proposal >> >> To ensure that there are sufficient resources for IXPs to develop, this >> policy proposes that AfriNIC reserve IPv4 addresses for IXP peering LANs >> out of an address block marked particularly, and exclusively, for IXP >> peering LAN use. Assignments for IXP peering LANs must be from one >> dedicated block, published as such by AfriNIC. Assignments for IXP >> management addresses should NOT be provided from the same block as the IXP >> peering LANs. >> >> It is proposed that a /16 block be reserved for future requirements for IXP >> peering LANs in the AfriNIC service region, and that AfriNIC publish this >> block as such. >> >> It is further proposed to reserve the equivalent of an additional /16 block >> for IXP management prefixes, separate from the peering LANs. It is proposed >> that AfriNIC reserves a block of 2-byte ASNs for use in BGP route servers >> at IXPs in the AfriNIC service region. >> >> The number of ASNs to be reserved should be the larger of 114, or half of >> the remaining 2-byte ASNs within AfriNIC's block at the date of >> ratification of this policy. >> >> AfriNIC will allocate these resources on a first come first served basis. >> >> >> 3.5 Evaluation criteria >> >> This policy does not suggest new evaluation criteria for what determines a >> valid IXP. >> >> >> 4.0 References >> >> [1] AfriNIC Policy for End User Assignments - AFPUB-2006-GEN-001 >> http://afrinic.net/en/library/policies/127-afpub-2006-gen-001 Sections 5) >> and 6) >> >> >> >> >> Note: proposal also available at >> http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposals/1231-resource-reservation-for-internet-exchange-points >> >> >> Regards, >> Frank >> _______________________________________________ >> rpd mailing list >> rpd at afrinic.net >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd From badru.ntege at nftconsult.com Wed Oct 29 14:56:03 2014 From: badru.ntege at nftconsult.com (Badru Ntege) Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 14:56:03 +0000 Subject: [rpd] proposed policy: reservation of resources for IXPs In-Reply-To: <5450F341.3070005@geier.ne.tz> References: <5450F341.3070005@geier.ne.tz> Message-ID: I support this proposal On 10/29/14, 5:01 PM, "Frank Habicht" wrote: >Hello all, > >please find this proposed policy, which we (3 co-authors) have submitted >to >the pdpwg last week: > >Resource Reservation for Internet Exchange Points > >Author(s): >a) Frank Habicht, Tanzania Internet Exchange >b) Michuki Mwangi, Internet Society/KIXP >c) Nishal Goburdhan, Packet Clearing House/JINX > >1) Summary of the Problem being addressed by this proposal > >This policy reserves IPv4 and 2-byte ASNs resources for public Internet >Exchange Points (IXPs) in the African region, ensuring that there would be >discrete IPv4 resources to allow the establishment and growth of future >IXPs. > > >2) Summary of How this Proposal Addresses the Problem > >This policy requests AfriNIC to reserve, and publish IPv4 resources, and >2-byte ASNs for use by IXPs only. > > >3) Proposal > >3.1 Introduction > >It is widely considered that Internet Exchange Points (IXPs) are one of >the >critical elements needed for Internet economies to develop. Africa is >still >in the process of developing these, and is, at the same time, faced with >the imminent exhaustion of its IPv4 resources. Not having IPv4 addresses >to >grow, or start new, IXPs would create unnecessary and unneeded routing >complexity for Internet connected networks, looking to peer at IXPs to >further their network scope. AfriNIC already has an existing policy to >make >allocations to IXPs [1], but that policy does not specifically reserve >IPV4 >space to ensure that there will be such, for future IXPs to grow and >develop. Additionally, this policy reserves a set of 2-byte ASNs for use >by >IXPs for use at IXP BGP Route Servers. > > >3.2 Distinction between IXP peering and management networks > >We distinguish between two kinds of IP address resources needed and used >at >IXPs. An IXP peering LAN is the contiguous network address block that the >IXP would use to assign unique IP addresses to each peering member, for >each peering participant to exchange network traffic across the shared >peering infrastructure. Best practice has the IXP peering LAN *not* being >visible in a view of the global routing table, among other things to >reduce >the attack vectors for ISP border routers via the IXP. > >>From a network identification, monitoring and analysis perspective, it is >thus desirable, that the "peering LAN" space be provided from a contiguous >block. The IXP management LAN is the management network that the IXP uses >to provision services at the IXP, like monitoring, statistics, mail, >ticket >systems, provisioning of transit to DNS Roots, etc. > >Management networks, are meant to be reachable globally, for instance to >publish data and allow remote access for common good network >infrastructure >(such as root and TLD DNS servers) and research projects. > > >3.3 BGP Route Servers use > >Typically IXPs use BGP route servers to help manage peering sessions >between different participants. The route servers implement IXP routing >policy in the form of BGP communities, typically in the form of A:B, where >A,B represent A=IXP BGP route server and B=participant ASN. Current BGP >implementations utilise 6 bytes for the extended community attribute >[RFC5668]. Therefore, an IXP with a 4-byte ASN in use at its route server >would not be able to successfully implement the A:B BGP community mapping, >if an IXP participant has a 4-byte ASN. This situation is likely to be >experienced by more IXPs, as additional 4-byte ASNs are allocated through >the current AfriNIC process. > >If, IXP route server communities include the IXP ASN and the peer's ASN >(expected to be 4-byte), and a total of only 6 bytes are available, it >follows that IXP route servers ASN could not be longer than a 2-byte ASN. > > >3.4 Proposal > >To ensure that there are sufficient resources for IXPs to develop, this >policy proposes that AfriNIC reserve IPv4 addresses for IXP peering LANs >out of an address block marked particularly, and exclusively, for IXP >peering LAN use. Assignments for IXP peering LANs must be from one >dedicated block, published as such by AfriNIC. Assignments for IXP >management addresses should NOT be provided from the same block as the IXP >peering LANs. > >It is proposed that a /16 block be reserved for future requirements for >IXP >peering LANs in the AfriNIC service region, and that AfriNIC publish this >block as such. > >It is further proposed to reserve the equivalent of an additional /16 >block >for IXP management prefixes, separate from the peering LANs. It is >proposed >that AfriNIC reserves a block of 2-byte ASNs for use in BGP route servers >at IXPs in the AfriNIC service region. > >The number of ASNs to be reserved should be the larger of 114, or half of >the remaining 2-byte ASNs within AfriNIC's block at the date of >ratification of this policy. > >AfriNIC will allocate these resources on a first come first served basis. > > >3.5 Evaluation criteria > >This policy does not suggest new evaluation criteria for what determines a >valid IXP. > > >4.0 References > >[1] AfriNIC Policy for End User Assignments - AFPUB-2006-GEN-001 >http://afrinic.net/en/library/policies/127-afpub-2006-gen-001 Sections 5) >and 6) > > > > >Note: proposal also available at >http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposals/12 >31-resource-reservation-for-internet-exchange-points > > >Regards, >Frank >_______________________________________________ >rpd mailing list >rpd at afrinic.net >https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd From mainanoa at gmail.com Wed Oct 29 15:02:59 2014 From: mainanoa at gmail.com (Noah Maina) Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 18:02:59 +0300 Subject: [rpd] proposed policy: reservation of resources for IXPs In-Reply-To: <5450F341.3070005@geier.ne.tz> References: <5450F341.3070005@geier.ne.tz> Message-ID: +++1 i am fully behind this one. Cheers Noah On 29 Oct 2014 17:07, "Frank Habicht" wrote: > Hello all, > > please find this proposed policy, which we (3 co-authors) have submitted to > the pdpwg last week: > > Resource Reservation for Internet Exchange Points > > Author(s): > a) Frank Habicht, Tanzania Internet Exchange > b) Michuki Mwangi, Internet Society/KIXP > c) Nishal Goburdhan, Packet Clearing House/JINX > > 1) Summary of the Problem being addressed by this proposal > > This policy reserves IPv4 and 2-byte ASNs resources for public Internet > Exchange Points (IXPs) in the African region, ensuring that there would be > discrete IPv4 resources to allow the establishment and growth of future > IXPs. > > > 2) Summary of How this Proposal Addresses the Problem > > This policy requests AfriNIC to reserve, and publish IPv4 resources, and > 2-byte ASNs for use by IXPs only. > > > 3) Proposal > > 3.1 Introduction > > It is widely considered that Internet Exchange Points (IXPs) are one of the > critical elements needed for Internet economies to develop. Africa is still > in the process of developing these, and is, at the same time, faced with > the imminent exhaustion of its IPv4 resources. Not having IPv4 addresses to > grow, or start new, IXPs would create unnecessary and unneeded routing > complexity for Internet connected networks, looking to peer at IXPs to > further their network scope. AfriNIC already has an existing policy to make > allocations to IXPs [1], but that policy does not specifically reserve IPV4 > space to ensure that there will be such, for future IXPs to grow and > develop. Additionally, this policy reserves a set of 2-byte ASNs for use by > IXPs for use at IXP BGP Route Servers. > > > 3.2 Distinction between IXP peering and management networks > > We distinguish between two kinds of IP address resources needed and used at > IXPs. An IXP peering LAN is the contiguous network address block that the > IXP would use to assign unique IP addresses to each peering member, for > each peering participant to exchange network traffic across the shared > peering infrastructure. Best practice has the IXP peering LAN *not* being > visible in a view of the global routing table, among other things to reduce > the attack vectors for ISP border routers via the IXP. > > >From a network identification, monitoring and analysis perspective, it is > thus desirable, that the "peering LAN" space be provided from a contiguous > block. The IXP management LAN is the management network that the IXP uses > to provision services at the IXP, like monitoring, statistics, mail, ticket > systems, provisioning of transit to DNS Roots, etc. > > Management networks, are meant to be reachable globally, for instance to > publish data and allow remote access for common good network infrastructure > (such as root and TLD DNS servers) and research projects. > > > 3.3 BGP Route Servers use > > Typically IXPs use BGP route servers to help manage peering sessions > between different participants. The route servers implement IXP routing > policy in the form of BGP communities, typically in the form of A:B, where > A,B represent A=IXP BGP route server and B=participant ASN. Current BGP > implementations utilise 6 bytes for the extended community attribute > [RFC5668]. Therefore, an IXP with a 4-byte ASN in use at its route server > would not be able to successfully implement the A:B BGP community mapping, > if an IXP participant has a 4-byte ASN. This situation is likely to be > experienced by more IXPs, as additional 4-byte ASNs are allocated through > the current AfriNIC process. > > If, IXP route server communities include the IXP ASN and the peer's ASN > (expected to be 4-byte), and a total of only 6 bytes are available, it > follows that IXP route servers ASN could not be longer than a 2-byte ASN. > > > 3.4 Proposal > > To ensure that there are sufficient resources for IXPs to develop, this > policy proposes that AfriNIC reserve IPv4 addresses for IXP peering LANs > out of an address block marked particularly, and exclusively, for IXP > peering LAN use. Assignments for IXP peering LANs must be from one > dedicated block, published as such by AfriNIC. Assignments for IXP > management addresses should NOT be provided from the same block as the IXP > peering LANs. > > It is proposed that a /16 block be reserved for future requirements for IXP > peering LANs in the AfriNIC service region, and that AfriNIC publish this > block as such. > > It is further proposed to reserve the equivalent of an additional /16 block > for IXP management prefixes, separate from the peering LANs. It is proposed > that AfriNIC reserves a block of 2-byte ASNs for use in BGP route servers > at IXPs in the AfriNIC service region. > > The number of ASNs to be reserved should be the larger of 114, or half of > the remaining 2-byte ASNs within AfriNIC's block at the date of > ratification of this policy. > > AfriNIC will allocate these resources on a first come first served basis. > > > 3.5 Evaluation criteria > > This policy does not suggest new evaluation criteria for what determines a > valid IXP. > > > 4.0 References > > [1] AfriNIC Policy for End User Assignments - AFPUB-2006-GEN-001 > http://afrinic.net/en/library/policies/127-afpub-2006-gen-001 Sections 5) > and 6) > > > > > Note: proposal also available at > > http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposals/1231-resource-reservation-for-internet-exchange-points > > > Regards, > Frank > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kofi.ansa at gmail.com Wed Oct 29 15:06:05 2014 From: kofi.ansa at gmail.com (Kofi ANSA AKUFO) Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 19:06:05 +0400 Subject: [rpd] proposed policy: reservation of resources for IXPs In-Reply-To: <5450F341.3070005@geier.ne.tz> References: <5450F341.3070005@geier.ne.tz> Message-ID: I support this proposal On 29 October 2014 18:01, Frank Habicht wrote: > Hello all, > > please find this proposed policy, which we (3 co-authors) have submitted to > the pdpwg last week: > > Resource Reservation for Internet Exchange Points > > Author(s): > a) Frank Habicht, Tanzania Internet Exchange > b) Michuki Mwangi, Internet Society/KIXP > c) Nishal Goburdhan, Packet Clearing House/JINX > > 1) Summary of the Problem being addressed by this proposal > > This policy reserves IPv4 and 2-byte ASNs resources for public Internet > Exchange Points (IXPs) in the African region, ensuring that there would be > discrete IPv4 resources to allow the establishment and growth of future > IXPs. > > > 2) Summary of How this Proposal Addresses the Problem > > This policy requests AfriNIC to reserve, and publish IPv4 resources, and > 2-byte ASNs for use by IXPs only. > > > 3) Proposal > > 3.1 Introduction > > It is widely considered that Internet Exchange Points (IXPs) are one of the > critical elements needed for Internet economies to develop. Africa is still > in the process of developing these, and is, at the same time, faced with > the imminent exhaustion of its IPv4 resources. Not having IPv4 addresses to > grow, or start new, IXPs would create unnecessary and unneeded routing > complexity for Internet connected networks, looking to peer at IXPs to > further their network scope. AfriNIC already has an existing policy to make > allocations to IXPs [1], but that policy does not specifically reserve IPV4 > space to ensure that there will be such, for future IXPs to grow and > develop. Additionally, this policy reserves a set of 2-byte ASNs for use by > IXPs for use at IXP BGP Route Servers. > > > 3.2 Distinction between IXP peering and management networks > > We distinguish between two kinds of IP address resources needed and used at > IXPs. An IXP peering LAN is the contiguous network address block that the > IXP would use to assign unique IP addresses to each peering member, for > each peering participant to exchange network traffic across the shared > peering infrastructure. Best practice has the IXP peering LAN *not* being > visible in a view of the global routing table, among other things to reduce > the attack vectors for ISP border routers via the IXP. > > >From a network identification, monitoring and analysis perspective, it is > thus desirable, that the "peering LAN" space be provided from a contiguous > block. The IXP management LAN is the management network that the IXP uses > to provision services at the IXP, like monitoring, statistics, mail, ticket > systems, provisioning of transit to DNS Roots, etc. > > Management networks, are meant to be reachable globally, for instance to > publish data and allow remote access for common good network infrastructure > (such as root and TLD DNS servers) and research projects. > > > 3.3 BGP Route Servers use > > Typically IXPs use BGP route servers to help manage peering sessions > between different participants. The route servers implement IXP routing > policy in the form of BGP communities, typically in the form of A:B, where > A,B represent A=IXP BGP route server and B=participant ASN. Current BGP > implementations utilise 6 bytes for the extended community attribute > [RFC5668]. Therefore, an IXP with a 4-byte ASN in use at its route server > would not be able to successfully implement the A:B BGP community mapping, > if an IXP participant has a 4-byte ASN. This situation is likely to be > experienced by more IXPs, as additional 4-byte ASNs are allocated through > the current AfriNIC process. > > If, IXP route server communities include the IXP ASN and the peer's ASN > (expected to be 4-byte), and a total of only 6 bytes are available, it > follows that IXP route servers ASN could not be longer than a 2-byte ASN. > > > 3.4 Proposal > > To ensure that there are sufficient resources for IXPs to develop, this > policy proposes that AfriNIC reserve IPv4 addresses for IXP peering LANs > out of an address block marked particularly, and exclusively, for IXP > peering LAN use. Assignments for IXP peering LANs must be from one > dedicated block, published as such by AfriNIC. Assignments for IXP > management addresses should NOT be provided from the same block as the IXP > peering LANs. > > It is proposed that a /16 block be reserved for future requirements for IXP > peering LANs in the AfriNIC service region, and that AfriNIC publish this > block as such. > > It is further proposed to reserve the equivalent of an additional /16 block > for IXP management prefixes, separate from the peering LANs. It is proposed > that AfriNIC reserves a block of 2-byte ASNs for use in BGP route servers > at IXPs in the AfriNIC service region. > > The number of ASNs to be reserved should be the larger of 114, or half of > the remaining 2-byte ASNs within AfriNIC's block at the date of > ratification of this policy. > > AfriNIC will allocate these resources on a first come first served basis. > > > 3.5 Evaluation criteria > > This policy does not suggest new evaluation criteria for what determines a > valid IXP. > > > 4.0 References > > [1] AfriNIC Policy for End User Assignments - AFPUB-2006-GEN-001 > http://afrinic.net/en/library/policies/127-afpub-2006-gen-001 Sections 5) > and 6) > > > > > Note: proposal also available at > > http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposals/1231-resource-reservation-for-internet-exchange-points > > > Regards, > Frank > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jwalu at yahoo.com Wed Oct 29 15:23:27 2014 From: jwalu at yahoo.com (Walubengo J) Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 08:23:27 -0700 Subject: [rpd] proposed policy: reservation of resources for IXPs In-Reply-To: <5450F341.3070005@geier.ne.tz> Message-ID: <1414596207.38093.YahooMailBasic@web162806.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> jst some questions for Mich & Co. 1) The policy presumes that IXP infrastructure in Africa is best on v4, hence and therefore lets reserve the v4 for this. But Is this true? What's wrong with IXP infrastructure on v6? And if there is nothing wrong, then do we really need this policy? 2) If we adopt this policy, are we implicitly encouraging v4 "comfort zone" in Africa when the rest of the world moves on and tackles any challenges v6 may provide in the context of IXP infrastructure? just thinking loudly. walu. -------------------------------------------- On Wed, 10/29/14, Frank Habicht wrote: Subject: [rpd] proposed policy: reservation of resources for IXPs To: "rpd" Cc: "Nishal Goburdhan" Date: Wednesday, October 29, 2014, 5:01 PM Hello all, please find this proposed policy, which we (3 co-authors) have submitted to the pdpwg last week: Resource Reservation for Internet Exchange Points Author(s): a) Frank Habicht, Tanzania Internet Exchange b) Michuki Mwangi, Internet Society/KIXP c) Nishal Goburdhan, Packet Clearing House/JINX 1) Summary of the Problem being addressed by this proposal This policy reserves IPv4 and 2-byte ASNs resources for public Internet Exchange Points (IXPs) in the African region, ensuring that there would be discrete IPv4 resources to allow the establishment and growth of future IXPs. 2) Summary of How this Proposal Addresses the Problem This policy requests AfriNIC to reserve, and publish IPv4 resources, and 2-byte ASNs for use by IXPs only. 3) Proposal 3.1 Introduction It is widely considered that Internet Exchange Points (IXPs) are one of the critical elements needed for Internet economies to develop. Africa is still in the process of developing these, and is, at the same time, faced with the imminent exhaustion of its IPv4 resources. Not having IPv4 addresses to grow, or start new, IXPs would create unnecessary and unneeded routing complexity for Internet connected networks, looking to peer at IXPs to further their network scope. AfriNIC already has an existing policy to make allocations to IXPs [1], but that policy does not specifically reserve IPV4 space to ensure that there will be such, for future IXPs to grow and develop. Additionally, this policy reserves a set of 2-byte ASNs for use by IXPs for use at IXP BGP Route Servers. 3.2 Distinction between IXP peering and management networks We distinguish between two kinds of IP address resources needed and used at IXPs. An IXP peering LAN is the contiguous network address block that the IXP would use to assign unique IP addresses to each peering member, for each peering participant to exchange network traffic across the shared peering infrastructure. Best practice has the IXP peering LAN *not* being visible in a view of the global routing table, among other things to reduce the attack vectors for ISP border routers via the IXP. >From a network identification, monitoring and analysis perspective, it is thus desirable, that the "peering LAN" space be provided from a contiguous block. The IXP management LAN is the management network that the IXP uses to provision services at the IXP, like monitoring, statistics, mail, ticket systems, provisioning of transit to DNS Roots, etc. Management networks, are meant to be reachable globally, for instance to publish data and allow remote access for common good network infrastructure (such as root and TLD DNS servers) and research projects. 3.3 BGP Route Servers use Typically IXPs use BGP route servers to help manage peering sessions between different participants. The route servers implement IXP routing policy in the form of BGP communities, typically in the form of A:B, where A,B represent A=IXP BGP route server and B=participant ASN. Current BGP implementations utilise 6 bytes for the extended community attribute [RFC5668]. Therefore, an IXP with a 4-byte ASN in use at its route server would not be able to successfully implement the A:B BGP community mapping, if an IXP participant has a 4-byte ASN. This situation is likely to be experienced by more IXPs, as additional 4-byte ASNs are allocated through the current AfriNIC process. If, IXP route server communities include the IXP ASN and the peer's ASN (expected to be 4-byte), and a total of only 6 bytes are available, it follows that IXP route servers ASN could not be longer than a 2-byte ASN. 3.4 Proposal To ensure that there are sufficient resources for IXPs to develop, this policy proposes that AfriNIC reserve IPv4 addresses for IXP peering LANs out of an address block marked particularly, and exclusively, for IXP peering LAN use. Assignments for IXP peering LANs must be from one dedicated block, published as such by AfriNIC. Assignments for IXP management addresses should NOT be provided from the same block as the IXP peering LANs. It is proposed that a /16 block be reserved for future requirements for IXP peering LANs in the AfriNIC service region, and that AfriNIC publish this block as such. It is further proposed to reserve the equivalent of an additional /16 block for IXP management prefixes, separate from the peering LANs. It is proposed that AfriNIC reserves a block of 2-byte ASNs for use in BGP route servers at IXPs in the AfriNIC service region. The number of ASNs to be reserved should be the larger of 114, or half of the remaining 2-byte ASNs within AfriNIC's block at the date of ratification of this policy. AfriNIC will allocate these resources on a first come first served basis. 3.5 Evaluation criteria This policy does not suggest new evaluation criteria for what determines a valid IXP. 4.0 References [1] AfriNIC Policy for End User Assignments - AFPUB-2006-GEN-001 http://afrinic.net/en/library/policies/127-afpub-2006-gen-001 Sections 5) and 6) Note: proposal also available at http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposals/1231-resource-reservation-for-internet-exchange-points Regards, Frank _______________________________________________ rpd mailing list rpd at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd From geier at geier.ne.tz Wed Oct 29 16:22:52 2014 From: geier at geier.ne.tz (Frank Habicht) Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 19:22:52 +0300 Subject: [rpd] proposed policy: reservation of resources for IXPs In-Reply-To: <1414596207.38093.YahooMailBasic@web162806.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> References: <1414596207.38093.YahooMailBasic@web162806.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <5451145C.7090501@geier.ne.tz> Hi Walu, On 10/29/2014 6:23 PM, Walubengo J wrote: > jst some questions for Mich & Co. > > 1) The policy presumes that IXP infrastructure in Africa is best on v4, hence and therefore lets reserve the v4 for this. But Is this true? What's wrong with IXP infrastructure on v6? And if there is nothing wrong, then do we really need this policy? This policy does not presume that IXP infrastructure in Africa is best on v4. It actually implies that IXPs are key infrastructure that need to support the transition towards IPv6. Therefore they need to be dual-stacked. Based on that point, think of those countries in Africa that have ISPs/Operators, etc but do not have an IXP. This map provides information about the countries without an IXP. https://www.google.com/maps/ms?msid=203451807916585765419.0004d984b1be3af823a35&msa=0&ll=-1.406109,22.675781&spn=94.302473,132.539063 The consideration being sought is; those countries currently without an IXP are likely to establish an IXP based on the ongoing efforts in the region to assist in setting up IXPs. It is worth noting that most of these countries without an IXP have ISPs/operators on IPv4. Therefore when the country is ready to establish an IXP, it is important to ensure that it can support legacy networks on IPv4 and IPv6. We want us to be prepared for new IXPs to be established even after IPv4 resources at AfriNIC run out. > 2) If we adopt this policy, are we implicitly encouraging v4 "comfort zone" in Africa when the rest of the world moves on and tackles any challenges v6 may provide in the context of IXP infrastructure? On the contrary. The adoption of this policy ensures that the objective of keeping local traffic within the region is supported by providing future IXPs with the resourced needed to interconnect both IPv4 and IPv6 networks using best practices. As the map shows, we will need to have more IXPs in Africa, and as IPv4 will stay with us for some more time, these new IXPs need to have IPv4 addresses for participants. Regards, Frank ( & Michuki & Nishal ) PS: sorry for non-ascii, URI would wrap without :-( > just thinking loudly. > > walu. > -------------------------------------------- > On Wed, 10/29/14, Frank Habicht wrote: > > Subject: [rpd] proposed policy: reservation of resources for IXPs > To: "rpd" > Cc: "Nishal Goburdhan" > Date: Wednesday, October 29, 2014, 5:01 PM > > Hello all, > > please find this proposed policy, which we (3 co-authors) > have submitted to > the pdpwg last week: > > Resource Reservation for Internet Exchange Points > > Author(s): > a) Frank Habicht, Tanzania Internet Exchange > b) Michuki Mwangi, Internet Society/KIXP > c) Nishal Goburdhan, Packet Clearing House/JINX > > 1) Summary of the Problem being addressed by this proposal > > This policy reserves IPv4 and 2-byte ASNs resources for > public Internet > Exchange Points (IXPs) in the African region, ensuring that > there would be > discrete IPv4 resources to allow the establishment and > growth of future IXPs. > > > 2) Summary of How this Proposal Addresses the Problem > > This policy requests AfriNIC to reserve, and publish IPv4 > resources, and > 2-byte ASNs for use by IXPs only. > > > 3) Proposal > > 3.1 Introduction > > It is widely considered that Internet Exchange Points (IXPs) > are one of the > critical elements needed for Internet economies to develop. > Africa is still > in the process of developing these, and is, at the same > time, faced with > the imminent exhaustion of its IPv4 resources. Not having > IPv4 addresses to > grow, or start new, IXPs would create unnecessary and > unneeded routing > complexity for Internet connected networks, looking to peer > at IXPs to > further their network scope. AfriNIC already has an existing > policy to make > allocations to IXPs [1], but that policy does not > specifically reserve IPV4 > space to ensure that there will be such, for future IXPs to > grow and > develop. Additionally, this policy reserves a set of 2-byte > ASNs for use by > IXPs for use at IXP BGP Route Servers. > > > 3.2 Distinction between IXP peering and management networks > > We distinguish between two kinds of IP address resources > needed and used at > IXPs. An IXP peering LAN is the contiguous network address > block that the > IXP would use to assign unique IP addresses to each peering > member, for > each peering participant to exchange network traffic across > the shared > peering infrastructure. Best practice has the IXP peering > LAN *not* being > visible in a view of the global routing table, among other > things to reduce > the attack vectors for ISP border routers via the IXP. > > >From a network identification, monitoring and analysis > perspective, it is > thus desirable, that the "peering LAN" space be provided > from a contiguous > block. The IXP management LAN is the management network that > the IXP uses > to provision services at the IXP, like monitoring, > statistics, mail, ticket > systems, provisioning of transit to DNS Roots, etc. > > Management networks, are meant to be reachable globally, for > instance to > publish data and allow remote access for common good network > infrastructure > (such as root and TLD DNS servers) and research projects. > > > 3.3 BGP Route Servers use > > Typically IXPs use BGP route servers to help manage peering > sessions > between different participants. The route servers implement > IXP routing > policy in the form of BGP communities, typically in the form > of A:B, where > A,B represent A=IXP BGP route server and B=participant ASN. > Current BGP > implementations utilise 6 bytes for the extended community > attribute > [RFC5668]. Therefore, an IXP with a 4-byte ASN in use at its > route server > would not be able to successfully implement the A:B BGP > community mapping, > if an IXP participant has a 4-byte ASN. This situation is > likely to be > experienced by more IXPs, as additional 4-byte ASNs are > allocated through > the current AfriNIC process. > > If, IXP route server communities include the IXP ASN and the > peer's ASN > (expected to be 4-byte), and a total of only 6 bytes are > available, it > follows that IXP route servers ASN could not be longer than > a 2-byte ASN. > > > 3.4 Proposal > > To ensure that there are sufficient resources for IXPs to > develop, this > policy proposes that AfriNIC reserve IPv4 addresses for IXP > peering LANs > out of an address block marked particularly, and > exclusively, for IXP > peering LAN use. Assignments for IXP peering LANs must be > from one > dedicated block, published as such by AfriNIC. Assignments > for IXP > management addresses should NOT be provided from the same > block as the IXP > peering LANs. > > It is proposed that a /16 block be reserved for future > requirements for IXP > peering LANs in the AfriNIC service region, and that AfriNIC > publish this > block as such. > > It is further proposed to reserve the equivalent of an > additional /16 block > for IXP management prefixes, separate from the peering LANs. > It is proposed > that AfriNIC reserves a block of 2-byte ASNs for use in BGP > route servers > at IXPs in the AfriNIC service region. > > The number of ASNs to be reserved should be the larger of > 114, or half of > the remaining 2-byte ASNs within AfriNIC's block at the date > of > ratification of this policy. > > AfriNIC will allocate these resources on a first come first > served basis. > > > 3.5 Evaluation criteria > > This policy does not suggest new evaluation criteria for > what determines a > valid IXP. > > > 4.0 References > > [1] AfriNIC Policy for End User Assignments - > AFPUB-2006-GEN-001 > http://afrinic.net/en/library/policies/127-afpub-2006-gen-001 > Sections 5) > and 6) > > > > > Note: proposal also available at > http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposals/1231-resource-reservation-for-internet-exchange-points > > > Regards, > Frank > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > From mark.tinka at seacom.mu Wed Oct 29 17:26:03 2014 From: mark.tinka at seacom.mu (Mark Tinka) Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 19:26:03 +0200 Subject: [rpd] proposed policy: reservation of resources for IXPs In-Reply-To: <5450F341.3070005@geier.ne.tz> References: <5450F341.3070005@geier.ne.tz> Message-ID: <201410291926.03658.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> Support. Mark. On Wednesday, October 29, 2014 04:01:37 PM Frank Habicht wrote: > Hello all, > > please find this proposed policy, which we (3 co-authors) > have submitted to the pdpwg last week: > > Resource Reservation for Internet Exchange Points > > Author(s): > a) Frank Habicht, Tanzania Internet Exchange > b) Michuki Mwangi, Internet Society/KIXP > c) Nishal Goburdhan, Packet Clearing House/JINX > > 1) Summary of the Problem being addressed by this > proposal > > This policy reserves IPv4 and 2-byte ASNs resources for > public Internet Exchange Points (IXPs) in the African > region, ensuring that there would be discrete IPv4 > resources to allow the establishment and growth of > future IXPs. > > > 2) Summary of How this Proposal Addresses the Problem > > This policy requests AfriNIC to reserve, and publish IPv4 > resources, and 2-byte ASNs for use by IXPs only. > > > 3) Proposal > > 3.1 Introduction > > It is widely considered that Internet Exchange Points > (IXPs) are one of the critical elements needed for > Internet economies to develop. Africa is still in the > process of developing these, and is, at the same time, > faced with the imminent exhaustion of its IPv4 > resources. Not having IPv4 addresses to grow, or start > new, IXPs would create unnecessary and unneeded routing > complexity for Internet connected networks, looking to > peer at IXPs to further their network scope. AfriNIC > already has an existing policy to make allocations to > IXPs [1], but that policy does not specifically reserve > IPV4 space to ensure that there will be such, for future > IXPs to grow and develop. Additionally, this policy > reserves a set of 2-byte ASNs for use by IXPs for use at > IXP BGP Route Servers. > > > 3.2 Distinction between IXP peering and management > networks > > We distinguish between two kinds of IP address resources > needed and used at IXPs. An IXP peering LAN is the > contiguous network address block that the IXP would use > to assign unique IP addresses to each peering member, > for each peering participant to exchange network traffic > across the shared peering infrastructure. Best practice > has the IXP peering LAN *not* being visible in a view of > the global routing table, among other things to reduce > the attack vectors for ISP border routers via the IXP. > > >From a network identification, monitoring and analysis > >perspective, it is > > thus desirable, that the "peering LAN" space be provided > from a contiguous block. The IXP management LAN is the > management network that the IXP uses to provision > services at the IXP, like monitoring, statistics, mail, > ticket systems, provisioning of transit to DNS Roots, > etc. > > Management networks, are meant to be reachable globally, > for instance to publish data and allow remote access for > common good network infrastructure (such as root and TLD > DNS servers) and research projects. > > > 3.3 BGP Route Servers use > > Typically IXPs use BGP route servers to help manage > peering sessions between different participants. The > route servers implement IXP routing policy in the form > of BGP communities, typically in the form of A:B, where > A,B represent A=IXP BGP route server and B=participant > ASN. Current BGP implementations utilise 6 bytes for the > extended community attribute [RFC5668]. Therefore, an > IXP with a 4-byte ASN in use at its route server would > not be able to successfully implement the A:B BGP > community mapping, if an IXP participant has a 4-byte > ASN. This situation is likely to be experienced by more > IXPs, as additional 4-byte ASNs are allocated through > the current AfriNIC process. > > If, IXP route server communities include the IXP ASN and > the peer's ASN (expected to be 4-byte), and a total of > only 6 bytes are available, it follows that IXP route > servers ASN could not be longer than a 2-byte ASN. > > > 3.4 Proposal > > To ensure that there are sufficient resources for IXPs to > develop, this policy proposes that AfriNIC reserve IPv4 > addresses for IXP peering LANs out of an address block > marked particularly, and exclusively, for IXP peering > LAN use. Assignments for IXP peering LANs must be from > one dedicated block, published as such by AfriNIC. > Assignments for IXP management addresses should NOT be > provided from the same block as the IXP peering LANs. > > It is proposed that a /16 block be reserved for future > requirements for IXP peering LANs in the AfriNIC service > region, and that AfriNIC publish this block as such. > > It is further proposed to reserve the equivalent of an > additional /16 block for IXP management prefixes, > separate from the peering LANs. It is proposed that > AfriNIC reserves a block of 2-byte ASNs for use in BGP > route servers at IXPs in the AfriNIC service region. > > The number of ASNs to be reserved should be the larger of > 114, or half of the remaining 2-byte ASNs within > AfriNIC's block at the date of ratification of this > policy. > > AfriNIC will allocate these resources on a first come > first served basis. > > > 3.5 Evaluation criteria > > This policy does not suggest new evaluation criteria for > what determines a valid IXP. > > > 4.0 References > > [1] AfriNIC Policy for End User Assignments - > AFPUB-2006-GEN-001 > http://afrinic.net/en/library/policies/127-afpub-2006-ge > n-001 Sections 5) and 6) > > > > > Note: proposal also available at > http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/po > licy-proposals/1231-resource-reservation-for-internet-exc > hange-points > > > Regards, > Frank > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. URL: From mark.tinka at seacom.mu Wed Oct 29 17:27:35 2014 From: mark.tinka at seacom.mu (Mark Tinka) Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 19:27:35 +0200 Subject: [rpd] proposed policy: reservation of resources for IXPs In-Reply-To: <1414596207.38093.YahooMailBasic@web162806.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> References: <1414596207.38093.YahooMailBasic@web162806.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <201410291927.35383.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> On Wednesday, October 29, 2014 05:23:27 PM Walubengo J wrote: > jst some questions for Mich & Co. > > 1) The policy presumes that IXP infrastructure in Africa > is best on v4, hence and therefore lets reserve the v4 > for this. But Is this true? What's wrong with IXP > infrastructure on v6? And if there is nothing wrong, > then do we really need this policy? 2) If we adopt this > policy, are we implicitly encouraging v4 "comfort zone" > in Africa when the rest of the world moves on and > tackles any challenges v6 may provide in the context of > IXP infrastructure? > > just thinking loudly. I think the authors are not worried about access to IPv6 addresses for exchange points, as IPv6 is available in plenty for many, many, many years to come. Mark. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. URL: From owen at delong.com Wed Oct 29 21:10:43 2014 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 14:10:43 -0700 Subject: [rpd] [afnog] What are the major challenges in enabling Services to run on IPv6? In-Reply-To: <568935774.2029.1414551935832.JavaMail.zimbra@inet.com.gh> References: <201410280818.29636.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> <7FF93785BD2D534EA45841A8AAA1D89B51324DD5A4@liquid-exch.liquidtelecom.local> <7FF93785BD2D534EA45841A8AAA1D89B51324DD5D6@liquid-exch.liquidtelecom.local> <568935774.2029.1414551935832.JavaMail.zimbra@inet.com.gh> Message-ID: Their web sit lacking an AAAA record isn't merely lagging in DNS. I agree liquid seems to be doing great stuff. I'm just giving Andrew a friendly poke about one aspect of his IPv6 rollout. No harm intended. Owen > On Oct 28, 2014, at 20:05, Kofi Ansa Akufo wrote: > > And Owen whats this suppose to mean? > > Showing off your macbook and cli dexterity huh? > > Andrew has admitted they lagging behind in dns .... with all seriousness LiquidTelecom is really doing a great work in our region. > > cheers > > > From: "Owen DeLong" > To: "Andrew Alston" > Cc: "Malick Sy" , "rpd" , "afnog" > Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2014 2:58:32 AM > Subject: Re: [rpd] [afnog] What are the major challenges in enabling Services to run on IPv6? > > Really? > > Owens-MacBook-Pro:vr-delegations owendelong$ host www.liquidtelecom.com > www.liquidtelecom.com is an alias for liquidtelecom.com. > liquidtelecom.com has address 185.25.211.28 > liquidtelecom.com mail is handled by 20 mx1.liquidtelecom.com. > liquidtelecom.com mail is handled by 20 mx2.liquidtelecom.com. > Owens-MacBook-Pro:vr-delegations owendelong$ dig -t AAAA www.liquidtelecom.com > > ; <<>> DiG 9.8.3-P1 <<>> -t AAAA www.liquidtelecom.com > ;; global options: +cmd > ;; Got answer: > ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 29862 > ;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 1, AUTHORITY: 1, ADDITIONAL: 0 > > ;; QUESTION SECTION: > ;www.liquidtelecom.com. IN AAAA > > ;; ANSWER SECTION: > www.liquidtelecom.com. 86400 IN CNAME liquidtelecom.com. > > ;; AUTHORITY SECTION: > liquidtelecom.com. 10784 IN SOA ns1.worldstream.com. ben\.roberts.liquidtelecom.com. 2014101400 10800 3600 604800 10800 > > ;; Query time: 163 msec > ;; SERVER: 4.2.2.2#53(4.2.2.2) > ;; WHEN: Tue Oct 28 15:58:10 2014 > ;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 117 > > > Owen > > On Oct 28, 2014, at 4:55 AM, Andrew Alston wrote: > > Kofi *grin* > > I have no problem with you picking on me, I can handle it. > > The current state of V6 on our network goes well beyond our core. We are V6 enabled all the way to the edge and are in a position to offer V6 services to all of our clients at any point in our network. It is true that the DNS has lagged behind and that will be rectified shortly, but I still believe it?s better to be a position to provide V6 native service than to have a few servers running v6 J > > Andrew > > From: Kofi ANSA AKUFO [mailto:kofi.ansa at gmail.com] > Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2014 2:37 PM > To: Andrew Alston > Cc: Malick.Sy at swisscom.com; mark.tinka at seacom.mu; rpd at afrinic.net; afnog at afnog.org > Subject: Re: [afnog] What are the major challenges in enabling Services to run on IPv6? > > Hi Andrew > > On 28 October 2014 14:53, Andrew Alston wrote: > Hi Malick, > > This is kind of a short sighted view in my opinion. Why you ask? Because the rest of the world has to go V6 and V6 doesn't talk to V4, unless you want to take a huge step backwards and start running translation mechanisms and other dodgy kludges which will further degrade the African internet experience. > > Money is being spent on fiber, wimax and all the other things you mention, in vast quantities. Infact I would hazard a guess that the investment levels into African infrastructure at the moment are probably outstripping what is being spent upgrading systems in other more developed parts of the world. That should not stop us trying to get to a point where the internet in Africa has parity with the rest of the world, and parity means we get the V6 in or risk being left behind when the rest of the world goes that way (as they have to do, since there is no more v4). > > > I thought you mentioned you are dual stack ready or that does not include your TLD - liquidtelecom.com > > a quick check here seems to be contrary - http://ip6.nl/#!liquidtelecom.com > > I know you make have enabled service on your core network -- just picking on you :) > > Further to this, it is far cheaper to implement V6 as the infrastructure is expanded than have to go back and retrofit, if we don't do it now, we'll be facing a HUGE bill later when we're forced to do it anyway > > Andrew > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Malick.Sy at swisscom.com [mailto:Malick.Sy at swisscom.com] > Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2014 1:21 PM > To: mark.tinka at seacom.mu; Andrew Alston > Cc: rpd at afrinic.net; afnog at afnog.org > Subject: Re: [afnog] What are the major challenges in enabling Services to run on IPv6? > > Hi, > I was wondering, what good business need is there to push IPv6 to the network edge, specifically in Africa? > What would be the direct benefit to the customer or the service provider, of investing in configuring, deploying and migrating to v6. V4 address depletion is a reality, but in the Africa region, is there really a shortage of IP addresses to assign or is there more a lack of services to run on these IP addresses? Also, wouldn?t the effort and expense to move to v6 In Africa, be better used, if spent on harnessing WiMax? rolling out fibre where possible? I creasing Wifi coverage? rolling out DSL/VDSL/xDSL? Increasing peering points? creating alternatives to the current under sea cable transits (and reduce reliance on ACE, etc)? > With the relatively small penetration of broadband in Africa, should not efforts be spent addressing broadband penetration rates and access to information, rather than ?keeping up with the Jones? and rolling out technology for the sake of technology? > > In Europe, I am only aware of France?s Free who have a full native IPv6 deployment, all other providers are managing to provide services without too big an IPv6 footprint. In the Americas, I believe a number of educational institutions have native v6, and most Sps can probably provide it. My contention, IPv6 rollouts globally have been quite low speed and that is probably because there are other priorities for the Service providers. > > So major challenges to enabling services on v6, I guess the demand for such services, is probably going to be a major factor.If there is no demand or minimal demand, and a current working system exists, why waste time on it? > Just my 2 cents. > > .......................................... > Best Regards, > Malick Sy > Sr. Network Engineer > > Swisscom (Switzerland) Ltd. > Hospitality Services > 2, chemin du Pavillon > Case Postale 2200 > CH-1211 Gen?ve 2 > > > Desk Phone:+41 227 407 585 > Cellular Phone:+ 41 794 426 765 > Fax Number: +41 227 740 7542 > Internet: www.swisscom.com/hospitality > ............................................ > This message contains confidential or privileged information and is intended solely for the use of the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. > If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you must not use, copy, disclose, forward or take any action based on this message or information herein. If you have received this message by error, please advise the sender immediately and delete this message. > > > > > > On 28/10/2014 07:18, "Mark Tinka" wrote: > > >On Tuesday, October 28, 2014 07:05:33 AM Andrew Alston > >wrote: > > > >> That challenge also prevents a > >> lot of providers from actually putting in the effort (and sometimes > >> expense) of rolling IPv6 all the way to the edge with a lack of > >> demand. Its kinda a chicken and egg situation for many, no IPv6 at > >> the edge decreases the number of people running IPv6, we decreases > >> the demand for IPv6, which decreases the motivation to roll > >> IPv6 to the edge. > > > >I'm still reasonably disappointed in the lack of drive from retail > >providers to offer IPv6 to their customers, i.e., the > >broadband/consumer space. > > > >Granted, it is a lot more challenging to deliver IPv6 to large scale > >consumers (more so in Africa, where a lot of consumers are running data > >off the mobile networks). > > > >But I think that deployment of IPv6 toward end customers in a manner > >where they do not have to directly participate in the process is where > >we shall see the most gains. > > > >The old mantra still holds true - users don't care, as long as it > >works. > > > >Mark. > > > DISCLAIMER: This email contains proprietary information some or all of which may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this email, please notify the author by replying to this email. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose, copy, print, or rely on this email. We cannot accept liability for any statements made which are clearly the sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of this company or one of its agents. > > > _______________________________________________ > afnog mailing list > http://afnog.org/mailman/listinfo/afnog > > > DISCLAIMER: This email contains proprietary information some or all of which may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this email, please notify the author by replying to this email. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose, copy, print, or rely on this email. We cannot accept liability for any statements made which are clearly the sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of this company or one of its agents. > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From David.Huberman at microsoft.com Thu Oct 30 17:59:26 2014 From: David.Huberman at microsoft.com (David Huberman) Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2014 17:59:26 +0000 Subject: [rpd] proposed policy: reservation of resources for IXPs In-Reply-To: <5451145C.7090501@geier.ne.tz> References: <1414596207.38093.YahooMailBasic@web162806.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <5451145C.7090501@geier.ne.tz> Message-ID: <8d41dc38a2e04469ad6c68f8fdf9fdf4@DM2PR03MB398.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> Hello, In regard to the proposed policy, "Resource Reservation for Internet Exchange Points", I have two comments: 1) I support the policy as written. 2) I ask the community for input on a separate policy proposal I would like to make, which is related. One of the lessons we've learned over 20+ years of operating public IXes is that the worst thing that can happen to an IX is to grow so big that it outgrows its peering fabric /24. Renumbering a peering fabric is a nightmare scenario. It is preventable by having allocation policies which keep successful IXes in mind. I propose, therefore, text which directs AFRINIC staff to: - issue no less than a /24 to each IX peering fabric AND - either reserve the adjacent /24 so the /24 can grow to a /23 in the case where the IX is successful; or - issue the /24s sparsely (using the bisection method) to ensure the most number of /24s can grow into /23s over time. By carefully issuing /24s on /23 boundaries, it allows the (relatively few) IXes that will outgrow a /24 to easily move into a /23 with the same starting IP address, which makes it easy for the participants at the exchange. Would this proposal have support? Thanks and with regards, David David R Huberman Microsoft Corporation Principal, Global IP Addressing > Subject: [rpd] proposed policy: reservation of resources for IXPs > To: "rpd" > Cc: "Nishal Goburdhan" > Date: Wednesday, October 29, 2014, 5:01 PM > > Hello all, > > please find this proposed policy, which we (3 co-authors) have > submitted to the pdpwg last week: > > Resource Reservation for Internet Exchange Points > > Author(s): > a) Frank Habicht, Tanzania Internet Exchange > b) Michuki Mwangi, Internet Society/KIXP > c) Nishal Goburdhan, Packet Clearing House/JINX > > 1) Summary of the Problem being addressed by this proposal > > This policy reserves IPv4 and 2-byte ASNs resources for public > Internet Exchange Points (IXPs) in the African region, ensuring that > there would be discrete IPv4 resources to allow the establishment and > growth of future IXPs. > > > 2) Summary of How this Proposal Addresses the Problem > > This policy requests AfriNIC to reserve, and publish IPv4 resources, > and 2-byte ASNs for use by IXPs only. > > > 3) Proposal > > 3.1 Introduction > > It is widely considered that Internet Exchange Points (IXPs) are one > of the critical elements needed for Internet economies to develop. > Africa is still > in the process of developing these, and is, at the same time, faced > with the imminent exhaustion of its IPv4 resources. Not having > IPv4 addresses to > grow, or start new, IXPs would create unnecessary and unneeded > routing complexity for Internet connected networks, looking to peer > at IXPs to further their network scope. AfriNIC already has an > existing policy to make allocations to IXPs [1], but that policy > does not specifically reserve IPV4 space to ensure that there will > be such, for future IXPs to grow and develop. Additionally, this > policy reserves a set of 2-byte ASNs for use by IXPs for use at IXP > BGP Route Servers. > > > 3.2 Distinction between IXP peering and management networks > > We distinguish between two kinds of IP address resources needed and > used at IXPs. An IXP peering LAN is the contiguous network address > block that the IXP would use to assign unique IP addresses to each > peering member, for each peering participant to exchange network > traffic across the shared peering infrastructure. Best practice has > the IXP peering LAN *not* being visible in a view of the global > routing table, among other things to reduce the attack vectors for > ISP border routers via the IXP. > > >From a network identification, monitoring and analysis perspective, > it is thus desirable, that the "peering LAN" space be provided from > a contiguous block. The IXP management LAN is the management network > that the IXP uses to provision services at the IXP, like monitoring, > statistics, mail, ticket systems, provisioning of transit to DNS > Roots, etc. > > Management networks, are meant to be reachable globally, for > instance to publish data and allow remote access for common good > network infrastructure (such as root and TLD DNS servers) and > research projects. > > > 3.3 BGP Route Servers use > > Typically IXPs use BGP route servers to help manage peering sessions > between different participants. The route servers implement IXP > routing policy in the form of BGP communities, typically in the form > of A:B, where A,B represent A=IXP BGP route server and B=participant > ASN. > Current BGP > implementations utilise 6 bytes for the extended community attribute > [RFC5668]. Therefore, an IXP with a 4-byte ASN in use at its route > server would not be able to successfully implement the A:B BGP > community mapping, if an IXP participant has a 4-byte ASN. This > situation is likely to be experienced by more IXPs, as additional > 4-byte ASNs are allocated through the current AfriNIC process. > > If, IXP route server communities include the IXP ASN and the peer's > ASN (expected to be 4-byte), and a total of only 6 bytes are > available, it follows that IXP route servers ASN could not be longer > than a 2-byte ASN. > > > 3.4 Proposal > > To ensure that there are sufficient resources for IXPs to develop, > this policy proposes that AfriNIC reserve IPv4 addresses for IXP > peering LANs out of an address block marked particularly, and > exclusively, for IXP peering LAN use. Assignments for IXP peering > LANs must be from one dedicated block, published as such by AfriNIC. > Assignments for IXP management addresses should NOT be provided from > the same block as the IXP peering LANs. > > It is proposed that a /16 block be reserved for future requirements > for IXP peering LANs in the AfriNIC service region, and that AfriNIC > publish this block as such. > > It is further proposed to reserve the equivalent of an additional > /16 block for IXP management prefixes, separate from the peering > LANs. > It is proposed > that AfriNIC reserves a block of 2-byte ASNs for use in BGP route > servers at IXPs in the AfriNIC service region. > > The number of ASNs to be reserved should be the larger of 114, or > half of the remaining 2-byte ASNs within AfriNIC's block at the date > of ratification of this policy. > > AfriNIC will allocate these resources on a first come first served > basis. > > > 3.5 Evaluation criteria > > This policy does not suggest new evaluation criteria for what > determines a valid IXP. > > > 4.0 References > > [1] AfriNIC Policy for End User Assignments - > AFPUB-2006-GEN-001 > http://afrinic.net/en/library/policies/127-afpub-2006-gen-001 > Sections 5) > and 6) > > > > > Note: proposal also available at > > http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposal > s/1231-resource-reservation-for-internet-exchange-points > > > Regards, > Frank > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > _______________________________________________ rpd mailing list rpd at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd From marty at akamai.com Thu Oct 30 18:21:50 2014 From: marty at akamai.com (Hannigan, Martin) Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2014 14:21:50 -0400 Subject: [rpd] proposed policy: reservation of resources for IXPs In-Reply-To: <8d41dc38a2e04469ad6c68f8fdf9fdf4@DM2PR03MB398.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> References: <1414596207.38093.YahooMailBasic@web162806.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <5451145C.7090501@geier.ne.tz> <8d41dc38a2e04469ad6c68f8fdf9fdf4@DM2PR03MB398.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> Message-ID: <3C5712BF-8BE4-415D-9CE1-D2A14A2B11E1@akamai.com> /speaking with open-IX.org hat on I'm neutral on the proposal, but David's suggestion re prefix adjacency is worth discussion. Best, Martin > On Oct 30, 2014, at 14:02, David Huberman wrote: > > Hello, > > In regard to the proposed policy, "Resource Reservation for Internet Exchange Points", I have two comments: > > 1) I support the policy as written. > > 2) I ask the community for input on a separate policy proposal I would like to make, which is related. > > One of the lessons we've learned over 20+ years of operating public IXes is that the worst thing that can happen to an IX is to grow so big that it outgrows its peering fabric /24. Renumbering a peering fabric is a nightmare scenario. It is preventable by having allocation policies which keep successful IXes in mind. > > I propose, therefore, text which directs AFRINIC staff to: > > - issue no less than a /24 to each IX peering fabric > AND > - either reserve the adjacent /24 so the /24 can grow to a /23 in the case where the IX is successful; or > - issue the /24s sparsely (using the bisection method) to ensure the most number of /24s can grow into /23s over time. > > By carefully issuing /24s on /23 boundaries, it allows the (relatively few) IXes that will outgrow a /24 to easily move into a /23 with the same starting IP address, which makes it easy for the participants at the exchange. > > Would this proposal have support? > > Thanks and with regards, > David > > David R Huberman > Microsoft Corporation > Principal, Global IP Addressing > > >> Subject: [rpd] proposed policy: reservation of resources for IXPs >> To: "rpd" >> Cc: "Nishal Goburdhan" >> Date: Wednesday, October 29, 2014, 5:01 PM >> >> Hello all, >> >> please find this proposed policy, which we (3 co-authors) have >> submitted to the pdpwg last week: >> >> Resource Reservation for Internet Exchange Points >> >> Author(s): >> a) Frank Habicht, Tanzania Internet Exchange >> b) Michuki Mwangi, Internet Society/KIXP >> c) Nishal Goburdhan, Packet Clearing House/JINX >> >> 1) Summary of the Problem being addressed by this proposal >> >> This policy reserves IPv4 and 2-byte ASNs resources for public >> Internet Exchange Points (IXPs) in the African region, ensuring that >> there would be discrete IPv4 resources to allow the establishment and >> growth of future IXPs. >> >> >> 2) Summary of How this Proposal Addresses the Problem >> >> This policy requests AfriNIC to reserve, and publish IPv4 resources, >> and 2-byte ASNs for use by IXPs only. >> >> >> 3) Proposal >> >> 3.1 Introduction >> >> It is widely considered that Internet Exchange Points (IXPs) are one >> of the critical elements needed for Internet economies to develop. >> Africa is still >> in the process of developing these, and is, at the same time, faced >> with the imminent exhaustion of its IPv4 resources. Not having >> IPv4 addresses to >> grow, or start new, IXPs would create unnecessary and unneeded >> routing complexity for Internet connected networks, looking to peer >> at IXPs to further their network scope. AfriNIC already has an >> existing policy to make allocations to IXPs [1], but that policy >> does not specifically reserve IPV4 space to ensure that there will >> be such, for future IXPs to grow and develop. Additionally, this >> policy reserves a set of 2-byte ASNs for use by IXPs for use at IXP >> BGP Route Servers. >> >> >> 3.2 Distinction between IXP peering and management networks >> >> We distinguish between two kinds of IP address resources needed and >> used at IXPs. An IXP peering LAN is the contiguous network address >> block that the IXP would use to assign unique IP addresses to each >> peering member, for each peering participant to exchange network >> traffic across the shared peering infrastructure. Best practice has >> the IXP peering LAN *not* being visible in a view of the global >> routing table, among other things to reduce the attack vectors for >> ISP border routers via the IXP. >> >>> From a network identification, monitoring and analysis perspective, >> it is thus desirable, that the "peering LAN" space be provided from >> a contiguous block. The IXP management LAN is the management network >> that the IXP uses to provision services at the IXP, like monitoring, >> statistics, mail, ticket systems, provisioning of transit to DNS >> Roots, etc. >> >> Management networks, are meant to be reachable globally, for >> instance to publish data and allow remote access for common good >> network infrastructure (such as root and TLD DNS servers) and >> research projects. >> >> >> 3.3 BGP Route Servers use >> >> Typically IXPs use BGP route servers to help manage peering sessions >> between different participants. The route servers implement IXP >> routing policy in the form of BGP communities, typically in the form >> of A:B, where A,B represent A=IXP BGP route server and B=participant >> ASN. >> Current BGP >> implementations utilise 6 bytes for the extended community attribute >> [RFC5668]. Therefore, an IXP with a 4-byte ASN in use at its route >> server would not be able to successfully implement the A:B BGP >> community mapping, if an IXP participant has a 4-byte ASN. This >> situation is likely to be experienced by more IXPs, as additional >> 4-byte ASNs are allocated through the current AfriNIC process. >> >> If, IXP route server communities include the IXP ASN and the peer's >> ASN (expected to be 4-byte), and a total of only 6 bytes are >> available, it follows that IXP route servers ASN could not be longer >> than a 2-byte ASN. >> >> >> 3.4 Proposal >> >> To ensure that there are sufficient resources for IXPs to develop, >> this policy proposes that AfriNIC reserve IPv4 addresses for IXP >> peering LANs out of an address block marked particularly, and >> exclusively, for IXP peering LAN use. Assignments for IXP peering >> LANs must be from one dedicated block, published as such by AfriNIC. >> Assignments for IXP management addresses should NOT be provided from >> the same block as the IXP peering LANs. >> >> It is proposed that a /16 block be reserved for future requirements >> for IXP peering LANs in the AfriNIC service region, and that AfriNIC >> publish this block as such. >> >> It is further proposed to reserve the equivalent of an additional >> /16 block for IXP management prefixes, separate from the peering >> LANs. >> It is proposed >> that AfriNIC reserves a block of 2-byte ASNs for use in BGP route >> servers at IXPs in the AfriNIC service region. >> >> The number of ASNs to be reserved should be the larger of 114, or >> half of the remaining 2-byte ASNs within AfriNIC's block at the date >> of ratification of this policy. >> >> AfriNIC will allocate these resources on a first come first served >> basis. >> >> >> 3.5 Evaluation criteria >> >> This policy does not suggest new evaluation criteria for what >> determines a valid IXP. >> >> >> 4.0 References >> >> [1] AfriNIC Policy for End User Assignments - >> AFPUB-2006-GEN-001 >> http://afrinic.net/en/library/policies/127-afpub-2006-gen-001 >> Sections 5) >> and 6) >> >> >> >> >> Note: proposal also available at >> >> http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposal >> s/1231-resource-reservation-for-internet-exchange-points >> >> >> Regards, >> Frank >> _______________________________________________ >> rpd mailing list >> rpd at afrinic.net >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd From owen at delong.com Thu Oct 30 18:39:21 2014 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2014 11:39:21 -0700 Subject: [rpd] proposed policy: reservation of resources for IXPs In-Reply-To: <1414596207.38093.YahooMailBasic@web162806.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> References: <1414596207.38093.YahooMailBasic@web162806.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <920B1677-2D60-42CD-8B67-3C082149EAA9@delong.com> It is very unusual to find myself on the opposite side of this question, Walu. As you know, I am a very strong proponent of IPv6 and will be very happy the day we start turning off IPv4 peering on the global internet. However, I don?t think the policy makes any such assumption. I think the policy assumes that IXP infrastructure must be dual-stacked and that in order to be dual-stacked, one needs IPv4 addresses. There is no need to reserve IPv6 addresses because there is no shortage. I do not believe that this policy encourages an IPv4 ?comfort zone?. I believe it sets aside space so that infrastructure can be developed to support increased peering density on both protocols throughout the region. Owen > On Oct 29, 2014, at 8:23 AM, Walubengo J wrote: > > jst some questions for Mich & Co. > > 1) The policy presumes that IXP infrastructure in Africa is best on v4, hence and therefore lets reserve the v4 for this. But Is this true? What's wrong with IXP infrastructure on v6? And if there is nothing wrong, then do we really need this policy? > 2) If we adopt this policy, are we implicitly encouraging v4 "comfort zone" in Africa when the rest of the world moves on and tackles any challenges v6 may provide in the context of IXP infrastructure? > > just thinking loudly. > > walu. > -------------------------------------------- > On Wed, 10/29/14, Frank Habicht wrote: > > Subject: [rpd] proposed policy: reservation of resources for IXPs > To: "rpd" > Cc: "Nishal Goburdhan" > Date: Wednesday, October 29, 2014, 5:01 PM > > Hello all, > > please find this proposed policy, which we (3 co-authors) > have submitted to > the pdpwg last week: > > Resource Reservation for Internet Exchange Points > > Author(s): > a) Frank Habicht, Tanzania Internet Exchange > b) Michuki Mwangi, Internet Society/KIXP > c) Nishal Goburdhan, Packet Clearing House/JINX > > 1) Summary of the Problem being addressed by this proposal > > This policy reserves IPv4 and 2-byte ASNs resources for > public Internet > Exchange Points (IXPs) in the African region, ensuring that > there would be > discrete IPv4 resources to allow the establishment and > growth of future IXPs. > > > 2) Summary of How this Proposal Addresses the Problem > > This policy requests AfriNIC to reserve, and publish IPv4 > resources, and > 2-byte ASNs for use by IXPs only. > > > 3) Proposal > > 3.1 Introduction > > It is widely considered that Internet Exchange Points (IXPs) > are one of the > critical elements needed for Internet economies to develop. > Africa is still > in the process of developing these, and is, at the same > time, faced with > the imminent exhaustion of its IPv4 resources. Not having > IPv4 addresses to > grow, or start new, IXPs would create unnecessary and > unneeded routing > complexity for Internet connected networks, looking to peer > at IXPs to > further their network scope. AfriNIC already has an existing > policy to make > allocations to IXPs [1], but that policy does not > specifically reserve IPV4 > space to ensure that there will be such, for future IXPs to > grow and > develop. Additionally, this policy reserves a set of 2-byte > ASNs for use by > IXPs for use at IXP BGP Route Servers. > > > 3.2 Distinction between IXP peering and management networks > > We distinguish between two kinds of IP address resources > needed and used at > IXPs. An IXP peering LAN is the contiguous network address > block that the > IXP would use to assign unique IP addresses to each peering > member, for > each peering participant to exchange network traffic across > the shared > peering infrastructure. Best practice has the IXP peering > LAN *not* being > visible in a view of the global routing table, among other > things to reduce > the attack vectors for ISP border routers via the IXP. > >> From a network identification, monitoring and analysis > perspective, it is > thus desirable, that the "peering LAN" space be provided > from a contiguous > block. The IXP management LAN is the management network that > the IXP uses > to provision services at the IXP, like monitoring, > statistics, mail, ticket > systems, provisioning of transit to DNS Roots, etc. > > Management networks, are meant to be reachable globally, for > instance to > publish data and allow remote access for common good network > infrastructure > (such as root and TLD DNS servers) and research projects. > > > 3.3 BGP Route Servers use > > Typically IXPs use BGP route servers to help manage peering > sessions > between different participants. The route servers implement > IXP routing > policy in the form of BGP communities, typically in the form > of A:B, where > A,B represent A=IXP BGP route server and B=participant ASN. > Current BGP > implementations utilise 6 bytes for the extended community > attribute > [RFC5668]. Therefore, an IXP with a 4-byte ASN in use at its > route server > would not be able to successfully implement the A:B BGP > community mapping, > if an IXP participant has a 4-byte ASN. This situation is > likely to be > experienced by more IXPs, as additional 4-byte ASNs are > allocated through > the current AfriNIC process. > > If, IXP route server communities include the IXP ASN and the > peer's ASN > (expected to be 4-byte), and a total of only 6 bytes are > available, it > follows that IXP route servers ASN could not be longer than > a 2-byte ASN. > > > 3.4 Proposal > > To ensure that there are sufficient resources for IXPs to > develop, this > policy proposes that AfriNIC reserve IPv4 addresses for IXP > peering LANs > out of an address block marked particularly, and > exclusively, for IXP > peering LAN use. Assignments for IXP peering LANs must be > from one > dedicated block, published as such by AfriNIC. Assignments > for IXP > management addresses should NOT be provided from the same > block as the IXP > peering LANs. > > It is proposed that a /16 block be reserved for future > requirements for IXP > peering LANs in the AfriNIC service region, and that AfriNIC > publish this > block as such. > > It is further proposed to reserve the equivalent of an > additional /16 block > for IXP management prefixes, separate from the peering LANs. > It is proposed > that AfriNIC reserves a block of 2-byte ASNs for use in BGP > route servers > at IXPs in the AfriNIC service region. > > The number of ASNs to be reserved should be the larger of > 114, or half of > the remaining 2-byte ASNs within AfriNIC's block at the date > of > ratification of this policy. > > AfriNIC will allocate these resources on a first come first > served basis. > > > 3.5 Evaluation criteria > > This policy does not suggest new evaluation criteria for > what determines a > valid IXP. > > > 4.0 References > > [1] AfriNIC Policy for End User Assignments - > AFPUB-2006-GEN-001 > http://afrinic.net/en/library/policies/127-afpub-2006-gen-001 > Sections 5) > and 6) > > > > > Note: proposal also available at > http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposals/1231-resource-reservation-for-internet-exchange-points > > > Regards, > Frank > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd From marty at akamai.com Thu Oct 30 18:47:13 2014 From: marty at akamai.com (Hannigan, Martin) Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2014 14:47:13 -0400 Subject: [rpd] proposed policy: reservation of resources for IXPs In-Reply-To: <920B1677-2D60-42CD-8B67-3C082149EAA9@delong.com> References: <1414596207.38093.YahooMailBasic@web162806.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <920B1677-2D60-42CD-8B67-3C082149EAA9@delong.com> Message-ID: Yes, the IXP community agrees that dual stacking is required; http://www.open-ix.org/standards/ixp-technical-requirements/ Best, Marty On Oct 30, 2014, at 14:45, Owen DeLong > wrote: It is very unusual to find myself on the opposite side of this question, Walu. As you know, I am a very strong proponent of IPv6 and will be very happy the day we start turning off IPv4 peering on the global internet. However, I don?t think the policy makes any such assumption. I think the policy assumes that IXP infrastructure must be dual-stacked and that in order to be dual-stacked, one needs IPv4 addresses. There is no need to reserve IPv6 addresses because there is no shortage. I do not believe that this policy encourages an IPv4 ?comfort zone?. I believe it sets aside space so that infrastructure can be developed to support increased peering density on both protocols throughout the region. Owen On Oct 29, 2014, at 8:23 AM, Walubengo J > wrote: jst some questions for Mich & Co. 1) The policy presumes that IXP infrastructure in Africa is best on v4, hence and therefore lets reserve the v4 for this. But Is this true? What's wrong with IXP infrastructure on v6? And if there is nothing wrong, then do we really need this policy? 2) If we adopt this policy, are we implicitly encouraging v4 "comfort zone" in Africa when the rest of the world moves on and tackles any challenges v6 may provide in the context of IXP infrastructure? just thinking loudly. walu. -------------------------------------------- On Wed, 10/29/14, Frank Habicht > wrote: Subject: [rpd] proposed policy: reservation of resources for IXPs To: "rpd" > Cc: "Nishal Goburdhan" > Date: Wednesday, October 29, 2014, 5:01 PM Hello all, please find this proposed policy, which we (3 co-authors) have submitted to the pdpwg last week: Resource Reservation for Internet Exchange Points Author(s): a) Frank Habicht, Tanzania Internet Exchange b) Michuki Mwangi, Internet Society/KIXP c) Nishal Goburdhan, Packet Clearing House/JINX 1) Summary of the Problem being addressed by this proposal This policy reserves IPv4 and 2-byte ASNs resources for public Internet Exchange Points (IXPs) in the African region, ensuring that there would be discrete IPv4 resources to allow the establishment and growth of future IXPs. 2) Summary of How this Proposal Addresses the Problem This policy requests AfriNIC to reserve, and publish IPv4 resources, and 2-byte ASNs for use by IXPs only. 3) Proposal 3.1 Introduction It is widely considered that Internet Exchange Points (IXPs) are one of the critical elements needed for Internet economies to develop. Africa is still in the process of developing these, and is, at the same time, faced with the imminent exhaustion of its IPv4 resources. Not having IPv4 addresses to grow, or start new, IXPs would create unnecessary and unneeded routing complexity for Internet connected networks, looking to peer at IXPs to further their network scope. AfriNIC already has an existing policy to make allocations to IXPs [1], but that policy does not specifically reserve IPV4 space to ensure that there will be such, for future IXPs to grow and develop. Additionally, this policy reserves a set of 2-byte ASNs for use by IXPs for use at IXP BGP Route Servers. 3.2 Distinction between IXP peering and management networks We distinguish between two kinds of IP address resources needed and used at IXPs. An IXP peering LAN is the contiguous network address block that the IXP would use to assign unique IP addresses to each peering member, for each peering participant to exchange network traffic across the shared peering infrastructure. Best practice has the IXP peering LAN *not* being visible in a view of the global routing table, among other things to reduce the attack vectors for ISP border routers via the IXP. From a network identification, monitoring and analysis perspective, it is thus desirable, that the "peering LAN" space be provided from a contiguous block. The IXP management LAN is the management network that the IXP uses to provision services at the IXP, like monitoring, statistics, mail, ticket systems, provisioning of transit to DNS Roots, etc. Management networks, are meant to be reachable globally, for instance to publish data and allow remote access for common good network infrastructure (such as root and TLD DNS servers) and research projects. 3.3 BGP Route Servers use Typically IXPs use BGP route servers to help manage peering sessions between different participants. The route servers implement IXP routing policy in the form of BGP communities, typically in the form of A:B, where A,B represent A=IXP BGP route server and B=participant ASN. Current BGP implementations utilise 6 bytes for the extended community attribute [RFC5668]. Therefore, an IXP with a 4-byte ASN in use at its route server would not be able to successfully implement the A:B BGP community mapping, if an IXP participant has a 4-byte ASN. This situation is likely to be experienced by more IXPs, as additional 4-byte ASNs are allocated through the current AfriNIC process. If, IXP route server communities include the IXP ASN and the peer's ASN (expected to be 4-byte), and a total of only 6 bytes are available, it follows that IXP route servers ASN could not be longer than a 2-byte ASN. 3.4 Proposal To ensure that there are sufficient resources for IXPs to develop, this policy proposes that AfriNIC reserve IPv4 addresses for IXP peering LANs out of an address block marked particularly, and exclusively, for IXP peering LAN use. Assignments for IXP peering LANs must be from one dedicated block, published as such by AfriNIC. Assignments for IXP management addresses should NOT be provided from the same block as the IXP peering LANs. It is proposed that a /16 block be reserved for future requirements for IXP peering LANs in the AfriNIC service region, and that AfriNIC publish this block as such. It is further proposed to reserve the equivalent of an additional /16 block for IXP management prefixes, separate from the peering LANs. It is proposed that AfriNIC reserves a block of 2-byte ASNs for use in BGP route servers at IXPs in the AfriNIC service region. The number of ASNs to be reserved should be the larger of 114, or half of the remaining 2-byte ASNs within AfriNIC's block at the date of ratification of this policy. AfriNIC will allocate these resources on a first come first served basis. 3.5 Evaluation criteria This policy does not suggest new evaluation criteria for what determines a valid IXP. 4.0 References [1] AfriNIC Policy for End User Assignments - AFPUB-2006-GEN-001 http://afrinic.net/en/library/policies/127-afpub-2006-gen-001 Sections 5) and 6) Note: proposal also available at http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposals/1231-resource-reservation-for-internet-exchange-points Regards, Frank _______________________________________________ rpd mailing list rpd at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd _______________________________________________ rpd mailing list rpd at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd _______________________________________________ rpd mailing list rpd at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dogwallah at gmail.com Thu Oct 30 19:03:35 2014 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2014 14:03:35 -0500 Subject: [rpd] proposed policy: reservation of resources for IXPs In-Reply-To: <8d41dc38a2e04469ad6c68f8fdf9fdf4@DM2PR03MB398.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> References: <1414596207.38093.YahooMailBasic@web162806.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <5451145C.7090501@geier.ne.tz> <8d41dc38a2e04469ad6c68f8fdf9fdf4@DM2PR03MB398.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> Message-ID: All, On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 12:59 PM, David Huberman wrote: > Hello, > > In regard to the proposed policy, "Resource Reservation for Internet Exchange Points", I have two comments: > > 1) I support the policy as written. > > 2) I ask the community for input on a separate policy proposal I would like to make, which is related. > > One of the lessons we've learned over 20+ years of operating public IXes is that the worst thing that can happen to an IX is to grow so big that it outgrows its peering fabric /24. Renumbering a peering fabric is a nightmare scenario. It is preventable by having allocation policies which keep successful IXes in mind. > > I propose, therefore, text which directs AFRINIC staff to: > > - issue no less than a /24 to each IX peering fabric > AND > - either reserve the adjacent /24 so the /24 can grow to a /23 in the case where the IX is successful; or > - issue the /24s sparsely (using the bisection method) to ensure the most number of /24s can grow into /23s over time. > > By carefully issuing /24s on /23 boundaries, it allows the (relatively few) IXes that will outgrow a /24 to easily move into a /23 with the same starting IP address, which makes it easy for the participants at the exchange. One would hope that procedure would dictate this, but I see no reason not to include it in the policy text if the authors are willing. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel From geier at geier.ne.tz Thu Oct 30 20:01:44 2014 From: geier at geier.ne.tz (Frank Habicht) Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2014 23:01:44 +0300 Subject: [rpd] proposed policy: reservation of resources for IXPs In-Reply-To: <8d41dc38a2e04469ad6c68f8fdf9fdf4@DM2PR03MB398.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> References: <1414596207.38093.YahooMailBasic@web162806.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <5451145C.7090501@geier.ne.tz> <8d41dc38a2e04469ad6c68f8fdf9fdf4@DM2PR03MB398.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> Message-ID: <54529928.4000906@geier.ne.tz> Hi, On 10/30/2014 8:59 PM, David Huberman wrote: > Hello, > > In regard to the proposed policy, "Resource Reservation for Internet > Exchange Points", I have two comments: > > 1) I support the policy as written. Thank you. > 2) I ask the community for input on a separate policy proposal I would > like to make, which is related. > > One of the lessons we've learned over 20+ years of operating public IXes > is that the worst thing that can happen to an IX is to grow so big that > it outgrows its peering fabric /24. Renumbering a peering fabric is a > nightmare scenario. It is preventable by having allocation policies > which keep successful IXes in mind. > > I propose, therefore, text which directs AFRINIC staff to: > > - issue no less than a /24 to each IX peering fabric AND - either > reserve the adjacent /24 so the /24 can grow to a /23 in the case where > the IX is successful; or - issue the /24s sparsely (using the bisection > method) to ensure the most number of /24s can grow into /23s over time. > > By carefully issuing /24s on /23 boundaries, it allows the (relatively > few) IXes that will outgrow a /24 to easily move into a /23 with the > same starting IP address, which makes it easy for the participants at > the exchange. > > Would this proposal have support? I think we could incorporate text towards this into the existing proposal, after hearing more voices on this, but in general, the authors agree. Cheers, Frank > Thanks and with regards, David > > David R Huberman Microsoft Corporation Principal, Global IP Addressing > > >> Subject: [rpd] proposed policy: reservation of resources for IXPs To: >> "rpd" Cc: "Nishal Goburdhan" >> Date: Wednesday, October 29, 2014, 5:01 PM >> >> Hello all, >> >> please find this proposed policy, which we (3 co-authors) have >> submitted to the pdpwg last week: >> >> Resource Reservation for Internet Exchange Points >> >> Author(s): a) Frank Habicht, Tanzania Internet Exchange b) Michuki >> Mwangi, Internet Society/KIXP c) Nishal Goburdhan, Packet Clearing >> House/JINX >> >> 1) Summary of the Problem being addressed by this proposal >> >> This policy reserves IPv4 and 2-byte ASNs resources for public >> Internet Exchange Points (IXPs) in the African region, ensuring that >> there would be discrete IPv4 resources to allow the establishment >> and growth of future IXPs. >> >> >> 2) Summary of How this Proposal Addresses the Problem >> >> This policy requests AfriNIC to reserve, and publish IPv4 resources, >> and 2-byte ASNs for use by IXPs only. >> >> >> 3) Proposal >> >> 3.1 Introduction >> >> It is widely considered that Internet Exchange Points (IXPs) are one >> of the critical elements needed for Internet economies to develop. >> Africa is still in the process of developing these, and is, at the >> same time, faced with the imminent exhaustion of its IPv4 resources. >> Not having IPv4 addresses to grow, or start new, IXPs would create >> unnecessary and unneeded routing complexity for Internet connected >> networks, looking to peer at IXPs to further their network scope. >> AfriNIC already has an existing policy to make allocations to IXPs >> [1], but that policy does not specifically reserve IPV4 space to >> ensure that there will be such, for future IXPs to grow and develop. >> Additionally, this policy reserves a set of 2-byte ASNs for use by >> IXPs for use at IXP BGP Route Servers. >> >> >> 3.2 Distinction between IXP peering and management networks >> >> We distinguish between two kinds of IP address resources needed and >> used at IXPs. An IXP peering LAN is the contiguous network address >> block that the IXP would use to assign unique IP addresses to each >> peering member, for each peering participant to exchange network >> traffic across the shared peering infrastructure. Best practice has >> the IXP peering LAN *not* being visible in a view of the global >> routing table, among other things to reduce the attack vectors for >> ISP border routers via the IXP. >> >>> From a network identification, monitoring and analysis perspective, >>> >> it is thus desirable, that the "peering LAN" space be provided from >> a contiguous block. The IXP management LAN is the management network >> that the IXP uses to provision services at the IXP, like >> monitoring, statistics, mail, ticket systems, provisioning of transit >> to DNS Roots, etc. >> >> Management networks, are meant to be reachable globally, for instance >> to publish data and allow remote access for common good network >> infrastructure (such as root and TLD DNS servers) and research >> projects. >> >> >> 3.3 BGP Route Servers use >> >> Typically IXPs use BGP route servers to help manage peering sessions >> between different participants. The route servers implement IXP >> routing policy in the form of BGP communities, typically in the form >> of A:B, where A,B represent A=IXP BGP route server and B=participant >> ASN. Current BGP implementations utilise 6 bytes for the extended >> community attribute [RFC5668]. Therefore, an IXP with a 4-byte ASN in >> use at its route server would not be able to successfully implement >> the A:B BGP community mapping, if an IXP participant has a 4-byte >> ASN. This situation is likely to be experienced by more IXPs, as >> additional 4-byte ASNs are allocated through the current AfriNIC >> process. >> >> If, IXP route server communities include the IXP ASN and the peer's >> ASN (expected to be 4-byte), and a total of only 6 bytes are >> available, it follows that IXP route servers ASN could not be longer >> than a 2-byte ASN. >> >> >> 3.4 Proposal >> >> To ensure that there are sufficient resources for IXPs to develop, >> this policy proposes that AfriNIC reserve IPv4 addresses for IXP >> peering LANs out of an address block marked particularly, and >> exclusively, for IXP peering LAN use. Assignments for IXP peering >> LANs must be from one dedicated block, published as such by AfriNIC. >> Assignments for IXP management addresses should NOT be provided >> from the same block as the IXP peering LANs. >> >> It is proposed that a /16 block be reserved for future requirements >> for IXP peering LANs in the AfriNIC service region, and that AfriNIC >> publish this block as such. >> >> It is further proposed to reserve the equivalent of an additional /16 >> block for IXP management prefixes, separate from the peering LANs. It >> is proposed that AfriNIC reserves a block of 2-byte ASNs for use in >> BGP route servers at IXPs in the AfriNIC service region. >> >> The number of ASNs to be reserved should be the larger of 114, or >> half of the remaining 2-byte ASNs within AfriNIC's block at the date >> of ratification of this policy. >> >> AfriNIC will allocate these resources on a first come first served >> basis. >> >> >> 3.5 Evaluation criteria >> >> This policy does not suggest new evaluation criteria for what >> determines a valid IXP. >> >> >> 4.0 References >> >> [1] AfriNIC Policy for End User Assignments - AFPUB-2006-GEN-001 >> http://afrinic.net/en/library/policies/127-afpub-2006-gen-001 Sections >> 5) and 6) >> >> >> >> >> Note: proposal also available at >> >> http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposal >> >> s/1231-resource-reservation-for-internet-exchange-points >> >> >> Regards, Frank _______________________________________________ rpd >> mailing list rpd at afrinic.net >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >> > > > _______________________________________________ rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > _______________________________________________ rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > From owen at delong.com Thu Oct 30 22:13:33 2014 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2014 15:13:33 -0700 Subject: [rpd] proposed policy: reservation of resources for IXPs In-Reply-To: <8d41dc38a2e04469ad6c68f8fdf9fdf4@DM2PR03MB398.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> References: <1414596207.38093.YahooMailBasic@web162806.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <5451145C.7090501@geier.ne.tz> <8d41dc38a2e04469ad6c68f8fdf9fdf4@DM2PR03MB398.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> Message-ID: I generally support ?sparse? allocation or more precisely allocation by bisection in all reserved special purpose blocks. Owen > On Oct 30, 2014, at 10:59 AM, David Huberman wrote: > > Hello, > > In regard to the proposed policy, "Resource Reservation for Internet Exchange Points", I have two comments: > > 1) I support the policy as written. > > 2) I ask the community for input on a separate policy proposal I would like to make, which is related. > > One of the lessons we've learned over 20+ years of operating public IXes is that the worst thing that can happen to an IX is to grow so big that it outgrows its peering fabric /24. Renumbering a peering fabric is a nightmare scenario. It is preventable by having allocation policies which keep successful IXes in mind. > > I propose, therefore, text which directs AFRINIC staff to: > > - issue no less than a /24 to each IX peering fabric > AND > - either reserve the adjacent /24 so the /24 can grow to a /23 in the case where the IX is successful; or > - issue the /24s sparsely (using the bisection method) to ensure the most number of /24s can grow into /23s over time. > > By carefully issuing /24s on /23 boundaries, it allows the (relatively few) IXes that will outgrow a /24 to easily move into a /23 with the same starting IP address, which makes it easy for the participants at the exchange. > > Would this proposal have support? > > Thanks and with regards, > David > > David R Huberman > Microsoft Corporation > Principal, Global IP Addressing > > >> Subject: [rpd] proposed policy: reservation of resources for IXPs >> To: "rpd" >> Cc: "Nishal Goburdhan" >> Date: Wednesday, October 29, 2014, 5:01 PM >> >> Hello all, >> >> please find this proposed policy, which we (3 co-authors) have >> submitted to the pdpwg last week: >> >> Resource Reservation for Internet Exchange Points >> >> Author(s): >> a) Frank Habicht, Tanzania Internet Exchange >> b) Michuki Mwangi, Internet Society/KIXP >> c) Nishal Goburdhan, Packet Clearing House/JINX >> >> 1) Summary of the Problem being addressed by this proposal >> >> This policy reserves IPv4 and 2-byte ASNs resources for public >> Internet Exchange Points (IXPs) in the African region, ensuring that >> there would be discrete IPv4 resources to allow the establishment and >> growth of future IXPs. >> >> >> 2) Summary of How this Proposal Addresses the Problem >> >> This policy requests AfriNIC to reserve, and publish IPv4 resources, >> and 2-byte ASNs for use by IXPs only. >> >> >> 3) Proposal >> >> 3.1 Introduction >> >> It is widely considered that Internet Exchange Points (IXPs) are one >> of the critical elements needed for Internet economies to develop. >> Africa is still >> in the process of developing these, and is, at the same time, faced >> with the imminent exhaustion of its IPv4 resources. Not having >> IPv4 addresses to >> grow, or start new, IXPs would create unnecessary and unneeded >> routing complexity for Internet connected networks, looking to peer >> at IXPs to further their network scope. AfriNIC already has an >> existing policy to make allocations to IXPs [1], but that policy >> does not specifically reserve IPV4 space to ensure that there will >> be such, for future IXPs to grow and develop. Additionally, this >> policy reserves a set of 2-byte ASNs for use by IXPs for use at IXP >> BGP Route Servers. >> >> >> 3.2 Distinction between IXP peering and management networks >> >> We distinguish between two kinds of IP address resources needed and >> used at IXPs. An IXP peering LAN is the contiguous network address >> block that the IXP would use to assign unique IP addresses to each >> peering member, for each peering participant to exchange network >> traffic across the shared peering infrastructure. Best practice has >> the IXP peering LAN *not* being visible in a view of the global >> routing table, among other things to reduce the attack vectors for >> ISP border routers via the IXP. >> >>> From a network identification, monitoring and analysis perspective, >> it is thus desirable, that the "peering LAN" space be provided from >> a contiguous block. The IXP management LAN is the management network >> that the IXP uses to provision services at the IXP, like monitoring, >> statistics, mail, ticket systems, provisioning of transit to DNS >> Roots, etc. >> >> Management networks, are meant to be reachable globally, for >> instance to publish data and allow remote access for common good >> network infrastructure (such as root and TLD DNS servers) and >> research projects. >> >> >> 3.3 BGP Route Servers use >> >> Typically IXPs use BGP route servers to help manage peering sessions >> between different participants. The route servers implement IXP >> routing policy in the form of BGP communities, typically in the form >> of A:B, where A,B represent A=IXP BGP route server and B=participant >> ASN. >> Current BGP >> implementations utilise 6 bytes for the extended community attribute >> [RFC5668]. Therefore, an IXP with a 4-byte ASN in use at its route >> server would not be able to successfully implement the A:B BGP >> community mapping, if an IXP participant has a 4-byte ASN. This >> situation is likely to be experienced by more IXPs, as additional >> 4-byte ASNs are allocated through the current AfriNIC process. >> >> If, IXP route server communities include the IXP ASN and the peer's >> ASN (expected to be 4-byte), and a total of only 6 bytes are >> available, it follows that IXP route servers ASN could not be longer >> than a 2-byte ASN. >> >> >> 3.4 Proposal >> >> To ensure that there are sufficient resources for IXPs to develop, >> this policy proposes that AfriNIC reserve IPv4 addresses for IXP >> peering LANs out of an address block marked particularly, and >> exclusively, for IXP peering LAN use. Assignments for IXP peering >> LANs must be from one dedicated block, published as such by AfriNIC. >> Assignments for IXP management addresses should NOT be provided from >> the same block as the IXP peering LANs. >> >> It is proposed that a /16 block be reserved for future requirements >> for IXP peering LANs in the AfriNIC service region, and that AfriNIC >> publish this block as such. >> >> It is further proposed to reserve the equivalent of an additional >> /16 block for IXP management prefixes, separate from the peering >> LANs. >> It is proposed >> that AfriNIC reserves a block of 2-byte ASNs for use in BGP route >> servers at IXPs in the AfriNIC service region. >> >> The number of ASNs to be reserved should be the larger of 114, or >> half of the remaining 2-byte ASNs within AfriNIC's block at the date >> of ratification of this policy. >> >> AfriNIC will allocate these resources on a first come first served >> basis. >> >> >> 3.5 Evaluation criteria >> >> This policy does not suggest new evaluation criteria for what >> determines a valid IXP. >> >> >> 4.0 References >> >> [1] AfriNIC Policy for End User Assignments - >> AFPUB-2006-GEN-001 >> http://afrinic.net/en/library/policies/127-afpub-2006-gen-001 >> Sections 5) >> and 6) >> >> >> >> >> Note: proposal also available at >> >> http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposal >> s/1231-resource-reservation-for-internet-exchange-points >> >> >> Regards, >> Frank >> _______________________________________________ >> rpd mailing list >> rpd at afrinic.net >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >> > > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd From owen at delong.com Thu Oct 30 22:18:42 2014 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2014 15:18:42 -0700 Subject: [rpd] proposed policy: reservation of resources for IXPs In-Reply-To: References: <1414596207.38093.YahooMailBasic@web162806.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <920B1677-2D60-42CD-8B67-3C082149EAA9@delong.com> Message-ID: While I think that most of what OpenIX seeks to do is generally good, I think it is hubris for them to refer to themselves as ?the IXP community?. There are many perfectly legitimate IXPs being run very well which are not subscribing to the OpenIX model and there are some areas where OpenIX is supporting a specific agenda that is not necessarily aligned with the broader interests of the entire IXP community. Owen > On Oct 30, 2014, at 11:47 AM, Hannigan, Martin wrote: > > > Yes, the IXP community agrees that dual stacking is required; > > http://www.open-ix.org/standards/ixp-technical-requirements/ > > > Best, > > Marty > > > > On Oct 30, 2014, at 14:45, Owen DeLong > wrote: > >> It is very unusual to find myself on the opposite side of this question, Walu. As you know, I am a very strong proponent of IPv6 and will be very happy the day we start turning off IPv4 peering on the global internet. >> >> However, I don?t think the policy makes any such assumption. >> >> I think the policy assumes that IXP infrastructure must be dual-stacked and that in order to be dual-stacked, one needs IPv4 addresses. >> There is no need to reserve IPv6 addresses because there is no shortage. >> >> I do not believe that this policy encourages an IPv4 ?comfort zone?. I believe it sets aside space so that infrastructure can be developed to support increased peering density on both protocols throughout the region. >> >> Owen >> >>> On Oct 29, 2014, at 8:23 AM, Walubengo J > wrote: >>> >>> jst some questions for Mich & Co. >>> >>> 1) The policy presumes that IXP infrastructure in Africa is best on v4, hence and therefore lets reserve the v4 for this. But Is this true? What's wrong with IXP infrastructure on v6? And if there is nothing wrong, then do we really need this policy? >>> 2) If we adopt this policy, are we implicitly encouraging v4 "comfort zone" in Africa when the rest of the world moves on and tackles any challenges v6 may provide in the context of IXP infrastructure? >>> >>> just thinking loudly. >>> >>> walu. >>> -------------------------------------------- >>> On Wed, 10/29/14, Frank Habicht > wrote: >>> >>> Subject: [rpd] proposed policy: reservation of resources for IXPs >>> To: "rpd" > >>> Cc: "Nishal Goburdhan" > >>> Date: Wednesday, October 29, 2014, 5:01 PM >>> >>> Hello all, >>> >>> please find this proposed policy, which we (3 co-authors) >>> have submitted to >>> the pdpwg last week: >>> >>> Resource Reservation for Internet Exchange Points >>> >>> Author(s): >>> a) Frank Habicht, Tanzania Internet Exchange >>> b) Michuki Mwangi, Internet Society/KIXP >>> c) Nishal Goburdhan, Packet Clearing House/JINX >>> >>> 1) Summary of the Problem being addressed by this proposal >>> >>> This policy reserves IPv4 and 2-byte ASNs resources for >>> public Internet >>> Exchange Points (IXPs) in the African region, ensuring that >>> there would be >>> discrete IPv4 resources to allow the establishment and >>> growth of future IXPs. >>> >>> >>> 2) Summary of How this Proposal Addresses the Problem >>> >>> This policy requests AfriNIC to reserve, and publish IPv4 >>> resources, and >>> 2-byte ASNs for use by IXPs only. >>> >>> >>> 3) Proposal >>> >>> 3.1 Introduction >>> >>> It is widely considered that Internet Exchange Points (IXPs) >>> are one of the >>> critical elements needed for Internet economies to develop. >>> Africa is still >>> in the process of developing these, and is, at the same >>> time, faced with >>> the imminent exhaustion of its IPv4 resources. Not having >>> IPv4 addresses to >>> grow, or start new, IXPs would create unnecessary and >>> unneeded routing >>> complexity for Internet connected networks, looking to peer >>> at IXPs to >>> further their network scope. AfriNIC already has an existing >>> policy to make >>> allocations to IXPs [1], but that policy does not >>> specifically reserve IPV4 >>> space to ensure that there will be such, for future IXPs to >>> grow and >>> develop. Additionally, this policy reserves a set of 2-byte >>> ASNs for use by >>> IXPs for use at IXP BGP Route Servers. >>> >>> >>> 3.2 Distinction between IXP peering and management networks >>> >>> We distinguish between two kinds of IP address resources >>> needed and used at >>> IXPs. An IXP peering LAN is the contiguous network address >>> block that the >>> IXP would use to assign unique IP addresses to each peering >>> member, for >>> each peering participant to exchange network traffic across >>> the shared >>> peering infrastructure. Best practice has the IXP peering >>> LAN *not* being >>> visible in a view of the global routing table, among other >>> things to reduce >>> the attack vectors for ISP border routers via the IXP. >>> >>>> From a network identification, monitoring and analysis >>> perspective, it is >>> thus desirable, that the "peering LAN" space be provided >>> from a contiguous >>> block. The IXP management LAN is the management network that >>> the IXP uses >>> to provision services at the IXP, like monitoring, >>> statistics, mail, ticket >>> systems, provisioning of transit to DNS Roots, etc. >>> >>> Management networks, are meant to be reachable globally, for >>> instance to >>> publish data and allow remote access for common good network >>> infrastructure >>> (such as root and TLD DNS servers) and research projects. >>> >>> >>> 3.3 BGP Route Servers use >>> >>> Typically IXPs use BGP route servers to help manage peering >>> sessions >>> between different participants. The route servers implement >>> IXP routing >>> policy in the form of BGP communities, typically in the form >>> of A:B, where >>> A,B represent A=IXP BGP route server and B=participant ASN. >>> Current BGP >>> implementations utilise 6 bytes for the extended community >>> attribute >>> [RFC5668]. Therefore, an IXP with a 4-byte ASN in use at its >>> route server >>> would not be able to successfully implement the A:B BGP >>> community mapping, >>> if an IXP participant has a 4-byte ASN. This situation is >>> likely to be >>> experienced by more IXPs, as additional 4-byte ASNs are >>> allocated through >>> the current AfriNIC process. >>> >>> If, IXP route server communities include the IXP ASN and the >>> peer's ASN >>> (expected to be 4-byte), and a total of only 6 bytes are >>> available, it >>> follows that IXP route servers ASN could not be longer than >>> a 2-byte ASN. >>> >>> >>> 3.4 Proposal >>> >>> To ensure that there are sufficient resources for IXPs to >>> develop, this >>> policy proposes that AfriNIC reserve IPv4 addresses for IXP >>> peering LANs >>> out of an address block marked particularly, and >>> exclusively, for IXP >>> peering LAN use. Assignments for IXP peering LANs must be >>> from one >>> dedicated block, published as such by AfriNIC. Assignments >>> for IXP >>> management addresses should NOT be provided from the same >>> block as the IXP >>> peering LANs. >>> >>> It is proposed that a /16 block be reserved for future >>> requirements for IXP >>> peering LANs in the AfriNIC service region, and that AfriNIC >>> publish this >>> block as such. >>> >>> It is further proposed to reserve the equivalent of an >>> additional /16 block >>> for IXP management prefixes, separate from the peering LANs. >>> It is proposed >>> that AfriNIC reserves a block of 2-byte ASNs for use in BGP >>> route servers >>> at IXPs in the AfriNIC service region. >>> >>> The number of ASNs to be reserved should be the larger of >>> 114, or half of >>> the remaining 2-byte ASNs within AfriNIC's block at the date >>> of >>> ratification of this policy. >>> >>> AfriNIC will allocate these resources on a first come first >>> served basis. >>> >>> >>> 3.5 Evaluation criteria >>> >>> This policy does not suggest new evaluation criteria for >>> what determines a >>> valid IXP. >>> >>> >>> 4.0 References >>> >>> [1] AfriNIC Policy for End User Assignments - >>> AFPUB-2006-GEN-001 >>> http://afrinic.net/en/library/policies/127-afpub-2006-gen-001 >>> Sections 5) >>> and 6) >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Note: proposal also available at >>> http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposals/1231-resource-reservation-for-internet-exchange-points >>> >>> >>> Regards, >>> Frank >>> _______________________________________________ >>> rpd mailing list >>> rpd at afrinic.net >>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> rpd mailing list >>> rpd at afrinic.net >>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >> >> _______________________________________________ >> rpd mailing list >> rpd at afrinic.net >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From marty at akamai.com Thu Oct 30 22:29:58 2014 From: marty at akamai.com (Hannigan, Martin) Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2014 18:29:58 -0400 Subject: [rpd] proposed policy: reservation of resources for IXPs In-Reply-To: References: <1414596207.38093.YahooMailBasic@web162806.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <920B1677-2D60-42CD-8B67-3C082149EAA9@delong.com> Message-ID: We'll disagree. OIX has over 200 dues paying members and I'm confident that my statement is in context. But I digress, this is about numbers and I pointed at a bonafide standard that refers to a number requirement that many IXP members and operators agreed on in an open and transparent forum (which you don't appear to participate in) and with overwhelming consensus. You can receive it however you like. Best, -M< On Oct 30, 2014, at 18:24, Owen DeLong > wrote: While I think that most of what OpenIX seeks to do is generally good, I think it is hubris for them to refer to themselves as ?the IXP community?. There are many perfectly legitimate IXPs being run very well which are not subscribing to the OpenIX model and there are some areas where OpenIX is supporting a specific agenda that is not necessarily aligned with the broader interests of the entire IXP community. Owen On Oct 30, 2014, at 11:47 AM, Hannigan, Martin > wrote: Yes, the IXP community agrees that dual stacking is required; http://www.open-ix.org/standards/ixp-technical-requirements/ Best, Marty On Oct 30, 2014, at 14:45, Owen DeLong > wrote: It is very unusual to find myself on the opposite side of this question, Walu. As you know, I am a very strong proponent of IPv6 and will be very happy the day we start turning off IPv4 peering on the global internet. However, I don?t think the policy makes any such assumption. I think the policy assumes that IXP infrastructure must be dual-stacked and that in order to be dual-stacked, one needs IPv4 addresses. There is no need to reserve IPv6 addresses because there is no shortage. I do not believe that this policy encourages an IPv4 ?comfort zone?. I believe it sets aside space so that infrastructure can be developed to support increased peering density on both protocols throughout the region. Owen On Oct 29, 2014, at 8:23 AM, Walubengo J > wrote: jst some questions for Mich & Co. 1) The policy presumes that IXP infrastructure in Africa is best on v4, hence and therefore lets reserve the v4 for this. But Is this true? What's wrong with IXP infrastructure on v6? And if there is nothing wrong, then do we really need this policy? 2) If we adopt this policy, are we implicitly encouraging v4 "comfort zone" in Africa when the rest of the world moves on and tackles any challenges v6 may provide in the context of IXP infrastructure? just thinking loudly. walu. -------------------------------------------- On Wed, 10/29/14, Frank Habicht > wrote: Subject: [rpd] proposed policy: reservation of resources for IXPs To: "rpd" > Cc: "Nishal Goburdhan" > Date: Wednesday, October 29, 2014, 5:01 PM Hello all, please find this proposed policy, which we (3 co-authors) have submitted to the pdpwg last week: Resource Reservation for Internet Exchange Points Author(s): a) Frank Habicht, Tanzania Internet Exchange b) Michuki Mwangi, Internet Society/KIXP c) Nishal Goburdhan, Packet Clearing House/JINX 1) Summary of the Problem being addressed by this proposal This policy reserves IPv4 and 2-byte ASNs resources for public Internet Exchange Points (IXPs) in the African region, ensuring that there would be discrete IPv4 resources to allow the establishment and growth of future IXPs. 2) Summary of How this Proposal Addresses the Problem This policy requests AfriNIC to reserve, and publish IPv4 resources, and 2-byte ASNs for use by IXPs only. 3) Proposal 3.1 Introduction It is widely considered that Internet Exchange Points (IXPs) are one of the critical elements needed for Internet economies to develop. Africa is still in the process of developing these, and is, at the same time, faced with the imminent exhaustion of its IPv4 resources. Not having IPv4 addresses to grow, or start new, IXPs would create unnecessary and unneeded routing complexity for Internet connected networks, looking to peer at IXPs to further their network scope. AfriNIC already has an existing policy to make allocations to IXPs [1], but that policy does not specifically reserve IPV4 space to ensure that there will be such, for future IXPs to grow and develop. Additionally, this policy reserves a set of 2-byte ASNs for use by IXPs for use at IXP BGP Route Servers. 3.2 Distinction between IXP peering and management networks We distinguish between two kinds of IP address resources needed and used at IXPs. An IXP peering LAN is the contiguous network address block that the IXP would use to assign unique IP addresses to each peering member, for each peering participant to exchange network traffic across the shared peering infrastructure. Best practice has the IXP peering LAN *not* being visible in a view of the global routing table, among other things to reduce the attack vectors for ISP border routers via the IXP. From a network identification, monitoring and analysis perspective, it is thus desirable, that the "peering LAN" space be provided from a contiguous block. The IXP management LAN is the management network that the IXP uses to provision services at the IXP, like monitoring, statistics, mail, ticket systems, provisioning of transit to DNS Roots, etc. Management networks, are meant to be reachable globally, for instance to publish data and allow remote access for common good network infrastructure (such as root and TLD DNS servers) and research projects. 3.3 BGP Route Servers use Typically IXPs use BGP route servers to help manage peering sessions between different participants. The route servers implement IXP routing policy in the form of BGP communities, typically in the form of A:B, where A,B represent A=IXP BGP route server and B=participant ASN. Current BGP implementations utilise 6 bytes for the extended community attribute [RFC5668]. Therefore, an IXP with a 4-byte ASN in use at its route server would not be able to successfully implement the A:B BGP community mapping, if an IXP participant has a 4-byte ASN. This situation is likely to be experienced by more IXPs, as additional 4-byte ASNs are allocated through the current AfriNIC process. If, IXP route server communities include the IXP ASN and the peer's ASN (expected to be 4-byte), and a total of only 6 bytes are available, it follows that IXP route servers ASN could not be longer than a 2-byte ASN. 3.4 Proposal To ensure that there are sufficient resources for IXPs to develop, this policy proposes that AfriNIC reserve IPv4 addresses for IXP peering LANs out of an address block marked particularly, and exclusively, for IXP peering LAN use. Assignments for IXP peering LANs must be from one dedicated block, published as such by AfriNIC. Assignments for IXP management addresses should NOT be provided from the same block as the IXP peering LANs. It is proposed that a /16 block be reserved for future requirements for IXP peering LANs in the AfriNIC service region, and that AfriNIC publish this block as such. It is further proposed to reserve the equivalent of an additional /16 block for IXP management prefixes, separate from the peering LANs. It is proposed that AfriNIC reserves a block of 2-byte ASNs for use in BGP route servers at IXPs in the AfriNIC service region. The number of ASNs to be reserved should be the larger of 114, or half of the remaining 2-byte ASNs within AfriNIC's block at the date of ratification of this policy. AfriNIC will allocate these resources on a first come first served basis. 3.5 Evaluation criteria This policy does not suggest new evaluation criteria for what determines a valid IXP. 4.0 References [1] AfriNIC Policy for End User Assignments - AFPUB-2006-GEN-001 http://afrinic.net/en/library/policies/127-afpub-2006-gen-001 Sections 5) and 6) Note: proposal also available at http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposals/1231-resource-reservation-for-internet-exchange-points Regards, Frank _______________________________________________ rpd mailing list rpd at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd _______________________________________________ rpd mailing list rpd at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd _______________________________________________ rpd mailing list rpd at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd _______________________________________________ rpd mailing list rpd at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From owen at delong.com Thu Oct 30 22:55:26 2014 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2014 15:55:26 -0700 Subject: [rpd] proposed policy: reservation of resources for IXPs In-Reply-To: References: <1414596207.38093.YahooMailBasic@web162806.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <920B1677-2D60-42CD-8B67-3C082149EAA9@delong.com> Message-ID: > On Oct 30, 2014, at 3:29 PM, Hannigan, Martin wrote: > > > We'll disagree. OIX has over 200 dues paying members and I'm confident that my statement is in context. Of the thousands of organizations that I would consider constituents of the IXP community, I?d say that?s a pretty small sample. > But I digress, this is about numbers and I pointed at a bonafide standard that refers to a number requirement that many IXP members and operators agreed on in an open and transparent forum (which you don't appear to participate in) and with overwhelming consensus. I didn?t disagree with your conclusion. I disagreed with the characterization of the organization producing the conclusion. Had you said ?Open-IX agrees that?? or ?The Open-IX community agrees that?? I would not have taken issue. Indeed, I think it is likely that the IXP community even beyond the small subset that is represented by Open-IX would agree with said conclusion, but I have not surveyed them and neither have you, so we do not know. Owen > > > > > On Oct 30, 2014, at 18:24, Owen DeLong > wrote: > >> While I think that most of what OpenIX seeks to do is generally good, I think it is hubris for them to refer to themselves as ?the IXP community?. >> >> There are many perfectly legitimate IXPs being run very well which are not subscribing to the OpenIX model and there are some >> areas where OpenIX is supporting a specific agenda that is not necessarily aligned with the broader interests of the entire IXP >> community. >> >> Owen >> >>> On Oct 30, 2014, at 11:47 AM, Hannigan, Martin > wrote: >>> >>> >>> Yes, the IXP community agrees that dual stacking is required; >>> >>> http://www.open-ix.org/standards/ixp-technical-requirements/ >>> >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Marty >>> >>> >>> >>> On Oct 30, 2014, at 14:45, Owen DeLong > wrote: >>> >>>> It is very unusual to find myself on the opposite side of this question, Walu. As you know, I am a very strong proponent of IPv6 and will be very happy the day we start turning off IPv4 peering on the global internet. >>>> >>>> However, I don?t think the policy makes any such assumption. >>>> >>>> I think the policy assumes that IXP infrastructure must be dual-stacked and that in order to be dual-stacked, one needs IPv4 addresses. >>>> There is no need to reserve IPv6 addresses because there is no shortage. >>>> >>>> I do not believe that this policy encourages an IPv4 ?comfort zone?. I believe it sets aside space so that infrastructure can be developed to support increased peering density on both protocols throughout the region. >>>> >>>> Owen >>>> >>>>> On Oct 29, 2014, at 8:23 AM, Walubengo J > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> jst some questions for Mich & Co. >>>>> >>>>> 1) The policy presumes that IXP infrastructure in Africa is best on v4, hence and therefore lets reserve the v4 for this. But Is this true? What's wrong with IXP infrastructure on v6? And if there is nothing wrong, then do we really need this policy? >>>>> 2) If we adopt this policy, are we implicitly encouraging v4 "comfort zone" in Africa when the rest of the world moves on and tackles any challenges v6 may provide in the context of IXP infrastructure? >>>>> >>>>> just thinking loudly. >>>>> >>>>> walu. >>>>> -------------------------------------------- >>>>> On Wed, 10/29/14, Frank Habicht > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Subject: [rpd] proposed policy: reservation of resources for IXPs >>>>> To: "rpd" > >>>>> Cc: "Nishal Goburdhan" > >>>>> Date: Wednesday, October 29, 2014, 5:01 PM >>>>> >>>>> Hello all, >>>>> >>>>> please find this proposed policy, which we (3 co-authors) >>>>> have submitted to >>>>> the pdpwg last week: >>>>> >>>>> Resource Reservation for Internet Exchange Points >>>>> >>>>> Author(s): >>>>> a) Frank Habicht, Tanzania Internet Exchange >>>>> b) Michuki Mwangi, Internet Society/KIXP >>>>> c) Nishal Goburdhan, Packet Clearing House/JINX >>>>> >>>>> 1) Summary of the Problem being addressed by this proposal >>>>> >>>>> This policy reserves IPv4 and 2-byte ASNs resources for >>>>> public Internet >>>>> Exchange Points (IXPs) in the African region, ensuring that >>>>> there would be >>>>> discrete IPv4 resources to allow the establishment and >>>>> growth of future IXPs. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 2) Summary of How this Proposal Addresses the Problem >>>>> >>>>> This policy requests AfriNIC to reserve, and publish IPv4 >>>>> resources, and >>>>> 2-byte ASNs for use by IXPs only. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 3) Proposal >>>>> >>>>> 3.1 Introduction >>>>> >>>>> It is widely considered that Internet Exchange Points (IXPs) >>>>> are one of the >>>>> critical elements needed for Internet economies to develop. >>>>> Africa is still >>>>> in the process of developing these, and is, at the same >>>>> time, faced with >>>>> the imminent exhaustion of its IPv4 resources. Not having >>>>> IPv4 addresses to >>>>> grow, or start new, IXPs would create unnecessary and >>>>> unneeded routing >>>>> complexity for Internet connected networks, looking to peer >>>>> at IXPs to >>>>> further their network scope. AfriNIC already has an existing >>>>> policy to make >>>>> allocations to IXPs [1], but that policy does not >>>>> specifically reserve IPV4 >>>>> space to ensure that there will be such, for future IXPs to >>>>> grow and >>>>> develop. Additionally, this policy reserves a set of 2-byte >>>>> ASNs for use by >>>>> IXPs for use at IXP BGP Route Servers. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 3.2 Distinction between IXP peering and management networks >>>>> >>>>> We distinguish between two kinds of IP address resources >>>>> needed and used at >>>>> IXPs. An IXP peering LAN is the contiguous network address >>>>> block that the >>>>> IXP would use to assign unique IP addresses to each peering >>>>> member, for >>>>> each peering participant to exchange network traffic across >>>>> the shared >>>>> peering infrastructure. Best practice has the IXP peering >>>>> LAN *not* being >>>>> visible in a view of the global routing table, among other >>>>> things to reduce >>>>> the attack vectors for ISP border routers via the IXP. >>>>> >>>>>> From a network identification, monitoring and analysis >>>>> perspective, it is >>>>> thus desirable, that the "peering LAN" space be provided >>>>> from a contiguous >>>>> block. The IXP management LAN is the management network that >>>>> the IXP uses >>>>> to provision services at the IXP, like monitoring, >>>>> statistics, mail, ticket >>>>> systems, provisioning of transit to DNS Roots, etc. >>>>> >>>>> Management networks, are meant to be reachable globally, for >>>>> instance to >>>>> publish data and allow remote access for common good network >>>>> infrastructure >>>>> (such as root and TLD DNS servers) and research projects. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 3.3 BGP Route Servers use >>>>> >>>>> Typically IXPs use BGP route servers to help manage peering >>>>> sessions >>>>> between different participants. The route servers implement >>>>> IXP routing >>>>> policy in the form of BGP communities, typically in the form >>>>> of A:B, where >>>>> A,B represent A=IXP BGP route server and B=participant ASN. >>>>> Current BGP >>>>> implementations utilise 6 bytes for the extended community >>>>> attribute >>>>> [RFC5668]. Therefore, an IXP with a 4-byte ASN in use at its >>>>> route server >>>>> would not be able to successfully implement the A:B BGP >>>>> community mapping, >>>>> if an IXP participant has a 4-byte ASN. This situation is >>>>> likely to be >>>>> experienced by more IXPs, as additional 4-byte ASNs are >>>>> allocated through >>>>> the current AfriNIC process. >>>>> >>>>> If, IXP route server communities include the IXP ASN and the >>>>> peer's ASN >>>>> (expected to be 4-byte), and a total of only 6 bytes are >>>>> available, it >>>>> follows that IXP route servers ASN could not be longer than >>>>> a 2-byte ASN. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 3.4 Proposal >>>>> >>>>> To ensure that there are sufficient resources for IXPs to >>>>> develop, this >>>>> policy proposes that AfriNIC reserve IPv4 addresses for IXP >>>>> peering LANs >>>>> out of an address block marked particularly, and >>>>> exclusively, for IXP >>>>> peering LAN use. Assignments for IXP peering LANs must be >>>>> from one >>>>> dedicated block, published as such by AfriNIC. Assignments >>>>> for IXP >>>>> management addresses should NOT be provided from the same >>>>> block as the IXP >>>>> peering LANs. >>>>> >>>>> It is proposed that a /16 block be reserved for future >>>>> requirements for IXP >>>>> peering LANs in the AfriNIC service region, and that AfriNIC >>>>> publish this >>>>> block as such. >>>>> >>>>> It is further proposed to reserve the equivalent of an >>>>> additional /16 block >>>>> for IXP management prefixes, separate from the peering LANs. >>>>> It is proposed >>>>> that AfriNIC reserves a block of 2-byte ASNs for use in BGP >>>>> route servers >>>>> at IXPs in the AfriNIC service region. >>>>> >>>>> The number of ASNs to be reserved should be the larger of >>>>> 114, or half of >>>>> the remaining 2-byte ASNs within AfriNIC's block at the date >>>>> of >>>>> ratification of this policy. >>>>> >>>>> AfriNIC will allocate these resources on a first come first >>>>> served basis. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 3.5 Evaluation criteria >>>>> >>>>> This policy does not suggest new evaluation criteria for >>>>> what determines a >>>>> valid IXP. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 4.0 References >>>>> >>>>> [1] AfriNIC Policy for End User Assignments - >>>>> AFPUB-2006-GEN-001 >>>>> http://afrinic.net/en/library/policies/127-afpub-2006-gen-001 >>>>> Sections 5) >>>>> and 6) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Note: proposal also available at >>>>> http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposals/1231-resource-reservation-for-internet-exchange-points >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> Frank >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> rpd mailing list >>>>> rpd at afrinic.net >>>>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> rpd mailing list >>>>> rpd at afrinic.net >>>>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> rpd mailing list >>>> rpd at afrinic.net >>>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >>> _______________________________________________ >>> rpd mailing list >>> rpd at afrinic.net >>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From woody at pch.net Fri Oct 31 00:07:30 2014 From: woody at pch.net (Bill Woodcock) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2014 09:07:30 +0900 Subject: [rpd] proposed policy: reservation of resources for IXPs In-Reply-To: <54529928.4000906@geier.ne.tz> References: <1414596207.38093.YahooMailBasic@web162806.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <5451145C.7090501@geier.ne.tz> <8d41dc38a2e04469ad6c68f8fdf9fdf4@DM2PR03MB398.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <54529928.4000906@geier.ne.tz> Message-ID: <8696BA48-4B56-4010-8B3B-F16E9E137E04@pch.net> I support. -Bill > On Oct 31, 2014, at 5:07, "Frank Habicht" wrote: > > Hi, > >> On 10/30/2014 8:59 PM, David Huberman wrote: >> Hello, >> >> In regard to the proposed policy, "Resource Reservation for Internet >> Exchange Points", I have two comments: >> >> 1) I support the policy as written. > > Thank you. > >> 2) I ask the community for input on a separate policy proposal I would >> like to make, which is related. >> >> One of the lessons we've learned over 20+ years of operating public IXes >> is that the worst thing that can happen to an IX is to grow so big that >> it outgrows its peering fabric /24. Renumbering a peering fabric is a >> nightmare scenario. It is preventable by having allocation policies >> which keep successful IXes in mind. >> >> I propose, therefore, text which directs AFRINIC staff to: >> >> - issue no less than a /24 to each IX peering fabric AND - either >> reserve the adjacent /24 so the /24 can grow to a /23 in the case where >> the IX is successful; or - issue the /24s sparsely (using the bisection >> method) to ensure the most number of /24s can grow into /23s over time. >> >> By carefully issuing /24s on /23 boundaries, it allows the (relatively >> few) IXes that will outgrow a /24 to easily move into a /23 with the >> same starting IP address, which makes it easy for the participants at >> the exchange. >> >> Would this proposal have support? > > > I think we could incorporate text towards this into the existing proposal, > after hearing more voices on this, but in general, the authors agree. > > > Cheers, > Frank > > >> Thanks and with regards, David >> >> David R Huberman Microsoft Corporation Principal, Global IP Addressing >> >> >>> Subject: [rpd] proposed policy: reservation of resources for IXPs To: >>> "rpd" Cc: "Nishal Goburdhan" >>> Date: Wednesday, October 29, 2014, 5:01 PM >>> >>> Hello all, >>> >>> please find this proposed policy, which we (3 co-authors) have >>> submitted to the pdpwg last week: >>> >>> Resource Reservation for Internet Exchange Points >>> >>> Author(s): a) Frank Habicht, Tanzania Internet Exchange b) Michuki >>> Mwangi, Internet Society/KIXP c) Nishal Goburdhan, Packet Clearing >>> House/JINX >>> >>> 1) Summary of the Problem being addressed by this proposal >>> >>> This policy reserves IPv4 and 2-byte ASNs resources for public >>> Internet Exchange Points (IXPs) in the African region, ensuring that >>> there would be discrete IPv4 resources to allow the establishment >>> and growth of future IXPs. >>> >>> >>> 2) Summary of How this Proposal Addresses the Problem >>> >>> This policy requests AfriNIC to reserve, and publish IPv4 resources, >>> and 2-byte ASNs for use by IXPs only. >>> >>> >>> 3) Proposal >>> >>> 3.1 Introduction >>> >>> It is widely considered that Internet Exchange Points (IXPs) are one >>> of the critical elements needed for Internet economies to develop. >>> Africa is still in the process of developing these, and is, at the >>> same time, faced with the imminent exhaustion of its IPv4 resources. >>> Not having IPv4 addresses to grow, or start new, IXPs would create >>> unnecessary and unneeded routing complexity for Internet connected >>> networks, looking to peer at IXPs to further their network scope. >>> AfriNIC already has an existing policy to make allocations to IXPs >>> [1], but that policy does not specifically reserve IPV4 space to >>> ensure that there will be such, for future IXPs to grow and develop. >>> Additionally, this policy reserves a set of 2-byte ASNs for use by >>> IXPs for use at IXP BGP Route Servers. >>> >>> >>> 3.2 Distinction between IXP peering and management networks >>> >>> We distinguish between two kinds of IP address resources needed and >>> used at IXPs. An IXP peering LAN is the contiguous network address >>> block that the IXP would use to assign unique IP addresses to each >>> peering member, for each peering participant to exchange network >>> traffic across the shared peering infrastructure. Best practice has >>> the IXP peering LAN *not* being visible in a view of the global >>> routing table, among other things to reduce the attack vectors for >>> ISP border routers via the IXP. >>> >>>> From a network identification, monitoring and analysis perspective, >>> it is thus desirable, that the "peering LAN" space be provided from >>> a contiguous block. The IXP management LAN is the management network >>> that the IXP uses to provision services at the IXP, like >>> monitoring, statistics, mail, ticket systems, provisioning of transit >>> to DNS Roots, etc. >>> >>> Management networks, are meant to be reachable globally, for instance >>> to publish data and allow remote access for common good network >>> infrastructure (such as root and TLD DNS servers) and research >>> projects. >>> >>> >>> 3.3 BGP Route Servers use >>> >>> Typically IXPs use BGP route servers to help manage peering sessions >>> between different participants. The route servers implement IXP >>> routing policy in the form of BGP communities, typically in the form >>> of A:B, where A,B represent A=IXP BGP route server and B=participant >>> ASN. Current BGP implementations utilise 6 bytes for the extended >>> community attribute [RFC5668]. Therefore, an IXP with a 4-byte ASN in >>> use at its route server would not be able to successfully implement >>> the A:B BGP community mapping, if an IXP participant has a 4-byte >>> ASN. This situation is likely to be experienced by more IXPs, as >>> additional 4-byte ASNs are allocated through the current AfriNIC >>> process. >>> >>> If, IXP route server communities include the IXP ASN and the peer's >>> ASN (expected to be 4-byte), and a total of only 6 bytes are >>> available, it follows that IXP route servers ASN could not be longer >>> than a 2-byte ASN. >>> >>> >>> 3.4 Proposal >>> >>> To ensure that there are sufficient resources for IXPs to develop, >>> this policy proposes that AfriNIC reserve IPv4 addresses for IXP >>> peering LANs out of an address block marked particularly, and >>> exclusively, for IXP peering LAN use. Assignments for IXP peering >>> LANs must be from one dedicated block, published as such by AfriNIC. >>> Assignments for IXP management addresses should NOT be provided >>> from the same block as the IXP peering LANs. >>> >>> It is proposed that a /16 block be reserved for future requirements >>> for IXP peering LANs in the AfriNIC service region, and that AfriNIC >>> publish this block as such. >>> >>> It is further proposed to reserve the equivalent of an additional /16 >>> block for IXP management prefixes, separate from the peering LANs. It >>> is proposed that AfriNIC reserves a block of 2-byte ASNs for use in >>> BGP route servers at IXPs in the AfriNIC service region. >>> >>> The number of ASNs to be reserved should be the larger of 114, or >>> half of the remaining 2-byte ASNs within AfriNIC's block at the date >>> of ratification of this policy. >>> >>> AfriNIC will allocate these resources on a first come first served >>> basis. >>> >>> >>> 3.5 Evaluation criteria >>> >>> This policy does not suggest new evaluation criteria for what >>> determines a valid IXP. >>> >>> >>> 4.0 References >>> >>> [1] AfriNIC Policy for End User Assignments - AFPUB-2006-GEN-001 >>> http://afrinic.net/en/library/policies/127-afpub-2006-gen-001 Sections >>> 5) and 6) >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Note: proposal also available at >>> >>> http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposal > s/1231-resource-reservation-for-internet-exchange-points >>> >>> >>> Regards, Frank _______________________________________________ rpd >>> mailing list rpd at afrinic.net >>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >> >> >> _______________________________________________ rpd mailing list >> rpd at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >> _______________________________________________ rpd mailing list >> rpd at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd From mark.tinka at seacom.mu Fri Oct 31 05:54:18 2014 From: mark.tinka at seacom.mu (Mark Tinka) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2014 07:54:18 +0200 Subject: [rpd] proposed policy: reservation of resources for IXPs In-Reply-To: <8d41dc38a2e04469ad6c68f8fdf9fdf4@DM2PR03MB398.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> References: <1414596207.38093.YahooMailBasic@web162806.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <5451145C.7090501@geier.ne.tz> <8d41dc38a2e04469ad6c68f8fdf9fdf4@DM2PR03MB398.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> Message-ID: <201410310754.19366.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> On Thursday, October 30, 2014 07:59:26 PM David Huberman wrote: > By carefully issuing /24s on /23 boundaries, it allows > the (relatively few) IXes that will outgrow a /24 to > easily move into a /23 with the same starting IP > address, which makes it easy for the participants at the > exchange. > > Would this proposal have support? I would support such a proposal. While the recent renumber at a very large exchange point in western Europe was not especially complicated, I'd rather not have to go through it again. Mark. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. URL: From barry at tespok.co.ke Fri Oct 31 08:44:03 2014 From: barry at tespok.co.ke (Barry Apudo Macharia) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2014 11:44:03 +0300 (EAT) Subject: [rpd] proposed policy: reservation of resources for IXPs In-Reply-To: <201410310754.19366.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> References: <1414596207.38093.YahooMailBasic@web162806.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <5451145C.7090501@geier.ne.tz> <8d41dc38a2e04469ad6c68f8fdf9fdf4@DM2PR03MB398.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <201410310754.19366.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> Message-ID: <578038021.4122.1414745043301.JavaMail.zimbra@tespok.co.ke> i support this proposal ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark Tinka" To: rpd at afrinic.net Cc: "David Huberman" Sent: Friday, October 31, 2014 8:54:18 AM Subject: Re: [rpd] proposed policy: reservation of resources for IXPs On Thursday, October 30, 2014 07:59:26 PM David Huberman wrote: > By carefully issuing /24s on /23 boundaries, it allows > the (relatively few) IXes that will outgrow a /24 to > easily move into a /23 with the same starting IP > address, which makes it easy for the participants at the > exchange. > > Would this proposal have support? I would support such a proposal. While the recent renumber at a very large exchange point in western Europe was not especially complicated, I'd rather not have to go through it again. Mark. _______________________________________________ rpd mailing list rpd at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd From mje at posix.co.za Fri Oct 31 09:15:06 2014 From: mje at posix.co.za (Mark Elkins) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2014 11:15:06 +0200 Subject: [rpd] proposed policy: reservation of resources for IXPs In-Reply-To: References: <1414596207.38093.YahooMailBasic@web162806.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <5451145C.7090501@geier.ne.tz> <8d41dc38a2e04469ad6c68f8fdf9fdf4@DM2PR03MB398.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> Message-ID: <1414746906.32702.10.camel@posix.co.za> I like the proposal. I think the adjacent /24 also makes great sense. JINX is up to 79 addresses. (http://peering.posix.co.za - summary at the top) I expect that once JINX is extended into Terraco, this number will go up a fair bit. On Thu, 2014-10-30 at 14:03 -0500, McTim wrote: > All, > > On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 12:59 PM, David Huberman > wrote: > > Hello, > > > > In regard to the proposed policy, "Resource Reservation for Internet Exchange Points", I have two comments: > > > > 1) I support the policy as written. > > > > 2) I ask the community for input on a separate policy proposal I would like to make, which is related. > > > > One of the lessons we've learned over 20+ years of operating public IXes is that the worst thing that can happen to an IX is to grow so big that it outgrows its peering fabric /24. Renumbering a peering fabric is a nightmare scenario. It is preventable by having allocation policies which keep successful IXes in mind. > > > > I propose, therefore, text which directs AFRINIC staff to: > > > > - issue no less than a /24 to each IX peering fabric > > AND > > - either reserve the adjacent /24 so the /24 can grow to a /23 in the case where the IX is successful; or > > - issue the /24s sparsely (using the bisection method) to ensure the most number of /24s can grow into /23s over time. > > > > By carefully issuing /24s on /23 boundaries, it allows the (relatively few) IXes that will outgrow a /24 to easily move into a /23 with the same starting IP address, which makes it easy for the participants at the exchange. > > > One would hope that procedure would dictate this, but I see no reason > not to include it in the policy text if the authors are willing. > > > -- Mark James ELKINS - Posix Systems - (South) Africa mje at posix.co.za Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: https://ftth.posix.co.za -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 5810 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mje at posix.co.za Fri Oct 31 14:05:34 2014 From: mje at posix.co.za (Mark Elkins) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2014 16:05:34 +0200 Subject: [rpd] Candidates for the 2014 ASO-AC Election Message-ID: <1414764334.24302.2.camel@posix.co.za> Colleagues, Nomcom is pleased to announce the following candidates for the open ICANN ASO-AC seat that will be up for election during AFRINIC-21. Wafa Dahmani Douglas Onyango Ally Makweba Mohamed Garbouj Gregoire Ehoumi The community is welcome to comment on the candidates suitability or lack-thereof to represent the region on the ASO-AC at: http://meeting.afrinic.net/afrinic-21/en/elections The comment period ends on 23/Nov/2014 and election will be during AFRINIC21 on 28/Nov/2014 NomCom -- Mark J Elkins - AFRINIC 2014 Nominations Committee Chair mje at posix.co.za - nomcom2014 (at) afrinic.net Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 5810 bytes Desc: not available URL: From list-admin at afrinic.net Sat Nov 1 05:11:12 2014 From: list-admin at afrinic.net (list-admin at afrinic.net) Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2014 05:11:12 GMT Subject: [rpd] Monthly statistics for mailing-list: rpd@afrinic.net Message-ID: <201411010511.sA15BCdx000903@ns1.afrinic.net> Monthly statistics for mailing-list: rpd at afrinic.net (Generated at: Sat Nov 1 05:11:01 UTC 2014) Statistics for month: October 2014 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ***** Authors with the most number of messages posted: +----+-----Author-----------------------------------+--Msg-+-Percent-+ | 1 | owen at delong.com | 13 | 12.15 % | | 2 | Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com | 10 | 9.35 % | | 3 | mark.tinka at seacom.mu | 10 | 9.35 % | | 4 | mje at posix.co.za | 7 | 6.54 % | | 5 | kofi.ansa at gmail.com | 6 | 5.61 % | | 6 | geier at geier.ne.tz | 5 | 4.67 % | | 7 | virtual.borg at gmail.com | 4 | 3.74 % | | 8 | seun.ojedeji at gmail.com | 4 | 3.74 % | | 9 | adam at varud.com | 4 | 3.74 % | | 10 | ernest at afrinic.net | 3 | 2.80 % | | 11 | h.lu at anytimechinese.com | 3 | 2.80 % | | 12 | keshwarsingh.nadan at millenium.mu | 3 | 2.80 % | | 13 | marty at akamai.com | 3 | 2.80 % | | 14 | jrhountomey at gmail.com | 2 | 1.87 % | | 15 | nishal at controlfreak.co.za | 2 | 1.87 % | | 16 | sfolayan at gmail.com | 2 | 1.87 % | | 17 | paulos at sdnp.org.mw | 2 | 1.87 % | | 18 | apb at cequrux.com | 2 | 1.87 % | | 19 | kofi.ansa at inet.com.gh | 2 | 1.87 % | | 20 | dogwallah at gmail.com | 2 | 1.87 % | +----+----------------------------------------------+------+---------+ | | other | 18 | 16.82 % | +----+----------------------------------------------+------+---------+ ***** Authors with the largest total size of messages posted: +----+-----Author-------------------------------------------+-KBytes-+ | 1 | owen at delong.com | 199.0 | | 2 | kofi.ansa at gmail.com | 142.6 | | 3 | Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com | 103.6 | | 4 | marty at akamai.com | 87.6 | | 5 | mje at posix.co.za | 62.5 | | 6 | keshwarsingh.nadan at millenium.mu | 57.8 | | 7 | kofi.ansa at inet.com.gh | 57.6 | | 8 | jrhountomey at gmail.com | 48.9 | | 9 | virtual.borg at gmail.com | 34.5 | | 10 | seun.ojedeji at gmail.com | 26.2 | | 11 | h.lu at anytimechinese.com | 17.5 | | 12 | tespok at tespok.co.ke | 17.2 | | 13 | adam at varud.com | 17.1 | | 14 | mark.tinka at seacom.mu | 15.6 | | 15 | list-admin at afrinic.net | 9.5 | | 16 | geier at geier.ne.tz | 7.5 | | 17 | mainanoa at gmail.com | 6.4 | | 18 | jwalu at yahoo.com | 6.1 | | 19 | Ben.Roberts at liquidtelecom.com | 5.7 | | 20 | drc at virtualized.org | 5.7 | +----+------------------------------------------------------+--------+ ***** Authors with the largest average size of messages posted: +----+-----Author--------------------------------------------+-bytes-+ | 1 | marty at akamai.com | 29900 | | 2 | kofi.ansa at inet.com.gh | 29514 | | 3 | jrhountomey at gmail.com | 25022 | | 4 | kofi.ansa at gmail.com | 24331 | | 5 | keshwarsingh.nadan at millenium.mu | 19719 | | 6 | tespok at tespok.co.ke | 17646 | | 7 | owen at delong.com | 15676 | | 8 | Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com | 10611 | | 9 | list-admin at afrinic.net | 9730 | | 10 | mje at posix.co.za | 9143 | | 11 | virtual.borg at gmail.com | 8842 | | 12 | seun.ojedeji at gmail.com | 6700 | | 13 | mainanoa at gmail.com | 6573 | | 14 | jwalu at yahoo.com | 6280 | | 15 | h.lu at anytimechinese.com | 5971 | | 16 | Ben.Roberts at liquidtelecom.com | 5874 | | 17 | drc at virtualized.org | 5813 | | 18 | karmann.olumomo at gmail.com | 5543 | | 19 | adam at varud.com | 4369 | | 20 | gehoumi at benintelecoms.bj | 4067 | +----+-------------------------------------------------------+-------+ ***** Top subjects by popularity: +----+----Subject-----------------------------------+--Msg-+-Percent-+ | 1 | [rpd] proposed policy: reservation of resour | 24 | 22.43 % | | 2 | [rpd] AfriNIC policy AFPUB-2014-GEN-002-DRAF | 16 | 14.95 % | | 3 | [rpd] Re: [afnog] What are the major challen | 14 | 13.08 % | | 4 | [rpd] Policy ID format | 9 | 8.41 % | | 5 | [rpd] AnyCast assignments - Update | 8 | 7.48 % | | 6 | [rpd] RE: [afnog] What are the major challen | 6 | 5.61 % | | 7 | [rpd] Afrinic policy proposal???Afrinic Serv | 5 | 4.67 % | | 8 | [rpd] New proposal - "Mandatory requirements | 4 | 3.74 % | | 9 | [rpd] Re: Staff Assessment for AFPUB-2014-GE | 3 | 2.80 % | | 10 | [rpd] Afrinic policy proposal???Afrinic S | 3 | 2.80 % | | 11 | [rpd] Afrinic policy proposal?Afrin | 2 | 1.87 % | | 12 | [rpd] [afnog] What are the major challenges | 2 | 1.87 % | | 13 | [rpd] Monthly statistics for mailing-list: r | 1 | 0.93 % | | 14 | [rpd] IANA transition process | 1 | 0.93 % | | 15 | [rpd] Re: [afnog] Call for Nominations: AFRI | 1 | 0.93 % | | 16 | [rpd] Re: rpd Digest, Vol 97, Issue 17 | 1 | 0.93 % | | 17 | [rpd] Afrinic policy proposal?Afrinic Servic | 1 | 0.93 % | | 18 | [rpd] Afrinic policy proposal???Afrinic Serv | 1 | 0.93 % | | 19 | [rpd] What are the major challenges in enabl | 1 | 0.93 % | | 20 | [rpd] CRISP team selection Process in AfriNI | 1 | 0.93 % | +----+----------------------------------------------+------+---------+ | | other | 3 | 2.80 % | +----+----------------------------------------------+------+---------+ ***** Graph showing number of messages written during hours of day: 100% -----------------------#------------------------- - 14 90% -----------------------#------------------------- msgs 80% -----------------------#---#--------------------- 70% -----------------------#---#-#-#----------------- 60% -----------------------#---#-#-#----------------- 50% ---------------#-#-----#---#-#-#-#-----#--------- 40% ---------------#-#-----#---#-#-#-#-#---#--------- 30% ---------------#-#---#-#---#-#-#-#-#---#--------- 20% -#-------------#-#-#-#-#---#-#-#-#-#-#-#--------- 10% -#---------#---#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#---#-#- * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * hour 0 5 11 17 23 ***** Graph showing number of messages written during days of month: 100% -------------------------------------------------------#------- - 27 90% -------------------------------------------------------#------- msgs 80% -------------------------------------------------------#------- 70% -------------------------------------------------------#------- 60% -------------------------------------------------------#------- 50% -----------------------------------------------------#-#------- 40% -------------------------------------------#---------#-#-#----- 30% -------------------------------------------#---------#-#-#-#--- 20% -------------------------------------------#---------#-#-#-#--- 10% ---------------------------------------#---#-----#-#-#-#-#-#-#- * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * day 1 6 12 18 24 31 ***** Graph showing number of messages written during days of week: 100% -----#----------------------- - 27 90% -----#---#------------------- msgs 80% -----#---#------------------- 70% -#---#---#------------------- 60% -#---#---#------------------- 50% -#---#---#---#--------------- 40% -#---#---#---#--------------- 30% -#---#---#---#---#----------- 20% -#---#---#---#---#-------#--- 10% -#---#---#---#---#---#---#--- * * * * * * * Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun ***** Longest message: Author : kofi.ansa at gmail.com Subject : [rpd] What are the major challenges in enabling Services to run on Date : Mon, 27 Oct 2014 13:59:59 +0400 Size : 113624 bytes ***** Most popular subject: Subject : [rpd] proposed policy: reservation of resources for IXPs No. of msgs: 24 Total size : 309025 bytes ***** Final summary: Total number of messages: 107 Total number of different authors: 37 Total number of different subjects: 23 Total size of messages (w/o headers): 1287510 bytes Average size of a message: 12032 bytes -- Regards, AFRINIC _____________________ powered by grepmail and MailListStat From graham at apolix.co.za Mon Nov 3 14:51:58 2014 From: graham at apolix.co.za (Graham Beneke) Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2014 16:51:58 +0200 Subject: [rpd] proposed policy: reservation of resources for IXPs In-Reply-To: <8d41dc38a2e04469ad6c68f8fdf9fdf4@DM2PR03MB398.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> References: <1414596207.38093.YahooMailBasic@web162806.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <5451145C.7090501@geier.ne.tz> <8d41dc38a2e04469ad6c68f8fdf9fdf4@DM2PR03MB398.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> Message-ID: <5457968E.9010203@apolix.co.za> On 30/10/2014 19:59, David Huberman wrote: > 1) I support the policy as written. I support this policy as well. > I propose, therefore, text which directs AFRINIC staff to: > > - issue no less than a /24 to each IX peering fabric > AND > - either reserve the adjacent /24 so the /24 can grow to a /23 in the case where the IX is successful; or > - issue the /24s sparsely (using the bisection method) to ensure the most number of /24s can grow into /23s over time. I would also support this. All IXP allocations should be sparsely allocated on bit boundaries to ensure minimal disruption when an IXP needs to grow beyond its initial assignment. regards -- Graham Beneke From tespok at tespok.co.ke Tue Nov 4 08:19:38 2014 From: tespok at tespok.co.ke (Fiona Asonga) Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2014 11:19:38 +0300 (EAT) Subject: [rpd] proposed policy: reservation of resources for IXPs In-Reply-To: <5450F341.3070005@geier.ne.tz> References: <5450F341.3070005@geier.ne.tz> Message-ID: <1682758160.13366.1415089178733.JavaMail.zimbra@tespok.co.ke> Hallo All Based on our experience at KIXP and growth strategy moving forward. I support the proposal as it allows room for the IXPs to grow with minimum challenges on management of their allocation space. Kind regards Fiona Asonga Chief Executive Officer Telecommunications Service Providers Association of Kenya/ Kenya Internet Exchange Point Member Strategic Committee of the Africa Computer Emergency Response Team NRO Number Council http://www.nro.net/about/number-council.html ASO Address Council http://aso.icann.org/ac/ 14 th Floor, Bruce House Standard Street Tel: +254 20 2245 036 Cell: +254 721 713 504 Website: www.tespok.or.ke ----- Original Message ----- From: "Frank Habicht" To: "rpd" Cc: "Nishal Goburdhan" Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2014 7:31:37 PM Subject: [rpd] proposed policy: reservation of resources for IXPs Hello all, please find this proposed policy, which we (3 co-authors) have submitted to the pdpwg last week: Resource Reservation for Internet Exchange Points Author(s): a) Frank Habicht, Tanzania Internet Exchange b) Michuki Mwangi, Internet Society/KIXP c) Nishal Goburdhan, Packet Clearing House/JINX 1) Summary of the Problem being addressed by this proposal This policy reserves IPv4 and 2-byte ASNs resources for public Internet Exchange Points (IXPs) in the African region, ensuring that there would be discrete IPv4 resources to allow the establishment and growth of future IXPs. 2) Summary of How this Proposal Addresses the Problem This policy requests AfriNIC to reserve, and publish IPv4 resources, and 2-byte ASNs for use by IXPs only. 3) Proposal 3.1 Introduction It is widely considered that Internet Exchange Points (IXPs) are one of the critical elements needed for Internet economies to develop. Africa is still in the process of developing these, and is, at the same time, faced with the imminent exhaustion of its IPv4 resources. Not having IPv4 addresses to grow, or start new, IXPs would create unnecessary and unneeded routing complexity for Internet connected networks, looking to peer at IXPs to further their network scope. AfriNIC already has an existing policy to make allocations to IXPs [1], but that policy does not specifically reserve IPV4 space to ensure that there will be such, for future IXPs to grow and develop. Additionally, this policy reserves a set of 2-byte ASNs for use by IXPs for use at IXP BGP Route Servers. 3.2 Distinction between IXP peering and management networks We distinguish between two kinds of IP address resources needed and used at IXPs. An IXP peering LAN is the contiguous network address block that the IXP would use to assign unique IP addresses to each peering member, for each peering participant to exchange network traffic across the shared peering infrastructure. Best practice has the IXP peering LAN *not* being visible in a view of the global routing table, among other things to reduce the attack vectors for ISP border routers via the IXP. >From a network identification, monitoring and analysis perspective, it is thus desirable, that the "peering LAN" space be provided from a contiguous block. The IXP management LAN is the management network that the IXP uses to provision services at the IXP, like monitoring, statistics, mail, ticket systems, provisioning of transit to DNS Roots, etc. Management networks, are meant to be reachable globally, for instance to publish data and allow remote access for common good network infrastructure (such as root and TLD DNS servers) and research projects. 3.3 BGP Route Servers use Typically IXPs use BGP route servers to help manage peering sessions between different participants. The route servers implement IXP routing policy in the form of BGP communities, typically in the form of A:B, where A,B represent A=IXP BGP route server and B=participant ASN. Current BGP implementations utilise 6 bytes for the extended community attribute [RFC5668]. Therefore, an IXP with a 4-byte ASN in use at its route server would not be able to successfully implement the A:B BGP community mapping, if an IXP participant has a 4-byte ASN. This situation is likely to be experienced by more IXPs, as additional 4-byte ASNs are allocated through the current AfriNIC process. If, IXP route server communities include the IXP ASN and the peer's ASN (expected to be 4-byte), and a total of only 6 bytes are available, it follows that IXP route servers ASN could not be longer than a 2-byte ASN. 3.4 Proposal To ensure that there are sufficient resources for IXPs to develop, this policy proposes that AfriNIC reserve IPv4 addresses for IXP peering LANs out of an address block marked particularly, and exclusively, for IXP peering LAN use. Assignments for IXP peering LANs must be from one dedicated block, published as such by AfriNIC. Assignments for IXP management addresses should NOT be provided from the same block as the IXP peering LANs. It is proposed that a /16 block be reserved for future requirements for IXP peering LANs in the AfriNIC service region, and that AfriNIC publish this block as such. It is further proposed to reserve the equivalent of an additional /16 block for IXP management prefixes, separate from the peering LANs. It is proposed that AfriNIC reserves a block of 2-byte ASNs for use in BGP route servers at IXPs in the AfriNIC service region. The number of ASNs to be reserved should be the larger of 114, or half of the remaining 2-byte ASNs within AfriNIC's block at the date of ratification of this policy. AfriNIC will allocate these resources on a first come first served basis. 3.5 Evaluation criteria This policy does not suggest new evaluation criteria for what determines a valid IXP. 4.0 References [1] AfriNIC Policy for End User Assignments - AFPUB-2006-GEN-001 http://afrinic.net/en/library/policies/127-afpub-2006-gen-001 Sections 5) and 6) Note: proposal also available at http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposals/1231-resource-reservation-for-internet-exchange-points Regards, Frank _______________________________________________ rpd mailing list rpd at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd From mje at posix.co.za Tue Nov 4 09:06:16 2014 From: mje at posix.co.za (Mark Elkins) Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2014 11:06:16 +0200 Subject: [rpd] AnyCast assignments - Update In-Reply-To: <1413834300.21858.0.camel@posix.co.za> References: <1412845710.3847.251.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> <54455E6E.1020909@afrinic.net> <1413834300.21858.0.camel@posix.co.za> Message-ID: <1415091976.5144.15.camel@posix.co.za> I'm happy to make changes along the lines of what Nishal suggested... that is: Replace: These resources must be used for the sole purpose of anycasting web or authoritative DNS servers as described in BCP126/RFC 4786 (http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4786.txt) or for GPRS Roaming Exchange. With: These resources must be used for the sole purposes of providing anycast services. I have been trying to have Ernest update the website - he may have malaria again. On Mon, 2014-10-20 at 21:45 +0200, Mark Elkins wrote: > On Mon, 2014-10-20 at 22:11 +0300, Ernest wrote: > > >> 3) Proposal > > >> AFPUB-2012-V4-001 is modified from the original version to the > > >> following version: > > >> ........................................................... > > >> 1. Summary of the problem being addressed by the policy proposal > > >> This proposal allows an organization to receive an IPv4/IPv6 > > >> allocation or assignment and an AS Number purely for anycast or GPRS > > >> Roaming Exchange (GRX) usage. > > >> > > >> 2. Summary of how this proposal addresses the problem > > >> This proposal allows the use of: > > >> a. One (1) /24 of IPv4 for anycast services from a PA allocation of > > >> an LIR or direct end-user assignment. > > >> b. One /48 of IPv6 for anycast services from an IPv6 LIR allocation > > >> or direct end-user assignment. > > >> c. An AS Number for anycast purposes. > > > > > > let me explain the second request. the policy, as is worded, is > > > potentially ambiguous. hostmasters _may_ be tempted to say that, > > > as per policy, they have satisfied the requirement to allocate > > > one, and only one prefix for anycast purposes, to an > > > organisation, when, a forward thinking organisation might wish to > > > have more than one anycast cloud. while having one prefix, is > > > obviously better than zero, it would be _wrong_ to limit this to > > > just one anycast cloud. > > > > > > so, while the current policy doesn't _disallow_ more than a > > > single allocation, it's not clear (i think) to the hostmaster > > > team, that more than one allocation might be allowed. (i guess, > > > the other way of looking at this, is that there is no requirement > > > to _change_ policy if, there is acknowledgement from the > > > hostmaster team that they understand this - perhaps we can get > > > them to comment here. the task of determining valid usage will > > > still be up to the hostmasters of course) > > > > As there are no explicitly indicated limitations in the current > > policy, we implemented this such that an organization can request > > and be granted one /24 *per request*. The frequency of the anycast > > requests however (from the same organization) is unlimited per our > > interpretation. > > > > While reading through the new proposal - we also interpret it such > > that one /24 v4, one /48 v6 prefix and one ASN will be assigned with > > *each* anycast request from the same organization, and there is no > > limit on the number of times the same org can request such resources. > > Which should mean there is nothing wrong with the wording! > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd -- Mark James ELKINS - Posix Systems - (South) Africa mje at posix.co.za Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: https://ftth.posix.co.za -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 5810 bytes Desc: not available URL: From ernest at afrinic.net Tue Nov 4 11:40:47 2014 From: ernest at afrinic.net (Ernest) Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2014 14:40:47 +0300 Subject: [rpd] AnyCast assignments - Update In-Reply-To: <1415091976.5144.15.camel@posix.co.za> References: <1412845710.3847.251.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> <54455E6E.1020909@afrinic.net> <1413834300.21858.0.camel@posix.co.za> <1415091976.5144.15.camel@posix.co.za> Message-ID: <5458BB3F.2040002@afrinic.net> Hi Mark, Mark Elkins wrote thus on 11/4/14, 12:06 PM: > I'm happy to make changes along the lines of what Nishal suggested... > that is: > > Replace: > These resources must > be used for the sole purpose of anycasting web or authoritative DNS > servers as described in BCP126/RFC 4786 > (http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4786.txt) or for GPRS Roaming Exchange. > > With: > These resources must be used for the sole purposes of providing anycast > services. > > I have been trying to have Ernest update the website - he may have > malaria again. We shall have this updated into draft 02 and published. Regards, Ernest. From nishal at controlfreak.co.za Tue Nov 4 12:31:20 2014 From: nishal at controlfreak.co.za (Nishal Goburdhan) Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2014 14:31:20 +0200 Subject: [rpd] AnyCast assignments - Update In-Reply-To: <1415091976.5144.15.camel@posix.co.za> References: <1412845710.3847.251.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> <54455E6E.1020909@afrinic.net> <1413834300.21858.0.camel@posix.co.za> <1415091976.5144.15.camel@posix.co.za> Message-ID: On 04 Nov 2014, at 11:06, Mark Elkins wrote: > > I'm happy to make changes along the lines of what Nishal suggested... > that is: > > Replace: > These resources must > be used for the sole purpose of anycasting web or authoritative DNS > servers as described in BCP126/RFC 4786 > (http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4786.txt) or for GPRS Roaming Exchange. > > With: > These resources must be used for the sole purposes of providing anycast > services don't forget the GRX ... "...or GRX (GPRS Roaming Exchanges)." --n. From mark.tinka at seacom.mu Tue Nov 4 12:58:13 2014 From: mark.tinka at seacom.mu (Mark Tinka) Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2014 14:58:13 +0200 Subject: [rpd] AnyCast assignments - Update In-Reply-To: References: <1412845710.3847.251.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> <1415091976.5144.15.camel@posix.co.za> Message-ID: <201411041458.17257.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> On Tuesday, November 04, 2014 02:31:20 PM Nishal Goburdhan wrote: > don't forget the GRX ... > > "...or GRX (GPRS Roaming Exchanges)." Isn't it IPX, these days :-)? Anyway, the concept is the same. In general, regular exchange points can offer GRX or IPX peering on the same platform, but just a separate VLAN. Mark. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. URL: From owen at delong.com Tue Nov 4 22:18:52 2014 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2014 14:18:52 -0800 Subject: [rpd] AnyCast assignments - Update In-Reply-To: References: <1412845710.3847.251.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> <54455E6E.1020909@afrinic.net> <1413834300.21858.0.camel@posix.co.za> <1415091976.5144.15.camel@posix.co.za> Message-ID: <4206A3ED-322A-4946-BF6E-AF7BCA83C373@delong.com> > On Nov 4, 2014, at 4:31 AM, Nishal Goburdhan wrote: > > On 04 Nov 2014, at 11:06, Mark Elkins wrote: >> >> I'm happy to make changes along the lines of what Nishal suggested... >> that is: >> >> Replace: >> These resources must >> be used for the sole purpose of anycasting web or authoritative DNS >> servers as described in BCP126/RFC 4786 >> (http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4786.txt) or for GPRS Roaming Exchange. >> >> With: >> These resources must be used for the sole purposes of providing anycast >> services > > don't forget the GRX ... > > "...or GRX (GPRS Roaming Exchanges).? I don?t think that applies to the Anycast policy. I think that applies to the critical infrastructure policy proposal. Owen From kofi.ansa at gmail.com Wed Nov 5 06:47:28 2014 From: kofi.ansa at gmail.com (Kofi ANSA AKUFO) Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2014 10:47:28 +0400 Subject: [rpd] IPv4 Allocations by Length Statistics for 2014 Message-ID: Hello folks, Are the statistic on the link below up to date for the 2014 year? http://afrinic.net/en/services/statistics/ipv4-resources *No of IPv4 Addresses* *IPv4 Prefix Length (Size)* *Number of Allocations for 2014* 1048576 /12 5 524288 /13 4 262144 /14 3 131072 /15 4 65536 /16 3 32768 /17 6 16384 /18 6 8192 /19 14 4096 /20 20 2048 /21 16 1024 /22 70 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com Wed Nov 5 07:34:56 2014 From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji) Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2014 08:34:56 +0100 Subject: [rpd] Re: [afnog] IPv4 Allocations by Length Statistics for 2014 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Kofi, I guess staff will be in the best position to answer that question. Regards sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 5 Nov 2014 07:50, "Kofi ANSA AKUFO" wrote: > Hello folks, > > Are the statistic on the link below up to date for the 2014 year? > > http://afrinic.net/en/services/statistics/ipv4-resources > > > *No of IPv4 Addresses* > > *IPv4 Prefix Length (Size)* > > *Number of Allocations for 2014* > > 1048576 > > /12 > > 5 > > 524288 > > /13 > > 4 > > 262144 > > /14 > > 3 > > 131072 > > /15 > > 4 > > 65536 > > /16 > > 3 > > 32768 > > /17 > > 6 > > 16384 > > /18 > > 6 > > 8192 > > /19 > > 14 > > 4096 > > /20 > > 20 > > 2048 > > /21 > > 16 > > 1024 > > /22 > > 70 > > _______________________________________________ > afnog mailing list > http://afnog.org/mailman/listinfo/afnog > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From arthur at afrinic.net Wed Nov 5 12:13:40 2014 From: arthur at afrinic.net (ARTHUR CARINDAL) Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2014 16:13:40 +0400 Subject: [rpd] Re: [afnog] IPv4 Allocations by Length Statistics for 2014 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <80196929-9573-499E-B185-47C8B1C5BC90@afrinic.net> Dear Mister Ansa The statistics http://afrinic.net/en/services/statistics/ipv4-resources are up to date. Thanks for sharing any inconsistency you may have found so that we can investigate it. Regards _______________________________________________________________ Arthur Carindal N. Head of Member Services, AFRINIC Ltd. t: +230 403 5100 | f: +230 466 6758 | tt: @afrinic | w: www.afrinic.net facebook.com/afrinic | flickr.com/afrinic | youtube.com/afrinicmedia _______________________________________________________________ See you in Mauritius for AFRINIC-21 November 22 to 28, 2014 On Nov 5, 2014, at 10:47 AM, Kofi ANSA AKUFO wrote: > Hello folks, > > Are the statistic on the link below up to date for the 2014 year? > > http://afrinic.net/en/services/statistics/ipv4-resources > > > No of IPv4 Addresses > IPv4 Prefix Length (Size) > Number of Allocations for 2014 > 1048576 > /12 > 5 > 524288 > /13 > 4 > 262144 > /14 > 3 > 131072 > /15 > 4 > 65536 > /16 > 3 > 32768 > /17 > 6 > 16384 > /18 > 6 > 8192 > /19 > 14 > 4096 > /20 > 20 > 2048 > /21 > 16 > 1024 > /22 > 70 > _______________________________________________ > afnog mailing list > http://afnog.org/mailman/listinfo/afnog -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From geier at geier.ne.tz Wed Nov 5 12:37:11 2014 From: geier at geier.ne.tz (Frank Habicht) Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2014 15:37:11 +0300 Subject: [rpd] proposed policy: reservation of resources for IXPs In-Reply-To: <5450F341.3070005@geier.ne.tz> References: <5450F341.3070005@geier.ne.tz> Message-ID: <545A19F7.8040304@geier.ne.tz> Dear all, please find below version -02 of the proposal after few editorial changes and the incorporation of text towards sparse delegation. Thanks to David Huberman for this input. Regards, Frank [1] This policy reserves IPv4 resources for public Internet Exchange Points (IXPs) in the African region, ensuring that there would be discrete IPv4 resources to allow the establishment and growth of future IXPs. [2] This policy requests AfriNIC to reserve, and publish IPv4 resources, and 2-byte ASNs for use by IXPs only. [3] Proposal 3.1 Introduction It is widely considered that Internet Exchange Points (IXPs) are one of the critical elements needed for Internet economies to develop. Africa is still in the process of developing these, and is, at the same time, faced with the imminent exhaustion of its IPv4 resources. Not having IPv4 addresses to grow, or start new, IXPs would create unnecessary and unneeded routing complexity for Internet connected networks, looking to peer at IXPs to further their network scope. AfriNIC already has an existing policy to make allocations to IXPs [1], but that policy does not specifically reserve IPV4 space to ensure that there will be such, for future IXPs to grow and develop. Additionally, this policy reserves a set of 2-byte ASNs for use by IXPs for use at IXP BGP Route Servers. 3.2 Distinction between IXP peering and management networks We distinguish between two kinds of IP address ressources needed and used at IXPs. An IXP peering LAN is the contigious network address block that the IXP would use to assign unique IP addresses to each peering member, for each peering participant to exchange network traffic across the shared peering infrastructure. Best practice has the IXP peering LAN *not* being visible in a view of the global routing table, among other things to reduce the attack vectors for ISP border routers via the IXP. >From a network identification, monitoring and analysis perspective, it is thus desirable, that the "peering LAN" space be provided from a contiguous block. The IXP management LAN is the management network that the IXP uses to provision services at the IXP, like monitoring, statistics, mail, ticket systems, provisioning of transit to DNS Roots, etc. Management networks, are meant to be reachable globally, for instance to publish data and allow remote access for common good network infrastructure (such as root and TLD DNS servers) and research projects. 3.3 BGP Route Servers use Typically IXPs use BGP route servers to help manage peering sessions between different participants. The route servers implement IXP routing policy in the form of BGP communities, typically in the form of A:B, where A,B represent A=IXP BGP route server and B=participant ASN. Current BGP implementations utilise 6 bytes for the extended community attribute [RFC5668]. Therefore, an IXP with a 4-byte ASN in use at its route server would not be able to successfully implement the A:B BGP community mapping, if an IXP participant has a 4-byte ASN. This situation is likely to be experienced by more IXPs, as additional 4-byte ASNs are allocated through the current AfriNIC process. If, IXP route server communities include the IXP ASN and the peer's ASN (expected to be 4-byte), and a total of only 6 bytes are available, it follows that IXP route servers ASN could not be longer than a 2-byte ASN. 3.4 Proposal To ensure that there are sufficient resources for IXPs to develop, this policy proposes that AfriNIC reserve IPv4 addresses for IXP peering LANs out of an address block marked particularly, and exclusively, for IXP peering LAN use. Assignments for IXP peering LANs must be from one dedicated block, published as such by AfriNIC. The Peering LAN assignments for each IXP should ensure that the adjacent /24 IP block is reserved (based on the minimum end-user assignment policy size of /24) to support future growth of the IXP. This will enable an IXP to increase its peering LAN resources to /23 without having to renumber to a new contiguous IP block allocation. Assignments for IXP management addresses should NOT be provided from the same block as the IXP peering LANs. It is proposed that a /16 block be reserved for future requirements for IXP peering LANs in the AfriNIC service region, and that AfriNIC publish this block as such. In addition, the assignments for the IXP peering LAN should reserve the adjacent contiguous /24 IP block to the requesting IXP for future growth. These reservations shall be upheld until such a time that the available pool of the /16 can no longer allocate /23 assignments. Thereafter, new requests may be assigned from the reserved space held for future IXP growth. It is further proposed to reserve the equivalent of an additional /16 block for IXP management prefixes, separate from the peering LANs. It is proposed that AfriNIC reserves a block of 2-byte ASNs for use in BGP route servers at IXPs in the AfriNIC service region. The number of ASNs to be reserved should be the larger of 114, or half of the remaining 2-byte ASNs within AfriNIC's block at the date of ratification of this policy. AfriNIC will allocate these resources on a first come first served basis. 3.5 Evaluation criteria This policy does not suggest new evaluation criteria for what determines a valid IXP. [4] Revision History (for all but the very first draft) 4.1 Version Change: .......................... initial draft Reason for Change:.......... 5.0 References [1] AfriNIC Policy for End User Assignments - AFPUB-2006-GEN-001 http://afrinic.net/en/library/policies/127-afpub-2006-gen-001 Sections 5) and 6) On 10/29/2014 5:01 PM, Frank Habicht wrote: > Hello all, > > please find this proposed policy, which we (3 co-authors) have submitted to > the pdpwg last week: > > Resource Reservation for Internet Exchange Points > > Author(s): > a) Frank Habicht, Tanzania Internet Exchange > b) Michuki Mwangi, Internet Society/KIXP > c) Nishal Goburdhan, Packet Clearing House/JINX > > 1) Summary of the Problem being addressed by this proposal > > This policy reserves IPv4 and 2-byte ASNs resources for public Internet > Exchange Points (IXPs) in the African region, ensuring that there would be > discrete IPv4 resources to allow the establishment and growth of future IXPs. > > > 2) Summary of How this Proposal Addresses the Problem > > This policy requests AfriNIC to reserve, and publish IPv4 resources, and > 2-byte ASNs for use by IXPs only. > > > 3) Proposal > > 3.1 Introduction > > It is widely considered that Internet Exchange Points (IXPs) are one of the > critical elements needed for Internet economies to develop. Africa is still > in the process of developing these, and is, at the same time, faced with > the imminent exhaustion of its IPv4 resources. Not having IPv4 addresses to > grow, or start new, IXPs would create unnecessary and unneeded routing > complexity for Internet connected networks, looking to peer at IXPs to > further their network scope. AfriNIC already has an existing policy to make > allocations to IXPs [1], but that policy does not specifically reserve IPV4 > space to ensure that there will be such, for future IXPs to grow and > develop. Additionally, this policy reserves a set of 2-byte ASNs for use by > IXPs for use at IXP BGP Route Servers. > > > 3.2 Distinction between IXP peering and management networks > > We distinguish between two kinds of IP address resources needed and used at > IXPs. An IXP peering LAN is the contiguous network address block that the > IXP would use to assign unique IP addresses to each peering member, for > each peering participant to exchange network traffic across the shared > peering infrastructure. Best practice has the IXP peering LAN *not* being > visible in a view of the global routing table, among other things to reduce > the attack vectors for ISP border routers via the IXP. > >>From a network identification, monitoring and analysis perspective, it is > thus desirable, that the "peering LAN" space be provided from a contiguous > block. The IXP management LAN is the management network that the IXP uses > to provision services at the IXP, like monitoring, statistics, mail, ticket > systems, provisioning of transit to DNS Roots, etc. > > Management networks, are meant to be reachable globally, for instance to > publish data and allow remote access for common good network infrastructure > (such as root and TLD DNS servers) and research projects. > > > 3.3 BGP Route Servers use > > Typically IXPs use BGP route servers to help manage peering sessions > between different participants. The route servers implement IXP routing > policy in the form of BGP communities, typically in the form of A:B, where > A,B represent A=IXP BGP route server and B=participant ASN. Current BGP > implementations utilise 6 bytes for the extended community attribute > [RFC5668]. Therefore, an IXP with a 4-byte ASN in use at its route server > would not be able to successfully implement the A:B BGP community mapping, > if an IXP participant has a 4-byte ASN. This situation is likely to be > experienced by more IXPs, as additional 4-byte ASNs are allocated through > the current AfriNIC process. > > If, IXP route server communities include the IXP ASN and the peer's ASN > (expected to be 4-byte), and a total of only 6 bytes are available, it > follows that IXP route servers ASN could not be longer than a 2-byte ASN. > > > 3.4 Proposal > > To ensure that there are sufficient resources for IXPs to develop, this > policy proposes that AfriNIC reserve IPv4 addresses for IXP peering LANs > out of an address block marked particularly, and exclusively, for IXP > peering LAN use. Assignments for IXP peering LANs must be from one > dedicated block, published as such by AfriNIC. Assignments for IXP > management addresses should NOT be provided from the same block as the IXP > peering LANs. > > It is proposed that a /16 block be reserved for future requirements for IXP > peering LANs in the AfriNIC service region, and that AfriNIC publish this > block as such. > > It is further proposed to reserve the equivalent of an additional /16 block > for IXP management prefixes, separate from the peering LANs. It is proposed > that AfriNIC reserves a block of 2-byte ASNs for use in BGP route servers > at IXPs in the AfriNIC service region. > > The number of ASNs to be reserved should be the larger of 114, or half of > the remaining 2-byte ASNs within AfriNIC's block at the date of > ratification of this policy. > > AfriNIC will allocate these resources on a first come first served basis. > > > 3.5 Evaluation criteria > > This policy does not suggest new evaluation criteria for what determines a > valid IXP. > > > 4.0 References > > [1] AfriNIC Policy for End User Assignments - AFPUB-2006-GEN-001 > http://afrinic.net/en/library/policies/127-afpub-2006-gen-001 Sections 5) > and 6) > > > > > Note: proposal also available at > http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposals/1231-resource-reservation-for-internet-exchange-points > > > Regards, > Frank > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > From karmann.olumomo at gmail.com Wed Nov 5 18:48:00 2014 From: karmann.olumomo at gmail.com (Karmann Olumomo) Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2014 02:48:00 +0800 Subject: =?UTF-8?Q?Re=3A_=5Brpd=5D_Afrinic_policy_proposal=E2=80=94Afrinic_Service_?= =?UTF-8?Q?guild_lines?= In-Reply-To: <1B27840E-C9B7-4514-9B7B-1E34AFECEB3E@virtualized.org> References: <1B27840E-C9B7-4514-9B7B-1E34AFECEB3E@virtualized.org> Message-ID: Hi David Conrad, Please see my replied as below. On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 6:16 PM, Karmann Olumomo wrote: > David Conrad > [image: Attachments]Oct 27 (10 days ago) > > Karmann, > > Some personal opinions: > > On Oct 26, 2014, at 9:26 AM, Karmann Olumomo > wrote: > > 1) Summary of the Problem Being Addressed by this Policy Proposal > > > > Some member are experiencing extreme long wait for their additional > allocation request to get passed, some members are experiencing none > technical information requested from Afrinic(customer data, marketing > channel etc), in order to improve overall service quality of Afrinic, > here is the policy. > > > > 2) Summary of How this Proposal Addresses the Problem > > > > To improve overall service quality and transparency of Afrinic?s number > resource services by documenting roles and responsibilities of AFRINIC. > > 3) Proposal > > > > 1.Afrinic should make decision on subsequent allocation requests based > on Afrinic policy, and conclude a request no longer than the 20% of the > total period AFRNIC approves the resources for. (E.g. If Afrinic is > issuing resources to its member to meet its 12 months needs, the longest > waiting time for Afrinic allocation process should not be longer than > 20%*12month, to cope with 80% utilization requirement for additional > allocation). If Afrinic was not able to make decision on a certain > request within this period, for each additional month beyond this period, > the requesting member should receive percentage of the requested period of > the total request until such decision has been made, in order to protect > member from smooth running of its business. > > Having once worked at an RIR, I can say that trying to put processing time > limits is fine as long as there are sufficient resources to permit the > processing. However, if the request load is outstripping the ability for > staff to process that load, adding processing time limits will make things > worse. > > I would recommend asking staff for more information regarding processing > times of all additional allocation requests (I'd actually recommend a > public dashboard-style website showing aggregate request processing time > statistics) and, if there appear to be consistent delays, asking staff for > a root cause analysis and a mitigation plan. > > Note that I suspect if request processing time is being impacted by load, > this will only get worse as the additional policy requirements the > community is putting (or is proposing to put) on staff implies increased > work in reviewing requests. > > To be honest I don't understand why there would be delaying for the new > requirements, every delayed number will effect the business and so I > believe setting a time frame for the new additional allocation requests is > needed. It is better from a business perspective and protecting business > from smooth running and servicing the internet in the region is the > essential goal of any RIR. > > > > 2.Afrinic should publish standardized base information request for > each typical type of resource allocation. > > I disagree. > > AfriNIC staff are being placed in a position of being investigators, > trying to discover if a requester is lying to them about their need, where > they are located, what they intend to do with the address space, etc. > While a base set of information requesters can be expected to provide would > be useful, if the community expects AfriNIC staff to do the > investigations policy demands, I believe staff are going to need to be > able to ask whatever questions they feel are necessary. > > > 3.Afrinic should not store, request any marketing or business related > none-technical information from its member, for example, customer data, > marketing channel, and marketing budget. > > I disagree. > > One of the ways in which you catch folks lying is because it is actually > hard to be consistent when lying. If AfriNIC staff is going to be in the > investigatory business, they need to look at what a requester told them in > the past and compare it to what they're telling them now and ask questions > when there is significant deviation. > > > I believe members wont agree to disclose their customer data, marketing > channel etc etc to other party because above information supposed to be > confidential. Plus most likely this business must involved with NDA.I just > think this policy is contradiction and disclosing such data to third party, > regardless the reason, are most likely not legal in most of country due to > the privacy law. > Best regards, Karmann Olumomo -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kofi.ansa at gmail.com Thu Nov 6 04:07:11 2014 From: kofi.ansa at gmail.com (Kofi ANSA AKUFO) Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2014 08:07:11 +0400 Subject: [rpd] Re: [afnog] IPv4 Allocations by Length Statistics for 2014 In-Reply-To: <80196929-9573-499E-B185-47C8B1C5BC90@afrinic.net> References: <80196929-9573-499E-B185-47C8B1C5BC90@afrinic.net> Message-ID: Hi Arthur Thanks for the confirmation. A very nice stats graphing portal. Could you please assist to get more information from the data stats? 1. Which countries are requesting huge IPv4 prefix blocks for the year 2014. (e.g. the /12, /13,/14 and 15). 2. Are we seeing the same trend where the top 4 countries (e.g. South Africa, Egypt, Nigeria and Kenya) requesting most IPv4 resources for 2014? 3. Which type of organisations are requesting resources. (e.g. business area - traditional internet provision, mobile telecom, data hosting, CDNs, academic etc). The stats currently depict member types (LIR, EU) 4. Regarding LIRs which access technology and applications services are the resources been requested for. 5. what are the ratios with respect to additional allocations and assignments as against new members requesting resources. The information refined from the data stats helps in tracking development and technology projects in our region critical for making informed decisions such as the state of connectivity and services available in our region. Other than that a very nice graphing and granular filtering stats page. Cheers K. On 5 November 2014 16:13, ARTHUR CARINDAL wrote: > Dear Mister Ansa > > The statistics http://afrinic.net/en/services/statistics/ipv4-resources are > up to date. > Thanks for sharing any inconsistency you may have found so that we can > investigate it. > > Regards > _______________________________________________________________ > Arthur Carindal N. > Head of Member Services, AFRINIC Ltd. > *t:* +230 403 5100 | *f*: +230 466 6758 | *tt*: @afrinic | *w*: > www.afrinic.net > facebook.com/afrinic | flickr.com/afrinic | youtube.com/afrinicmedia > > _______________________________________________________________ > See you in Mauritius for AFRINIC-21 > November 22 to 28, 2014 > > > > > On Nov 5, 2014, at 10:47 AM, Kofi ANSA AKUFO wrote: > > Hello folks, > > Are the statistic on the link below up to date for the 2014 year? > > http://afrinic.net/en/services/statistics/ipv4-resources > > > *No of IPv4 Addresses* > > *IPv4 Prefix Length (Size)* > > *Number of Allocations for 2014* > > 1048576 > > /12 > > 5 > > 524288 > > /13 > > 4 > > 262144 > > /14 > > 3 > > 131072 > > /15 > > 4 > > 65536 > > /16 > > 3 > > 32768 > > /17 > > 6 > > 16384 > > /18 > > 6 > > 8192 > > /19 > > 14 > > 4096 > > /20 > > 20 > > 2048 > > /21 > > 16 > > 1024 > > /22 > > 70 > _______________________________________________ > afnog mailing list > http://afnog.org/mailman/listinfo/afnog > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From adam at varud.com Thu Nov 6 07:09:47 2014 From: adam at varud.com (Adam Nelson) Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2014 10:09:47 +0300 Subject: [rpd] Re: [afnog] IPv4 Allocations by Length Statistics for 2014 In-Reply-To: References: <80196929-9573-499E-B185-47C8B1C5BC90@afrinic.net> Message-ID: Kofi, I'm not sure if country data should be relied on. If a Kenyan ISP launches a Tanzanian subsidiary with a /20, the allocation will still probably look like it's from Kenya as far as Afrinic is concerned. That seems to be the thrust of many discussions on here - we don't really know where these assets are being deployed. Or maybe I'm wrong? -Adam -- Kili - Cloud for Africa: kili.io Musings: twitter.com/varud More Musings: varud.com About Adam: www.linkedin.com/in/adamcnelson On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 7:07 AM, Kofi ANSA AKUFO wrote: > Hi Arthur > > Thanks for the confirmation. A very nice stats graphing portal. > > Could you please assist to get more information from the data stats? > > 1. Which countries are requesting huge IPv4 prefix blocks for the year > 2014. (e.g. the /12, /13,/14 and 15). > > 2. Are we seeing the same trend where the top 4 countries (e.g. South > Africa, Egypt, Nigeria and Kenya) requesting most IPv4 resources for 2014? > > 3. Which type of organisations are requesting resources. (e.g. business > area - traditional internet provision, mobile telecom, data hosting, CDNs, > academic etc). The stats currently depict member types (LIR, EU) > > 4. Regarding LIRs which access technology and applications services are > the resources been requested for. > > 5. what are the ratios with respect to additional allocations and > assignments as against new members requesting resources. > > The information refined from the data stats helps in tracking development > and technology projects in our region critical for making informed > decisions such as the state of connectivity and services available in our > region. > > Other than that a very nice graphing and granular filtering stats page. > > Cheers > > K. > > > On 5 November 2014 16:13, ARTHUR CARINDAL wrote: > >> Dear Mister Ansa >> >> The statistics http://afrinic.net/en/services/statistics/ipv4-resources are >> up to date. >> Thanks for sharing any inconsistency you may have found so that we can >> investigate it. >> >> Regards >> _______________________________________________________________ >> Arthur Carindal N. >> Head of Member Services, AFRINIC Ltd. >> *t:* +230 403 5100 | *f*: +230 466 6758 | *tt*: @afrinic | *w*: >> www.afrinic.net >> facebook.com/afrinic | flickr.com/afrinic | youtube.com/afrinicmedia >> >> _______________________________________________________________ >> See you in Mauritius for AFRINIC-21 >> November 22 to 28, 2014 >> >> >> >> >> On Nov 5, 2014, at 10:47 AM, Kofi ANSA AKUFO wrote: >> >> Hello folks, >> >> Are the statistic on the link below up to date for the 2014 year? >> >> http://afrinic.net/en/services/statistics/ipv4-resources >> >> >> *No of IPv4 Addresses* >> >> *IPv4 Prefix Length (Size)* >> >> *Number of Allocations for 2014* >> >> 1048576 >> >> /12 >> >> 5 >> >> 524288 >> >> /13 >> >> 4 >> >> 262144 >> >> /14 >> >> 3 >> >> 131072 >> >> /15 >> >> 4 >> >> 65536 >> >> /16 >> >> 3 >> >> 32768 >> >> /17 >> >> 6 >> >> 16384 >> >> /18 >> >> 6 >> >> 8192 >> >> /19 >> >> 14 >> >> 4096 >> >> /20 >> >> 20 >> >> 2048 >> >> /21 >> >> 16 >> >> 1024 >> >> /22 >> >> 70 >> _______________________________________________ >> afnog mailing list >> http://afnog.org/mailman/listinfo/afnog >> >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > afnog mailing list > http://afnog.org/mailman/listinfo/afnog > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kofi.ansa at gmail.com Thu Nov 6 07:21:56 2014 From: kofi.ansa at gmail.com (Kofi ANSA AKUFO) Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2014 11:21:56 +0400 Subject: [rpd] Re: [afnog] IPv4 Allocations by Length Statistics for 2014 In-Reply-To: References: <80196929-9573-499E-B185-47C8B1C5BC90@afrinic.net> Message-ID: You are right Adam Another typical example is offshore registered organisation. so perhaps annual analysis based on org handles will be much better right? How about points 3,4 and 5? cheers K. On 6 November 2014 11:09, Adam Nelson wrote: > Kofi, > > I'm not sure if country data should be relied on. If a Kenyan ISP > launches a Tanzanian subsidiary with a /20, the allocation will still > probably look like it's from Kenya as far as Afrinic is concerned. That > seems to be the thrust of many discussions on here - we don't really know > where these assets are being deployed. Or maybe I'm wrong? > > -Adam > > -- > Kili - Cloud for Africa: kili.io > Musings: twitter.com/varud > More Musings: varud.com > About Adam: www.linkedin.com/in/adamcnelson > > On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 7:07 AM, Kofi ANSA AKUFO > wrote: > >> Hi Arthur >> >> Thanks for the confirmation. A very nice stats graphing portal. >> >> Could you please assist to get more information from the data stats? >> >> 1. Which countries are requesting huge IPv4 prefix blocks for the year >> 2014. (e.g. the /12, /13,/14 and 15). >> >> 2. Are we seeing the same trend where the top 4 countries (e.g. South >> Africa, Egypt, Nigeria and Kenya) requesting most IPv4 resources for 2014? >> >> 3. Which type of organisations are requesting resources. (e.g. business >> area - traditional internet provision, mobile telecom, data hosting, CDNs, >> academic etc). The stats currently depict member types (LIR, EU) >> >> 4. Regarding LIRs which access technology and applications services are >> the resources been requested for. >> >> 5. what are the ratios with respect to additional allocations and >> assignments as against new members requesting resources. >> >> The information refined from the data stats helps in tracking development >> and technology projects in our region critical for making informed >> decisions such as the state of connectivity and services available in our >> region. >> >> Other than that a very nice graphing and granular filtering stats page. >> >> Cheers >> >> K. >> >> >> On 5 November 2014 16:13, ARTHUR CARINDAL wrote: >> >>> Dear Mister Ansa >>> >>> The statistics http://afrinic.net/en/services/statistics/ipv4-resources are >>> up to date. >>> Thanks for sharing any inconsistency you may have found so that we can >>> investigate it. >>> >>> Regards >>> _______________________________________________________________ >>> Arthur Carindal N. >>> Head of Member Services, AFRINIC Ltd. >>> *t:* +230 403 5100 | *f*: +230 466 6758 | *tt*: @afrinic | *w*: >>> www.afrinic.net >>> facebook.com/afrinic | flickr.com/afrinic | youtube.com/afrinicmedia >>> >>> _______________________________________________________________ >>> See you in Mauritius for AFRINIC-21 >>> November 22 to 28, 2014 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Nov 5, 2014, at 10:47 AM, Kofi ANSA AKUFO wrote: >>> >>> Hello folks, >>> >>> Are the statistic on the link below up to date for the 2014 year? >>> >>> http://afrinic.net/en/services/statistics/ipv4-resources >>> >>> >>> *No of IPv4 Addresses* >>> >>> *IPv4 Prefix Length (Size)* >>> >>> *Number of Allocations for 2014* >>> >>> 1048576 >>> >>> /12 >>> >>> 5 >>> >>> 524288 >>> >>> /13 >>> >>> 4 >>> >>> 262144 >>> >>> /14 >>> >>> 3 >>> >>> 131072 >>> >>> /15 >>> >>> 4 >>> >>> 65536 >>> >>> /16 >>> >>> 3 >>> >>> 32768 >>> >>> /17 >>> >>> 6 >>> >>> 16384 >>> >>> /18 >>> >>> 6 >>> >>> 8192 >>> >>> /19 >>> >>> 14 >>> >>> 4096 >>> >>> /20 >>> >>> 20 >>> >>> 2048 >>> >>> /21 >>> >>> 16 >>> >>> 1024 >>> >>> /22 >>> >>> 70 >>> _______________________________________________ >>> afnog mailing list >>> http://afnog.org/mailman/listinfo/afnog >>> >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> afnog mailing list >> http://afnog.org/mailman/listinfo/afnog >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mark.tinka at seacom.mu Thu Nov 6 07:26:57 2014 From: mark.tinka at seacom.mu (Mark Tinka) Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2014 09:26:57 +0200 Subject: [rpd] Re: [afnog] IPv4 Allocations by Length Statistics for 2014 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <201411060926.57669.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> On Thursday, November 06, 2014 09:09:47 AM Adam Nelson wrote: > I'm not sure if country data should be relied on. If a > Kenyan ISP launches a Tanzanian subsidiary with a /20, > the allocation will still probably look like it's from > Kenya as far as Afrinic is concerned. That seems to be > the thrust of many discussions on here - we don't really > know where these assets are being deployed. Or maybe > I'm wrong? This is a valid point. SEACOM, for example, are primarily registered in Mauritius, but also have in-country operations within Africa. What we do is home the aggregate to Mauritius, and register the longer prefixes to their specific country as needed. Mark. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. URL: From adam at varud.com Thu Nov 6 07:30:33 2014 From: adam at varud.com (Adam Nelson) Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2014 10:30:33 +0300 Subject: [rpd] Re: [afnog] IPv4 Allocations by Length Statistics for 2014 In-Reply-To: References: <80196929-9573-499E-B185-47C8B1C5BC90@afrinic.net> Message-ID: I think getting real data would take a proper researcher to commit real time to the problem on a regular basis (maybe 2 person-months a year?). The Afrinic databases simply aren't concerned with these issues as they're mostly setup for administrative reasons. Does Afrinic have that capacity internally? Is it something that maybe the community should push for as a contractual engagement. These guys could probably do some sort of custom annual report on the issue: http://dyn.com/dyn-internet-intelligence/ -Adam -- Kili - Cloud for Africa: kili.io Musings: twitter.com/varud More Musings: varud.com About Adam: www.linkedin.com/in/adamcnelson On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 10:21 AM, Kofi ANSA AKUFO wrote: > You are right Adam > > Another typical example is offshore registered organisation. > > so perhaps annual analysis based on org handles will be much better right? > > How about points 3,4 and 5? > > cheers > > K. > > > > On 6 November 2014 11:09, Adam Nelson wrote: > >> Kofi, >> >> I'm not sure if country data should be relied on. If a Kenyan ISP >> launches a Tanzanian subsidiary with a /20, the allocation will still >> probably look like it's from Kenya as far as Afrinic is concerned. That >> seems to be the thrust of many discussions on here - we don't really know >> where these assets are being deployed. Or maybe I'm wrong? >> >> -Adam >> >> -- >> Kili - Cloud for Africa: kili.io >> Musings: twitter.com/varud >> More Musings: varud.com >> About Adam: www.linkedin.com/in/adamcnelson >> >> On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 7:07 AM, Kofi ANSA AKUFO >> wrote: >> >>> Hi Arthur >>> >>> Thanks for the confirmation. A very nice stats graphing portal. >>> >>> Could you please assist to get more information from the data stats? >>> >>> 1. Which countries are requesting huge IPv4 prefix blocks for the year >>> 2014. (e.g. the /12, /13,/14 and 15). >>> >>> 2. Are we seeing the same trend where the top 4 countries (e.g. South >>> Africa, Egypt, Nigeria and Kenya) requesting most IPv4 resources for 2014? >>> >>> 3. Which type of organisations are requesting resources. (e.g. business >>> area - traditional internet provision, mobile telecom, data hosting, CDNs, >>> academic etc). The stats currently depict member types (LIR, EU) >>> >>> 4. Regarding LIRs which access technology and applications services are >>> the resources been requested for. >>> >>> 5. what are the ratios with respect to additional allocations and >>> assignments as against new members requesting resources. >>> >>> The information refined from the data stats helps in tracking >>> development and technology projects in our region critical for making >>> informed decisions such as the state of connectivity and services available >>> in our region. >>> >>> Other than that a very nice graphing and granular filtering stats page. >>> >>> Cheers >>> >>> K. >>> >>> >>> On 5 November 2014 16:13, ARTHUR CARINDAL wrote: >>> >>>> Dear Mister Ansa >>>> >>>> The statistics http://afrinic.net/en/services/statistics/ipv4-resources are >>>> up to date. >>>> Thanks for sharing any inconsistency you may have found so that we can >>>> investigate it. >>>> >>>> Regards >>>> _______________________________________________________________ >>>> Arthur Carindal N. >>>> Head of Member Services, AFRINIC Ltd. >>>> *t:* +230 403 5100 | *f*: +230 466 6758 | *tt*: @afrinic | *w*: >>>> www.afrinic.net >>>> facebook.com/afrinic | flickr.com/afrinic | youtube.com/afrinicmedia >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________________________ >>>> See you in Mauritius for AFRINIC-21 >>>> November 22 to 28, 2014 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Nov 5, 2014, at 10:47 AM, Kofi ANSA AKUFO wrote: >>>> >>>> Hello folks, >>>> >>>> Are the statistic on the link below up to date for the 2014 year? >>>> >>>> http://afrinic.net/en/services/statistics/ipv4-resources >>>> >>>> >>>> *No of IPv4 Addresses* >>>> >>>> *IPv4 Prefix Length (Size)* >>>> >>>> *Number of Allocations for 2014* >>>> >>>> 1048576 >>>> >>>> /12 >>>> >>>> 5 >>>> >>>> 524288 >>>> >>>> /13 >>>> >>>> 4 >>>> >>>> 262144 >>>> >>>> /14 >>>> >>>> 3 >>>> >>>> 131072 >>>> >>>> /15 >>>> >>>> 4 >>>> >>>> 65536 >>>> >>>> /16 >>>> >>>> 3 >>>> >>>> 32768 >>>> >>>> /17 >>>> >>>> 6 >>>> >>>> 16384 >>>> >>>> /18 >>>> >>>> 6 >>>> >>>> 8192 >>>> >>>> /19 >>>> >>>> 14 >>>> >>>> 4096 >>>> >>>> /20 >>>> >>>> 20 >>>> >>>> 2048 >>>> >>>> /21 >>>> >>>> 16 >>>> >>>> 1024 >>>> >>>> /22 >>>> >>>> 70 >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> afnog mailing list >>>> http://afnog.org/mailman/listinfo/afnog >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> afnog mailing list >>> http://afnog.org/mailman/listinfo/afnog >>> >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kofi.ansa at gmail.com Thu Nov 6 08:07:09 2014 From: kofi.ansa at gmail.com (Kofi ANSA AKUFO) Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2014 12:07:09 +0400 Subject: [rpd] Re: [afnog] IPv4 Allocations by Length Statistics for 2014 In-Reply-To: References: <80196929-9573-499E-B185-47C8B1C5BC90@afrinic.net> Message-ID: You may be spot on but ... That will depend if the NETWORK INFORMATION CENTER (NIC) tracks current types of technology and applications the resources are requested for and do have data based on that. As it is now the NIC provides how many of the resources has been released to members (which is very good) ... but Could we get more information from the data as to what technology and applications are consuming the resources? "Does Afrinic have that capacity internally? Is it something that maybe the community should push for as a contractual engagement." - I dont think that will be entirely out of scope for our RIR - for example if it maintains coordination with LIRs and national NICs. Perhaps it should be considered as part of staying relevant to the community as we approach exhaustion of v4 addresses. cheers K. On 6 November 2014 11:30, Adam Nelson wrote: > I think getting real data would take a proper researcher to commit real > time to the problem on a regular basis (maybe 2 person-months a year?). > The Afrinic databases simply aren't concerned with these issues as they're > mostly setup for administrative reasons. > > Does Afrinic have that capacity internally? Is it something that maybe > the community should push for as a contractual engagement. These guys > could probably do some sort of custom annual report on the issue: > > http://dyn.com/dyn-internet-intelligence/ > > -Adam > > -- > Kili - Cloud for Africa: kili.io > Musings: twitter.com/varud > More Musings: varud.com > About Adam: www.linkedin.com/in/adamcnelson > > On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 10:21 AM, Kofi ANSA AKUFO > wrote: > >> You are right Adam >> >> Another typical example is offshore registered organisation. >> >> so perhaps annual analysis based on org handles will be much better right? >> >> How about points 3,4 and 5? >> >> cheers >> >> K. >> >> >> >> On 6 November 2014 11:09, Adam Nelson wrote: >> >>> Kofi, >>> >>> I'm not sure if country data should be relied on. If a Kenyan ISP >>> launches a Tanzanian subsidiary with a /20, the allocation will still >>> probably look like it's from Kenya as far as Afrinic is concerned. That >>> seems to be the thrust of many discussions on here - we don't really know >>> where these assets are being deployed. Or maybe I'm wrong? >>> >>> -Adam >>> >>> -- >>> Kili - Cloud for Africa: kili.io >>> Musings: twitter.com/varud >>> More Musings: varud.com >>> About Adam: www.linkedin.com/in/adamcnelson >>> >>> On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 7:07 AM, Kofi ANSA AKUFO >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Arthur >>>> >>>> Thanks for the confirmation. A very nice stats graphing portal. >>>> >>>> Could you please assist to get more information from the data stats? >>>> >>>> 1. Which countries are requesting huge IPv4 prefix blocks for the year >>>> 2014. (e.g. the /12, /13,/14 and 15). >>>> >>>> 2. Are we seeing the same trend where the top 4 countries (e.g. South >>>> Africa, Egypt, Nigeria and Kenya) requesting most IPv4 resources for 2014? >>>> >>>> 3. Which type of organisations are requesting resources. (e.g. business >>>> area - traditional internet provision, mobile telecom, data hosting, CDNs, >>>> academic etc). The stats currently depict member types (LIR, EU) >>>> >>>> 4. Regarding LIRs which access technology and applications services are >>>> the resources been requested for. >>>> >>>> 5. what are the ratios with respect to additional allocations and >>>> assignments as against new members requesting resources. >>>> >>>> The information refined from the data stats helps in tracking >>>> development and technology projects in our region critical for making >>>> informed decisions such as the state of connectivity and services available >>>> in our region. >>>> >>>> Other than that a very nice graphing and granular filtering stats page. >>>> >>>> Cheers >>>> >>>> K. >>>> >>>> >>>> On 5 November 2014 16:13, ARTHUR CARINDAL wrote: >>>> >>>>> Dear Mister Ansa >>>>> >>>>> The statistics >>>>> http://afrinic.net/en/services/statistics/ipv4-resources are up to >>>>> date. >>>>> Thanks for sharing any inconsistency you may have found so that we can >>>>> investigate it. >>>>> >>>>> Regards >>>>> _______________________________________________________________ >>>>> Arthur Carindal N. >>>>> Head of Member Services, AFRINIC Ltd. >>>>> *t:* +230 403 5100 | *f*: +230 466 6758 | *tt*: @afrinic | *w*: >>>>> www.afrinic.net >>>>> facebook.com/afrinic | flickr.com/afrinic | youtube.com/afrinicmedia >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________________________ >>>>> See you in Mauritius for AFRINIC-21 >>>>> November 22 to 28, 2014 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Nov 5, 2014, at 10:47 AM, Kofi ANSA AKUFO wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hello folks, >>>>> >>>>> Are the statistic on the link below up to date for the 2014 year? >>>>> >>>>> http://afrinic.net/en/services/statistics/ipv4-resources >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *No of IPv4 Addresses* >>>>> >>>>> *IPv4 Prefix Length (Size)* >>>>> >>>>> *Number of Allocations for 2014* >>>>> >>>>> 1048576 >>>>> >>>>> /12 >>>>> >>>>> 5 >>>>> >>>>> 524288 >>>>> >>>>> /13 >>>>> >>>>> 4 >>>>> >>>>> 262144 >>>>> >>>>> /14 >>>>> >>>>> 3 >>>>> >>>>> 131072 >>>>> >>>>> /15 >>>>> >>>>> 4 >>>>> >>>>> 65536 >>>>> >>>>> /16 >>>>> >>>>> 3 >>>>> >>>>> 32768 >>>>> >>>>> /17 >>>>> >>>>> 6 >>>>> >>>>> 16384 >>>>> >>>>> /18 >>>>> >>>>> 6 >>>>> >>>>> 8192 >>>>> >>>>> /19 >>>>> >>>>> 14 >>>>> >>>>> 4096 >>>>> >>>>> /20 >>>>> >>>>> 20 >>>>> >>>>> 2048 >>>>> >>>>> /21 >>>>> >>>>> 16 >>>>> >>>>> 1024 >>>>> >>>>> /22 >>>>> >>>>> 70 >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> afnog mailing list >>>>> http://afnog.org/mailman/listinfo/afnog >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> afnog mailing list >>>> http://afnog.org/mailman/listinfo/afnog >>>> >>> >>> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mark.tinka at seacom.mu Thu Nov 6 08:34:37 2014 From: mark.tinka at seacom.mu (Mark Tinka) Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2014 10:34:37 +0200 Subject: [rpd] Re: [afnog] IPv4 Allocations by Length Statistics for 2014 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <201411061034.40363.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> On Thursday, November 06, 2014 10:07:09 AM Kofi ANSA AKUFO wrote: > Could we get more information from the data as to what > technology and applications are consuming the resources? I'm not sure operators would be willing to openly share that data, Kofi. In fact, any such discussions between operators and AFRINIC are under NDA. Mark. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. URL: From adam at varud.com Thu Nov 6 08:39:19 2014 From: adam at varud.com (Adam Nelson) Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2014 11:39:19 +0300 Subject: [rpd] Re: [afnog] IPv4 Allocations by Length Statistics for 2014 In-Reply-To: <201411061034.40363.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> References: <201411061034.40363.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> Message-ID: Even if operators were inclined to give the data, I doubt you'd get much participation since it's all hassle and no gain. The only way to get the data is good old fashioned research - which Afrinic is probably not in a position to do internally (for various reasons including the NDA). I bet Dyncorp (the link I sent before) has quite a bit of the information you're looking for - but it won't be cheap. -Adam -- Kili - Cloud for Africa: kili.io Musings: twitter.com/varud More Musings: varud.com About Adam: www.linkedin.com/in/adamcnelson On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 11:34 AM, Mark Tinka wrote: > On Thursday, November 06, 2014 10:07:09 AM Kofi ANSA AKUFO > wrote: > > > Could we get more information from the data as to what > > technology and applications are consuming the resources? > > I'm not sure operators would be willing to openly share that > data, Kofi. > > In fact, any such discussions between operators and AFRINIC > are under NDA. > > Mark. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mark.tinka at seacom.mu Thu Nov 6 08:48:31 2014 From: mark.tinka at seacom.mu (Mark Tinka) Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2014 10:48:31 +0200 Subject: [rpd] Re: [afnog] IPv4 Allocations by Length Statistics for 2014 In-Reply-To: References: <201411061034.40363.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> Message-ID: <201411061048.31537.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> On Thursday, November 06, 2014 10:39:19 AM Adam Nelson wrote: > The only way to get the data is good old fashioned > research - which Afrinic is probably not in a position > to do internally (for various reasons including the > NDA). I bet Dyncorp (the link I sent before) has quite > a bit of the information you're looking for - but it > won't be cheap. Agree. Dyn (formerly Renesys), are well reknowned for this. But their market intelligence data is not free. I'm not sure Dyn might be the right solution, but I do sympathise that trying to get this from AFRINIC is an attempt in futility. Mark. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. URL: From jwalu at yahoo.com Thu Nov 6 11:27:21 2014 From: jwalu at yahoo.com (Walubengo J) Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2014 03:27:21 -0800 Subject: [rpd] Re: [afnog] IPv4 Allocations by Length Statistics for 2014 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <1415273241.6121.YahooMailBasic@web162803.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> @Adam, And perhaps Dyncorp (or similar research institution) would be able to tell us why Nigeria (largest economy in Africa) is enjoying, without complaining only 3% total share of the IPv4 resources in Africa while SA, the second largest economy is doing 38%. Perhaps they are doing too much NATting or worse still "re-using" IP nos? Maybe Sunday would know the reasons :-). walu. -------------------------------------------- On Thu, 11/6/14, Adam Nelson wrote: Subject: [rpd] Re: [afnog] IPv4 Allocations by Length Statistics for 2014 To: "Mark Tinka" Cc: "rpd List" , "afnog" Date: Thursday, November 6, 2014, 11:39 AM Even if operators were inclined to give the data, I doubt you'd get much participation since it's all hassle and no gain. The only way to get the data is good old fashioned research - which Afrinic is probably not in a position to do internally (for various reasons including the NDA).? I bet Dyncorp (the link I sent before) has quite a bit of the information you're looking for - but it won't be cheap. -Adam --Kili - Cloud for Africa:?kili.io Musings:?twitter.com/varudMore Musings: varud.comAbout Adam:?www.linkedin.com/in/adamcnelson On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 11:34 AM, Mark Tinka wrote: On Thursday, November 06, 2014 10:07:09 AM Kofi ANSA AKUFO wrote: > Could we get more information from the data as to what > technology and applications are consuming the resources? I'm not sure operators would be willing to openly share that data, Kofi. In fact, any such discussions between operators and AFRINIC are under NDA. Mark. -----Inline Attachment Follows----- _______________________________________________ rpd mailing list rpd at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd From dogwallah at gmail.com Thu Nov 6 12:03:45 2014 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2014 06:03:45 -0600 Subject: [afnog] [rpd] Re: IPv4 Allocations by Length Statistics for 2014 In-Reply-To: <1415273241.6121.YahooMailBasic@web162803.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> References: <1415273241.6121.YahooMailBasic@web162803.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: I think the answer is early adoption. However, I think it not a useful question. I mean by that that thinking in terms of nations states being allocated IP resources lends credence to the ITU worldview. On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 5:27 AM, Walubengo J wrote: > @Adam, > > And perhaps Dyncorp (or similar research institution) would be able to tell us why Nigeria (largest economy in Africa) is enjoying, without complaining only 3% total share of the IPv4 resources in Africa while SA, the second largest economy is doing 38%. > > Perhaps they are doing too much NATting or worse still "re-using" IP nos? Maybe Sunday would know the reasons :-). > > walu. > > -------------------------------------------- > On Thu, 11/6/14, Adam Nelson wrote: > > Subject: [rpd] Re: [afnog] IPv4 Allocations by Length Statistics for 2014 > To: "Mark Tinka" > Cc: "rpd List" , "afnog" > Date: Thursday, November 6, 2014, 11:39 AM > > Even if > operators were inclined to give the data, I doubt you'd > get much participation since it's all hassle and no > gain. > The only way to get > the data is good old fashioned research - which Afrinic is > probably not in a position to do internally (for various > reasons including the NDA). I bet Dyncorp (the link I sent > before) has quite a bit of the information you're > looking for - but it won't be cheap. > -Adam > --Kili - Cloud for > Africa: kili.io > Musings: twitter.com/varudMore Musings: varud.comAbout Adam: www.linkedin.com/in/adamcnelson > > On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at > 11:34 AM, Mark Tinka > wrote: > On > Thursday, November 06, 2014 10:07:09 AM Kofi ANSA AKUFO > > wrote: > > > > > Could we get more information from the data as to > what > > > technology and applications are consuming the > resources? > > > > I'm not sure operators would be willing to openly > share that > > data, Kofi. > > > > In fact, any such discussions between operators and > AFRINIC > > are under NDA. > > > > Mark. > > > > -----Inline Attachment Follows----- > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > > _______________________________________________ > afnog mailing list > http://afnog.org/mailman/listinfo/afnog -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel From adam at varud.com Thu Nov 6 12:04:44 2014 From: adam at varud.com (Adam Nelson) Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2014 15:04:44 +0300 Subject: [rpd] Re: [afnog] IPv4 Allocations by Length Statistics for 2014 In-Reply-To: <1415273241.6121.YahooMailBasic@web162803.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> References: <1415273241.6121.YahooMailBasic@web162803.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: I've never been to Nigeria but SA is a highly developed country with nuclear power plants, dozens of world class airports, dual carriageways, etc... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_African_countries_by_Human_Development_Index I would say, presuming those numbers are even correct, that it's simply Internet maturity reflecting human development generally. Maybe the better comparison would be Kenya and Nigeria or Angola and Nigeria. -- Kili - Cloud for Africa: kili.io Musings: twitter.com/varud More Musings: varud.com About Adam: www.linkedin.com/in/adamcnelson On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 2:27 PM, Walubengo J wrote: > @Adam, > > And perhaps Dyncorp (or similar research institution) would be able to > tell us why Nigeria (largest economy in Africa) is enjoying, without > complaining only 3% total share of the IPv4 resources in Africa while SA, > the second largest economy is doing 38%. > > Perhaps they are doing too much NATting or worse still "re-using" IP nos? > Maybe Sunday would know the reasons :-). > > walu. > > -------------------------------------------- > On Thu, 11/6/14, Adam Nelson wrote: > > Subject: [rpd] Re: [afnog] IPv4 Allocations by Length Statistics for 2014 > To: "Mark Tinka" > Cc: "rpd List" , "afnog" > Date: Thursday, November 6, 2014, 11:39 AM > > Even if > operators were inclined to give the data, I doubt you'd > get much participation since it's all hassle and no > gain. > The only way to get > the data is good old fashioned research - which Afrinic is > probably not in a position to do internally (for various > reasons including the NDA). I bet Dyncorp (the link I sent > before) has quite a bit of the information you're > looking for - but it won't be cheap. > -Adam > --Kili - Cloud for > Africa: kili.io > Musings: twitter.com/varudMore Musings: varud.comAbout Adam: > www.linkedin.com/in/adamcnelson > > On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at > 11:34 AM, Mark Tinka > wrote: > On > Thursday, November 06, 2014 10:07:09 AM Kofi ANSA AKUFO > > wrote: > > > > > Could we get more information from the data as to > what > > > technology and applications are consuming the > resources? > > > > I'm not sure operators would be willing to openly > share that > > data, Kofi. > > > > In fact, any such discussions between operators and > AFRINIC > > are under NDA. > > > > Mark. > > > > -----Inline Attachment Follows----- > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bakajika at yahoo.fr Thu Nov 6 16:18:09 2014 From: bakajika at yahoo.fr (nico tshintu) Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2014 16:18:09 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [rpd] proposed policy: reservation of resources for IXPs In-Reply-To: <1682758160.13366.1415089178733.JavaMail.zimbra@tespok.co.ke> References: <5450F341.3070005@geier.ne.tz> <1682758160.13366.1415089178733.JavaMail.zimbra@tespok.co.ke> Message-ID: <809541757.234203.1415290689668.JavaMail.yahoo@jws11130.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> Hello All, I support this proposal? Nico TSHINTU BAKAJIKA T?l: 243 818149372 Le Mardi 4 novembre 2014 9h19, Fiona Asonga a ?crit : Hallo All Based on our experience at KIXP and growth strategy moving forward. I support the proposal as it allows room for the IXPs to grow with minimum challenges on management of their allocation space. Kind regards Fiona Asonga Chief Executive Officer Telecommunications Service Providers Association of Kenya/ Kenya Internet Exchange Point Member Strategic Committee of the Africa Computer Emergency Response Team NRO Number Council http://www.nro.net/about/number-council.html ASO Address Council http://aso.icann.org/ac/ 14 th Floor, Bruce House Standard Street Tel: +254 20 2245 036 Cell: +254 721 713 504 Website: www.tespok.or.ke ----- Original Message ----- From: "Frank Habicht" To: "rpd" Cc: "Nishal Goburdhan" Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2014 7:31:37 PM Subject: [rpd] proposed policy: reservation of resources for IXPs Hello all, please find this proposed policy, which we (3 co-authors) have submitted to the pdpwg last week: Resource Reservation for Internet Exchange Points Author(s): a) Frank Habicht, Tanzania Internet Exchange b) Michuki Mwangi, Internet Society/KIXP c) Nishal Goburdhan, Packet Clearing House/JINX 1) Summary of the Problem being addressed by this proposal This policy reserves IPv4 and 2-byte ASNs resources for public Internet Exchange Points (IXPs) in the African region, ensuring that there would be discrete IPv4 resources to allow the establishment and growth of future IXPs. 2) Summary of How this Proposal Addresses the Problem This policy requests AfriNIC to reserve, and publish IPv4 resources, and 2-byte ASNs for use by IXPs only. 3) Proposal 3.1 Introduction It is widely considered that Internet Exchange Points (IXPs) are one of the critical elements needed for Internet economies to develop. Africa is still in the process of developing these, and is, at the same time, faced with the imminent exhaustion of its IPv4 resources. Not having IPv4 addresses to grow, or start new, IXPs would create unnecessary and unneeded routing complexity for Internet connected networks, looking to peer at IXPs to further their network scope. AfriNIC already has an existing policy to make allocations to IXPs [1], but that policy does not specifically reserve IPV4 space to ensure that there will be such, for future IXPs to grow and develop. Additionally, this policy reserves a set of 2-byte ASNs for use by IXPs for use at IXP BGP Route Servers. 3.2 Distinction between IXP peering and management networks We distinguish between two kinds of IP address resources needed and used at IXPs. An IXP peering LAN is the contiguous network address block that the IXP would use to assign unique IP addresses to each peering member, for each peering participant to exchange network traffic across the shared peering infrastructure. Best practice has the IXP peering LAN *not* being visible in a view of the global routing table, among other things to reduce the attack vectors for ISP border routers via the IXP. >From a network identification, monitoring and analysis perspective, it is thus desirable, that the "peering LAN" space be provided from a contiguous block. The IXP management LAN is the management network that the IXP uses to provision services at the IXP, like monitoring, statistics, mail, ticket systems, provisioning of transit to DNS Roots, etc. Management networks, are meant to be reachable globally, for instance to publish data and allow remote access for common good network infrastructure (such as root and TLD DNS servers) and research projects. 3.3 BGP Route Servers use Typically IXPs use BGP route servers to help manage peering sessions between different participants. The route servers implement IXP routing policy in the form of BGP communities, typically in the form of A:B, where A,B represent A=IXP BGP route server and B=participant ASN. Current BGP implementations utilise 6 bytes for the extended community attribute [RFC5668]. Therefore, an IXP with a 4-byte ASN in use at its route server would not be able to successfully implement the A:B BGP community mapping, if an IXP participant has a 4-byte ASN. This situation is likely to be experienced by more IXPs, as additional 4-byte ASNs are allocated through the current AfriNIC process. If, IXP route server communities include the IXP ASN and the peer's ASN (expected to be 4-byte), and a total of only 6 bytes are available, it follows that IXP route servers ASN could not be longer than a 2-byte ASN. 3.4 Proposal To ensure that there are sufficient resources for IXPs to develop, this policy proposes that AfriNIC reserve IPv4 addresses for IXP peering LANs out of an address block marked particularly, and exclusively, for IXP peering LAN use. Assignments for IXP peering LANs must be from one dedicated block, published as such by AfriNIC. Assignments for IXP management addresses should NOT be provided from the same block as the IXP peering LANs. It is proposed that a /16 block be reserved for future requirements for IXP peering LANs in the AfriNIC service region, and that AfriNIC publish this block as such. It is further proposed to reserve the equivalent of an additional /16 block for IXP management prefixes, separate from the peering LANs. It is proposed that AfriNIC reserves a block of 2-byte ASNs for use in BGP route servers at IXPs in the AfriNIC service region. The number of ASNs to be reserved should be the larger of 114, or half of the remaining 2-byte ASNs within AfriNIC's block at the date of ratification of this policy. AfriNIC will allocate these resources on a first come first served basis. 3.5 Evaluation criteria This policy does not suggest new evaluation criteria for what determines a valid IXP. 4.0 References [1] AfriNIC Policy for End User Assignments - AFPUB-2006-GEN-001 http://afrinic.net/en/library/policies/127-afpub-2006-gen-001 Sections 5) and 6) Note: proposal also available at http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposals/1231-resource-reservation-for-internet-exchange-points Regards, Frank _______________________________________________ rpd mailing list rpd at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd _______________________________________________ rpd mailing list rpd at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From owen at delong.com Thu Nov 6 17:54:33 2014 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2014 09:54:33 -0800 Subject: [rpd] Re: [afnog] IPv4 Allocations by Length Statistics for 2014 In-Reply-To: References: <1415273241.6121.YahooMailBasic@web162803.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <0AE3BC55-F7A6-430D-8F22-E2A8A5C9EC10@delong.com> It feels weird to be on the side of this debate that I am about to represent, however? I think this discussion has strayed far from the mission of this mailing list. I think we should ask ourselves the following questions before continuing this thread along its current lines: 1. What data should the RIR be able to collect in order to do its job? 2. Is collecting that data more likely to encourage policy compliance or more likely to encourage fraud? 3. Of the data we (as an RIR) collect, how much of it should the RIR be required to disclose to the public? Greater transparency is generally good on the surface, but the more of the data you ask for that people don?t want disclosed, the greater your risks in question 2. This goes up even more if you don?t build confidence that the data will be kept confidential. I think we should choose which data is collected strictly in terms of data that enables the RIR to issue resources in compliance with policy with a reasonable ability to detect fraud. We should only disclose that information which is vital to other operators and users of the internet for contact purposes to address problems (abuse, failures, etc.). We should not require disclosure of confidential information that must be collected in order for the RIR to be able to reasonably audit or analyze requests for policy compliance as this will reduce the probability of getting accurate data and/or voluntary compliance with policies. I generally favor sunshine as the best disinfectant and greater transparency, especially in organizations of public trust. However, it seems to me that in this case, forced disclosure is more likely to increase fraud than prevent it. If we want to fund wider research on a voluntary basis, I?m all for that, but in terms of required information for the RIR to process requests and mandatory disclosures, I think we must be very careful not to do harm to the core mission. Further, unless it is the basis for number resource policy development, I think this list may not be the correct forum for developing said research. These are just my opinions and you are certainly welcome to tell me that I am wrong. I have no standing to tell anyone what they should be doing and that is not my intent here. I merely ask that you consider these issues in the context of allowing the RIR to fulfill its core mission of managing address space. Owen > On Nov 6, 2014, at 4:04 AM, Adam Nelson wrote: > > I've never been to Nigeria but SA is a highly developed country with nuclear power plants, dozens of world class airports, dual carriageways, etc... > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_African_countries_by_Human_Development_Index > > I would say, presuming those numbers are even correct, that it's simply Internet maturity reflecting human development generally. Maybe the better comparison would be Kenya and Nigeria or Angola and Nigeria. > > -- > Kili - Cloud for Africa: kili.io > Musings:?twitter.com/varud > More Musings: varud.com > About Adam: www.linkedin.com/in/adamcnelson > On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 2:27 PM, Walubengo J > wrote: > @Adam, > > And perhaps Dyncorp (or similar research institution) would be able to tell us why Nigeria (largest economy in Africa) is enjoying, without complaining only 3% total share of the IPv4 resources in Africa while SA, the second largest economy is doing 38%. > > Perhaps they are doing too much NATting or worse still "re-using" IP nos? Maybe Sunday would know the reasons :-). > > walu. > > -------------------------------------------- > On Thu, 11/6/14, Adam Nelson > wrote: > > Subject: [rpd] Re: [afnog] IPv4 Allocations by Length Statistics for 2014 > To: "Mark Tinka" > > Cc: "rpd List" >, "afnog" > > Date: Thursday, November 6, 2014, 11:39 AM > > Even if > operators were inclined to give the data, I doubt you'd > get much participation since it's all hassle and no > gain. > The only way to get > the data is good old fashioned research - which Afrinic is > probably not in a position to do internally (for various > reasons including the NDA). I bet Dyncorp (the link I sent > before) has quite a bit of the information you're > looking for - but it won't be cheap. > -Adam > --Kili - Cloud for > Africa: kili.io > Musings: twitter.com/varudMore Musings: varud.comAbout Adam: www.linkedin.com/in/adamcnelson > > On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at > 11:34 AM, Mark Tinka > > wrote: > On > Thursday, November 06, 2014 10:07:09 AM Kofi ANSA AKUFO > > wrote: > > > > > Could we get more information from the data as to > what > > > technology and applications are consuming the > resources? > > > > I'm not sure operators would be willing to openly > share that > > data, Kofi. > > > > In fact, any such discussions between operators and > AFRINIC > > are under NDA. > > > > Mark. > > > > -----Inline Attachment Follows----- > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jnoulaye at yahoo.fr Thu Nov 6 21:32:31 2014 From: jnoulaye at yahoo.fr (jnoulaye at yahoo.fr) Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2014 21:32:31 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [rpd] proposed policy: reservation of resources for IXPs In-Reply-To: <8d41dc38a2e04469ad6c68f8fdf9fdf4@DM2PR03MB398.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> References: <8d41dc38a2e04469ad6c68f8fdf9fdf4@DM2PR03MB398.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> Message-ID: <1213459856.301350.1415309551430.JavaMail.yahoo@jws11152.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> I ?support the proposal with the extension of David Huberman. /Regards,/Janvier Ngnoulaye De?: David Huberman ??: "rpd at afrinic.net" Envoy? le : Jeudi 30 octobre 2014 18h59 Objet?: RE: [rpd] proposed policy: reservation of resources for IXPs Hello, In regard to the proposed policy, "Resource Reservation for Internet Exchange Points", I have two comments: 1) I support the policy as written. 2) I ask the community for input on a separate policy proposal I would like to make, which is related. One of the lessons we've learned over 20+ years of operating public IXes is that the worst thing that can happen to an IX is to grow so big that it outgrows its peering fabric /24.? Renumbering a peering fabric is a nightmare scenario.? It is preventable by having allocation policies which keep successful IXes in mind. I propose, therefore, text which directs AFRINIC staff to: ? - issue no less than a /24 to each IX peering fabric ? AND ? - either reserve the adjacent /24 so the /24 can grow to a /23 in the case where the IX is successful; or ? - issue the /24s sparsely (using the bisection method) to ensure the most number of /24s can grow into /23s over time. By carefully issuing /24s on /23 boundaries, it allows the (relatively few) IXes that will outgrow a /24 to easily move into a /23 with the same starting IP address, which makes it easy for the participants at the exchange. Would this proposal have support? Thanks and with regards, David David R Huberman Microsoft Corporation Principal, Global IP Addressing >? Subject: [rpd] proposed policy: reservation of resources for IXPs >? To: "rpd" >? Cc: "Nishal Goburdhan" >? Date: Wednesday, October 29, 2014, 5:01 PM >? >? Hello all, >? >? please find this proposed policy, which we (3 co-authors)? have > submitted to? the pdpwg last week: >? >? Resource Reservation for Internet Exchange Points >? >? Author(s): >? a) Frank Habicht, Tanzania Internet Exchange >? b) Michuki Mwangi, Internet Society/KIXP >? c) Nishal Goburdhan, Packet Clearing House/JINX >? >? 1) Summary of the Problem being addressed by this proposal >? >? This policy reserves IPv4 and 2-byte ASNs resources for? public > Internet? Exchange Points (IXPs) in the African region, ensuring that? > there would be? discrete IPv4 resources to allow the establishment and? > growth of future IXPs. >? >? >? 2) Summary of How this Proposal Addresses the Problem >? >? This policy requests AfriNIC to reserve, and publish IPv4? resources, > and? 2-byte ASNs for use by IXPs only. >? >? >? 3) Proposal >? >? 3.1 Introduction >? >? It is widely considered that Internet Exchange Points (IXPs)? are one > of the? critical elements needed for Internet economies to develop. >? Africa is still >? in the process of developing these, and is, at the same? time, faced > with? the imminent exhaustion of its IPv4 resources. Not having >? IPv4 addresses to >? grow, or start new, IXPs would create unnecessary and? unneeded > routing? complexity for Internet connected networks, looking to peer? > at IXPs to? further their network scope. AfriNIC already has an > existing? policy to make? allocations to IXPs [1], but that policy > does not? specifically reserve IPV4? space to ensure that there will > be such, for future IXPs to? grow and? develop. Additionally, this > policy reserves a set of 2-byte? ASNs for use by? IXPs for use at IXP > BGP Route Servers. >? >? >? 3.2 Distinction between IXP peering and management networks >? >? We distinguish between two kinds of IP address resources? needed and > used at? IXPs. An IXP peering LAN is the contiguous network address? > block that the? IXP would use to assign unique IP addresses to each > peering? member, for? each peering participant to exchange network > traffic across? the shared? peering infrastructure. Best practice has > the IXP peering? LAN *not* being? visible in a view of the global > routing table, among other? things to reduce? the attack vectors for > ISP border routers via the IXP. >? >? >From a network identification, monitoring and analysis? perspective, > it is? thus desirable, that the "peering LAN" space be provided? from > a contiguous? block. The IXP management LAN is the management network > that? the IXP uses? to provision services at the IXP, like monitoring,? > statistics, mail, ticket? systems, provisioning of transit to DNS > Roots, etc. >? >? Management networks, are meant to be reachable globally, for? > instance to? publish data and allow remote access for common good > network? infrastructure? (such as root and TLD DNS servers) and > research projects. >? >? >? 3.3 BGP Route Servers use >? >? Typically IXPs use BGP route servers to help manage peering? sessions? > between different participants. The route servers implement? IXP > routing? policy in the form of BGP communities, typically in the form? > of A:B, where? A,B represent A=IXP BGP route server and B=participant > ASN. >? Current BGP >? implementations utilise 6 bytes for the extended community? attribute? > [RFC5668]. Therefore, an IXP with a 4-byte ASN in use at its? route > server? would not be able to successfully implement the A:B BGP? > community mapping,? if an IXP participant has a 4-byte ASN. This > situation is? likely to be? experienced by more IXPs, as additional > 4-byte ASNs are? allocated through? the current AfriNIC process. >? >? If, IXP route server communities include the IXP ASN and the? peer's > ASN? (expected to be 4-byte), and a total of only 6 bytes are? > available, it? follows that IXP route servers ASN could not be longer > than? a 2-byte ASN. >? >? >? 3.4 Proposal >? >? To ensure that there are sufficient resources for IXPs to? develop, > this? policy proposes that AfriNIC reserve IPv4 addresses for IXP? > peering LANs? out of an address block marked particularly, and? > exclusively, for IXP? peering LAN use. Assignments for IXP peering > LANs must be? from one? dedicated block, published as such by AfriNIC. > Assignments? for IXP? management addresses should NOT be provided from > the same? block as the IXP? peering LANs. >? >? It is proposed that a /16 block be reserved for future? requirements > for IXP? peering LANs in the AfriNIC service region, and that AfriNIC? > publish this? block as such. >? >? It is further proposed to reserve the equivalent of an? additional > /16 block? for IXP management prefixes, separate from the peering > LANs. >? It is proposed >? that AfriNIC reserves a block of 2-byte ASNs for use in BGP? route > servers? at IXPs in the AfriNIC service region. >? >? The number of ASNs to be reserved should be the larger of? 114, or > half of? the remaining 2-byte ASNs within AfriNIC's block at the date? > of? ratification of this policy. >? >? AfriNIC will allocate these resources on a first come first? served > basis. >? >? >? 3.5 Evaluation criteria >? >? This policy does not suggest new evaluation criteria for? what > determines a? valid IXP. >? >? >? 4.0 References >? >? [1] AfriNIC Policy for End User Assignments - >? AFPUB-2006-GEN-001 >? http://afrinic.net/en/library/policies/127-afpub-2006-gen-001 >? Sections 5) >? and 6) >? >? >? >? >? Note: proposal also available at >? > http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposal > s/1231-resource-reservation-for-internet-exchange-points >? >? >? Regards, >? Frank >? _______________________________________________ >? rpd mailing list >? rpd at afrinic.net >? https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >? _______________________________________________ rpd mailing list rpd at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd _______________________________________________ rpd mailing list rpd at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sergekbk at yahoo.fr Fri Nov 7 03:48:00 2014 From: sergekbk at yahoo.fr (Serge ILUNGA) Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2014 04:48:00 +0100 Subject: [rpd] proposed policy: reservation of resources for IXPs In-Reply-To: <809541757.234203.1415290689668.JavaMail.yahoo@jws11130.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> References: <5450F341.3070005@geier.ne.tz> <1682758160.13366.1415089178733.JavaMail.zimbra@tespok.co.ke> <809541757.234203.1415290689668.JavaMail.yahoo@jws11130.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <705036E2-86B3-4F4D-AFEC-D485E27EBB84@yahoo.fr> ++1 Serge ILUNGA KABWIKA Skype: sergekbk Cell: +243814443160 > Le 6 nov. 2014 ? 17:18, nico tshintu a ?crit : > > Hello All, > > I support this proposal > > > Nico TSHINTU BAKAJIKA > T?l: 243 818149372 > > > Le Mardi 4 novembre 2014 9h19, Fiona Asonga a ?crit : > > > Hallo All > > Based on our experience at KIXP and growth strategy moving forward. I support the proposal as it allows room for the IXPs to grow with minimum challenges on management of their allocation space. > > Kind regards > > Fiona Asonga > > Chief Executive Officer > > Telecommunications Service Providers Association of Kenya/ Kenya Internet Exchange Point > > Member Strategic Committee of the Africa Computer Emergency Response Team > > > > > NRO Number Council http://www.nro.net/about/number-council.html > > > > > ASO Address Council http://aso.icann.org/ac/ > > > > > > > > 14 th Floor, Bruce House > > Standard Street > > > > > Tel: +254 20 2245 036 > > Cell: +254 721 713 504 > > Website: www.tespok.or.ke > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Frank Habicht" > To: "rpd" > Cc: "Nishal Goburdhan" > Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2014 7:31:37 PM > Subject: [rpd] proposed policy: reservation of resources for IXPs > > Hello all, > > please find this proposed policy, which we (3 co-authors) have submitted to > the pdpwg last week: > > Resource Reservation for Internet Exchange Points > > Author(s): > a) Frank Habicht, Tanzania Internet Exchange > b) Michuki Mwangi, Internet Society/KIXP > c) Nishal Goburdhan, Packet Clearing House/JINX > > 1) Summary of the Problem being addressed by this proposal > > This policy reserves IPv4 and 2-byte ASNs resources for public Internet > Exchange Points (IXPs) in the African region, ensuring that there would be > discrete IPv4 resources to allow the establishment and growth of future IXPs. > > > 2) Summary of How this Proposal Addresses the Problem > > This policy requests AfriNIC to reserve, and publish IPv4 resources, and > 2-byte ASNs for use by IXPs only. > > > 3) Proposal > > 3.1 Introduction > > It is widely considered that Internet Exchange Points (IXPs) are one of the > critical elements needed for Internet economies to develop. Africa is still > in the process of developing these, and is, at the same time, faced with > the imminent exhaustion of its IPv4 resources. Not having IPv4 addresses to > grow, or start new, IXPs would create unnecessary and unneeded routing > complexity for Internet connected networks, looking to peer at IXPs to > further their network scope. AfriNIC already has an existing policy to make > allocations to IXPs [1], but that policy does not specifically reserve IPV4 > space to ensure that there will be such, for future IXPs to grow and > develop. Additionally, this policy reserves a set of 2-byte ASNs for use by > IXPs for use at IXP BGP Route Servers. > > > 3.2 Distinction between IXP peering and management networks > > We distinguish between two kinds of IP address resources needed and used at > IXPs. An IXP peering LAN is the contiguous network address block that the > IXP would use to assign unique IP addresses to each peering member, for > each peering participant to exchange network traffic across the shared > peering infrastructure. Best practice has the IXP peering LAN *not* being > visible in a view of the global routing table, among other things to reduce > the attack vectors for ISP border routers via the IXP. > > >From a network identification, monitoring and analysis perspective, it is > thus desirable, that the "peering LAN" space be provided from a contiguous > block. The IXP management LAN is the management network that the IXP uses > to provision services at the IXP, like monitoring, statistics, mail, ticket > systems, provisioning of transit to DNS Roots, etc. > > Management networks, are meant to be reachable globally, for instance to > publish data and allow remote access for common good network infrastructure > (such as root and TLD DNS servers) and research projects. > > > 3.3 BGP Route Servers use > > Typically IXPs use BGP route servers to help manage peering sessions > between different participants. The route servers implement IXP routing > policy in the form of BGP communities, typically in the form of A:B, where > A,B represent A=IXP BGP route server and B=participant ASN. Current BGP > implementations utilise 6 bytes for the extended community attribute > [RFC5668]. Therefore, an IXP with a 4-byte ASN in use at its route server > would not be able to successfully implement the A:B BGP community mapping, > if an IXP participant has a 4-byte ASN. This situation is likely to be > experienced by more IXPs, as additional 4-byte ASNs are allocated through > the current AfriNIC process. > > If, IXP route server communities include the IXP ASN and the peer's ASN > (expected to be 4-byte), and a total of only 6 bytes are available, it > follows that IXP route servers ASN could not be longer than a 2-byte ASN. > > > 3.4 Proposal > > To ensure that there are sufficient resources for IXPs to develop, this > policy proposes that AfriNIC reserve IPv4 addresses for IXP peering LANs > out of an address block marked particularly, and exclusively, for IXP > peering LAN use. Assignments for IXP peering LANs must be from one > dedicated block, published as such by AfriNIC. Assignments for IXP > management addresses should NOT be provided from the same block as the IXP > peering LANs. > > It is proposed that a /16 block be reserved for future requirements for IXP > peering LANs in the AfriNIC service region, and that AfriNIC publish this > block as such. > > It is further proposed to reserve the equivalent of an additional /16 block > for IXP management prefixes, separate from the peering LANs. It is proposed > that AfriNIC reserves a block of 2-byte ASNs for use in BGP route servers > at IXPs in the AfriNIC service region. > > The number of ASNs to be reserved should be the larger of 114, or half of > the remaining 2-byte ASNs within AfriNIC's block at the date of > ratification of this policy. > > AfriNIC will allocate these resources on a first come first served basis. > > > 3.5 Evaluation criteria > > This policy does not suggest new evaluation criteria for what determines a > valid IXP. > > > 4.0 References > > [1] AfriNIC Policy for End User Assignments - AFPUB-2006-GEN-001 > http://afrinic.net/en/library/policies/127-afpub-2006-gen-001 Sections 5) > and 6) > > > > > Note: proposal also available at > http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposals/1231-resource-reservation-for-internet-exchange-points > > > Regards, > Frank > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From adam at varud.com Fri Nov 7 07:29:10 2014 From: adam at varud.com (Adam Nelson) Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2014 10:29:10 +0300 Subject: [rpd] Re: [afnog] IPv4 Allocations by Length Statistics for 2014 In-Reply-To: <0AE3BC55-F7A6-430D-8F22-E2A8A5C9EC10@delong.com> References: <1415273241.6121.YahooMailBasic@web162803.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <0AE3BC55-F7A6-430D-8F22-E2A8A5C9EC10@delong.com> Message-ID: Owen, You're right and I 100% agree with your sentiment. Being totally open isn't always realistic and can be counterproductive. With that said, operators should be educated that their competitors know alot about them from closed-source sources (Dyn Corp as mentioned previously). If their big fear is public disclosure, they should first confirm what's available privately. Sometimes, making data public undermines the private sources and can be good corporate policy (i.e. good for valuation, good for self-discovery in large organizations that are balkanized, good for recruiting). Also, we should keep in mind that other RIRs are doing research - they're just not using information that's under NDA. RIPE has a ton of probes in Africa sucking up data. Here's mine for instance: https://atlas.ripe.net/probes/16410/#!tab-network Cheers, Adam -- Kili - Cloud for Africa: kili.io Musings: twitter.com/varud More Musings: varud.com About Adam: www.linkedin.com/in/adamcnelson On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 8:54 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > It feels weird to be on the side of this debate that I am about to > represent, however? > > I think this discussion has strayed far from the mission of this mailing > list. I think we should ask ourselves the following questions before > continuing this thread along its current lines: > > 1. What data should the RIR be able to collect in order to do its job? > 2. Is collecting that data more likely to encourage policy compliance or > more likely to encourage fraud? > 3. Of the data we (as an RIR) collect, how much of it should the RIR be > required to disclose to the public? > Greater transparency is generally good on the surface, but the more of the > data you ask for that people don?t want disclosed, > the greater your risks in question 2. This goes up even more if you don?t > build confidence that the data will be kept confidential. > > I think we should choose which data is collected strictly in terms of data > that enables the RIR to issue resources in compliance with policy with a > reasonable ability to detect fraud. We should only disclose that > information which is vital to other operators and users of the internet for > contact purposes to address problems (abuse, failures, etc.). We should not > require disclosure of confidential information that must be collected in > order for the RIR to be able to reasonably audit or analyze requests for > policy compliance as this will reduce the probability of getting accurate > data and/or voluntary compliance with policies. > > I generally favor sunshine as the best disinfectant and greater > transparency, especially in organizations of public trust. However, it > seems to me that in this case, forced disclosure is more likely to increase > fraud than prevent it. > > If we want to fund wider research on a voluntary basis, I?m all for that, > but in terms of required information for the RIR to process requests and > mandatory disclosures, I think we must be very careful not to do harm to > the core mission. > > Further, unless it is the basis for number resource policy development, I > think this list may not be the correct forum for developing said research. > > These are just my opinions and you are certainly welcome to tell me that I > am wrong. I have no standing to tell anyone what they should be doing and > that is not my intent here. I merely ask that you consider these issues in > the context of allowing the RIR to fulfill its core mission of managing > address space. > > Owen > > On Nov 6, 2014, at 4:04 AM, Adam Nelson wrote: > > I've never been to Nigeria but SA is a highly developed country with > nuclear power plants, dozens of world class airports, dual carriageways, > etc... > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_African_countries_by_Human_Development_Index > > I would say, presuming those numbers are even correct, that it's simply > Internet maturity reflecting human development generally. Maybe the better > comparison would be Kenya and Nigeria or Angola and Nigeria. > > -- > Kili - Cloud for Africa: kili.io > Musings: twitter.com/varud > More Musings: varud.com > About Adam: www.linkedin.com/in/adamcnelson > > On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 2:27 PM, Walubengo J wrote: > >> @Adam, >> >> And perhaps Dyncorp (or similar research institution) would be able to >> tell us why Nigeria (largest economy in Africa) is enjoying, without >> complaining only 3% total share of the IPv4 resources in Africa while SA, >> the second largest economy is doing 38%. >> >> Perhaps they are doing too much NATting or worse still "re-using" IP nos? >> Maybe Sunday would know the reasons :-). >> >> walu. >> >> -------------------------------------------- >> On Thu, 11/6/14, Adam Nelson wrote: >> >> Subject: [rpd] Re: [afnog] IPv4 Allocations by Length Statistics for 2014 >> To: "Mark Tinka" >> Cc: "rpd List" , "afnog" >> Date: Thursday, November 6, 2014, 11:39 AM >> >> Even if >> operators were inclined to give the data, I doubt you'd >> get much participation since it's all hassle and no >> gain. >> The only way to get >> the data is good old fashioned research - which Afrinic is >> probably not in a position to do internally (for various >> reasons including the NDA). I bet Dyncorp (the link I sent >> before) has quite a bit of the information you're >> looking for - but it won't be cheap. >> -Adam >> --Kili - Cloud for >> Africa: kili.io >> Musings: twitter.com/varudMore Musings: varud.comAbout Adam: >> www.linkedin.com/in/adamcnelson >> >> On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at >> 11:34 AM, Mark Tinka >> wrote: >> On >> Thursday, November 06, 2014 10:07:09 AM Kofi ANSA AKUFO >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> > Could we get more information from the data as to >> what >> >> > technology and applications are consuming the >> resources? >> >> >> >> I'm not sure operators would be willing to openly >> share that >> >> data, Kofi. >> >> >> >> In fact, any such discussions between operators and >> AFRINIC >> >> are under NDA. >> >> >> >> Mark. >> >> >> >> -----Inline Attachment Follows----- >> >> _______________________________________________ >> rpd mailing list >> rpd at afrinic.net >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >> >> > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From adiel at afrinic.net Fri Nov 7 08:25:46 2014 From: adiel at afrinic.net (Adiel Akplogan) Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2014 12:25:46 +0400 Subject: [rpd] [afnog] IPv4 Allocations by Length Statistics for 2014 In-Reply-To: References: <1415273241.6121.YahooMailBasic@web162803.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <0AE3BC55-F7A6-430D-8F22-E2A8A5C9EC10@delong.com> Message-ID: <0CC4DB31-8304-48E1-B43A-9D09DAE45DBC@afrinic.net> Hello Adam and all, On Nov 7, 2014, at 11:29 AM, Adam Nelson wrote: > Also, we should keep in mind that other RIRs are doing research - they're just not using information that's under NDA. RIPE has a ton of probes in Africa sucking up data. Here's mine for instance: > > https://atlas.ripe.net/probes/16410/#!tab-network Let me add few point so that the discussion does not take an ever ending route. Yes, RIR does Research and AFRINIC has just created (last month) a new Department for R&D (lead by Alain Aina) which will be focussing on Network Research and Analysis, but only on public data. There is no way that AFRINIC will use information provided by LIR during their request evaluation in public research activities (as they are not provided for such activity and are covered by NDA). If non public information are needed for research, the R&D department will conduct separate survey or use which ever legal means are available to collect them. AFRINIC has also signed a partnership agreement with RIPE for the ATLAS project where by our R&D team will be deploying some anchors and distributing probes (already started) in the region to collect data that are pertinent to some analysis and to build tools that can be useful for our community. A dedicated web page will be released soon for more information about this particular research activity. I hope this clarified few things. Thanks. - a -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 313 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From adam at varud.com Fri Nov 7 08:31:37 2014 From: adam at varud.com (Adam Nelson) Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2014 11:31:37 +0300 Subject: [rpd] [afnog] IPv4 Allocations by Length Statistics for 2014 In-Reply-To: <0CC4DB31-8304-48E1-B43A-9D09DAE45DBC@afrinic.net> References: <1415273241.6121.YahooMailBasic@web162803.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <0AE3BC55-F7A6-430D-8F22-E2A8A5C9EC10@delong.com> <0CC4DB31-8304-48E1-B43A-9D09DAE45DBC@afrinic.net> Message-ID: Adiel, This is great news. Can Afrinic and Alain also open source the code on Github for any applications they build around that? RIPE does a great job with open sourcing their code: https://github.com/RIPE-Atlas-Community I also hope they'll use Python since all the high level RIPE Atlas stuff is already built with Python so collaboration will be easier and deeper. This sounds great and I'm looking forward to the outcome of the research. -Adam -- Kili - Cloud for Africa: kili.io Musings: twitter.com/varud More Musings: varud.com About Adam: www.linkedin.com/in/adamcnelson On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 11:25 AM, Adiel Akplogan wrote: > Hello Adam and all, > > On Nov 7, 2014, at 11:29 AM, Adam Nelson wrote: > > > Also, we should keep in mind that other RIRs are doing research - > they're just not using information that's under NDA. RIPE has a ton of > probes in Africa sucking up data. Here's mine for instance: > > > > https://atlas.ripe.net/probes/16410/#!tab-network > > Let me add few point so that the discussion does not take an ever ending > route. > > Yes, RIR does Research and AFRINIC has just created (last month) a new > Department for R&D (lead by Alain Aina) which will be focussing on Network > Research and Analysis, but only on public data. There is no way that > AFRINIC will use information provided by LIR during their request > evaluation in public research activities (as they are not provided for such > activity and are covered by NDA). If non public information are needed for > research, the R&D department will conduct separate survey or use which ever > legal means are available to collect them. > > AFRINIC has also signed a partnership agreement with RIPE for the ATLAS > project where by our R&D team will be deploying some anchors and > distributing probes (already started) in the region to collect data that > are pertinent to some analysis and to build tools that can be useful for > our community. A dedicated web page will be released soon for more > information about this particular research activity. > > I hope this clarified few things. > > Thanks. > > - a > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From h.lu at anytimechinese.com Fri Nov 7 08:32:52 2014 From: h.lu at anytimechinese.com (Lu) Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2014 08:32:52 +0000 Subject: [rpd] [afnog] IPv4 Allocations by Length Statistics for 2014 In-Reply-To: <0CC4DB31-8304-48E1-B43A-9D09DAE45DBC@afrinic.net> References: <1415273241.6121.YahooMailBasic@web162803.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <0AE3BC55-F7A6-430D-8F22-E2A8A5C9EC10@delong.com> <0CC4DB31-8304-48E1-B43A-9D09DAE45DBC@afrinic.net> Message-ID: Hi If I understand Adiel correctly, the r&d department does not and will ever not have access to registration service's data, it is two different thing and data between two service are not interchangeable,. This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this message and including the text of the transmission received. > On 2014?11?7?, at ??8:25, Adiel Akplogan wrote: > > Hello Adam and all, > >> On Nov 7, 2014, at 11:29 AM, Adam Nelson wrote: >> >> Also, we should keep in mind that other RIRs are doing research - they're just not using information that's under NDA. RIPE has a ton of probes in Africa sucking up data. Here's mine for instance: >> >> https://atlas.ripe.net/probes/16410/#!tab-network > > Let me add few point so that the discussion does not take an ever ending route. > > Yes, RIR does Research and AFRINIC has just created (last month) a new Department for R&D (lead by Alain Aina) which will be focussing on Network Research and Analysis, but only on public data. There is no way that AFRINIC will use information provided by LIR during their request evaluation in public research activities (as they are not provided for such activity and are covered by NDA). If non public information are needed for research, the R&D department will conduct separate survey or use which ever legal means are available to collect them. > > AFRINIC has also signed a partnership agreement with RIPE for the ATLAS project where by our R&D team will be deploying some anchors and distributing probes (already started) in the region to collect data that are pertinent to some analysis and to build tools that can be useful for our community. A dedicated web page will be released soon for more information about this particular research activity. > > I hope this clarified few things. > > Thanks. > > - a > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd From adam at varud.com Fri Nov 7 08:39:28 2014 From: adam at varud.com (Adam Nelson) Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2014 11:39:28 +0300 Subject: [rpd] [afnog] IPv4 Allocations by Length Statistics for 2014 In-Reply-To: References: <1415273241.6121.YahooMailBasic@web162803.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <0AE3BC55-F7A6-430D-8F22-E2A8A5C9EC10@delong.com> <0CC4DB31-8304-48E1-B43A-9D09DAE45DBC@afrinic.net> Message-ID: Lu, I think Adiel was very clear about that. Any information submitted under NDA is totally protected. I presume they also have a bureaucratic firewall around the data so that it can't leak from one side of the organization to the other inadvertently. -Adam -- Kili - Cloud for Africa: kili.io Musings: twitter.com/varud More Musings: varud.com About Adam: www.linkedin.com/in/adamcnelson On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 11:32 AM, Lu wrote: > Hi > > If I understand Adiel correctly, the r&d department does not and will ever > not have access to registration service's data, it is two different thing > and data between two service are not interchangeable,. > > This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. > It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or > otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use > of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the intended > addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission > in error, please notify this office immediately and e-mail the original at > the sender's address above by replying to this message and including the > text of the transmission received. > > > On 2014?11?7?, at ??8:25, Adiel Akplogan wrote: > > > > Hello Adam and all, > > > >> On Nov 7, 2014, at 11:29 AM, Adam Nelson wrote: > >> > >> Also, we should keep in mind that other RIRs are doing research - > they're just not using information that's under NDA. RIPE has a ton of > probes in Africa sucking up data. Here's mine for instance: > >> > >> https://atlas.ripe.net/probes/16410/#!tab-network > > > > Let me add few point so that the discussion does not take an ever ending > route. > > > > Yes, RIR does Research and AFRINIC has just created (last month) a new > Department for R&D (lead by Alain Aina) which will be focussing on Network > Research and Analysis, but only on public data. There is no way that > AFRINIC will use information provided by LIR during their request > evaluation in public research activities (as they are not provided for such > activity and are covered by NDA). If non public information are needed for > research, the R&D department will conduct separate survey or use which ever > legal means are available to collect them. > > > > AFRINIC has also signed a partnership agreement with RIPE for the ATLAS > project where by our R&D team will be deploying some anchors and > distributing probes (already started) in the region to collect data that > are pertinent to some analysis and to build tools that can be useful for > our community. A dedicated web page will be released soon for more > information about this particular research activity. > > > > I hope this clarified few things. > > > > Thanks. > > > > - a > > > > _______________________________________________ > > rpd mailing list > > rpd at afrinic.net > > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kofi.ansa at gmail.com Fri Nov 7 09:15:09 2014 From: kofi.ansa at gmail.com (Kofi ANSA AKUFO) Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2014 13:15:09 +0400 Subject: [rpd] [afnog] IPv4 Allocations by Length Statistics for 2014 In-Reply-To: References: <1415273241.6121.YahooMailBasic@web162803.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <0AE3BC55-F7A6-430D-8F22-E2A8A5C9EC10@delong.com> <0CC4DB31-8304-48E1-B43A-9D09DAE45DBC@afrinic.net> Message-ID: Seriously transparency triggers competition which is healthy for innovation and self check for fraud and other frowned on vices. I stand to be corrected but within the scope of best practices and community engagement (e.g. adopting tested democratic methods) can we se the benefit of methods like; "Dear Members/ Community, Organisation X has requested /14 IPv4 resources to be used for providing hosting services, Afrinic hostmasters has evaluated the initial resource request and find it to be compliant with current policies for IPv4 allocation. In line with allocations greater than or equal to /15 to be referred to the community for comments before approval the community is hereby welcomed to share its opinion regarding this request" another example which may be implemented as quarterly summaryreports to the community " .... out of the /15 IPv4 requested within the second quarter of this year /18 were requested to provide hosting services .... " How does this jeopardize members business and NDA. cheers K. On 7 November 2014 12:32, Lu wrote: > Hi > > If I understand Adiel correctly, the r&d department does not and will ever > not have access to registration service's data, it is two different thing > and data between two service are not interchangeable,. > > This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. > It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or > otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use > of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the intended > addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission > in error, please notify this office immediately and e-mail the original at > the sender's address above by replying to this message and including the > text of the transmission received. > > > On 2014?11?7?, at ??8:25, Adiel Akplogan wrote: > > > > Hello Adam and all, > > > >> On Nov 7, 2014, at 11:29 AM, Adam Nelson wrote: > >> > >> Also, we should keep in mind that other RIRs are doing research - > they're just not using information that's under NDA. RIPE has a ton of > probes in Africa sucking up data. Here's mine for instance: > >> > >> https://atlas.ripe.net/probes/16410/#!tab-network > > > > Let me add few point so that the discussion does not take an ever ending > route. > > > > Yes, RIR does Research and AFRINIC has just created (last month) a new > Department for R&D (lead by Alain Aina) which will be focussing on Network > Research and Analysis, but only on public data. There is no way that > AFRINIC will use information provided by LIR during their request > evaluation in public research activities (as they are not provided for such > activity and are covered by NDA). If non public information are needed for > research, the R&D department will conduct separate survey or use which ever > legal means are available to collect them. > > > > AFRINIC has also signed a partnership agreement with RIPE for the ATLAS > project where by our R&D team will be deploying some anchors and > distributing probes (already started) in the region to collect data that > are pertinent to some analysis and to build tools that can be useful for > our community. A dedicated web page will be released soon for more > information about this particular research activity. > > > > I hope this clarified few things. > > > > Thanks. > > > > - a > > > > _______________________________________________ > > rpd mailing list > > rpd at afrinic.net > > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From adam at varud.com Fri Nov 7 09:32:54 2014 From: adam at varud.com (Adam Nelson) Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2014 12:32:54 +0300 Subject: [rpd] PDWG Agenda for Afrinic-21 Message-ID: Dear Community Members *,* The AFRINIC-21 meeting will be held in Mauritius from the 22nd to 28th November 2014. Within the agenda, the following sessions have been reserved for policy discussions. *Meeting Date: 28 November 2014* - 11:00 - 12:30 (all times are UTC+4) - 14:00 - 15:30 - 16:00 - 17:30 *DETAILED AGENDA* The following topics will be covered during the time allocated to the PDWG, subject to change. *11:00 - 12:30* - Welcome and Introduction of Sessions - Review of Agenda - Introduction to the Policy Development Process - Report of Recently Ratified/Implemented Policies - Summary of policies under discussion in other regions *14:00 - 15:30* - Out-Of-Region Use of AFRINIC Internet Number Resources (AFPUB-2014-GEN-002-DRAFT-02) - AFRINIC Whois Database Update Process (AFPUB-2014-GEN-001-DRAFT-02) - AFRINIC Service Guidelines (AFPUB-2014-GEN-005-DRAFT-01) *16:00 - 17:30* - Anycast Resource Assignments in the AFRINIC region.(AFPUB-2014-GEN-003-DRAFT-02) - Resource Reservation for Internet Exchange Points (AFPUB-2014-GEN-004-DRAFT-01) - Open Microphone - Closing *USEFUL REFERENCES*: All 5 Policies Under discussion: http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposals *FURTHER INFORMATION* For more information, please see: http://meeting.afrinic.net/afrinic-21/en/ A summary agenda for the entire event: http://meeting.afrinic.net/afrinic-21/en/agenda/agenda The Policy Development Process, including links to policies under discussion: http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development Regards, Seun Ojedeji & Adam Nelson PDWG Co-Chairs -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com Fri Nov 7 09:39:49 2014 From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji) Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2014 10:39:49 +0100 Subject: [afnog] [rpd] IPv4 Allocations by Length Statistics for 2014 In-Reply-To: References: <1415273241.6121.YahooMailBasic@web162803.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <0AE3BC55-F7A6-430D-8F22-E2A8A5C9EC10@delong.com> <0CC4DB31-8304-48E1-B43A-9D09DAE45DBC@afrinic.net> Message-ID: Hi Kofi, Speaking as myself, my first question will be to ask how writing such a quarterly message implies transparency? Perhaps we need to agree on that word transparency as it can be relative. Within the context of managing resources within this region, i see transparency as AFRINIC staff managing resource allocation/assignment based on the active policies and the requestor also doing his/her part by following the laid down rules/guidelines. Any individual (requester) who then thinks that he/she did not experience such service could raise alarm of staff not being transparent based on their XYZ action which is against the existing ABC policies/guidelines. I hope you do agree with that view above. I will also encourage you to turn some of this thoughts into policy as that is the major way you can see the change you desire. Thanks PS: Speaking as an individual On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 10:15 AM, Kofi ANSA AKUFO wrote: > Seriously transparency triggers competition which is healthy for > innovation and self check for fraud and other frowned on vices. I stand to > be corrected but within the scope of best practices and community > engagement (e.g. adopting tested democratic methods) can we se the benefit > of methods like; > > "Dear Members/ Community, > Organisation X has requested /14 IPv4 resources to be used for providing > hosting services, Afrinic hostmasters has evaluated the initial resource > request and find it to be compliant with current policies for IPv4 > allocation. In line with allocations greater than or equal to /15 to be > referred to the community for comments before approval the community is > hereby welcomed to share its opinion regarding this request" > > another example which may be implemented as quarterly summaryreports to > the community > > " .... out of the /15 IPv4 requested within the second quarter of this > year /18 were requested to provide hosting services .... " > > How does this jeopardize members business and NDA. > > cheers > > K. > > > > > On 7 November 2014 12:32, Lu wrote: > >> Hi >> >> If I understand Adiel correctly, the r&d department does not and will >> ever not have access to registration service's data, it is two different >> thing and data between two service are not interchangeable,. >> >> This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. >> It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or >> otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use >> of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the intended >> addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission >> in error, please notify this office immediately and e-mail the original at >> the sender's address above by replying to this message and including the >> text of the transmission received. >> >> > On 2014?11?7?, at ??8:25, Adiel Akplogan wrote: >> > >> > Hello Adam and all, >> > >> >> On Nov 7, 2014, at 11:29 AM, Adam Nelson wrote: >> >> >> >> Also, we should keep in mind that other RIRs are doing research - >> they're just not using information that's under NDA. RIPE has a ton of >> probes in Africa sucking up data. Here's mine for instance: >> >> >> >> https://atlas.ripe.net/probes/16410/#!tab-network >> > >> > Let me add few point so that the discussion does not take an ever >> ending route. >> > >> > Yes, RIR does Research and AFRINIC has just created (last month) a new >> Department for R&D (lead by Alain Aina) which will be focussing on Network >> Research and Analysis, but only on public data. There is no way that >> AFRINIC will use information provided by LIR during their request >> evaluation in public research activities (as they are not provided for such >> activity and are covered by NDA). If non public information are needed for >> research, the R&D department will conduct separate survey or use which ever >> legal means are available to collect them. >> > >> > AFRINIC has also signed a partnership agreement with RIPE for the ATLAS >> project where by our R&D team will be deploying some anchors and >> distributing probes (already started) in the region to collect data that >> are pertinent to some analysis and to build tools that can be useful for >> our community. A dedicated web page will be released soon for more >> information about this particular research activity. >> > >> > I hope this clarified few things. >> > >> > Thanks. >> > >> > - a >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > rpd mailing list >> > rpd at afrinic.net >> > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >> _______________________________________________ >> rpd mailing list >> rpd at afrinic.net >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >> > > > _______________________________________________ > afnog mailing list > http://afnog.org/mailman/listinfo/afnog > -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng * The key to understanding is humility - my view ! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From adam at varud.com Fri Nov 7 09:50:52 2014 From: adam at varud.com (Adam Nelson) Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2014 12:50:52 +0300 Subject: [afnog] [rpd] IPv4 Allocations by Length Statistics for 2014 In-Reply-To: References: <1415273241.6121.YahooMailBasic@web162803.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <0AE3BC55-F7A6-430D-8F22-E2A8A5C9EC10@delong.com> <0CC4DB31-8304-48E1-B43A-9D09DAE45DBC@afrinic.net> Message-ID: Kofi, Further supporting Seun's email - policy is the way to get what you want. If we see policies come through and the community starts accepting those policies, then the board will have to take up the issues which you're advocating. Cheers, Adam -- Kili - Cloud for Africa: kili.io Musings: twitter.com/varud More Musings: varud.com About Adam: www.linkedin.com/in/adamcnelson On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 12:39 PM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: > Hi Kofi, > > Speaking as myself, my first question will be to ask how writing such a > quarterly message implies transparency? Perhaps we need to agree on that > word transparency as it can be relative. Within the context of managing > resources within this region, i see transparency as AFRINIC staff managing > resource allocation/assignment based on the active policies and the > requestor also doing his/her part by following the laid down > rules/guidelines. Any individual (requester) who then thinks that he/she > did not experience such service could raise alarm of staff not being > transparent based on their XYZ action which is against the existing ABC > policies/guidelines. > > I hope you do agree with that view above. I will also encourage you to > turn some of this thoughts into policy as that is the major way you can see > the change you desire. > > Thanks > PS: Speaking as an individual > > On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 10:15 AM, Kofi ANSA AKUFO > wrote: > >> Seriously transparency triggers competition which is healthy for >> innovation and self check for fraud and other frowned on vices. I stand to >> be corrected but within the scope of best practices and community >> engagement (e.g. adopting tested democratic methods) can we se the benefit >> of methods like; >> >> "Dear Members/ Community, >> Organisation X has requested /14 IPv4 resources to be used for providing >> hosting services, Afrinic hostmasters has evaluated the initial resource >> request and find it to be compliant with current policies for IPv4 >> allocation. In line with allocations greater than or equal to /15 to be >> referred to the community for comments before approval the community is >> hereby welcomed to share its opinion regarding this request" >> >> another example which may be implemented as quarterly summaryreports to >> the community >> >> " .... out of the /15 IPv4 requested within the second quarter of this >> year /18 were requested to provide hosting services .... " >> >> How does this jeopardize members business and NDA. >> >> cheers >> >> K. >> >> >> >> >> On 7 November 2014 12:32, Lu wrote: >> >>> Hi >>> >>> If I understand Adiel correctly, the r&d department does not and will >>> ever not have access to registration service's data, it is two different >>> thing and data between two service are not interchangeable,. >>> >>> This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. >>> It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or >>> otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use >>> of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the intended >>> addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission >>> in error, please notify this office immediately and e-mail the original at >>> the sender's address above by replying to this message and including the >>> text of the transmission received. >>> >>> > On 2014?11?7?, at ??8:25, Adiel Akplogan wrote: >>> > >>> > Hello Adam and all, >>> > >>> >> On Nov 7, 2014, at 11:29 AM, Adam Nelson wrote: >>> >> >>> >> Also, we should keep in mind that other RIRs are doing research - >>> they're just not using information that's under NDA. RIPE has a ton of >>> probes in Africa sucking up data. Here's mine for instance: >>> >> >>> >> https://atlas.ripe.net/probes/16410/#!tab-network >>> > >>> > Let me add few point so that the discussion does not take an ever >>> ending route. >>> > >>> > Yes, RIR does Research and AFRINIC has just created (last month) a new >>> Department for R&D (lead by Alain Aina) which will be focussing on Network >>> Research and Analysis, but only on public data. There is no way that >>> AFRINIC will use information provided by LIR during their request >>> evaluation in public research activities (as they are not provided for such >>> activity and are covered by NDA). If non public information are needed for >>> research, the R&D department will conduct separate survey or use which ever >>> legal means are available to collect them. >>> > >>> > AFRINIC has also signed a partnership agreement with RIPE for the >>> ATLAS project where by our R&D team will be deploying some anchors and >>> distributing probes (already started) in the region to collect data that >>> are pertinent to some analysis and to build tools that can be useful for >>> our community. A dedicated web page will be released soon for more >>> information about this particular research activity. >>> > >>> > I hope this clarified few things. >>> > >>> > Thanks. >>> > >>> > - a >>> > >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > rpd mailing list >>> > rpd at afrinic.net >>> > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >>> _______________________________________________ >>> rpd mailing list >>> rpd at afrinic.net >>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> afnog mailing list >> http://afnog.org/mailman/listinfo/afnog >> > > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > > *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: > http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535**alt > email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng > * > > The key to understanding is humility - my view ! > > > > _______________________________________________ > afnog mailing list > http://afnog.org/mailman/listinfo/afnog > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From leo.vegoda at icann.org Fri Nov 7 15:51:31 2014 From: leo.vegoda at icann.org (Leo Vegoda) Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2014 15:51:31 +0000 Subject: [rpd] [afnog] IPv4 Allocations by Length Statistics for 2014 In-Reply-To: References: <1415273241.6121.YahooMailBasic@web162803.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <0AE3BC55-F7A6-430D-8F22-E2A8A5C9EC10@delong.com> <0CC4DB31-8304-48E1-B43A-9D09DAE45DBC@afrinic.net> Message-ID: <3d548a7f40be41beacf213f60f8abdeb@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> Kofi, You wrote: > Seriously transparency triggers competition which is healthy for innovation > and > self check for fraud and other frowned on vices. I stand to be corrected but > within the scope of best practices and community engagement (e.g. adopting > tested democratic methods) can we se the benefit of methods like; > "Dear Members/ Community, > Organisation X has requested /14 IPv4 resources to be used for providing > hosting > services, Afrinic hostmasters has evaluated the initial resource request and > find > it to be compliant with current policies for IPv4 allocation. In line with > allocations > greater than or equal to /15 to be referred to the community for comments > before approval the community is hereby welcomed to share its opinion > regarding > this request" > another example which may be implemented as quarterly summaryreports to > the community Almost everything you suggest here is already done. AFRINIC publishes statistics every day and they document the size and date of allocations and assignments. There's an explanation of what is published here: ftp://ftp.afrinic.net/stats/afrinic/README-EXTENDED.txt and here is a yesterday's report: ftp://ftp.afrinic.net/stats/afrinic/2014/delegated-afrinic-extended-20141106 The main difference is that the data are published as an archive of daily CSV files rather than e-mail announcements. Regards, Leo Vegoda -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5475 bytes Desc: not available URL: From geier at geier.ne.tz Sat Nov 8 06:28:35 2014 From: geier at geier.ne.tz (Frank Habicht) Date: Sat, 08 Nov 2014 09:28:35 +0300 Subject: [rpd] AnyCast assignments - Update In-Reply-To: <1415091976.5144.15.camel@posix.co.za> References: <1412845710.3847.251.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> <54455E6E.1020909@afrinic.net> <1413834300.21858.0.camel@posix.co.za> <1415091976.5144.15.camel@posix.co.za> Message-ID: <545DB813.2050503@geier.ne.tz> Hi, sorry to come pretty late with this, but maybe better now than never (or later)... There are 2 ways for anycast deployments: 1. announce and see what happens 2. announce and at some locations limit the scope of the announcements to only directly peering networks (with the well-known NO_EXPORT community). By using the 2nd method, some anycast operators differentiate between their "global nodes" and "local nodes". see also: http://ftp.isc.org/isc/pubs/tn/isc-tn-2003-1.txt When 2 networks AS1 and AS2 are both connected (and preferring) local nodes, they will carry the anycast prefix with NO_EXPORT in their network. A common customer AS3 that is multihomed to both AS1 and AS2 and receiving "full BGP table" from them, will not receive the anycast prefix. If AS3 doesn't use a default, they will not reach the anycast service. The original: http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/2005-10/msg01226.html Fix by RIPE NCC ("K"): http://meetings.ripe.net/ripe-52/presentations/ripe52-dns-kroot-anycast.pdf To avoid this, anycast operators have added an announcement for the covering /23 from the global nodes. This will always be announced without NO_EXPORT community, and will thus be visible and reachable to everyone. I think the same can be expected of anycast operators using this proposed policy. Therefore I suggest we give them the option to request and receive either /24 or /23 - their choice. In IPv6 I also suggest to optionally assign a bigger block than /48. A /47 would suffice but I guess we don't want to split the nibble into bits ;-) So I propose to replace every instance of "/24" with "/23 or /24" and replace every instance of "/48" with "/44 or /48" - or maybe "/44 up to /48". Meaning anycast operators can choose which one they request, and they can get these according to their request. Sorry for bringing this up that late. Frank On 11/4/2014 12:06 PM, Mark Elkins wrote: > I'm happy to make changes along the lines of what Nishal suggested... > that is: > > Replace: > These resources must > be used for the sole purpose of anycasting web or authoritative DNS > servers as described in BCP126/RFC 4786 > (http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4786.txt) or for GPRS Roaming Exchange. > > With: > These resources must be used for the sole purposes of providing anycast > services. > > > I have been trying to have Ernest update the website - he may have > malaria again. > > On Mon, 2014-10-20 at 21:45 +0200, Mark Elkins wrote: >> On Mon, 2014-10-20 at 22:11 +0300, Ernest wrote: >>>>> 3) Proposal >>>>> AFPUB-2012-V4-001 is modified from the original version to the >>>>> following version: >>>>> ........................................................... >>>>> 1. Summary of the problem being addressed by the policy proposal >>>>> This proposal allows an organization to receive an IPv4/IPv6 >>>>> allocation or assignment and an AS Number purely for anycast or GPRS >>>>> Roaming Exchange (GRX) usage. >>>>> >>>>> 2. Summary of how this proposal addresses the problem >>>>> This proposal allows the use of: >>>>> a. One (1) /24 of IPv4 for anycast services from a PA allocation of >>>>> an LIR or direct end-user assignment. >>>>> b. One /48 of IPv6 for anycast services from an IPv6 LIR allocation >>>>> or direct end-user assignment. >>>>> c. An AS Number for anycast purposes. >>>> >>>> let me explain the second request. the policy, as is worded, is >>>> potentially ambiguous. hostmasters _may_ be tempted to say that, >>>> as per policy, they have satisfied the requirement to allocate >>>> one, and only one prefix for anycast purposes, to an >>>> organisation, when, a forward thinking organisation might wish to >>>> have more than one anycast cloud. while having one prefix, is >>>> obviously better than zero, it would be _wrong_ to limit this to >>>> just one anycast cloud. >>>> >>>> so, while the current policy doesn't _disallow_ more than a >>>> single allocation, it's not clear (i think) to the hostmaster >>>> team, that more than one allocation might be allowed. (i guess, >>>> the other way of looking at this, is that there is no requirement >>>> to _change_ policy if, there is acknowledgement from the >>>> hostmaster team that they understand this - perhaps we can get >>>> them to comment here. the task of determining valid usage will >>>> still be up to the hostmasters of course) >>> >>> As there are no explicitly indicated limitations in the current >>> policy, we implemented this such that an organization can request >>> and be granted one /24 *per request*. The frequency of the anycast >>> requests however (from the same organization) is unlimited per our >>> interpretation. >>> >>> While reading through the new proposal - we also interpret it such >>> that one /24 v4, one /48 v6 prefix and one ASN will be assigned with >>> *each* anycast request from the same organization, and there is no >>> limit on the number of times the same org can request such resources. >> >> Which should mean there is nothing wrong with the wording! >> >> _______________________________________________ >> rpd mailing list >> rpd at afrinic.net >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > From apb at cequrux.com Sat Nov 8 06:37:22 2014 From: apb at cequrux.com (Alan Barrett) Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2014 08:37:22 +0200 Subject: [rpd] ASO AC Call for Nominations for Seat 9 on the ICANN Board Message-ID: <20141108063722.GB3222@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> The ASO AC appoints two members to the ICANN Board (seats 9 and 10), and the board members serve staggered three-year terms. At present, those seats are occupied by Ray Plzak (seat 9) and Kuo Wei Wu (seat 10). Ray Plzak's current term in seat 9 ends in 2015, and the nomination process for finding a replacement started at the end of October. The call for nominations is appended below. --apb (Alan Barrett) ----- Forwarded message from German Valdez ----- Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 10:26:02 +1000 From: German Valdez To: aso-announce at aso.icann.org Subject: [aso-announce] ASO AC Call for Nominations for Seat 9 on the ICANN Board Consistent with the ASO Memorandum of Understanding and ICANN Bylaws, the Address Supporting Organization Address Council (ASO AC) calls for nominations for Seat Number 9 on the ICANN Board of Directors. Nominations will close at 23:59 UTC on Wednesday, 31 December 2014. The time frame for the selection process is as follows: - Nomination Phase ? 24 October 2014 to 31 December 2015 - Comment Phase ? 1 January 2015 to 31 March 2015 - Interview Phase ? 1 February 2015 to 31 March 2015 - Selection Process ? 1 April 2015 to 17 April 2015 - Due Diligence Review ? 18 April 2015 to 31 May 2015 - Announcement ? no later than 1 June 2015 The ICANN Bylaws state that no two directors selected by a Supporting Organization can come from the same Geographic Region. Because the ASO AC selection for Seat 10 is from the APNIC region, nominees for Seat 9 cannot also come from this region. All candidates must sign a Letter of Certification declaring that they are of good character. The selected candidate will undergo an independent due diligence review by an ICANN contractor, and announcement of the candidate will follow once this review has been successfully completed. Community members are invited to submit nominations by email to nominations2015 at aso.icann.org, including the following information: - The full name of the person being nominated - Contact email address for the person being nominated - Contact telephone number (if available) of the person being nominated - The full name of the person making the nomination - Contact email address for the person making the nomination - Contact telephone number of the person making the nomination The election procedures are found in Section 7 of the ASO AC Operating Procedures, which are available at: https://aso.icann.org/documents/operational-documents/operating-procedures-a so-ac/ For further information and ongoing notices about the selection process, please visit: https://aso.icann.org/aso-icann/icann-board-elections/2015-elections/ Regards, ASO Secretariat secretariat at aso.icann.org From sfolayan at gmail.com Thu Nov 13 19:04:16 2014 From: sfolayan at gmail.com (Sunday Folayan) Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 20:04:16 +0100 Subject: [rpd] CRISP - AfriNIC Representatives Selected In-Reply-To: <6F342549-58BC-458D-81E4-F12BBF2BEBD6@afrinic.net> References: <6F342549-58BC-458D-81E4-F12BBF2BEBD6@afrinic.net> Message-ID: <546500B0.3020309@gmail.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Dear Colleagues, We are pleased to announce that the Consolidated RIR IANA Stewardship Proposal (CRISP) Team has been chosen for the AFRINIC Region. The 2 voting members that will represent our community on the team are: 1. Alan P. Barrett 2. Mwenda Kivuva The AFRINIC staff member joining them will be Ernest Byaruhanga Congratulations. The CRISP team will be responsible for developing a consolidated proposal on behalf of the Internet numbering community. This proposal will include the outcome of discussions that took place in the five RIR communities and will be submitted to the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) by 15 January 2015. For more information on the role of the CRISP Team, please visit: https://www.nro.net/news/iana-stewardship-consolidated-rir-iana-stewardship-proposal-team For more information on the IANA Oversight Transition, visit: https://www.nro.net/nro-and-internet-governance/iana-oversight http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/iana-oversight-transition Kind Regards. Sunday A. Folayan Vice Chair, AfriNIC Board -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUZQCwAAoJEH6UvSz6fA25ApcH/0Isd0MrjlmJcWpeRzdt5d4h 4CLxSsbNmuASBKN2u084zTjwEafhxVnz5PelFe3aRoeIgFpQOZgpdt0P1l7I6l4w M+gEaRjHLuAOGQgb3DtbA5K6LDp4Sdo4sR7QiA5t2q67LzdEGCI+aWHdvUr67vHd 8NyZGPI4TYss3xtg2tOTVJkeevpPWjCeUVfGcBDFCIMx0yFiHvTvjFgKnK42kKob 6kx1NHVYzgvwP4D+E9L/5W8Zh2EIh82lOnfvZrFwdl/k8S7gSIXW2l5LGMa3TFSt BEfLveSIYSikCJsOdrGJkkxKoQJCXzloUeUyGPlPK9TkIMFsc2eROptyN+nBE5U= =szfy -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com Thu Nov 13 19:52:00 2014 From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji) Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 20:52:00 +0100 Subject: [rpd] Re: [afnog] CRISP - AfriNIC Representatives Selected In-Reply-To: <546500B0.3020309@gmail.com> References: <6F342549-58BC-458D-81E4-F12BBF2BEBD6@afrinic.net> <546500B0.3020309@gmail.com> Message-ID: Great! Congratulation to the 2 members. You have all our support....looking forward to engaging with you both on this list. Thanks for the update. Cheers! On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 8:04 PM, Sunday Folayan wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Dear Colleagues, > > We are pleased to announce that the Consolidated RIR IANA Stewardship > Proposal (CRISP) Team has been chosen for the AFRINIC Region. > > The 2 voting members that will represent our community on the team are: > > 1. Alan P. Barrett > 2. Mwenda Kivuva > > The AFRINIC staff member joining them will be Ernest Byaruhanga > > Congratulations. > > The CRISP team will be responsible for developing a consolidated > proposal on behalf of the Internet numbering community. This proposal > will include the outcome of discussions that took place in the five > RIR communities and will be submitted to the IANA Stewardship > Transition Coordination Group (ICG) by 15 January 2015. > > For more information on the role of the CRISP Team, please visit: > > https://www.nro.net/news/iana-stewardship-consolidated-rir-iana-stewardship-proposal-team > > For more information on the IANA Oversight Transition, visit: > https://www.nro.net/nro-and-internet-governance/iana-oversight > http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/iana-oversight-transition > > Kind Regards. > > Sunday A. Folayan > Vice Chair, > AfriNIC Board > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) > > iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUZQCwAAoJEH6UvSz6fA25ApcH/0Isd0MrjlmJcWpeRzdt5d4h > 4CLxSsbNmuASBKN2u084zTjwEafhxVnz5PelFe3aRoeIgFpQOZgpdt0P1l7I6l4w > M+gEaRjHLuAOGQgb3DtbA5K6LDp4Sdo4sR7QiA5t2q67LzdEGCI+aWHdvUr67vHd > 8NyZGPI4TYss3xtg2tOTVJkeevpPWjCeUVfGcBDFCIMx0yFiHvTvjFgKnK42kKob > 6kx1NHVYzgvwP4D+E9L/5W8Zh2EIh82lOnfvZrFwdl/k8S7gSIXW2l5LGMa3TFSt > BEfLveSIYSikCJsOdrGJkkxKoQJCXzloUeUyGPlPK9TkIMFsc2eROptyN+nBE5U= > =szfy > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > _______________________________________________ > afnog mailing list > http://afnog.org/mailman/listinfo/afnog > -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng * The key to understanding is humility - my view ! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From roger.baah at yahoo.com Thu Nov 13 20:13:56 2014 From: roger.baah at yahoo.com (roger.baah at yahoo.com) Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 20:13:56 +0000 Subject: [rpd] CRISP - AfriNIC Representatives Selected In-Reply-To: <546500B0.3020309@gmail.com> References: <6F342549-58BC-458D-81E4-F12BBF2BEBD6@afrinic.net> <546500B0.3020309@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20141113201356.5963920.26769.5364@yahoo.com> Congrats..?Alan and?Mwenda...we will support you and work with you. Roger Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone. ? Original Message ? From: Sunday Folayan Sent: Thursday, 13 November 2014 19:11 To: ianaoversight at afrinic.net Cc: afrinic-announce at afrinic.net; rpd >> AfriNIC Resource Policy; afnog Subject: [rpd] CRISP - AfriNIC Representatives Selected -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Dear Colleagues, We are pleased to announce that the Consolidated RIR IANA Stewardship Proposal (CRISP) Team has been chosen for the AFRINIC Region. The 2 voting members that will represent our community on the team are: 1. Alan P. Barrett 2. Mwenda Kivuva The AFRINIC staff member joining them will be Ernest Byaruhanga Congratulations. The CRISP team will be responsible for developing a consolidated proposal on behalf of the Internet numbering community. This proposal will include the outcome of discussions that took place in the five RIR communities and will be submitted to the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) by 15 January 2015. For more information on the role of the CRISP Team, please visit: https://www.nro.net/news/iana-stewardship-consolidated-rir-iana-stewardship-proposal-team For more information on the IANA Oversight Transition, visit: https://www.nro.net/nro-and-internet-governance/iana-oversight http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/iana-oversight-transition Kind Regards. Sunday A. Folayan Vice Chair, AfriNIC Board -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUZQCwAAoJEH6UvSz6fA25ApcH/0Isd0MrjlmJcWpeRzdt5d4h 4CLxSsbNmuASBKN2u084zTjwEafhxVnz5PelFe3aRoeIgFpQOZgpdt0P1l7I6l4w M+gEaRjHLuAOGQgb3DtbA5K6LDp4Sdo4sR7QiA5t2q67LzdEGCI+aWHdvUr67vHd 8NyZGPI4TYss3xtg2tOTVJkeevpPWjCeUVfGcBDFCIMx0yFiHvTvjFgKnK42kKob 6kx1NHVYzgvwP4D+E9L/5W8Zh2EIh82lOnfvZrFwdl/k8S7gSIXW2l5LGMa3TFSt BEfLveSIYSikCJsOdrGJkkxKoQJCXzloUeUyGPlPK9TkIMFsc2eROptyN+nBE5U= =szfy -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ rpd mailing list rpd at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd From jnoulaye at yahoo.fr Thu Nov 13 21:05:21 2014 From: jnoulaye at yahoo.fr (jnoulaye at yahoo.fr) Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 21:05:21 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [rpd] Re: [afnog] CRISP - AfriNIC Representatives Selected In-Reply-To: <546500B0.3020309@gmail.com> References: <546500B0.3020309@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1098328266.501982.1415912721710.JavaMail.yahoo@jws11147.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> Congratulations to Alan and KivuvaAs Seun said, You have all our supportThanks to Afrinic to have coordinated to this step Regards,----Janvier Ngnoulaye De?: Sunday Folayan ??: ianaoversight at afrinic.net Cc?: afrinic-announce at afrinic.net; "rpd >> AfriNIC Resource Policy" ; afnog Envoy? le : Jeudi 13 novembre 2014 20h04 Objet?: [afnog] CRISP - AfriNIC Representatives Selected -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Dear Colleagues, We are pleased to announce that the Consolidated RIR IANA Stewardship Proposal (CRISP) Team has been chosen for the AFRINIC Region. The 2 voting members that will represent our community on the team are: 1. Alan P. Barrett 2. Mwenda Kivuva The AFRINIC staff member joining them will be Ernest Byaruhanga Congratulations. The CRISP team will be responsible for developing a consolidated proposal on behalf of the Internet numbering community. This proposal will include the outcome of discussions that took place in the five RIR communities and will be submitted to the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) by 15 January 2015. For more information on the role of the CRISP Team, please visit: https://www.nro.net/news/iana-stewardship-consolidated-rir-iana-stewardship-proposal-team For more information on the IANA Oversight Transition, visit: https://www.nro.net/nro-and-internet-governance/iana-oversight http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/iana-oversight-transition Kind Regards. Sunday A. Folayan Vice Chair, AfriNIC Board -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUZQCwAAoJEH6UvSz6fA25ApcH/0Isd0MrjlmJcWpeRzdt5d4h 4CLxSsbNmuASBKN2u084zTjwEafhxVnz5PelFe3aRoeIgFpQOZgpdt0P1l7I6l4w M+gEaRjHLuAOGQgb3DtbA5K6LDp4Sdo4sR7QiA5t2q67LzdEGCI+aWHdvUr67vHd 8NyZGPI4TYss3xtg2tOTVJkeevpPWjCeUVfGcBDFCIMx0yFiHvTvjFgKnK42kKob 6kx1NHVYzgvwP4D+E9L/5W8Zh2EIh82lOnfvZrFwdl/k8S7gSIXW2l5LGMa3TFSt BEfLveSIYSikCJsOdrGJkkxKoQJCXzloUeUyGPlPK9TkIMFsc2eROptyN+nBE5U= =szfy -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ afnog mailing list http://afnog.org/mailman/listinfo/afnog -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From otieno.barrack at gmail.com Thu Nov 13 21:17:59 2014 From: otieno.barrack at gmail.com (Barrack Otieno) Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2014 00:17:59 +0300 Subject: [rpd] Re: [AfrICANN-discuss] Re: [afnog] CRISP - AfriNIC Representatives Selected In-Reply-To: <1098328266.501982.1415912721710.JavaMail.yahoo@jws11147.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> References: <546500B0.3020309@gmail.com> <1098328266.501982.1415912721710.JavaMail.yahoo@jws11147.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Congratulations Alan and Kivuva. Best Regards On 11/14/14, jnoulaye at yahoo.fr wrote: > Congratulations to Alan and KivuvaAs Seun said, You have all our > supportThanks to Afrinic to have coordinated to this step > Regards,----Janvier Ngnoulaye > De?: Sunday Folayan > ??: ianaoversight at afrinic.net > Cc?: afrinic-announce at afrinic.net; "rpd >> AfriNIC Resource Policy" > ; afnog > Envoy? le : Jeudi 13 novembre 2014 20h04 > Objet?: [afnog] CRISP - AfriNIC Representatives Selected > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Dear Colleagues, > > We are pleased to announce that the Consolidated RIR IANA Stewardship > Proposal (CRISP) Team has been chosen for the AFRINIC Region. > > The 2 voting members that will represent our community on the team are: > > 1. Alan P. Barrett > 2. Mwenda Kivuva > > The AFRINIC staff member joining them will be Ernest Byaruhanga > > Congratulations. > > The CRISP team will be responsible for developing a consolidated > proposal on behalf of the Internet numbering community. This proposal > will include the outcome of discussions that took place in the five > RIR communities and will be submitted to the IANA Stewardship > Transition Coordination Group (ICG) by 15 January 2015. > > For more information on the role of the CRISP Team, please visit: > https://www.nro.net/news/iana-stewardship-consolidated-rir-iana-stewardship-proposal-team > > For more information on the IANA Oversight Transition, visit: > https://www.nro.net/nro-and-internet-governance/iana-oversight > http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/iana-oversight-transition > > Kind Regards. > > Sunday A. Folayan > Vice Chair, > AfriNIC Board > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) > > iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUZQCwAAoJEH6UvSz6fA25ApcH/0Isd0MrjlmJcWpeRzdt5d4h > 4CLxSsbNmuASBKN2u084zTjwEafhxVnz5PelFe3aRoeIgFpQOZgpdt0P1l7I6l4w > M+gEaRjHLuAOGQgb3DtbA5K6LDp4Sdo4sR7QiA5t2q67LzdEGCI+aWHdvUr67vHd > 8NyZGPI4TYss3xtg2tOTVJkeevpPWjCeUVfGcBDFCIMx0yFiHvTvjFgKnK42kKob > 6kx1NHVYzgvwP4D+E9L/5W8Zh2EIh82lOnfvZrFwdl/k8S7gSIXW2l5LGMa3TFSt > BEfLveSIYSikCJsOdrGJkkxKoQJCXzloUeUyGPlPK9TkIMFsc2eROptyN+nBE5U= > =szfy > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > _______________________________________________ > afnog mailing list > http://afnog.org/mailman/listinfo/afnog > > > -- Barrack O. Otieno +254721325277 +254-20-2498789 Skype: barrack.otieno http://www.otienobarrack.me.ke/ From apb at cequrux.com Fri Nov 14 08:52:03 2014 From: apb at cequrux.com (Alan Barrett) Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2014 10:52:03 +0200 Subject: [rpd] Re: CRISP - AfriNIC Representatives Selected In-Reply-To: <546500B0.3020309@gmail.com> References: <6F342549-58BC-458D-81E4-F12BBF2BEBD6@afrinic.net> <546500B0.3020309@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20141114085203.GH22546@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> On Thu, 13 Nov 2014, Sunday Folayan wrote: >We are pleased to announce that the Consolidated RIR IANA Stewardship >Proposal (CRISP) Team has been chosen for the AFRINIC Region. > >The 2 voting members that will represent our community on the team are: > >1. Alan P. Barrett >2. Mwenda Kivuva > >The AFRINIC staff member joining them will be Ernest Byaruhanga Thank you. I will do my best to ensure that a good proposal is produced. --apb (Alan Barrett) From adam at varud.com Tue Nov 18 12:45:28 2014 From: adam at varud.com (Adam Nelson) Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 15:45:28 +0300 Subject: [rpd] AnyCast assignments - Update In-Reply-To: <545DB813.2050503@geier.ne.tz> References: <1412845710.3847.251.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> <54455E6E.1020909@afrinic.net> <1413834300.21858.0.camel@posix.co.za> <1415091976.5144.15.camel@posix.co.za> <545DB813.2050503@geier.ne.tz> Message-ID: I'm writing this up for the meeting right now and have noted: 1. There are 2 replies in support of the proposal. 2. There hasn't been a new draft to address some of the concerns brought up. Is one forthcoming? Cheers, Adam -- Kili - Cloud for Africa: kili.io Musings: twitter.com/varud More Musings: varud.com About Adam: www.linkedin.com/in/adamcnelson On Sat, Nov 8, 2014 at 9:28 AM, Frank Habicht wrote: > Hi, > > sorry to come pretty late with this, but maybe better now than never (or > later)... > > There are 2 ways for anycast deployments: > 1. announce and see what happens > 2. announce and at some locations limit the scope of the announcements to > only directly peering networks (with the well-known NO_EXPORT community). > > By using the 2nd method, some anycast operators differentiate between their > "global nodes" and "local nodes". > see also: http://ftp.isc.org/isc/pubs/tn/isc-tn-2003-1.txt > > When 2 networks AS1 and AS2 are both connected (and preferring) local > nodes, they will carry the anycast prefix with NO_EXPORT in their network. > > A common customer AS3 that is multihomed to both AS1 and AS2 and receiving > "full BGP table" from them, will not receive the anycast prefix. If AS3 > doesn't use a default, they will not reach the anycast service. > > The original: > http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/2005-10/msg01226.html > Fix by RIPE NCC ("K"): > http://meetings.ripe.net/ripe-52/presentations/ripe52-dns-kroot-anycast.pdf > > To avoid this, anycast operators have added an announcement for the > covering /23 from the global nodes. This will always be announced without > NO_EXPORT community, and will thus be visible and reachable to everyone. > > > I think the same can be expected of anycast operators using this proposed > policy. Therefore I suggest we give them the option to request and receive > either /24 or /23 - their choice. > In IPv6 I also suggest to optionally assign a bigger block than /48. > A /47 would suffice but I guess we don't want to split the nibble into > bits ;-) > > So I propose to replace every instance of "/24" with "/23 or /24" and > replace every instance of "/48" with "/44 or /48" - or maybe "/44 up to > /48". > > Meaning anycast operators can choose which one they request, and they can > get these according to their request. > > Sorry for bringing this up that late. > > Frank > > > > On 11/4/2014 12:06 PM, Mark Elkins wrote: > > I'm happy to make changes along the lines of what Nishal suggested... > > that is: > > > > Replace: > > These resources must > > be used for the sole purpose of anycasting web or authoritative DNS > > servers as described in BCP126/RFC 4786 > > (http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4786.txt) or for GPRS Roaming Exchange. > > > > With: > > These resources must be used for the sole purposes of providing anycast > > services. > > > > > > I have been trying to have Ernest update the website - he may have > > malaria again. > > > > On Mon, 2014-10-20 at 21:45 +0200, Mark Elkins wrote: > >> On Mon, 2014-10-20 at 22:11 +0300, Ernest wrote: > >>>>> 3) Proposal > >>>>> AFPUB-2012-V4-001 is modified from the original version to the > >>>>> following version: > >>>>> ........................................................... > >>>>> 1. Summary of the problem being addressed by the policy proposal > >>>>> This proposal allows an organization to receive an IPv4/IPv6 > >>>>> allocation or assignment and an AS Number purely for anycast or GPRS > >>>>> Roaming Exchange (GRX) usage. > >>>>> > >>>>> 2. Summary of how this proposal addresses the problem > >>>>> This proposal allows the use of: > >>>>> a. One (1) /24 of IPv4 for anycast services from a PA allocation of > >>>>> an LIR or direct end-user assignment. > >>>>> b. One /48 of IPv6 for anycast services from an IPv6 LIR allocation > >>>>> or direct end-user assignment. > >>>>> c. An AS Number for anycast purposes. > >>>> > >>>> let me explain the second request. the policy, as is worded, is > >>>> potentially ambiguous. hostmasters _may_ be tempted to say that, > >>>> as per policy, they have satisfied the requirement to allocate > >>>> one, and only one prefix for anycast purposes, to an > >>>> organisation, when, a forward thinking organisation might wish to > >>>> have more than one anycast cloud. while having one prefix, is > >>>> obviously better than zero, it would be _wrong_ to limit this to > >>>> just one anycast cloud. > >>>> > >>>> so, while the current policy doesn't _disallow_ more than a > >>>> single allocation, it's not clear (i think) to the hostmaster > >>>> team, that more than one allocation might be allowed. (i guess, > >>>> the other way of looking at this, is that there is no requirement > >>>> to _change_ policy if, there is acknowledgement from the > >>>> hostmaster team that they understand this - perhaps we can get > >>>> them to comment here. the task of determining valid usage will > >>>> still be up to the hostmasters of course) > >>> > >>> As there are no explicitly indicated limitations in the current > >>> policy, we implemented this such that an organization can request > >>> and be granted one /24 *per request*. The frequency of the anycast > >>> requests however (from the same organization) is unlimited per our > >>> interpretation. > >>> > >>> While reading through the new proposal - we also interpret it such > >>> that one /24 v4, one /48 v6 prefix and one ASN will be assigned with > >>> *each* anycast request from the same organization, and there is no > >>> limit on the number of times the same org can request such resources. > >> > >> Which should mean there is nothing wrong with the wording! > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> rpd mailing list > >> rpd at afrinic.net > >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > rpd mailing list > > rpd at afrinic.net > > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mje at posix.co.za Tue Nov 18 15:13:48 2014 From: mje at posix.co.za (Mark Elkins) Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 17:13:48 +0200 Subject: [rpd] AnyCast assignments - Update In-Reply-To: References: <1412845710.3847.251.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> <54455E6E.1020909@afrinic.net> <1413834300.21858.0.camel@posix.co.za> <1415091976.5144.15.camel@posix.co.za> <545DB813.2050503@geier.ne.tz> Message-ID: <1416323628.3656.2.camel@posix.co.za> Regarding My AnyCast revision - there was some simple wording changes that Ernest said he'd get to (I gave the changes - it was to update the Web Site) - but staff were not available. Still waiting on Ernest? On Tue, 2014-11-18 at 15:45 +0300, Adam Nelson wrote: > I'm writing this up for the meeting right now and have noted: > > > 1. There are 2 replies in support of the proposal. > 2. There hasn't been a new draft to address some of the concerns > brought up. Is one forthcoming? > > > Cheers, > Adam > > -- > Kili - Cloud for Africa: kili.io > > Musings: twitter.com/varud > More Musings: varud.com > About Adam: www.linkedin.com/in/adamcnelson > > On Sat, Nov 8, 2014 at 9:28 AM, Frank Habicht > wrote: > Hi, > > sorry to come pretty late with this, but maybe better now than > never (or > later)... > > There are 2 ways for anycast deployments: > 1. announce and see what happens > 2. announce and at some locations limit the scope of the > announcements to > only directly peering networks (with the well-known NO_EXPORT > community). > > By using the 2nd method, some anycast operators differentiate > between their > "global nodes" and "local nodes". > see also: http://ftp.isc.org/isc/pubs/tn/isc-tn-2003-1.txt > > When 2 networks AS1 and AS2 are both connected (and > preferring) local > nodes, they will carry the anycast prefix with NO_EXPORT in > their network. > > A common customer AS3 that is multihomed to both AS1 and AS2 > and receiving > "full BGP table" from them, will not receive the anycast > prefix. If AS3 > doesn't use a default, they will not reach the anycast > service. > > The original: > http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/2005-10/msg01226.html > Fix by RIPE NCC ("K"): > http://meetings.ripe.net/ripe-52/presentations/ripe52-dns-kroot-anycast.pdf > > To avoid this, anycast operators have added an announcement > for the > covering /23 from the global nodes. This will always be > announced without > NO_EXPORT community, and will thus be visible and reachable to > everyone. > > > I think the same can be expected of anycast operators using > this proposed > policy. Therefore I suggest we give them the option to request > and receive > either /24 or /23 - their choice. > In IPv6 I also suggest to optionally assign a bigger block > than /48. > A /47 would suffice but I guess we don't want to split the > nibble into bits ;-) > > So I propose to replace every instance of "/24" with "/23 > or /24" and > replace every instance of "/48" with "/44 or /48" - or maybe > "/44 up to /48". > > Meaning anycast operators can choose which one they request, > and they can > get these according to their request. > > Sorry for bringing this up that late. > > Frank > > > > On 11/4/2014 12:06 PM, Mark Elkins wrote: > > I'm happy to make changes along the lines of what Nishal > suggested... > > that is: > > > > Replace: > > These resources must > > be used for the sole purpose of anycasting web or > authoritative DNS > > servers as described in BCP126/RFC 4786 > > (http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4786.txt) or for GPRS Roaming > Exchange. > > > > With: > > These resources must be used for the sole purposes of > providing anycast > > services. > > > > > > I have been trying to have Ernest update the website - he > may have > > malaria again. > > > > On Mon, 2014-10-20 at 21:45 +0200, Mark Elkins wrote: > >> On Mon, 2014-10-20 at 22:11 +0300, Ernest wrote: > >>>>> 3) Proposal > >>>>> AFPUB-2012-V4-001 is modified from the original version > to the > >>>>> following version: > >>>>> ........................................................... > >>>>> 1. Summary of the problem being addressed by the policy > proposal > >>>>> This proposal allows an organization to receive an > IPv4/IPv6 > >>>>> allocation or assignment and an AS Number purely for > anycast or GPRS > >>>>> Roaming Exchange (GRX) usage. > >>>>> > >>>>> 2. Summary of how this proposal addresses the problem > >>>>> This proposal allows the use of: > >>>>> a. One (1) /24 of IPv4 for anycast services from a PA > allocation of > >>>>> an LIR or direct end-user assignment. > >>>>> b. One /48 of IPv6 for anycast services from an IPv6 LIR > allocation > >>>>> or direct end-user assignment. > >>>>> c. An AS Number for anycast purposes. > >>>> > >>>> let me explain the second request. the policy, as is > worded, is > >>>> potentially ambiguous. hostmasters _may_ be tempted to > say that, > >>>> as per policy, they have satisfied the requirement to > allocate > >>>> one, and only one prefix for anycast purposes, to an > >>>> organisation, when, a forward thinking organisation might > wish to > >>>> have more than one anycast cloud. while having one > prefix, is > >>>> obviously better than zero, it would be _wrong_ to limit > this to > >>>> just one anycast cloud. > >>>> > >>>> so, while the current policy doesn't _disallow_ more than > a > >>>> single allocation, it's not clear (i think) to the > hostmaster > >>>> team, that more than one allocation might be allowed. (i > guess, > >>>> the other way of looking at this, is that there is no > requirement > >>>> to _change_ policy if, there is acknowledgement from the > >>>> hostmaster team that they understand this - perhaps we > can get > >>>> them to comment here. the task of determining valid > usage will > >>>> still be up to the hostmasters of course) > >>> > >>> As there are no explicitly indicated limitations in the > current > >>> policy, we implemented this such that an organization can > request > >>> and be granted one /24 *per request*. The frequency of the > anycast > >>> requests however (from the same organization) is unlimited > per our > >>> interpretation. > >>> > >>> While reading through the new proposal - we also interpret > it such > >>> that one /24 v4, one /48 v6 prefix and one ASN will be > assigned with > >>> *each* anycast request from the same organization, and > there is no > >>> limit on the number of times the same org can request such > resources. > >> > >> Which should mean there is nothing wrong with the wording! > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> rpd mailing list > >> rpd at afrinic.net > >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > rpd mailing list > > rpd at afrinic.net > > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd -- Mark James ELKINS - Posix Systems - (South) Africa mje at posix.co.za Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: https://ftth.posix.co.za -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 5810 bytes Desc: not available URL: From sfolayan at gmail.com Thu Nov 20 05:44:28 2014 From: sfolayan at gmail.com (Sunday Folayan) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 06:44:28 +0100 Subject: [rpd] Recruitment of AfriNIC CEO In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <546D7FBC.30906@gmail.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Dear Members, As a follow-up to my earlier post, the AfriNIC Board is following the roadmap below, to appoint a new CEO: - - Announced the CEO departure - - Formed a CEO search committee - - Search committee met and: -Elected committee chair- Mr. Haitham El Nakhal - Assigned temporary secretariat - Mr. Sunday Folayan - Drafting of the committee charter (Done) - Drafting of a recruitment timeline (Done) - Drafting job description (Done) - Drafting job vacancy advertisement (Done) All the drafts are to be approved during the face2face meeting and Mr. Badru Ntege (Chair) will present the updates during the meeting as promised earlier. Thanks and Regards ... Sunday Folayan. On 19/11/2014 23:02, Seun Ojedeji wrote: > sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 19 Nov > 2014 22:06, "Seun Ojedeji" wrote: >> >> >> On Sun, Nov 16, 2014 at 7:30 PM, Sunday Folayan >> > wrote: >>> >>> Dear Seun and all, >>> >>> The Board will make a statement within the next 2 days. >> >> Dear Board, >> >> This is to follow-up on the message above. >> >> Thanks >> >> Regards >>> >>> Thanks and Regards ... >>> >>> Sunday Folayan Vice Chair. AfriNIC Board. >>> >>> On Nov 16, 2014 7:25 PM, "Seun Ojedeji" >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Dear Badru, Board Members >>>> >>>> It's 2 days now and I am yet to read from you neither did I >>>> receive an > acknowledgment. I think it will be in order to know the process > that is being adopted, unless the silence is an indication that > there is no process at the moment and that process is what the > board hopes to present to us at the face2face? >>>> >>>> Again I am writing here as a member who has not seen any >>>> evidence of > action towards recruiting/replacing the CEO of AfriNIC, member of > the ICG, current chair of the NRO etc. >>>> That was to emphasis how critical this is, as the position is >>>> not just > for the sake of AfriNIC community alone but it's more in the > interest of the global internet community. There are lots of things > happening at the moment and one cannot, I mean cannot afford to > loose representation/focus on them! >>>> >>>> I trust a publicly noticeable action will happen soon and >>>> kindly note > that it will not be good enough to get to MU just to hear process > and not outcome of actions! >>>> >>>> Thanks. >>>> >>>> Regards sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and >>>> typos. >>>> >>>> On 14 Nov 2014 09:05, "Seun Ojedeji" >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Thank you Badru, I also guessed as much. Looking forward to >>>>> the > official response from the board. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks >>>>> >>>>> Regards >>>>> >>>>> sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. >>>>> >>>>> On 14 Nov 2014 08:31, "Badru Ntege" >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> No this is not from board. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 11/14/14, 10:25 AM, "Nii Narku Quaynor" >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Please...is this from the board and what is the >>>>>>> speculation of fire > in the house all about? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Nov 13, 2014, at 21:08, "jnoulaye at yahoo.fr" >>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi Seun, I'm always happy to hear you. There is no >>>>>>>> fire in the house. Surely the board will communicate >>>>>>>> further details on the matter at > the suitable time. >>>>>>>> Be sure that there will be no fault into the >>>>>>>> process. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Regards, Janvier Ngnoulaye. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ________________________________ De: "Seun Ojedeji" >>>>>>>> ?: "Badru Ntege" >>>>>>>> Cc: "Sunday Folayan" >>>>>>>> , "AfriNIC Discuss" < > members-discuss at afrinic.net> >>>>>>>> Envoy?: Jeudi 13 Novembre 2014 12:42:04 Objet: Re: >>>>>>>> Any update on this? (Was Re Fwd: [members-discuss] > AFRINIC Board of Directors Announces Departure of AFRINIC > CEO Adiel A. Akplogan) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hello Badru, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks for your response. From your message it seem >>>>>>>> something is > already on-going. However, while we look forward to the full update > in Mauritius, may i ask that you briefly tell us about the process > you refer? at least this will help understand efforts that is > already being made. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Kindly note that I am speaking here as a member who >>>>>>>> has not seen > any evidence of action. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Regards >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 2:26 PM, Badru Ntege < > badru.ntege at nftconsult.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Seun >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thank you for your concern and allow me to >>>>>>>>> apologize for net > getting a response back to you in time. A process is going on and > i will admit it has had a number of challenges. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The board will have a full update on the matter in >>>>>>>>> the next > meeting which will be held in Mauritius. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I hope this helps. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> regards >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Badru Ntege Group CEO NFT Consult Ltd >>>>>>>>> badru.ntege at nftconsult.com >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Nov 12, 2014, at 4:07 PM, Seun Ojedeji >>>>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Dear Board Members, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Its 2 days now that i sent a mail about this >>>>>>>>>> subject matter and i > have not heard any response either in acknowledgement or otherwise. > This silence from members of the board brings me to be concerned, > as it seem there is no update on this subject matter and i am just > hoping that i am wrong about this. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Maybe its worth noting that the current CEO >>>>>>>>>> leaves by > Jan(according to the mail sent by chairman of the board) and this > month is already exhausted which leaves us with just ONEmonth left > (considering that the month of Jan usually will be a transitioning > period between the outgoing and incoming CEO). Again unless i have > missed something, i expect that necessary publications towards > recruiting the new CEO should have been on the website by now. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It is inview of this and as a member of this >>>>>>>>>> community, that i am > asking that the members of the board kindly provide update on the > status of getting a replacement for the outgoing CEO. It is my hope > that all members of the board are on this list and just to make > sure, i have directly addressed this to the chairman and vice > chairman of the board with the CEO in copy (incase the CEO could > forward this request through the appropriate channel). >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Thanks >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Regards >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 5:35 PM, Seun Ojedeji < > seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Dear all, I may have missed something (kindly >>>>>>>>>>> pardon and tell me what I > have missed). Considering that there is not going to be an AGM > before the departure of the outgoing CEO and considering that the > board chair in person of Mr Badru indicated in mid-September that a > process to recruit a new CEO will commence and since I have not > seen any public information regarding this I thought I should ask > for update. >>>>>>>>>>> It will be good to know what the state of >>>>>>>>>>> things are in the > process since there will be no opportunity to formerly update the > community members. Again I apologize if a publicly know action is > already in effect and I will appreciate if I can be pointed to it. >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks Regards sent from Google nexus 4 kindly >>>>>>>>>>> excuse brevity and typos. ---------- Forwarded >>>>>>>>>>> message ---------- From: "AFRINIC >>>>>>>>>>> Communication" >>>>>>>>>>> Date: 17 Sep 2014 15:29 Subject: >>>>>>>>>>> [members-discuss] AFRINIC Board of Directors >>>>>>>>>>> Announces > Departure of AFRINIC CEO Adiel A. Akplogan >>>>>>>>>>> To: Cc: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Port Louis, Mauritius, 17 September 2014. >>>>>>>>>>>> Badru Ntege, the > Chairman of AFRINIC's Board, announces today that AFRINIC?s > founding CEO, Mr. Adiel A. Akplogan, will be leaving his position > on 31st January 2015. >>>>>>>>>>>> "It is with great humility and a bright >>>>>>>>>>>> vision for AFRINIC's > future that I'm leaving my position as CEO of AFRINIC,? said Mr. > Akplogan. ?It was not an easy decision for me to take, but after 10 > years of engagement with and for the community, the time has come > for me to move on and spare time to catch up with my family.It has > been an honor to serve the AFRINIC community, and watch it grow > into the incredibly dynamic and engaging body it has now become.? >>>>>>>>>>>> After leading AFRINIC?s accreditation process >>>>>>>>>>>> to become the > world?s fifth Regional Internet Registry (RIR), Mr. Akplogan was > appointed by the Board and became AFRINIC?s first CEO in June 2004. > Under his leadership, AFRINIC has made significant progress and has > grown into a respected regional organisation, positioning Africa as > a key player in the regional and global Internet technical > community. Over these years, AFRINIC has also acquired a solid > reputation amongst its peers, its members, other stakeholders as > well as the global Internet industry. >>>>>>>>>>>> "Mr Akplogan has been exemplary in nurturing >>>>>>>>>>>> AFRINIC from > inception, providing outstanding leadership over his ten years as > CEO. He built a workforce at the Secretariat with the potential and > capability to continue the great work started. It has been an > honor and a privilege for me to work with a CEO like Mr. Akplogan,? > said Badru Ntege, Chairman of the AFRINIC Board of Directors. > "AFRINIC's success today is unequivocally a testament to his > tireless efforts in building a sound organization centered on > collaboration, consensus building, Internet centered value. We > hope that, as a community, we will continue to benefit from his > experience and passion. On behalf of the Board, I would like to > thank Mr. Akplogan for his engagement with the community and his > service over the past 10 years at AFRINIC, and wish him all the > best for his future endeavours." >>>>>>>>>>>> Passionate about the Internet and its values, >>>>>>>>>>>> Mr. Akplogan has > always campaigned for an Internet in Africa that is open and > affordable to effectively support permission-less innovation as > driver for sustainable socio-economical development in the region. >>>>>>>>>>>> ?Our region is so full of potentials, >>>>>>>>>>>> especially when it comes > to the digital economy, and AFRINIC must continue to position > itself to ensure it plays a critical role in supporting the > upcoming changes,? concluded Mr. Akplogan. ?At this junction, I > would like to extend my deepest gratitude to all those who have > contributed to the success of AFRINIC and to the great team that we > have built up over the years that has supported the growth of the > organisation and the community. Together we have achieved great > things for both Africa and AFRINIC and without your dedication and > the support of the various Boards over the years, none of this > would have been possible. I have the utmost confidence that > AFRINIC will continue to grow stronger and stronger in the coming > years." >>>>>>>>>>>> A farewell event will be organised for the >>>>>>>>>>>> outgoing CEO during > AFRINIC-21 meeting being held in Mauritius from 22-28 November. We > would like to invite the community to join us for this special > event. >>>>>>>>>>>> Appointment of a New CEO AFRINIC Board of >>>>>>>>>>>> Directors will immediately launch a CEO >>>>>>>>>>>> search > process that will culminate in the appointment of a new CEO as soon > as possible. In the mean time all measure will be taken to ensure a > smooth transition including business continuity. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> [Apologies for cross-posting] >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> members-discuss mailing list >>>>>>>>>>>> members-discuss at afrinic.net >>>>>>>>>>>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/members-discuss >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> - -- >>>>>>>>>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> > Seun Ojedeji, >>>>>>>>>>> Federal University Oye-Ekiti web: >>>>>>>>>>> http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535 >>>>>>>>>>> alt email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The key to understanding is humility - my >>>>>>>>>>>> view ! >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> > Seun Ojedeji, >>>>>>>>> Federal University Oye-Ekiti web: >>>>>>>>> http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535 alt >>>>>>>>> email:seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The key to understanding is humility - my view ! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> members-discuss mailing list >>>>>>>> members-discuss at afrinic.net >>>>>>>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/members-discuss >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> AfrICANN mailing list AfrICANN at afrinic.net >>>>>>>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/africann >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>> - -- >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> >>> >> Seun Ojedeji, >>> Federal University Oye-Ekiti web: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng >>> Mobile: +2348035233535 alt email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng >>> >>>> The key to understanding is humility - my view ! >> >> > > > > _______________________________________________ members-discuss > mailing list members-discuss at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/members-discuss > - -- - ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sunday Adekunle Folayan blog: http://www.sundayfolayan.name.ng email: sfolayan at skannet.com.ng, sfolayan at gmail.com phone: +234-816-866-7523, +234-802-291-2202 skype: sfolayan fcbk: www.facebook.com/sfolayan tweet: sfolayan linkedin: sfolayan : http://free.lanci.ng - Anyone, Anyjob, Anywhere, Anytime - ------------------------------------------------------------------ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUbX+5AAoJEH6UvSz6fA25mU8IAJeN/+/roc/jTSXSQsxCUE8Y KzhO6h4QVZT/WHDPqgnFP9KXax+yTB1NCwLGHYP/vJ9v1JVChNG9KaqzLeF0mxSm JbvT0OClWiuAwF9rhYzcwFWYYU60KykIeYn4fmF59gwSM4wQ+LBe8kjk6EpLP1H7 W4NtjC32HyLjo22VYyxZYm8hswjgo/wUgO0tnMrm3/5nKg9FWKiMESwGH8+Ow3we /FN3S6EkyECG6HnglujSnwZwPZBA1ErfOpM4nvHJRyi9Rf9kpD2K/mYUsBfG/bzX Xy8dIPr2MjyuGu3Xg6Yp73IfGDV+xU5KWWIBQ5RpNLCTYhlirdYDAnJCamQmpsQ= =sl98 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com Thu Nov 20 06:08:44 2014 From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 07:08:44 +0100 Subject: [rpd] Re: Recruitment of AfriNIC CEO In-Reply-To: <546D7FBC.30906@gmail.com> References: <546D7FBC.30906@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hello Sunday, Thanks for your mail, its really helpful. Kindly find my comments inset On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 6:44 AM, Sunday Folayan wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Dear Members, > > As a follow-up to my earlier post, the AfriNIC Board is following the > roadmap below, to appoint a new CEO: > > - - Announced the CEO departure > - - Formed a CEO search committee > - - Search committee met and: > -Elected committee chair- Mr. Haitham El Nakhal > - Assigned temporary secretariat - Mr. Sunday Folayan > - Drafting of the committee charter (Done) > - Drafting of a recruitment timeline (Done) > - Drafting job description (Done) > - Drafting job vacancy advertisement (Done) > This is noted with thanks! First i like to say that the CEO "recruitment timeline" should have been the first item and i don't see why it should be in draft state (unless the timeline referred to is just the call for application). > > All the drafts are to be approved during the face2face meeting and Mr. > Badru Ntege (Chair) will present the updates during the meeting as promised > earlier. > I am not sure i understand why those drafts needs to wait for face2face; Is it because board cannot meet or because you want community input before you finalise on the draft?(which i don't think will be the case). Also when you say "chair will present update" sounds like chair will basically be repeating what you've listed above since the board is essentially doing noting at the moment other than waiting on the face2face to approve drafts. Overall, i think its definitely a concern that the board in the last 2 months have only been able to form a committee and produced draft documents. The actual recruitment is what i expect would have required much of the time. Nevertheless, its good to have this info. Regards > > Thanks and Regards ... > > Sunday Folayan. > > > On 19/11/2014 23:02, Seun Ojedeji wrote: > > sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 19 Nov > > 2014 22:06, "Seun Ojedeji" wrote: > >> > >> > >> On Sun, Nov 16, 2014 at 7:30 PM, Sunday Folayan > >> > > wrote: > >>> > >>> Dear Seun and all, > >>> > >>> The Board will make a statement within the next 2 days. > >> > >> Dear Board, > >> > >> This is to follow-up on the message above. > >> > >> Thanks > >> > >> Regards > >>> > >>> Thanks and Regards ... > >>> > >>> Sunday Folayan Vice Chair. AfriNIC Board. > >>> > >>> On Nov 16, 2014 7:25 PM, "Seun Ojedeji" > >>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Dear Badru, Board Members > >>>> > >>>> It's 2 days now and I am yet to read from you neither did I > >>>> receive an > > acknowledgment. I think it will be in order to know the process > > that is being adopted, unless the silence is an indication that > > there is no process at the moment and that process is what the > > board hopes to present to us at the face2face? > >>>> > >>>> Again I am writing here as a member who has not seen any > >>>> evidence of > > action towards recruiting/replacing the CEO of AfriNIC, member of > > the ICG, current chair of the NRO etc. > >>>> That was to emphasis how critical this is, as the position is > >>>> not just > > for the sake of AfriNIC community alone but it's more in the > > interest of the global internet community. There are lots of things > > happening at the moment and one cannot, I mean cannot afford to > > loose representation/focus on them! > >>>> > >>>> I trust a publicly noticeable action will happen soon and > >>>> kindly note > > that it will not be good enough to get to MU just to hear process > > and not outcome of actions! > >>>> > >>>> Thanks. > >>>> > >>>> Regards sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and > >>>> typos. > >>>> > >>>> On 14 Nov 2014 09:05, "Seun Ojedeji" > >>>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> Thank you Badru, I also guessed as much. Looking forward to > >>>>> the > > official response from the board. > >>>>> > >>>>> Thanks > >>>>> > >>>>> Regards > >>>>> > >>>>> sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. > >>>>> > >>>>> On 14 Nov 2014 08:31, "Badru Ntege" > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> No this is not from board. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On 11/14/14, 10:25 AM, "Nii Narku Quaynor" > >>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Please...is this from the board and what is the > >>>>>>> speculation of fire > > in the house all about? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Nov 13, 2014, at 21:08, "jnoulaye at yahoo.fr" > >>>>>>> > > wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Hi Seun, I'm always happy to hear you. There is no > >>>>>>>> fire in the house. Surely the board will communicate > >>>>>>>> further details on the matter at > > the suitable time. > >>>>>>>> Be sure that there will be no fault into the > >>>>>>>> process. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Regards, Janvier Ngnoulaye. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> ________________________________ De: "Seun Ojedeji" > >>>>>>>> ?: "Badru Ntege" > >>>>>>>> Cc: "Sunday Folayan" > >>>>>>>> , "AfriNIC Discuss" < > > members-discuss at afrinic.net> > >>>>>>>> Envoy?: Jeudi 13 Novembre 2014 12:42:04 Objet: Re: > >>>>>>>> Any update on this? (Was Re Fwd: [members-discuss] > > AFRINIC Board of Directors Announces Departure of AFRINIC > > CEO Adiel A. Akplogan) > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Hello Badru, > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Thanks for your response. From your message it seem > >>>>>>>> something is > > already on-going. However, while we look forward to the full update > > in Mauritius, may i ask that you briefly tell us about the process > > you refer? at least this will help understand efforts that is > > already being made. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Kindly note that I am speaking here as a member who > >>>>>>>> has not seen > > any evidence of action. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Regards > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 2:26 PM, Badru Ntege < > > badru.ntege at nftconsult.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Seun > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Thank you for your concern and allow me to > >>>>>>>>> apologize for net > > getting a response back to you in time. A process is going on and > > i will admit it has had a number of challenges. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> The board will have a full update on the matter in > >>>>>>>>> the next > > meeting which will be held in Mauritius. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> I hope this helps. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> regards > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Badru Ntege Group CEO NFT Consult Ltd > >>>>>>>>> badru.ntege at nftconsult.com > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On Nov 12, 2014, at 4:07 PM, Seun Ojedeji > >>>>>>>>> > > wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Dear Board Members, > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Its 2 days now that i sent a mail about this > >>>>>>>>>> subject matter and i > > have not heard any response either in acknowledgement or otherwise. > > This silence from members of the board brings me to be concerned, > > as it seem there is no update on this subject matter and i am just > > hoping that i am wrong about this. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Maybe its worth noting that the current CEO > >>>>>>>>>> leaves by > > Jan(according to the mail sent by chairman of the board) and this > > month is already exhausted which leaves us with just ONEmonth left > > (considering that the month of Jan usually will be a transitioning > > period between the outgoing and incoming CEO). Again unless i have > > missed something, i expect that necessary publications towards > > recruiting the new CEO should have been on the website by now. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> It is inview of this and as a member of this > >>>>>>>>>> community, that i am > > asking that the members of the board kindly provide update on the > > status of getting a replacement for the outgoing CEO. It is my hope > > that all members of the board are on this list and just to make > > sure, i have directly addressed this to the chairman and vice > > chairman of the board with the CEO in copy (incase the CEO could > > forward this request through the appropriate channel). > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Thanks > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Regards > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 5:35 PM, Seun Ojedeji < > > seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Dear all, I may have missed something (kindly > >>>>>>>>>>> pardon and tell me what I > > have missed). Considering that there is not going to be an AGM > > before the departure of the outgoing CEO and considering that the > > board chair in person of Mr Badru indicated in mid-September that a > > process to recruit a new CEO will commence and since I have not > > seen any public information regarding this I thought I should ask > > for update. > >>>>>>>>>>> It will be good to know what the state of > >>>>>>>>>>> things are in the > > process since there will be no opportunity to formerly update the > > community members. Again I apologize if a publicly know action is > > already in effect and I will appreciate if I can be pointed to it. > >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks Regards sent from Google nexus 4 kindly > >>>>>>>>>>> excuse brevity and typos. ---------- Forwarded > >>>>>>>>>>> message ---------- From: "AFRINIC > >>>>>>>>>>> Communication" > >>>>>>>>>>> Date: 17 Sep 2014 15:29 Subject: > >>>>>>>>>>> [members-discuss] AFRINIC Board of Directors > >>>>>>>>>>> Announces > > Departure of AFRINIC CEO Adiel A. Akplogan > >>>>>>>>>>> To: Cc: > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Port Louis, Mauritius, 17 September 2014. > >>>>>>>>>>>> Badru Ntege, the > > Chairman of AFRINIC's Board, announces today that AFRINIC?s > > founding CEO, Mr. Adiel A. Akplogan, will be leaving his position > > on 31st January 2015. > >>>>>>>>>>>> "It is with great humility and a bright > >>>>>>>>>>>> vision for AFRINIC's > > future that I'm leaving my position as CEO of AFRINIC,? said Mr. > > Akplogan. ?It was not an easy decision for me to take, but after 10 > > years of engagement with and for the community, the time has come > > for me to move on and spare time to catch up with my family.It has > > been an honor to serve the AFRINIC community, and watch it grow > > into the incredibly dynamic and engaging body it has now become.? > >>>>>>>>>>>> After leading AFRINIC?s accreditation process > >>>>>>>>>>>> to become the > > world?s fifth Regional Internet Registry (RIR), Mr. Akplogan was > > appointed by the Board and became AFRINIC?s first CEO in June 2004. > > Under his leadership, AFRINIC has made significant progress and has > > grown into a respected regional organisation, positioning Africa as > > a key player in the regional and global Internet technical > > community. Over these years, AFRINIC has also acquired a solid > > reputation amongst its peers, its members, other stakeholders as > > well as the global Internet industry. > >>>>>>>>>>>> "Mr Akplogan has been exemplary in nurturing > >>>>>>>>>>>> AFRINIC from > > inception, providing outstanding leadership over his ten years as > > CEO. He built a workforce at the Secretariat with the potential and > > capability to continue the great work started. It has been an > > honor and a privilege for me to work with a CEO like Mr. Akplogan,? > > said Badru Ntege, Chairman of the AFRINIC Board of Directors. > > "AFRINIC's success today is unequivocally a testament to his > > tireless efforts in building a sound organization centered on > > collaboration, consensus building, Internet centered value. We > > hope that, as a community, we will continue to benefit from his > > experience and passion. On behalf of the Board, I would like to > > thank Mr. Akplogan for his engagement with the community and his > > service over the past 10 years at AFRINIC, and wish him all the > > best for his future endeavours." > >>>>>>>>>>>> Passionate about the Internet and its values, > >>>>>>>>>>>> Mr. Akplogan has > > always campaigned for an Internet in Africa that is open and > > affordable to effectively support permission-less innovation as > > driver for sustainable socio-economical development in the region. > >>>>>>>>>>>> ?Our region is so full of potentials, > >>>>>>>>>>>> especially when it comes > > to the digital economy, and AFRINIC must continue to position > > itself to ensure it plays a critical role in supporting the > > upcoming changes,? concluded Mr. Akplogan. ?At this junction, I > > would like to extend my deepest gratitude to all those who have > > contributed to the success of AFRINIC and to the great team that we > > have built up over the years that has supported the growth of the > > organisation and the community. Together we have achieved great > > things for both Africa and AFRINIC and without your dedication and > > the support of the various Boards over the years, none of this > > would have been possible. I have the utmost confidence that > > AFRINIC will continue to grow stronger and stronger in the coming > > years." > >>>>>>>>>>>> A farewell event will be organised for the > >>>>>>>>>>>> outgoing CEO during > > AFRINIC-21 meeting being held in Mauritius from 22-28 November. We > > would like to invite the community to join us for this special > > event. > >>>>>>>>>>>> Appointment of a New CEO AFRINIC Board of > >>>>>>>>>>>> Directors will immediately launch a CEO > >>>>>>>>>>>> search > > process that will culminate in the appointment of a new CEO as soon > > as possible. In the mean time all measure will be taken to ensure a > > smooth transition including business continuity. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> [Apologies for cross-posting] > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > members-discuss mailing list > >>>>>>>>>>>> members-discuss at afrinic.net > >>>>>>>>>>>> > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/members-discuss > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > - -- > >>>>>>>>>> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > Seun Ojedeji, > >>>>>>>>>>> Federal University Oye-Ekiti web: > >>>>>>>>>>> http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535 > >>>>>>>>>>> alt email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> The key to understanding is humility - my > >>>>>>>>>>>> view ! > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > > > Seun Ojedeji, > >>>>>>>>> Federal University Oye-Ekiti web: > >>>>>>>>> http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535 alt > >>>>>>>>> email:seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> The key to understanding is humility - my view ! > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>>>>> members-discuss mailing list > >>>>>>>> members-discuss at afrinic.net > >>>>>>>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/members-discuss > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > _______________________________________________ > >>>>>>>> AfrICANN mailing list AfrICANN at afrinic.net > >>>>>>>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/africann > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>>>>>>> > - -- > >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >>> > >>> > >> > Seun Ojedeji, > >>> Federal University Oye-Ekiti web: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng > >>> Mobile: +2348035233535 alt email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng > >>> > >>>> The key to understanding is humility - my view ! > >> > >> > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ members-discuss > > mailing list members-discuss at afrinic.net > > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/members-discuss > > > > > - -- > - ---------------------------------------------------------------- > Sunday Adekunle Folayan > blog: http://www.sundayfolayan.name.ng > email: sfolayan at skannet.com.ng, sfolayan at gmail.com > phone: +234-816-866-7523, +234-802-291-2202 > skype: sfolayan > fcbk: www.facebook.com/sfolayan > tweet: sfolayan > linkedin: sfolayan > : http://free.lanci.ng - Anyone, Anyjob, Anywhere, Anytime > - ------------------------------------------------------------------ > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) > > iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUbX+5AAoJEH6UvSz6fA25mU8IAJeN/+/roc/jTSXSQsxCUE8Y > KzhO6h4QVZT/WHDPqgnFP9KXax+yTB1NCwLGHYP/vJ9v1JVChNG9KaqzLeF0mxSm > JbvT0OClWiuAwF9rhYzcwFWYYU60KykIeYn4fmF59gwSM4wQ+LBe8kjk6EpLP1H7 > W4NtjC32HyLjo22VYyxZYm8hswjgo/wUgO0tnMrm3/5nKg9FWKiMESwGH8+Ow3we > /FN3S6EkyECG6HnglujSnwZwPZBA1ErfOpM4nvHJRyi9Rf9kpD2K/mYUsBfG/bzX > Xy8dIPr2MjyuGu3Xg6Yp73IfGDV+xU5KWWIBQ5RpNLCTYhlirdYDAnJCamQmpsQ= > =sl98 > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng * The key to understanding is humility - my view ! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From adam at varud.com Thu Nov 20 06:13:39 2014 From: adam at varud.com (Adam Nelson) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 09:13:39 +0300 Subject: [rpd] Recruitment of AfriNIC CEO In-Reply-To: <546D7FBC.30906@gmail.com> References: <546D7FBC.30906@gmail.com> Message-ID: Sunday, Thanks for the follow-up. I have a few questions: 1. Is there room for member participation in this process? 2. Also, I presume there will be involvement of one or more recruitment professionals? Has that been worked out? 3. Are there criteria for the posting (nationality, years of experience, educational qualifications, language skills)? 4. Is there a social media strategy? This could really be a moment where AfriNIC goes from strength to strength and I think everybody would like to see this process be a resounding success with top quality candidates sourced from around the world at the highest levels of Internet governance. Thanks again, Adam -- Kili - Cloud for Africa: kili.io Musings: twitter.com/varud More Musings: varud.com About Adam: www.linkedin.com/in/adamcnelson On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 8:44 AM, Sunday Folayan wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Dear Members, > > As a follow-up to my earlier post, the AfriNIC Board is following the > roadmap below, to appoint a new CEO: > > - - Announced the CEO departure > - - Formed a CEO search committee > - - Search committee met and: > -Elected committee chair- Mr. Haitham El Nakhal > - Assigned temporary secretariat - Mr. Sunday Folayan > - Drafting of the committee charter (Done) > - Drafting of a recruitment timeline (Done) > - Drafting job description (Done) > - Drafting job vacancy advertisement (Done) > > All the drafts are to be approved during the face2face meeting and Mr. > Badru Ntege (Chair) will present the updates during the meeting as > promised earlier. > > Thanks and Regards ... > > Sunday Folayan. > > > On 19/11/2014 23:02, Seun Ojedeji wrote: > > sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 19 Nov > > 2014 22:06, "Seun Ojedeji" wrote: > >> > >> > >> On Sun, Nov 16, 2014 at 7:30 PM, Sunday Folayan > >> > > wrote: > >>> > >>> Dear Seun and all, > >>> > >>> The Board will make a statement within the next 2 days. > >> > >> Dear Board, > >> > >> This is to follow-up on the message above. > >> > >> Thanks > >> > >> Regards > >>> > >>> Thanks and Regards ... > >>> > >>> Sunday Folayan Vice Chair. AfriNIC Board. > >>> > >>> On Nov 16, 2014 7:25 PM, "Seun Ojedeji" > >>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Dear Badru, Board Members > >>>> > >>>> It's 2 days now and I am yet to read from you neither did I > >>>> receive an > > acknowledgment. I think it will be in order to know the process > > that is being adopted, unless the silence is an indication that > > there is no process at the moment and that process is what the > > board hopes to present to us at the face2face? > >>>> > >>>> Again I am writing here as a member who has not seen any > >>>> evidence of > > action towards recruiting/replacing the CEO of AfriNIC, member of > > the ICG, current chair of the NRO etc. > >>>> That was to emphasis how critical this is, as the position is > >>>> not just > > for the sake of AfriNIC community alone but it's more in the > > interest of the global internet community. There are lots of things > > happening at the moment and one cannot, I mean cannot afford to > > loose representation/focus on them! > >>>> > >>>> I trust a publicly noticeable action will happen soon and > >>>> kindly note > > that it will not be good enough to get to MU just to hear process > > and not outcome of actions! > >>>> > >>>> Thanks. > >>>> > >>>> Regards sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and > >>>> typos. > >>>> > >>>> On 14 Nov 2014 09:05, "Seun Ojedeji" > >>>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> Thank you Badru, I also guessed as much. Looking forward to > >>>>> the > > official response from the board. > >>>>> > >>>>> Thanks > >>>>> > >>>>> Regards > >>>>> > >>>>> sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. > >>>>> > >>>>> On 14 Nov 2014 08:31, "Badru Ntege" > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> No this is not from board. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On 11/14/14, 10:25 AM, "Nii Narku Quaynor" > >>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Please...is this from the board and what is the > >>>>>>> speculation of fire > > in the house all about? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Nov 13, 2014, at 21:08, "jnoulaye at yahoo.fr" > >>>>>>> > > wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Hi Seun, I'm always happy to hear you. There is no > >>>>>>>> fire in the house. Surely the board will communicate > >>>>>>>> further details on the matter at > > the suitable time. > >>>>>>>> Be sure that there will be no fault into the > >>>>>>>> process. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Regards, Janvier Ngnoulaye. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> ________________________________ De: "Seun Ojedeji" > >>>>>>>> ?: "Badru Ntege" > >>>>>>>> Cc: "Sunday Folayan" > >>>>>>>> , "AfriNIC Discuss" < > > members-discuss at afrinic.net> > >>>>>>>> Envoy?: Jeudi 13 Novembre 2014 12:42:04 Objet: Re: > >>>>>>>> Any update on this? (Was Re Fwd: [members-discuss] > > AFRINIC Board of Directors Announces Departure of AFRINIC > > CEO Adiel A. Akplogan) > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Hello Badru, > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Thanks for your response. From your message it seem > >>>>>>>> something is > > already on-going. However, while we look forward to the full update > > in Mauritius, may i ask that you briefly tell us about the process > > you refer? at least this will help understand efforts that is > > already being made. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Kindly note that I am speaking here as a member who > >>>>>>>> has not seen > > any evidence of action. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Regards > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 2:26 PM, Badru Ntege < > > badru.ntege at nftconsult.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Seun > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Thank you for your concern and allow me to > >>>>>>>>> apologize for net > > getting a response back to you in time. A process is going on and > > i will admit it has had a number of challenges. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> The board will have a full update on the matter in > >>>>>>>>> the next > > meeting which will be held in Mauritius. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> I hope this helps. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> regards > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Badru Ntege Group CEO NFT Consult Ltd > >>>>>>>>> badru.ntege at nftconsult.com > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On Nov 12, 2014, at 4:07 PM, Seun Ojedeji > >>>>>>>>> > > wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Dear Board Members, > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Its 2 days now that i sent a mail about this > >>>>>>>>>> subject matter and i > > have not heard any response either in acknowledgement or otherwise. > > This silence from members of the board brings me to be concerned, > > as it seem there is no update on this subject matter and i am just > > hoping that i am wrong about this. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Maybe its worth noting that the current CEO > >>>>>>>>>> leaves by > > Jan(according to the mail sent by chairman of the board) and this > > month is already exhausted which leaves us with just ONEmonth left > > (considering that the month of Jan usually will be a transitioning > > period between the outgoing and incoming CEO). Again unless i have > > missed something, i expect that necessary publications towards > > recruiting the new CEO should have been on the website by now. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> It is inview of this and as a member of this > >>>>>>>>>> community, that i am > > asking that the members of the board kindly provide update on the > > status of getting a replacement for the outgoing CEO. It is my hope > > that all members of the board are on this list and just to make > > sure, i have directly addressed this to the chairman and vice > > chairman of the board with the CEO in copy (incase the CEO could > > forward this request through the appropriate channel). > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Thanks > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Regards > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 5:35 PM, Seun Ojedeji < > > seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Dear all, I may have missed something (kindly > >>>>>>>>>>> pardon and tell me what I > > have missed). Considering that there is not going to be an AGM > > before the departure of the outgoing CEO and considering that the > > board chair in person of Mr Badru indicated in mid-September that a > > process to recruit a new CEO will commence and since I have not > > seen any public information regarding this I thought I should ask > > for update. > >>>>>>>>>>> It will be good to know what the state of > >>>>>>>>>>> things are in the > > process since there will be no opportunity to formerly update the > > community members. Again I apologize if a publicly know action is > > already in effect and I will appreciate if I can be pointed to it. > >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks Regards sent from Google nexus 4 kindly > >>>>>>>>>>> excuse brevity and typos. ---------- Forwarded > >>>>>>>>>>> message ---------- From: "AFRINIC > >>>>>>>>>>> Communication" > >>>>>>>>>>> Date: 17 Sep 2014 15:29 Subject: > >>>>>>>>>>> [members-discuss] AFRINIC Board of Directors > >>>>>>>>>>> Announces > > Departure of AFRINIC CEO Adiel A. Akplogan > >>>>>>>>>>> To: Cc: > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Port Louis, Mauritius, 17 September 2014. > >>>>>>>>>>>> Badru Ntege, the > > Chairman of AFRINIC's Board, announces today that AFRINIC?s > > founding CEO, Mr. Adiel A. Akplogan, will be leaving his position > > on 31st January 2015. > >>>>>>>>>>>> "It is with great humility and a bright > >>>>>>>>>>>> vision for AFRINIC's > > future that I'm leaving my position as CEO of AFRINIC,? said Mr. > > Akplogan. ?It was not an easy decision for me to take, but after 10 > > years of engagement with and for the community, the time has come > > for me to move on and spare time to catch up with my family.It has > > been an honor to serve the AFRINIC community, and watch it grow > > into the incredibly dynamic and engaging body it has now become.? > >>>>>>>>>>>> After leading AFRINIC?s accreditation process > >>>>>>>>>>>> to become the > > world?s fifth Regional Internet Registry (RIR), Mr. Akplogan was > > appointed by the Board and became AFRINIC?s first CEO in June 2004. > > Under his leadership, AFRINIC has made significant progress and has > > grown into a respected regional organisation, positioning Africa as > > a key player in the regional and global Internet technical > > community. Over these years, AFRINIC has also acquired a solid > > reputation amongst its peers, its members, other stakeholders as > > well as the global Internet industry. > >>>>>>>>>>>> "Mr Akplogan has been exemplary in nurturing > >>>>>>>>>>>> AFRINIC from > > inception, providing outstanding leadership over his ten years as > > CEO. He built a workforce at the Secretariat with the potential and > > capability to continue the great work started. It has been an > > honor and a privilege for me to work with a CEO like Mr. Akplogan,? > > said Badru Ntege, Chairman of the AFRINIC Board of Directors. > > "AFRINIC's success today is unequivocally a testament to his > > tireless efforts in building a sound organization centered on > > collaboration, consensus building, Internet centered value. We > > hope that, as a community, we will continue to benefit from his > > experience and passion. On behalf of the Board, I would like to > > thank Mr. Akplogan for his engagement with the community and his > > service over the past 10 years at AFRINIC, and wish him all the > > best for his future endeavours." > >>>>>>>>>>>> Passionate about the Internet and its values, > >>>>>>>>>>>> Mr. Akplogan has > > always campaigned for an Internet in Africa that is open and > > affordable to effectively support permission-less innovation as > > driver for sustainable socio-economical development in the region. > >>>>>>>>>>>> ?Our region is so full of potentials, > >>>>>>>>>>>> especially when it comes > > to the digital economy, and AFRINIC must continue to position > > itself to ensure it plays a critical role in supporting the > > upcoming changes,? concluded Mr. Akplogan. ?At this junction, I > > would like to extend my deepest gratitude to all those who have > > contributed to the success of AFRINIC and to the great team that we > > have built up over the years that has supported the growth of the > > organisation and the community. Together we have achieved great > > things for both Africa and AFRINIC and without your dedication and > > the support of the various Boards over the years, none of this > > would have been possible. I have the utmost confidence that > > AFRINIC will continue to grow stronger and stronger in the coming > > years." > >>>>>>>>>>>> A farewell event will be organised for the > >>>>>>>>>>>> outgoing CEO during > > AFRINIC-21 meeting being held in Mauritius from 22-28 November. We > > would like to invite the community to join us for this special > > event. > >>>>>>>>>>>> Appointment of a New CEO AFRINIC Board of > >>>>>>>>>>>> Directors will immediately launch a CEO > >>>>>>>>>>>> search > > process that will culminate in the appointment of a new CEO as soon > > as possible. In the mean time all measure will be taken to ensure a > > smooth transition including business continuity. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> [Apologies for cross-posting] > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > members-discuss mailing list > >>>>>>>>>>>> members-discuss at afrinic.net > >>>>>>>>>>>> > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/members-discuss > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > - -- > >>>>>>>>>> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > Seun Ojedeji, > >>>>>>>>>>> Federal University Oye-Ekiti web: > >>>>>>>>>>> http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535 > >>>>>>>>>>> alt email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> The key to understanding is humility - my > >>>>>>>>>>>> view ! > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > > > Seun Ojedeji, > >>>>>>>>> Federal University Oye-Ekiti web: > >>>>>>>>> http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535 alt > >>>>>>>>> email:seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> The key to understanding is humility - my view ! > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>>>>> members-discuss mailing list > >>>>>>>> members-discuss at afrinic.net > >>>>>>>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/members-discuss > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > _______________________________________________ > >>>>>>>> AfrICANN mailing list AfrICANN at afrinic.net > >>>>>>>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/africann > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>>>>>>> > - -- > >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >>> > >>> > >> > Seun Ojedeji, > >>> Federal University Oye-Ekiti web: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng > >>> Mobile: +2348035233535 alt email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng > >>> > >>>> The key to understanding is humility - my view ! > >> > >> > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ members-discuss > > mailing list members-discuss at afrinic.net > > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/members-discuss > > > > > - -- > - ---------------------------------------------------------------- > Sunday Adekunle Folayan > blog: http://www.sundayfolayan.name.ng > email: sfolayan at skannet.com.ng, sfolayan at gmail.com > phone: +234-816-866-7523, +234-802-291-2202 > skype: sfolayan > fcbk: www.facebook.com/sfolayan > tweet: sfolayan > linkedin: sfolayan > : http://free.lanci.ng - Anyone, Anyjob, Anywhere, Anytime > - ------------------------------------------------------------------ > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) > > iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUbX+5AAoJEH6UvSz6fA25mU8IAJeN/+/roc/jTSXSQsxCUE8Y > KzhO6h4QVZT/WHDPqgnFP9KXax+yTB1NCwLGHYP/vJ9v1JVChNG9KaqzLeF0mxSm > JbvT0OClWiuAwF9rhYzcwFWYYU60KykIeYn4fmF59gwSM4wQ+LBe8kjk6EpLP1H7 > W4NtjC32HyLjo22VYyxZYm8hswjgo/wUgO0tnMrm3/5nKg9FWKiMESwGH8+Ow3we > /FN3S6EkyECG6HnglujSnwZwPZBA1ErfOpM4nvHJRyi9Rf9kpD2K/mYUsBfG/bzX > Xy8dIPr2MjyuGu3Xg6Yp73IfGDV+xU5KWWIBQ5RpNLCTYhlirdYDAnJCamQmpsQ= > =sl98 > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sfolayan at gmail.com Thu Nov 20 06:45:30 2014 From: sfolayan at gmail.com (Sunday Folayan) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 07:45:30 +0100 Subject: [rpd] Re: Recruitment of AfriNIC CEO In-Reply-To: References: <546D7FBC.30906@gmail.com> Message-ID: <546D8E0A.7@gmail.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Dear Seun, Thanks a lot for your comments and the concerns. Even the most trivial tasks may require attention to details. I have given no details. Kindly wait for the details as proposed and outlined. Thanks and Regards .... Sunday. On 20/11/2014 07:08, Seun Ojedeji wrote: > Hello Sunday, > > Thanks for your mail, its really helpful. Kindly find my comments > inset > > On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 6:44 AM, Sunday Folayan > wrote: > > Dear Members, > > As a follow-up to my earlier post, the AfriNIC Board is following > the roadmap below, to appoint a new CEO: > > - Announced the CEO departure - Formed a CEO search committee - > Search committee met and: -Elected committee chair- Mr. Haitham El > Nakhal - Assigned temporary secretariat - Mr. Sunday Folayan - > Drafting of the committee charter (Done) - Drafting of a > recruitment timeline (Done) - Drafting job description (Done) - > Drafting job vacancy advertisement (Done) > > >> This is noted with thanks! First i like to say that the CEO >> "recruitment timeline" should have been the first item and i >> don't see why it should be in draft state (unless the timeline >> referred to is just the call for application). > > > All the drafts are to be approved during the face2face meeting and > Mr. Badru Ntege (Chair) will present the updates during the meeting > as promised earlier. > > >> I am not sure i understand why those drafts needs to wait for >> face2face; Is it because board cannot meet or because you want >> community input before you finalise on the draft?(which i don't >> think will be the case). Also when you say "chair will present >> update" sounds like chair will basically be repeating what you've >> listed above since the board is essentially doing noting at the >> moment other than waiting on the face2face to approve drafts. > >> Overall, i think its definitely a concern that the board in the >> last 2 months have only been able to form a committee and >> produced draft documents. The actual recruitment is what i expect >> would have required much of the time. > >> Nevertheless, its good to have this info. > >> Regards > > > Thanks and Regards ... > > Sunday Folayan. > > > On 19/11/2014 23:02, Seun Ojedeji wrote: >>>> sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On >>>> 19 Nov 2014 22:06, "Seun Ojedeji" >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Sun, Nov 16, 2014 at 7:30 PM, Sunday Folayan >>>>> >>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Dear Seun and all, >>>>>> >>>>>> The Board will make a statement within the next 2 days. >>>>> >>>>> Dear Board, >>>>> >>>>> This is to follow-up on the message above. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks >>>>> >>>>> Regards >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks and Regards ... >>>>>> >>>>>> Sunday Folayan Vice Chair. AfriNIC Board. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Nov 16, 2014 7:25 PM, "Seun Ojedeji" >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Dear Badru, Board Members >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It's 2 days now and I am yet to read from you neither >>>>>>> did I receive an >>>> acknowledgment. I think it will be in order to know the >>>> process that is being adopted, unless the silence is an >>>> indication that there is no process at the moment and that >>>> process is what the board hopes to present to us at the >>>> face2face? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Again I am writing here as a member who has not seen >>>>>>> any evidence of >>>> action towards recruiting/replacing the CEO of AfriNIC, >>>> member of the ICG, current chair of the NRO etc. >>>>>>> That was to emphasis how critical this is, as the >>>>>>> position is not just >>>> for the sake of AfriNIC community alone but it's more in the >>>> interest of the global internet community. There are lots of >>>> things happening at the moment and one cannot, I mean cannot >>>> afford to loose representation/focus on them! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I trust a publicly noticeable action will happen soon >>>>>>> and kindly note >>>> that it will not be good enough to get to MU just to hear >>>> process and not outcome of actions! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Regards sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity >>>>>>> and typos. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 14 Nov 2014 09:05, "Seun Ojedeji" >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thank you Badru, I also guessed as much. Looking >>>>>>>> forward to the >>>> official response from the board. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Regards >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and >>>>>>>> typos. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 14 Nov 2014 08:31, "Badru Ntege" >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> No this is not from board. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 11/14/14, 10:25 AM, "Nii Narku Quaynor" >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Please...is this from the board and what is the >>>>>>>>>> speculation of fire >>>> in the house all about? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Nov 13, 2014, at 21:08, "jnoulaye at yahoo.fr" >>>>>>>>>> >>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Hi Seun, I'm always happy to hear you. There is >>>>>>>>>>> no fire in the house. Surely the board will >>>>>>>>>>> communicate further details on the matter at >>>> the suitable time. >>>>>>>>>>> Be sure that there will be no fault into the >>>>>>>>>>> process. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Regards, Janvier Ngnoulaye. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> ________________________________ De: "Seun >>>>>>>>>>> Ojedeji" ?: "Badru >>>>>>>>>>> Ntege" Cc: "Sunday >>>>>>>>>>> Folayan" , "AfriNIC >>>>>>>>>>> Discuss" < >>>> members-discuss at afrinic.net> >>>>>>>>>>> Envoy?: Jeudi 13 Novembre 2014 12:42:04 Objet: >>>>>>>>>>> Re: Any update on this? (Was Re Fwd: >>>>>>>>>>> [members-discuss] >>>> AFRINIC Board of Directors Announces Departure of >>>> AFRINIC CEO Adiel A. Akplogan) >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Hello Badru, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for your response. From your message it >>>>>>>>>>> seem something is >>>> already on-going. However, while we look forward to the full >>>> update in Mauritius, may i ask that you briefly tell us about >>>> the process you refer? at least this will help understand >>>> efforts that is already being made. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Kindly note that I am speaking here as a member >>>>>>>>>>> who has not seen >>>> any evidence of action. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Regards >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 2:26 PM, Badru Ntege < >>>> badru.ntege at nftconsult.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Seun >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you for your concern and allow me to >>>>>>>>>>>> apologize for net >>>> getting a response back to you in time. A process is going >>>> on and i will admit it has had a number of challenges. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The board will have a full update on the >>>>>>>>>>>> matter in the next >>>> meeting which will be held in Mauritius. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I hope this helps. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> regards >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Badru Ntege Group CEO NFT Consult Ltd >>>>>>>>>>>> badru.ntege at nftconsult.com >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 12, 2014, at 4:07 PM, Seun Ojedeji >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear Board Members, >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Its 2 days now that i sent a mail about >>>>>>>>>>>>> this subject matter and i >>>> have not heard any response either in acknowledgement or >>>> otherwise. This silence from members of the board brings me >>>> to be concerned, as it seem there is no update on this >>>> subject matter and i am just hoping that i am wrong about >>>> this. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe its worth noting that the current >>>>>>>>>>>>> CEO leaves by >>>> Jan(according to the mail sent by chairman of the board) and >>>> this month is already exhausted which leaves us with just >>>> ONEmonth left (considering that the month of Jan usually will >>>> be a transitioning period between the outgoing and incoming >>>> CEO). Again unless i have missed something, i expect that >>>> necessary publications towards recruiting the new CEO should >>>> have been on the website by now. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> It is inview of this and as a member of >>>>>>>>>>>>> this community, that i am >>>> asking that the members of the board kindly provide update on >>>> the status of getting a replacement for the outgoing CEO. It >>>> is my hope that all members of the board are on this list and >>>> just to make sure, i have directly addressed this to the >>>> chairman and vice chairman of the board with the CEO in copy >>>> (incase the CEO could forward this request through the >>>> appropriate channel). >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 5:35 PM, Seun >>>>>>>>>>>>> Ojedeji < >>>> seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear all, I may have missed something >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (kindly pardon and tell me what I >>>> have missed). Considering that there is not going to be an >>>> AGM before the departure of the outgoing CEO and considering >>>> that the board chair in person of Mr Badru indicated in >>>> mid-September that a process to recruit a new CEO will >>>> commence and since I have not seen any public information >>>> regarding this I thought I should ask for update. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> It will be good to know what the state >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of things are in the >>>> process since there will be no opportunity to formerly update >>>> the community members. Again I apologize if a publicly know >>>> action is already in effect and I will appreciate if I can be >>>> pointed to it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks Regards sent from Google nexus 4 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> kindly excuse brevity and typos. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>>>>>>>>>>>> From: "AFRINIC Communication" >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Date: 17 Sep >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2014 15:29 Subject: [members-discuss] >>>>>>>>>>>>>> AFRINIC Board of Directors Announces >>>> Departure of AFRINIC CEO Adiel A. Akplogan >>>>>>>>>>>>>> To: Cc: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Port Louis, Mauritius, 17 September >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2014. Badru Ntege, the >>>> Chairman of AFRINIC's Board, announces today that AFRINIC?s >>>> founding CEO, Mr. Adiel A. Akplogan, will be leaving his >>>> position on 31st January 2015. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "It is with great humility and a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bright vision for AFRINIC's >>>> future that I'm leaving my position as CEO of AFRINIC,? said >>>> Mr. Akplogan. ?It was not an easy decision for me to take, >>>> but after 10 years of engagement with and for the community, >>>> the time has come for me to move on and spare time to catch >>>> up with my family.It has been an honor to serve the AFRINIC >>>> community, and watch it grow into the incredibly dynamic and >>>> engaging body it has now become.? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> After leading AFRINIC?s accreditation >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> process to become the >>>> world?s fifth Regional Internet Registry (RIR), Mr. Akplogan >>>> was appointed by the Board and became AFRINIC?s first CEO in >>>> June 2004. Under his leadership, AFRINIC has made significant >>>> progress and has grown into a respected regional >>>> organisation, positioning Africa as a key player in the >>>> regional and global Internet technical community. Over these >>>> years, AFRINIC has also acquired a solid reputation amongst >>>> its peers, its members, other stakeholders as well as the >>>> global Internet industry. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Mr Akplogan has been exemplary in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nurturing AFRINIC from >>>> inception, providing outstanding leadership over his ten >>>> years as CEO. He built a workforce at the Secretariat with >>>> the potential and capability to continue the great work >>>> started. It has been an honor and a privilege for me to work >>>> with a CEO like Mr. Akplogan,? said Badru Ntege, Chairman of >>>> the AFRINIC Board of Directors. "AFRINIC's success today is >>>> unequivocally a testament to his tireless efforts in building >>>> a sound organization centered on collaboration, consensus >>>> building, Internet centered value. We hope that, as a >>>> community, we will continue to benefit from his experience >>>> and passion. On behalf of the Board, I would like to thank >>>> Mr. Akplogan for his engagement with the community and his >>>> service over the past 10 years at AFRINIC, and wish him all >>>> the best for his future endeavours." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Passionate about the Internet and its >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> values, Mr. Akplogan has >>>> always campaigned for an Internet in Africa that is open and >>>> affordable to effectively support permission-less innovation >>>> as driver for sustainable socio-economical development in the >>>> region. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?Our region is so full of potentials, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> especially when it comes >>>> to the digital economy, and AFRINIC must continue to >>>> position itself to ensure it plays a critical role in >>>> supporting the upcoming changes,? concluded Mr. Akplogan. ?At >>>> this junction, I would like to extend my deepest gratitude to >>>> all those who have contributed to the success of AFRINIC and >>>> to the great team that we have built up over the years that >>>> has supported the growth of the organisation and the >>>> community. Together we have achieved great things for both >>>> Africa and AFRINIC and without your dedication and the >>>> support of the various Boards over the years, none of this >>>> would have been possible. I have the utmost confidence that >>>> AFRINIC will continue to grow stronger and stronger in the >>>> coming years." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A farewell event will be organised for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the outgoing CEO during >>>> AFRINIC-21 meeting being held in Mauritius from 22-28 >>>> November. We would like to invite the community to join us >>>> for this special event. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Appointment of a New CEO AFRINIC Board >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of Directors will immediately launch a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CEO search >>>> process that will culminate in the appointment of a new CEO >>>> as soon as possible. In the mean time all measure will be >>>> taken to ensure a smooth transition including business >>>> continuity. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [Apologies for cross-posting] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> members-discuss mailing list >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> members-discuss at afrinic.net >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/members-discuss >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > > - -- - ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sunday Adekunle Folayan blog: http://www.sundayfolayan.name.ng email: sfolayan at skannet.com.ng, sfolayan at gmail.com phone: +234-816-866-7523, +234-802-291-2202 skype: sfolayan fcbk: www.facebook.com/sfolayan tweet: sfolayan linkedin: sfolayan : http://free.lanci.ng - Anyone, Anyjob, Anywhere, Anytime - ------------------------------------------------------------------ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUbY4HAAoJEH6UvSz6fA25DnkH/22U4hXFM3zrMUkRe8/KyUGS G8bdoLx2W+EGEjCyJY6pqwql78c3puUXEueCROZVCS6TNRnAwySs/7yqQ3IR5Qrg bs9nLlzKN4B75LUfN86H+W5uC3/GicuP8IYAtNoJLmvYA6vgcGoyXGCCVg46EL1a xeedW3ClcbqGsIdt1jVFS92oDSAW16uBSoP+Kp8Axb7QrqZl/AUlFGFRVvQ6Cd2x nKipAWWi6YWtQKoSDKfcemqEWLDG1dIHxgSxHcxbO60aBabNoyQtbMrUcxDvBJ0w z3EnHWvrfe3D3T2NSI/Wf9sRW2s/1GMqo3mWAAt6y4sGsvCrLy85k5mge+hW9lU= =w+oq -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From sfolayan at gmail.com Thu Nov 20 07:05:40 2014 From: sfolayan at gmail.com (Sunday Folayan) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 08:05:40 +0100 Subject: [rpd] Recruitment of AfriNIC CEO In-Reply-To: References: <546D7FBC.30906@gmail.com> Message-ID: <546D92C4.4040601@gmail.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Dear Adam, Kindly wait for the details as outlined. Best Regards ... Sunday. On 20/11/2014 07:13, Adam Nelson wrote: > Sunday, > > Thanks for the follow-up. I have a few questions: > > 1. Is there room for member participation in this process? 2. Also, > I presume there will be involvement of one or more recruitment > professionals? Has that been worked out? 3. Are there criteria for > the posting (nationality, years of experience, educational > qualifications, language skills)? 4. Is there a social media > strategy? > > This could really be a moment where AfriNIC goes from strength to > strength and I think everybody would like to see this process be a > resounding success with top quality candidates sourced from around > the world at the highest levels of Internet governance. > > Thanks again, Adam > > -- Kili - Cloud for Africa: kili.io Musings: twitter.com/varud > More Musings: varud.com About Adam: > www.linkedin.com/in/adamcnelson > > On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 8:44 AM, Sunday Folayan > wrote: > > Dear Members, > > As a follow-up to my earlier post, the AfriNIC Board is following > the roadmap below, to appoint a new CEO: > > - Announced the CEO departure - Formed a CEO search committee - > Search committee met and: -Elected committee chair- Mr. Haitham El > Nakhal - Assigned temporary secretariat - Mr. Sunday Folayan - > Drafting of the committee charter (Done) - Drafting of a > recruitment timeline (Done) - Drafting job description (Done) - > Drafting job vacancy advertisement (Done) > > All the drafts are to be approved during the face2face meeting and > Mr. Badru Ntege (Chair) will present the updates during the meeting > as promised earlier. > > Thanks and Regards ... > > Sunday Folayan. > > > On 19/11/2014 23:02, Seun Ojedeji wrote: >>>> sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On >>>> 19 Nov 2014 22:06, "Seun Ojedeji" >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Sun, Nov 16, 2014 at 7:30 PM, Sunday Folayan >>>>> >>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Dear Seun and all, >>>>>> >>>>>> The Board will make a statement within the next 2 days. >>>>> >>>>> Dear Board, >>>>> >>>>> This is to follow-up on the message above. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks >>>>> >>>>> Regards >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks and Regards ... >>>>>> >>>>>> Sunday Folayan Vice Chair. AfriNIC Board. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Nov 16, 2014 7:25 PM, "Seun Ojedeji" >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Dear Badru, Board Members >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It's 2 days now and I am yet to read from you neither >>>>>>> did I receive an >>>> acknowledgment. I think it will be in order to know the >>>> process that is being adopted, unless the silence is an >>>> indication that there is no process at the moment and that >>>> process is what the board hopes to present to us at the >>>> face2face? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Again I am writing here as a member who has not seen >>>>>>> any evidence of >>>> action towards recruiting/replacing the CEO of AfriNIC, >>>> member of the ICG, current chair of the NRO etc. >>>>>>> That was to emphasis how critical this is, as the >>>>>>> position is not just >>>> for the sake of AfriNIC community alone but it's more in the >>>> interest of the global internet community. There are lots of >>>> things happening at the moment and one cannot, I mean cannot >>>> afford to loose representation/focus on them! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I trust a publicly noticeable action will happen soon >>>>>>> and kindly note >>>> that it will not be good enough to get to MU just to hear >>>> process and not outcome of actions! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Regards sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity >>>>>>> and typos. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 14 Nov 2014 09:05, "Seun Ojedeji" >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thank you Badru, I also guessed as much. Looking >>>>>>>> forward to the >>>> official response from the board. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Regards >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and >>>>>>>> typos. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 14 Nov 2014 08:31, "Badru Ntege" >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> No this is not from board. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 11/14/14, 10:25 AM, "Nii Narku Quaynor" >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Please...is this from the board and what is the >>>>>>>>>> speculation of fire >>>> in the house all about? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Nov 13, 2014, at 21:08, "jnoulaye at yahoo.fr" >>>>>>>>>> >>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Hi Seun, I'm always happy to hear you. There is >>>>>>>>>>> no fire in the house. Surely the board will >>>>>>>>>>> communicate further details on the matter at >>>> the suitable time. >>>>>>>>>>> Be sure that there will be no fault into the >>>>>>>>>>> process. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Regards, Janvier Ngnoulaye. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> ________________________________ De: "Seun >>>>>>>>>>> Ojedeji" ?: "Badru >>>>>>>>>>> Ntege" Cc: "Sunday >>>>>>>>>>> Folayan" , "AfriNIC >>>>>>>>>>> Discuss" < >>>> members-discuss at afrinic.net> >>>>>>>>>>> Envoy?: Jeudi 13 Novembre 2014 12:42:04 Objet: >>>>>>>>>>> Re: Any update on this? (Was Re Fwd: >>>>>>>>>>> [members-discuss] >>>> AFRINIC Board of Directors Announces Departure of >>>> AFRINIC CEO Adiel A. Akplogan) >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Hello Badru, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for your response. From your message it >>>>>>>>>>> seem something is >>>> already on-going. However, while we look forward to the full >>>> update in Mauritius, may i ask that you briefly tell us about >>>> the process you refer? at least this will help understand >>>> efforts that is already being made. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Kindly note that I am speaking here as a member >>>>>>>>>>> who has not seen >>>> any evidence of action. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Regards >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 2:26 PM, Badru Ntege < >>>> badru.ntege at nftconsult.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Seun >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you for your concern and allow me to >>>>>>>>>>>> apologize for net >>>> getting a response back to you in time. A process is going >>>> on and i will admit it has had a number of challenges. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The board will have a full update on the >>>>>>>>>>>> matter in the next >>>> meeting which will be held in Mauritius. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I hope this helps. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> regards >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Badru Ntege Group CEO NFT Consult Ltd >>>>>>>>>>>> badru.ntege at nftconsult.com >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 12, 2014, at 4:07 PM, Seun Ojedeji >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear Board Members, >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Its 2 days now that i sent a mail about >>>>>>>>>>>>> this subject matter and i >>>> have not heard any response either in acknowledgement or >>>> otherwise. This silence from members of the board brings me >>>> to be concerned, as it seem there is no update on this >>>> subject matter and i am just hoping that i am wrong about >>>> this. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe its worth noting that the current >>>>>>>>>>>>> CEO leaves by >>>> Jan(according to the mail sent by chairman of the board) and >>>> this month is already exhausted which leaves us with just >>>> ONEmonth left (considering that the month of Jan usually will >>>> be a transitioning period between the outgoing and incoming >>>> CEO). Again unless i have missed something, i expect that >>>> necessary publications towards recruiting the new CEO should >>>> have been on the website by now. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> It is inview of this and as a member of >>>>>>>>>>>>> this community, that i am >>>> asking that the members of the board kindly provide update on >>>> the status of getting a replacement for the outgoing CEO. It >>>> is my hope that all members of the board are on this list and >>>> just to make sure, i have directly addressed this to the >>>> chairman and vice chairman of the board with the CEO in copy >>>> (incase the CEO could forward this request through the >>>> appropriate channel). >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 5:35 PM, Seun >>>>>>>>>>>>> Ojedeji < >>>> seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear all, I may have missed something >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (kindly pardon and tell me what I >>>> have missed). Considering that there is not going to be an >>>> AGM before the departure of the outgoing CEO and considering >>>> that the board chair in person of Mr Badru indicated in >>>> mid-September that a process to recruit a new CEO will >>>> commence and since I have not seen any public information >>>> regarding this I thought I should ask for update. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> It will be good to know what the state >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of things are in the >>>> process since there will be no opportunity to formerly update >>>> the community members. Again I apologize if a publicly know >>>> action is already in effect and I will appreciate if I can be >>>> pointed to it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks Regards sent from Google nexus 4 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> kindly excuse brevity and typos. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>>>>>>>>>>>> From: "AFRINIC Communication" >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Date: 17 Sep >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2014 15:29 Subject: [members-discuss] >>>>>>>>>>>>>> AFRINIC Board of Directors Announces >>>> Departure of AFRINIC CEO Adiel A. Akplogan >>>>>>>>>>>>>> To: Cc: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Port Louis, Mauritius, 17 September >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2014. Badru Ntege, the >>>> Chairman of AFRINIC's Board, announces today that AFRINIC?s >>>> founding CEO, Mr. Adiel A. Akplogan, will be leaving his >>>> position on 31st January 2015. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "It is with great humility and a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bright vision for AFRINIC's >>>> future that I'm leaving my position as CEO of AFRINIC,? said >>>> Mr. Akplogan. ?It was not an easy decision for me to take, >>>> but after 10 years of engagement with and for the community, >>>> the time has come for me to move on and spare time to catch >>>> up with my family.It has been an honor to serve the AFRINIC >>>> community, and watch it grow into the incredibly dynamic and >>>> engaging body it has now become.? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> After leading AFRINIC?s accreditation >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> process to become the >>>> world?s fifth Regional Internet Registry (RIR), Mr. Akplogan >>>> was appointed by the Board and became AFRINIC?s first CEO in >>>> June 2004. Under his leadership, AFRINIC has made significant >>>> progress and has grown into a respected regional >>>> organisation, positioning Africa as a key player in the >>>> regional and global Internet technical community. Over these >>>> years, AFRINIC has also acquired a solid reputation amongst >>>> its peers, its members, other stakeholders as well as the >>>> global Internet industry. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Mr Akplogan has been exemplary in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nurturing AFRINIC from >>>> inception, providing outstanding leadership over his ten >>>> years as CEO. He built a workforce at the Secretariat with >>>> the potential and capability to continue the great work >>>> started. It has been an honor and a privilege for me to work >>>> with a CEO like Mr. Akplogan,? said Badru Ntege, Chairman of >>>> the AFRINIC Board of Directors. "AFRINIC's success today is >>>> unequivocally a testament to his tireless efforts in building >>>> a sound organization centered on collaboration, consensus >>>> building, Internet centered value. We hope that, as a >>>> community, we will continue to benefit from his experience >>>> and passion. On behalf of the Board, I would like to thank >>>> Mr. Akplogan for his engagement with the community and his >>>> service over the past 10 years at AFRINIC, and wish him all >>>> the best for his future endeavours." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Passionate about the Internet and its >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> values, Mr. Akplogan has >>>> always campaigned for an Internet in Africa that is open and >>>> affordable to effectively support permission-less innovation >>>> as driver for sustainable socio-economical development in the >>>> region. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?Our region is so full of potentials, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> especially when it comes >>>> to the digital economy, and AFRINIC must continue to >>>> position itself to ensure it plays a critical role in >>>> supporting the upcoming changes,? concluded Mr. Akplogan. ?At >>>> this junction, I would like to extend my deepest gratitude to >>>> all those who have contributed to the success of AFRINIC and >>>> to the great team that we have built up over the years that >>>> has supported the growth of the organisation and the >>>> community. Together we have achieved great things for both >>>> Africa and AFRINIC and without your dedication and the >>>> support of the various Boards over the years, none of this >>>> would have been possible. I have the utmost confidence that >>>> AFRINIC will continue to grow stronger and stronger in the >>>> coming years." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A farewell event will be organised for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the outgoing CEO during >>>> AFRINIC-21 meeting being held in Mauritius from 22-28 >>>> November. We would like to invite the community to join us >>>> for this special event. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Appointment of a New CEO AFRINIC Board >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of Directors will immediately launch a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CEO search >>>> process that will culminate in the appointment of a new CEO >>>> as soon as possible. In the mean time all measure will be >>>> taken to ensure a smooth transition including business >>>> continuity. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [Apologies for cross-posting] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> members-discuss mailing list >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> members-discuss at afrinic.net >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/members-discuss >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> _______________________________________________ rpd mailing list >> rpd at afrinic.net >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >> > - -- - ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sunday Adekunle Folayan blog: http://www.sundayfolayan.name.ng email: sfolayan at skannet.com.ng, sfolayan at gmail.com phone: +234-816-866-7523, +234-802-291-2202 skype: sfolayan fcbk: www.facebook.com/sfolayan tweet: sfolayan linkedin: sfolayan : http://free.lanci.ng - Anyone, Anyjob, Anywhere, Anytime - ------------------------------------------------------------------ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUbZLCAAoJEH6UvSz6fA25aBwIAKxEmSuhRJvFC4tt5oa3CXx/ iHDreOjsDaBlpmegXmBTj5EtFgECC/MBF5CItZMVXhCEXNLoLZcLrWIXtKa+dBvd iJtIyCAOj5LNIvw6h+ru3fq63mIDAWJfHMFmngTjZqj9pvhE2rpgK5Q2OE79ydAp 9hSA5XYTF6l1+UzjjVQ+heAxj+HihGAg3WozxLLi+1j4L9seaVUu2mEc3mkICkzx 2k/as5QWep8KS2prmwulF0lYN5a6lDfVLWoD++O8wbtkKABFWjwCzsZlYZAxSoOq JSOmzsxKfHXTuBAGhJZYwM//ZjyJI4YRrkvm1rT0+vLn54J/LCKbZVsgRI1TGCA= =//xo -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From woody at pch.net Thu Nov 20 07:44:57 2014 From: woody at pch.net (Bill Woodcock) Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2014 23:44:57 -0800 Subject: [rpd] Recruitment of AfriNIC CEO In-Reply-To: References: <546D7FBC.30906@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Nov 19, 2014, at 10:13 PM, Adam Nelson wrote: > I presume there will be involvement of one or more recruitment professionals? Speaking from my own experience on the ARIN board when we had a similar transition to make, I?d say that ?recruitment professionals? are an unmitigated disaster. They?ll find you a set of generic and mediocre candidates, none particularly prepared for the task. After two false starts using ?recruitment professionals? we gave up on them and hired someone we knew was capable of handling the job, and who wouldn?t flake out. And that?s worked out really well for us. -Bill -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 841 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From adam at varud.com Thu Nov 20 07:59:13 2014 From: adam at varud.com (Adam Nelson) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 10:59:13 +0300 Subject: [rpd] Recruitment of AfriNIC CEO In-Reply-To: References: <546D7FBC.30906@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 10:44 AM, Bill Woodcock wrote: > > On Nov 19, 2014, at 10:13 PM, Adam Nelson wrote: > > I presume there will be involvement of one or more recruitment > professionals? > > Speaking from my own experience on the ARIN board when we had a similar > transition to make, I?d say that ?recruitment professionals? are an > unmitigated disaster. They?ll find you a set of generic and mediocre > candidates, none particularly prepared for the task. After two false > starts using ?recruitment professionals? we gave up on them and hired > someone we knew was capable of handling the job, and who wouldn?t flake > out. And that?s worked out really well for us. > > -Bill > I totally agree and have never actually seen outsourced recruitment professionals do a better job than what an engaged and thoughtful organization can do internally. Not only do they typically fail miserably but they waste alot of precious time. I still presume they will be involved though and would like to know more about the groups ahead of time so the community can meaningfully help. -Adam -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mark.tinka at seacom.mu Thu Nov 20 08:31:25 2014 From: mark.tinka at seacom.mu (Mark Tinka) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 10:31:25 +0200 Subject: [rpd] Recruitment of AfriNIC CEO In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <201411201031.25534.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> On Thursday, November 20, 2014 09:44:57 AM Bill Woodcock wrote: > Speaking from my own experience on the ARIN board when we > had a similar transition to make, I?d say that > ?recruitment professionals? are an unmitigated disaster. > They?ll find you a set of generic and mediocre > candidates, none particularly prepared for the task. > After two false starts using ?recruitment professionals? > we gave up on them and hired someone we knew was capable > of handling the job, and who wouldn?t flake out. And > that?s worked out really well for us. I'd tend to agree, in this case. We know the community, and that's an advantage worth exploiting. Mark. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. URL: From h.lu at anytimechinese.com Fri Nov 21 05:41:51 2014 From: h.lu at anytimechinese.com (Lu Heng) Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 13:41:51 +0800 Subject: =?UTF-8?Q?Re=3A_=5Brpd=5D_Afrinic_policy_proposal=E2=80=94Afrinic_Service_?= =?UTF-8?Q?guild_lines?= In-Reply-To: References: <1B27840E-C9B7-4514-9B7B-1E34AFECEB3E@virtualized.org> Message-ID: Hi My allocation has been told that under board decision for past 2 month. Since I have confirmed with NRO as well as few other RIRs, including but not limit to Lacnic and Apnic staff during past meetings, Board should not interfere with allocation process at all. And for whom ask about how and why we used up our allocation--simple reply--none of your business. with regards. Lu On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 2:48 AM, Karmann Olumomo wrote: > Hi David Conrad, > > Please see my replied as below. > > On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 6:16 PM, Karmann Olumomo > wrote: > >> David Conrad >> [image: Attachments]Oct 27 (10 days ago) >> >> Karmann, >> >> Some personal opinions: >> >> On Oct 26, 2014, at 9:26 AM, Karmann Olumomo >> wrote: >> > 1) Summary of the Problem Being Addressed by this Policy Proposal >> > >> > Some member are experiencing extreme long wait for their additional >> allocation request to get passed, some members are experiencing none >> technical information requested from Afrinic(customer data, marketing >> channel etc), in order to improve overall service quality of Afrinic, >> here is the policy. >> > >> > 2) Summary of How this Proposal Addresses the Problem >> > >> > To improve overall service quality and transparency of Afrinic?s >> number resource services by documenting roles and responsibilities of >> AFRINIC. >> > 3) Proposal >> > >> > 1.Afrinic should make decision on subsequent allocation requests based >> on Afrinic policy, and conclude a request no longer than the 20% of >> the total period AFRNIC approves the resources for. (E.g. If Afrinic is >> issuing resources to its member to meet its 12 months needs, the longest >> waiting time for Afrinic allocation process should not be longer than >> 20%*12month, to cope with 80% utilization requirement for additional >> allocation). If Afrinic was not able to make decision on a certain >> request within this period, for each additional month beyond this period, >> the requesting member should receive percentage of the requested period of >> the total request until such decision has been made, in order to protect >> member from smooth running of its business. >> >> Having once worked at an RIR, I can say that trying to put processing >> time limits is fine as long as there are sufficient resources to permit the >> processing. However, if the request load is outstripping the ability for >> staff to process that load, adding processing time limits will make things >> worse. >> >> I would recommend asking staff for more information regarding processing >> times of all additional allocation requests (I'd actually recommend a >> public dashboard-style website showing aggregate request processing time >> statistics) and, if there appear to be consistent delays, asking staff for >> a root cause analysis and a mitigation plan. >> >> Note that I suspect if request processing time is being impacted by load, >> this will only get worse as the additional policy requirements the >> community is putting (or is proposing to put) on staff implies increased >> work in reviewing requests. >> >> To be honest I don't understand why there would be delaying for the new >> requirements, every delayed number will effect the business and so I >> believe setting a time frame for the new additional allocation requests is >> needed. It is better from a business perspective and protecting business >> from smooth running and servicing the internet in the region is the >> essential goal of any RIR. >> >> >> > 2.Afrinic should publish standardized base information request for >> each typical type of resource allocation. >> >> I disagree. >> >> AfriNIC staff are being placed in a position of being investigators, >> trying to discover if a requester is lying to them about their need, where >> they are located, what they intend to do with the address space, etc. >> While a base set of information requesters can be expected to provide would >> be useful, if the community expects AfriNIC staff to do the >> investigations policy demands, I believe staff are going to need to be >> able to ask whatever questions they feel are necessary. >> >> > 3.Afrinic should not store, request any marketing or business related >> none-technical information from its member, for example, customer data, >> marketing channel, and marketing budget. >> >> I disagree. >> >> One of the ways in which you catch folks lying is because it is actually >> hard to be consistent when lying. If AfriNIC staff is going to be in >> the investigatory business, they need to look at what a requester told them >> in the past and compare it to what they're telling them now and ask >> questions when there is significant deviation. >> >> >> I believe members wont agree to disclose their customer data, marketing >> channel etc etc to other party because above information supposed to be >> confidential. Plus most likely this business must involved with NDA.I just >> think this policy is contradiction and disclosing such data to third party, >> regardless the reason, are most likely not legal in most of country due to >> the privacy law. >> > > > Best regards, > Karmann Olumomo > > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > -- -- Kind regards. Lu This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this message and including the text of the transmission received. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karmann.olumomo at gmail.com Fri Nov 21 06:10:03 2014 From: karmann.olumomo at gmail.com (Karmann Olumomo) Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 14:10:03 +0800 Subject: [rpd] Fwd: update on policy Afrinic service Guide Lines policy proposal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: HI After taking the community feed back, I'd like to update my proposal to the following: 1) Summary of the Problem Being Addressed by this Policy Proposal Some member are experiencing extreme long wait for their additional allocation request to get passed, some members are experiencing none technical information requested from Afrinic(customer data, marketing channel etc), in order to improve overall service quality of Afrinic, here is the policy. 2) Summary of How this Proposal Addresses the Problem To improve overall service quality and transparency of Afrinic?s number resource services by documenting roles and responsibilities of AFRINIC. 3) Proposal 1.Afrinic should make decision on subsequent allocation requests based on Afrinic policy, and conclude a request no longer than the 20% of the total period AFRNIC approves the resources for. (E.g. If Afrinic is issuing resources to its member to meet its 12 months needs, the longest waiting time for Afrinic allocation process should not be longer than 20%*12month, to cope with 80% utilization requirement for additional allocation). If Afrinic was not able to make decision on a certain request within this period, for each additional month beyond this period, the requesting member should receive percentage of the requested period of the total request until such decision has been made, in order to protect member from smooth running of its business. 2.Afrinic should publish standardized base information request for each typical type of resource allocation. 3.Afrinic should not store, request any marketing or business related none-technical information from its member, for example, customer data, marketing channel, and marketing budget. 4.Afrinic allocations should be solely made based on current policy, no other factor other than policy should infer with afrinic?s decision on processing allocation requests. 5.Afrinic board should never being involved in any form of resource allocation process. 6.For the interest of overall policy development process, other RIR staff as well as it's governing body personnel(advisor or board member, for example) should not be involve in Afrinic policy development process. 7.Afrinic policy working group chair election should be conducted independent from Afrinic board nomination committee, candidates should be free of any requirement. The main updated point is point 5: 5.Afrinic board should never being involved in any form of resource allocation process. Thanks very much and please update the proposal accordingly. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com Fri Nov 21 06:23:42 2014 From: Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com (Andrew Alston) Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 06:23:42 +0000 Subject: [rpd] Fwd: update on policy Afrinic service Guide Lines policy proposal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Karmann, (Speaking personally and not with my board hat on). I strongly object to the clause that says board members can have no involvement in the policy development process. Keep in mind, every board member is elected from within the community. That means that many board members also have their own job functions which relate to IP addressing within their respective organisations. I agree that a board member who is also involved in the PdP should NOT necessarily be doing it with their board hat on, but you cannot exclude the individuals themselves from the process. To do so would be to ensure that any person who is active in policy can never run for board, else they risk being alienated from the policy process. This would damage not only the PdP but also the potential to get quality board members who have a good understanding of policy and the process by which it is formulated. Hence, I will not support any policy that states that. Andrew Alston Group Head of IP Strategy [cid:5EA326DF-FC4F-40D6-A62C-546B18EDA6A5] Sameer business Park, Block A, Mombasa Road. Nairobi, Kenya T: +254 205000000 - M: +254 733 2222 04 - E: andrew.alston at liquidtelecom.com From: Karmann Olumomo > Date: Friday, November 21, 2014 at 8:10 AM To: "rpd at afrinic.net" > Subject: [rpd] Fwd: update on policy Afrinic service Guide Lines policy proposal HI After taking the community feed back, I'd like to update my proposal to the following: 1) Summary of the Problem Being Addressed by this Policy Proposal Some member are experiencing extreme long wait for their additional allocation request to get passed, some members are experiencing none technical information requested from Afrinic(customer data, marketing channel etc), in order to improve overall service quality of Afrinic, here is the policy. 2) Summary of How this Proposal Addresses the Problem To improve overall service quality and transparency of Afrinic?s number resource services by documenting roles and responsibilities of AFRINIC. 3) Proposal 1.Afrinic should make decision on subsequent allocation requests based on Afrinic policy, and conclude a request no longer than the 20% of the total period AFRNIC approves the resources for. (E.g. If Afrinic is issuing resources to its member to meet its 12 months needs, the longest waiting time for Afrinic allocation process should not be longer than 20%*12month, to cope with 80% utilization requirement for additional allocation). If Afrinic was not able to make decision on a certain request within this period, for each additional month beyond this period, the requesting member should receive percentage of the requested period of the total request until such decision has been made, in order to protect member from smooth running of its business. 2.Afrinic should publish standardized base information request for each typical type of resource allocation. 3.Afrinic should not store, request any marketing or business related none-technical information from its member, for example, customer data, marketing channel, and marketing budget. 4.Afrinic allocations should be solely made based on current policy, no other factor other than policy should infer with afrinic?s decision on processing allocation requests. 5.Afrinic board should never being involved in any form of resource allocation process. 6.For the interest of overall policy development process, other RIR staff as well as it's governing body personnel(advisor or board member, for example) should not be involve in Afrinic policy development process. 7.Afrinic policy working group chair election should be conducted independent from Afrinic board nomination committee, candidates should be free of any requirement. The main updated point is point 5: 5.Afrinic board should never being involved in any form of resource allocation process. Thanks very much and please update the proposal accordingly. ________________________________ DISCLAIMER: This email contains proprietary information some or all of which may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this email, please notify the author by replying to this email. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose, copy, print, or rely on this email. We cannot accept liability for any statements made which are clearly the sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of this company or one of its agents. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 1D7357BF-29F7-4C26-9D6A-6EFCA78201B1[1].png Type: image/png Size: 13157 bytes Desc: 1D7357BF-29F7-4C26-9D6A-6EFCA78201B1[1].png URL: From karmann.olumomo at gmail.com Fri Nov 21 06:43:12 2014 From: karmann.olumomo at gmail.com (Karmann Olumomo) Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 14:43:12 +0800 Subject: [rpd] Fwd: update on policy Afrinic service Guide Lines policy proposal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Andrew: I am saying "resource allocation process", not policy development process. resource allocation process is an internal process of Afrinic hostmaster team. On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 2:23 PM, Andrew Alston < Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com> wrote: > Hi Karmann, > > (Speaking personally and not with my board hat on). > > I strongly object to the clause that says board members can have no > involvement in the policy development process. > > Keep in mind, every board member is elected from within the community. > That means that many board members also have their own job functions which > relate to IP addressing within their respective organisations. I agree > that a board member who is also involved in the PdP should NOT necessarily > be doing it with their board hat on, but you cannot exclude the individuals > themselves from the process. To do so would be to ensure that any person > who is active in policy can never run for board, else they risk being > alienated from the policy process. This would damage not only the PdP but > also the potential to get quality board members who have a good > understanding of policy and the process by which it is formulated. > > Hence, I will not support any policy that states that. > > *Andrew Alston* > Group Head of IP Strategy > > Sameer business Park, Block A, Mombasa Road. Nairobi, Kenya > > *T:* +254 205000000 - *M*: +254 733 2222 04 - *E:* > andrew.alston at liquidtelecom.com > > From: Karmann Olumomo > Date: Friday, November 21, 2014 at 8:10 AM > To: "rpd at afrinic.net" > Subject: [rpd] Fwd: update on policy Afrinic service Guide Lines policy > proposal > > > > > HI > > After taking the community feed back, I'd like to update my proposal to > the following: > > 1) Summary of the Problem Being Addressed by this Policy Proposal Some > member are experiencing extreme long wait for their additional allocation > request to get passed, some members are experiencing none technical > information requested from Afrinic(customer data, marketing channel etc), > in order to improve overall service quality of Afrinic, here is the policy. > 2) Summary of How this Proposal Addresses the Problem To improve overall > service quality and transparency of Afrinic?s number resource services by > documenting roles and responsibilities of AFRINIC. 3) Proposal > > 1.Afrinic should make decision on subsequent allocation requests based on > Afrinic policy, and conclude a request no longer than the 20% of the > total period AFRNIC approves the resources for. (E.g. If Afrinic is issuing > resources to its member to meet its 12 months needs, the longest waiting > time for Afrinic allocation process should not be longer than 20%*12month, > to cope with 80% utilization requirement for additional allocation). If > Afrinic was not able to make decision on a certain request within this > period, for each additional month beyond this period, the requesting member > should receive percentage of the requested period of the total request > until such decision has been made, in order to protect member from smooth > running of its business. > > 2.Afrinic should publish standardized base information request for each > typical type of resource allocation. > > > 3.Afrinic should not store, request any marketing or business related > none-technical information from its member, for example, customer data, > marketing channel, and marketing budget. > > > 4.Afrinic allocations should be solely made based on current policy, no > other factor other than policy should infer with afrinic?s decision on > processing allocation requests. > > > 5.Afrinic board should never being involved in any form of resource > allocation process. > > > 6.For the interest of overall policy development process, other RIR staff > as well as it's governing body personnel(advisor or board member, for > example) should not be involve in Afrinic policy development process. > > > 7.Afrinic policy working group chair election should be conducted > independent from Afrinic board nomination committee, candidates should be > free of any requirement. > > > The main updated point is point 5: > > 5.Afrinic board should never being involved in any form of resource > allocation process. > > Thanks very much and please update the proposal accordingly. > > > > ------------------------------ > DISCLAIMER: This email contains proprietary information some or all of > which may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. If > an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this email, please > notify the author by replying to this email. If you are not the intended > recipient, you must not use, disclose, copy, print, or rely on this email. > We cannot accept liability for any statements made which are clearly the > sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of this company or one of its > agents. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 1D7357BF-29F7-4C26-9D6A-6EFCA78201B1[1].png Type: image/png Size: 13157 bytes Desc: not available URL: From ondouglas at gmail.com Fri Nov 21 09:13:16 2014 From: ondouglas at gmail.com (Douglas Onyango) Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 12:13:16 +0300 Subject: [rpd] Recruitment of AfriNIC CEO In-Reply-To: <201411201031.25534.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> References: <201411201031.25534.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> Message-ID: All, While internal knowledge of the community is key, I think it may confines our search team to only the community, which may or may not deliver the very best candidate. Couple this with admin & and logistical requirements needed to look for executive candidates in a short period of time and think involving an agency would be more efficient. My suggestion is to engage a competent agency which can take care of the logistics and initial vetting of candidates, they can then forward the cream to an internal team for a final round of interviews. This path gives us the best of both worlds with the shortest turn around time. Regards, On 20 Nov 2014 11:46, "Mark Tinka" wrote: > > On Thursday, November 20, 2014 09:44:57 AM Bill Woodcock > wrote: > > > Speaking from my own experience on the ARIN board when we > > had a similar transition to make, I'd say that > > "recruitment professionals" are an unmitigated disaster. > > They'll find you a set of generic and mediocre > > candidates, none particularly prepared for the task. > > After two false starts using "recruitment professionals" > > we gave up on them and hired someone we knew was capable > > of handling the job, and who wouldn't flake out. And > > that's worked out really well for us. > > I'd tend to agree, in this case. > > We know the community, and that's an advantage worth > exploiting. > > Mark. > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mainanoa at gmail.com Fri Nov 21 09:31:04 2014 From: mainanoa at gmail.com (Noah Maina) Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 12:31:04 +0300 Subject: [rpd] Recruitment of AfriNIC CEO In-Reply-To: References: <201411201031.25534.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> Message-ID: We are a population of 1.1 billion people. In general terms...We should certainly find it easier to identify a suitable candidate out of a pool of so many competent experienced professional executives within the African ICT space. Noah On 21 Nov 2014 12:23, "Douglas Onyango" wrote: > All, > While internal knowledge of the community is key, I think it may confines > our search team to only the community, which may or may not deliver the > very best candidate. > Couple this with admin & and logistical requirements needed to look for > executive candidates in a short period of time and think involving an > agency would be more efficient. > > My suggestion is to engage a competent agency which can take care of the > logistics and initial vetting of candidates, they can then forward the > cream to an internal team for a final round of interviews. > > This path gives us the best of both worlds with the shortest turn around > time. > > Regards, > On 20 Nov 2014 11:46, "Mark Tinka" wrote: > > > > On Thursday, November 20, 2014 09:44:57 AM Bill Woodcock > > wrote: > > > > > Speaking from my own experience on the ARIN board when we > > > had a similar transition to make, I?d say that > > > ?recruitment professionals? are an unmitigated disaster. > > > They?ll find you a set of generic and mediocre > > > candidates, none particularly prepared for the task. > > > After two false starts using ?recruitment professionals? > > > we gave up on them and hired someone we knew was capable > > > of handling the job, and who wouldn?t flake out. And > > > that?s worked out really well for us. > > > > I'd tend to agree, in this case. > > > > We know the community, and that's an advantage worth > > exploiting. > > > > Mark. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > rpd mailing list > > rpd at afrinic.net > > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From adam at varud.com Fri Nov 21 09:35:59 2014 From: adam at varud.com (Adam Nelson) Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 12:35:59 +0300 Subject: [rpd] Recruitment of AfriNIC CEO In-Reply-To: References: <201411201031.25534.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> Message-ID: Douglas, While I think it's ok to let a recruitment agency do some work, Afrinic can't just outsource the whole thing or there will be a very mediocre pool of candidates. I was thinking an ad in the Economist and industry sites/periodicals and an all hands on deck approach from the Afrinic secretariat/board/community. Choosing the next leader is probably the most important event for the future of Afrinic we'll see for some time. -Adam -- Kili - Cloud for Africa: kili.io Musings: twitter.com/varud More Musings: varud.com About Adam: www.linkedin.com/in/adamcnelson On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 12:13 PM, Douglas Onyango wrote: > All, > While internal knowledge of the community is key, I think it may confines > our search team to only the community, which may or may not deliver the > very best candidate. > Couple this with admin & and logistical requirements needed to look for > executive candidates in a short period of time and think involving an > agency would be more efficient. > > My suggestion is to engage a competent agency which can take care of the > logistics and initial vetting of candidates, they can then forward the > cream to an internal team for a final round of interviews. > > This path gives us the best of both worlds with the shortest turn around > time. > > Regards, > > On 20 Nov 2014 11:46, "Mark Tinka" wrote: > > > > On Thursday, November 20, 2014 09:44:57 AM Bill Woodcock > > wrote: > > > > > Speaking from my own experience on the ARIN board when we > > > had a similar transition to make, I?d say that > > > ?recruitment professionals? are an unmitigated disaster. > > > They?ll find you a set of generic and mediocre > > > candidates, none particularly prepared for the task. > > > After two false starts using ?recruitment professionals? > > > we gave up on them and hired someone we knew was capable > > > of handling the job, and who wouldn?t flake out. And > > > that?s worked out really well for us. > > > > I'd tend to agree, in this case. > > > > We know the community, and that's an advantage worth > > exploiting. > > > > Mark. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > rpd mailing list > > rpd at afrinic.net > > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > > > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sfolayan at gmail.com Fri Nov 21 09:38:13 2014 From: sfolayan at gmail.com (Sunday Folayan) Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 10:38:13 +0100 Subject: [rpd] Fwd: update on policy Afrinic service Guide Lines policy proposal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <546F0805.4020704@gmail.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi Karmann, Kindly consider as you make your proposal, articles 11.4 and 11.5 of the AfriNIC by-laws. 11.4 Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 11.2 the Board may adopt such policies regarding the management of internet number resources where it considers that the same is necessary and urgent, having regard to the proper and responsible usage of these resources. 11.5 Any policy adopted by the Board under the provisions of Article 11.4 shall be submitted to the community for endorsement at the next public policy meeting. Can your proposal oust the provisions of the by-laws? Shouldn't you be proposing the change in the by-laws? Is there a confusion here, as to roles and responsibilities? Just thinking aloud. Sunday. On 21/11/2014 07:43, Karmann Olumomo wrote: > Hi Andrew: > > I am saying "resource allocation process", not policy development > process. > > resource allocation process is an internal process of Afrinic > hostmaster team. > > On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 2:23 PM, Andrew Alston < > Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com> wrote: > >> Hi Karmann, >> >> (Speaking personally and not with my board hat on). >> >> I strongly object to the clause that says board members can have >> no involvement in the policy development process. >> >> Keep in mind, every board member is elected from within the >> community. That means that many board members also have their >> own job functions which relate to IP addressing within their >> respective organisations. I agree that a board member who is >> also involved in the PdP should NOT necessarily be doing it with >> their board hat on, but you cannot exclude the individuals >> themselves from the process. To do so would be to ensure that >> any person who is active in policy can never run for board, else >> they risk being alienated from the policy process. This would >> damage not only the PdP but also the potential to get quality >> board members who have a good understanding of policy and the >> process by which it is formulated. >> >> Hence, I will not support any policy that states that. >> >> *Andrew Alston* Group Head of IP Strategy >> >> Sameer business Park, Block A, Mombasa Road. Nairobi, Kenya >> >> *T:* +254 205000000 - *M*: +254 733 2222 04 - *E:* >> andrew.alston at liquidtelecom.com >> >> From: Karmann Olumomo Date: Friday, >> November 21, 2014 at 8:10 AM To: "rpd at afrinic.net" >> Subject: [rpd] Fwd: update on policy Afrinic >> service Guide Lines policy proposal >> >> >> >> >> HI >> >> After taking the community feed back, I'd like to update my >> proposal to the following: >> >> 1) Summary of the Problem Being Addressed by this Policy >> Proposal Some member are experiencing extreme long wait for >> their additional allocation request to get passed, some members >> are experiencing none technical information requested from >> Afrinic(customer data, marketing channel etc), in order to >> improve overall service quality of Afrinic, here is the policy. >> 2) Summary of How this Proposal Addresses the Problem To improve >> overall service quality and transparency of Afrinic?s number >> resource services by documenting roles and responsibilities of >> AFRINIC. 3) Proposal >> >> 1.Afrinic should make decision on subsequent allocation requests >> based on Afrinic policy, and conclude a request no longer than >> the 20% of the total period AFRNIC approves the resources for. >> (E.g. If Afrinic is issuing resources to its member to meet its >> 12 months needs, the longest waiting time for Afrinic allocation >> process should not be longer than 20%*12month, to cope with 80% >> utilization requirement for additional allocation). If Afrinic >> was not able to make decision on a certain request within this >> period, for each additional month beyond this period, the >> requesting member should receive percentage of the requested >> period of the total request until such decision has been made, >> in order to protect member from smooth running of its business. >> >> 2.Afrinic should publish standardized base information request >> for each typical type of resource allocation. >> >> >> 3.Afrinic should not store, request any marketing or business >> related none-technical information from its member, for example, >> customer data, marketing channel, and marketing budget. >> >> >> 4.Afrinic allocations should be solely made based on current >> policy, no other factor other than policy should infer with >> afrinic?s decision on processing allocation requests. >> >> >> 5.Afrinic board should never being involved in any form of >> resource allocation process. >> >> >> 6.For the interest of overall policy development process, other >> RIR staff as well as it's governing body personnel(advisor or >> board member, for example) should not be involve in Afrinic >> policy development process. >> >> >> 7.Afrinic policy working group chair election should be conducted >> independent from Afrinic board nomination committee, candidates >> should be free of any requirement. >> >> >> The main updated point is point 5: >> >> 5.Afrinic board should never being involved in any form of >> resource allocation process. >> >> Thanks very much and please update the proposal accordingly. >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ DISCLAIMER: This email contains >> proprietary information some or all of which may be legally >> privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. If an >> addressing or transmission error has misdirected this email, >> please notify the author by replying to this email. If you are >> not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose, copy, >> print, or rely on this email. We cannot accept liability for any >> statements made which are clearly the sender's own and not >> expressly made on behalf of this company or one of its agents. >> >> > > > > _______________________________________________ rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > - -- - ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sunday Adekunle Folayan blog: http://www.sundayfolayan.name.ng email: sfolayan at skannet.com.ng, sfolayan at gmail.com phone: +234-816-866-7523, +234-802-291-2202 skype: sfolayan fcbk: www.facebook.com/sfolayan tweet: sfolayan linkedin: sfolayan : http://free.lanci.ng - Anyone, Anyjob, Anywhere, Anytime - ------------------------------------------------------------------ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUbwgFAAoJEH6UvSz6fA255VwIAJzVWuTZc39NROanghTIV0jq r3wkxhoxLazj58R3Bo+AQDbvA0Szer2DxL8dbVaBDAOvhLT5i1hb9Ar1E7eEDM14 4OdmAEBtMmcbwtOZqVN+ULJcUvs5ZG8b80ZoPRDtYSJOGAxNeUPBNJ1QvkDXIdk3 rIMYHwB2Jf7u11prFAIxEpmAGE9zgduoXWiL7p/ukOPPOwAYBsHqZGk5Ru4ogWSk Se8/iE2y+T7SCBf1KsNQfYkZOuIds6AcHuH4441jL5ZarjdAY2uyMlJ+EmrvdLhH IoLH+L3IuoZeq7fxs26eXuYpmnqOlkv9XMy4xz/MIYRwNmbdW2NorDL5zTf8S2Y= =kRQE -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From lan.ye at chinaccsi.com Fri Nov 21 10:09:31 2014 From: lan.ye at chinaccsi.com (lan.ye at chinaccsi.com) Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 18:09:31 +0800 Subject: [rpd] hello LIST Message-ID: <201411211809229422819@chinaccsi.com> Hi? Am I enrolled correctly? Best Regards? Lan Ye China Communications Services (HongKong) International Limited China Communications Services Group Tel: (852) 36990231 Fax: (852) 28027666 Email:lan.ye at chinaccsi.com P Before printing, think about your commitment to the Environment! --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the addressee, do not disclose, copy, circulate or in any other way use or rely on the information contained in this email or any attachments. If received in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete this email and any attachments from your system. Emails cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error free as the message and any attachments could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, delayed, incomplete or amended. China Communications Services (Hong Kong) International Limited and its subsidiaries do not accept liability for damage caused by this email or any attachments. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 5514_clip_image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 5514 bytes Desc: not available URL: From ondouglas at gmail.com Fri Nov 21 11:12:25 2014 From: ondouglas at gmail.com (Douglas Onyango) Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 14:12:25 +0300 Subject: [rpd] Recruitment of AfriNIC CEO In-Reply-To: References: <201411201031.25534.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> Message-ID: Hi Adam, On 21 Nov 2014 12:36, "Adam Nelson" wrote: > Douglas, > While I think it's ok to let a recruitment agency do some work, Afrinic can't just outsource the whole thing or there will be a very mediocre pool of candidates. > I didn't suggest a completely outsourced process. I said that a hybrid of in-house and outsourced should be used to leverage the strength of both sides. Regards, > I was thinking an ad in the Economist and industry sites/periodicals and an all hands on deck approach from the Afrinic secretariat/board/community. Choosing the next leader is probably the most important event for the future of Afrinic we'll see for some time. > > -Adam > > -- > Kili - Cloud for Africa: kili.io > Musings: twitter.com/varud > More Musings: varud.com > About Adam: www.linkedin.com/in/adamcnelson > > On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 12:13 PM, Douglas Onyango wrote: >> >> All, >> While internal knowledge of the community is key, I think it may confines our search team to only the community, which may or may not deliver the very best candidate. >> Couple this with admin & and logistical requirements needed to look for executive candidates in a short period of time and think involving an agency would be more efficient. >> >> My suggestion is to engage a competent agency which can take care of the logistics and initial vetting of candidates, they can then forward the cream to an internal team for a final round of interviews. >> >> This path gives us the best of both worlds with the shortest turn around time. >> >> Regards, >> >> >> On 20 Nov 2014 11:46, "Mark Tinka" wrote: >> > >> > On Thursday, November 20, 2014 09:44:57 AM Bill Woodcock >> > wrote: >> > >> > > Speaking from my own experience on the ARIN board when we >> > > had a similar transition to make, I'd say that >> > > "recruitment professionals" are an unmitigated disaster. >> > > They'll find you a set of generic and mediocre >> > > candidates, none particularly prepared for the task. >> > > After two false starts using "recruitment professionals" >> > > we gave up on them and hired someone we knew was capable >> > > of handling the job, and who wouldn't flake out. And >> > > that's worked out really well for us. >> > >> > I'd tend to agree, in this case. >> > >> > We know the community, and that's an advantage worth >> > exploiting. >> > >> > Mark. >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > rpd mailing list >> > rpd at afrinic.net >> > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >> > >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> rpd mailing list >> rpd at afrinic.net >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com Fri Nov 21 14:16:01 2014 From: Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com (Andrew Alston) Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 14:16:01 +0000 Subject: [rpd] Fwd: update on policy Afrinic service Guide Lines policy proposal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Karmann, (Again speaking from a personal perspective and not as a member of the board) I?d argue that if you wanted to bar the board from any particular thing, which you would be free to do, such restrictions on the actions of the board are not in the ambit of the PdP. The mandate of the board (or the revocation of the mandate of the board) needs to be done through a change in the bylaws. The procedures to change the bylaws are clearly spelled out in the bylaws themselves as well. Write a resolution, table it for discussion/voting at an AGMM within the specified time frames, and then get it passed by a 75 percent majority of voting members. Keep in mind, board authority and the authority of various others (including the CoE for example), as well as their mandates and their constituency is specifically laid out in the bylaws, and it is only through a change in the bylaws that this can be done. I do not think the PdP (or even the board themselves for that matter) can change those bylaws outside of that process without contravening the current bylaws and the various legal frameworks in place. I refer you to section 7.6.vi of the bylaws which reads: (vi) consider and approve by Special Resolution, if appropriate, proposals for the revocation, amendment or replacement of this Constitution; Where Special resolution is defined as A resolution approved by a majority of 75 per cent of the votes of those members entitled to vote and voting on the question. With regards to who can vote in terms of such a modification, see section 12.11. Section 12.14 spells out how to go about tabling a special resolution. Thanks Andrew Alston Group Head of IP Strategy [cid:6E87CB5D-EC2C-401E-BE28-041A1C2E9956] Sameer business Park, Block A, Mombasa Road. Nairobi, Kenya T: +254 205000000 - M: +254 733 2222 04 - E: andrew.alston at liquidtelecom.com From: Karmann Olumomo > Date: Friday, November 21, 2014 at 10:43 AM To: Andrew Alston > Cc: "rpd at afrinic.net" > Subject: Re: [rpd] Fwd: update on policy Afrinic service Guide Lines policy proposal Hi Andrew: I am saying "resource allocation process", not policy development process. resource allocation process is an internal process of Afrinic hostmaster team. On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 2:23 PM, Andrew Alston > wrote: Hi Karmann, (Speaking personally and not with my board hat on). I strongly object to the clause that says board members can have no involvement in the policy development process. Keep in mind, every board member is elected from within the community. That means that many board members also have their own job functions which relate to IP addressing within their respective organisations. I agree that a board member who is also involved in the PdP should NOT necessarily be doing it with their board hat on, but you cannot exclude the individuals themselves from the process. To do so would be to ensure that any person who is active in policy can never run for board, else they risk being alienated from the policy process. This would damage not only the PdP but also the potential to get quality board members who have a good understanding of policy and the process by which it is formulated. Hence, I will not support any policy that states that. Andrew Alston Group Head of IP Strategy [cid:5EA326DF-FC4F-40D6-A62C-546B18EDA6A5] Sameer business Park, Block A, Mombasa Road. Nairobi, Kenya T: +254 205000000 - M: +254 733 2222 04 - E: andrew.alston at liquidtelecom.com From: Karmann Olumomo > Date: Friday, November 21, 2014 at 8:10 AM To: "rpd at afrinic.net" > Subject: [rpd] Fwd: update on policy Afrinic service Guide Lines policy proposal HI After taking the community feed back, I'd like to update my proposal to the following: 1) Summary of the Problem Being Addressed by this Policy Proposal Some member are experiencing extreme long wait for their additional allocation request to get passed, some members are experiencing none technical information requested from Afrinic(customer data, marketing channel etc), in order to improve overall service quality of Afrinic, here is the policy. 2) Summary of How this Proposal Addresses the Problem To improve overall service quality and transparency of Afrinic?s number resource services by documenting roles and responsibilities of AFRINIC. 3) Proposal 1.Afrinic should make decision on subsequent allocation requests based on Afrinic policy, and conclude a request no longer than the 20% of the total period AFRNIC approves the resources for. (E.g. If Afrinic is issuing resources to its member to meet its 12 months needs, the longest waiting time for Afrinic allocation process should not be longer than 20%*12month, to cope with 80% utilization requirement for additional allocation). If Afrinic was not able to make decision on a certain request within this period, for each additional month beyond this period, the requesting member should receive percentage of the requested period of the total request until such decision has been made, in order to protect member from smooth running of its business. 2.Afrinic should publish standardized base information request for each typical type of resource allocation. 3.Afrinic should not store, request any marketing or business related none-technical information from its member, for example, customer data, marketing channel, and marketing budget. 4.Afrinic allocations should be solely made based on current policy, no other factor other than policy should infer with afrinic?s decision on processing allocation requests. 5.Afrinic board should never being involved in any form of resource allocation process. 6.For the interest of overall policy development process, other RIR staff as well as it's governing body personnel(advisor or board member, for example) should not be involve in Afrinic policy development process. 7.Afrinic policy working group chair election should be conducted independent from Afrinic board nomination committee, candidates should be free of any requirement. The main updated point is point 5: 5.Afrinic board should never being involved in any form of resource allocation process. Thanks very much and please update the proposal accordingly. ________________________________ DISCLAIMER: This email contains proprietary information some or all of which may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this email, please notify the author by replying to this email. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose, copy, print, or rely on this email. We cannot accept liability for any statements made which are clearly the sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of this company or one of its agents. ________________________________ DISCLAIMER: This email contains proprietary information some or all of which may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this email, please notify the author by replying to this email. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose, copy, print, or rely on this email. We cannot accept liability for any statements made which are clearly the sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of this company or one of its agents. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 1D7357BF-29F7-4C26-9D6A-6EFCA78201B1.png Type: image/png Size: 13157 bytes Desc: 1D7357BF-29F7-4C26-9D6A-6EFCA78201B1.png URL: From badru.ntege at nftconsult.com Fri Nov 21 14:28:03 2014 From: badru.ntege at nftconsult.com (Badru Ntege) Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 14:28:03 +0000 Subject: [rpd] Recruitment of AfriNIC CEO Message-ID: Members Just a short note to acknowledge your suggestions and input on this issue. Board is listening and we will take on and consider the views shared to help us arrive at a solution that serves our organization and the global ecosystem. As usual allow me to thank you all for the care and consideration. We all accept this is a critical milestone for Afrinic and I want to assure the community that the board and committees put in place will work diligently to find our next CEO to drive the organization and continue the growth and service. Looking forward to more dialogue with those who will be joining us in Mauritius for Afrinic21 next week. For those not joining us you can still participate through remote http://meeting.afrinic.net/afrinic-21/en/rp Regards Badru Ntege Chair Afrinic From kofi.ansa at gmail.com Fri Nov 21 15:22:46 2014 From: kofi.ansa at gmail.com (Kofi ANSA AKUFO) Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 19:22:46 +0400 Subject: [rpd] Fwd: update on policy Afrinic service Guide Lines policy proposal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: so why does the name "karmann olumomo" sound like a cover identity ... could it be a community member who is not bold to come out to express his opinions with his real identity? why would such a person want to keep the board away from resource allocation discussions? one or two people come into mind though ... IMHO having the board to be active in such discussions is better than having "Afrinic Management" which currently is made up of one or two people decide to release huge resources cheers On 21 November 2014 18:16, Andrew Alston wrote: > Hi Karmann, > > (Again speaking from a personal perspective and not as a member of the > board) > > I?d argue that if you wanted to bar the board from any particular thing, > which you would be free to do, such restrictions on the actions of the > board are not in the ambit of the PdP. The mandate of the board (or the > revocation of the mandate of the board) needs to be done through a change > in the bylaws. > > The procedures to change the bylaws are clearly spelled out in the > bylaws themselves as well. Write a resolution, table it for > discussion/voting at an AGMM within the specified time frames, and then get > it passed by a 75 percent majority of voting members. > > Keep in mind, board authority and the authority of various others > (including the CoE for example), as well as their mandates and their > constituency is specifically laid out in the bylaws, and it is only through > a change in the bylaws that this can be done. I do not think the PdP (or > even the board themselves for that matter) can change those bylaws outside > of that process without contravening the current bylaws and the various > legal frameworks in place. > > I refer you to section 7.6.vi of the bylaws which reads: > (vi) consider and approve by Special Resolution, if appropriate, proposals > for the revocation, amendment or replacement of this Constitution; > > Where Special resolution is defined as > > A resolution approved by a majority of 75 per cent of the votes of those > members entitled to vote and voting on the question. > > With regards to who can vote in terms of such a modification, see > section 12.11. > > Section 12.14 spells out how to go about tabling a special resolution. > > Thanks > > *Andrew Alston* > Group Head of IP Strategy > > Sameer business Park, Block A, Mombasa Road. Nairobi, Kenya > > *T:* +254 205000000 - *M*: +254 733 2222 04 - *E:* > andrew.alston at liquidtelecom.com > > From: Karmann Olumomo > Date: Friday, November 21, 2014 at 10:43 AM > To: Andrew Alston > Cc: "rpd at afrinic.net" > Subject: Re: [rpd] Fwd: update on policy Afrinic service Guide Lines > policy proposal > > Hi Andrew: > > I am saying "resource allocation process", not policy development process. > > resource allocation process is an internal process of Afrinic hostmaster > team. > > On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 2:23 PM, Andrew Alston < > Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com> wrote: > >> Hi Karmann, >> >> (Speaking personally and not with my board hat on). >> >> I strongly object to the clause that says board members can have no >> involvement in the policy development process. >> >> Keep in mind, every board member is elected from within the community. >> That means that many board members also have their own job functions which >> relate to IP addressing within their respective organisations. I agree >> that a board member who is also involved in the PdP should NOT necessarily >> be doing it with their board hat on, but you cannot exclude the individuals >> themselves from the process. To do so would be to ensure that any person >> who is active in policy can never run for board, else they risk being >> alienated from the policy process. This would damage not only the PdP but >> also the potential to get quality board members who have a good >> understanding of policy and the process by which it is formulated. >> >> Hence, I will not support any policy that states that. >> >> *Andrew Alston* >> Group Head of IP Strategy >> >> Sameer business Park, Block A, Mombasa Road. Nairobi, Kenya >> >> *T:* +254 205000000 - *M*: +254 733 2222 04 - *E:* >> andrew.alston at liquidtelecom.com >> >> From: Karmann Olumomo >> Date: Friday, November 21, 2014 at 8:10 AM >> To: "rpd at afrinic.net" >> Subject: [rpd] Fwd: update on policy Afrinic service Guide Lines policy >> proposal >> >> >> >> >> HI >> >> After taking the community feed back, I'd like to update my proposal to >> the following: >> >> 1) Summary of the Problem Being Addressed by this Policy Proposal Some >> member are experiencing extreme long wait for their additional allocation >> request to get passed, some members are experiencing none technical >> information requested from Afrinic(customer data, marketing channel etc), >> in order to improve overall service quality of Afrinic, here is the policy. >> 2) Summary of How this Proposal Addresses the Problem To improve overall >> service quality and transparency of Afrinic?s number resource services by >> documenting roles and responsibilities of AFRINIC. 3) Proposal >> >> 1.Afrinic should make decision on subsequent allocation requests based on >> Afrinic policy, and conclude a request no longer than the 20% of the >> total period AFRNIC approves the resources for. (E.g. If Afrinic is issuing >> resources to its member to meet its 12 months needs, the longest waiting >> time for Afrinic allocation process should not be longer than 20%*12month, >> to cope with 80% utilization requirement for additional allocation). If >> Afrinic was not able to make decision on a certain request within this >> period, for each additional month beyond this period, the requesting member >> should receive percentage of the requested period of the total request >> until such decision has been made, in order to protect member from smooth >> running of its business. >> >> 2.Afrinic should publish standardized base information request for >> each typical type of resource allocation. >> >> >> 3.Afrinic should not store, request any marketing or business related >> none-technical information from its member, for example, customer data, >> marketing channel, and marketing budget. >> >> >> 4.Afrinic allocations should be solely made based on current policy, no >> other factor other than policy should infer with afrinic?s decision on >> processing allocation requests. >> >> >> 5.Afrinic board should never being involved in any form of resource >> allocation process. >> >> >> 6.For the interest of overall policy development process, other RIR staff >> as well as it's governing body personnel(advisor or board member, for >> example) should not be involve in Afrinic policy development process. >> >> >> 7.Afrinic policy working group chair election should be conducted >> independent from Afrinic board nomination committee, candidates should be >> free of any requirement. >> >> >> The main updated point is point 5: >> >> 5.Afrinic board should never being involved in any form of resource >> allocation process. >> >> Thanks very much and please update the proposal accordingly. >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> DISCLAIMER: This email contains proprietary information some or all of >> which may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. If >> an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this email, please >> notify the author by replying to this email. If you are not the intended >> recipient, you must not use, disclose, copy, print, or rely on this email. >> We cannot accept liability for any statements made which are clearly the >> sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of this company or one of its >> agents. >> >> > > ------------------------------ > DISCLAIMER: This email contains proprietary information some or all of > which may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. If > an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this email, please > notify the author by replying to this email. If you are not the intended > recipient, you must not use, disclose, copy, print, or rely on this email. > We cannot accept liability for any statements made which are clearly the > sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of this company or one of its > agents. > > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 1D7357BF-29F7-4C26-9D6A-6EFCA78201B1.png Type: image/png Size: 13157 bytes Desc: not available URL: From woody at pch.net Fri Nov 21 23:34:06 2014 From: woody at pch.net (Bill Woodcock) Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 15:34:06 -0800 Subject: [rpd] Recruitment of AfriNIC CEO In-Reply-To: References: <201411201031.25534.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> Message-ID: <64806CF3-CA9B-4228-AC39-B7275038921A@pch.net> On Nov 21, 2014, at 1:13 AM, Douglas Onyango wrote: > While internal knowledge of the community is key, I think it may confines our search team to only the community, which may or may not deliver the very best candidate. To my observation, an executive who?s able to represent an RIR autonomously, without carting around a planeload of technical advisors, is a great economy and efficiency. The down-side is that, as you say, that means recruiting from ?within the community? which limits the pool, and may mean that you don?t get someone who _also_ has the very best management skills. But RIRs are medium-to-small organizations, so a top-flight manager is probably a lot less important than someone who can address policy issues with authority, and speak for the RIR in Internet governance meetings. To some degree, ARIN has addressed the issue by bifurcating the senior managerial role: John Curran, our CEO, is the public face of the organization, and consequently has to be on the road at meetings a lot. Nate Davis, our COO, provides much of the day-to-day management of the staff and business operations. So that?s one approach, and it works well for ARIN. It also costs two salaries. So, it seems like the ideal CEO candidate for AfriNIC would be a single person who embodies experience with the community and organization (perhaps a past board member, or active community member?), managerial experience, and the financial experience needed to guide AfriNIC through its current difficulties. Someone who wears a suit well and can easily project a reassuring demeanor to the many governments and regulators in the African region, would be an added benefit. -Bill -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 841 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From jwalu at yahoo.com Sat Nov 22 04:24:23 2014 From: jwalu at yahoo.com (Walubengo J) Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 20:24:23 -0800 Subject: [rpd] Recruitment of AfriNIC CEO In-Reply-To: <64806CF3-CA9B-4228-AC39-B7275038921A@pch.net> Message-ID: <1416630263.81654.YahooMailBasic@web162802.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> @Bill, You might be the recruitment agency we are talking about :-) walu. -------------------------------------------- On Sat, 11/22/14, Bill Woodcock wrote: Subject: Re: [rpd] Recruitment of AfriNIC CEO To: "Douglas Onyango" Cc: "AfriNIC Discuss" , "AfrICANN list" , "rpd >> AfriNIC Resource Policy" Date: Saturday, November 22, 2014, 2:34 AM On Nov 21, 2014, at 1:13 AM, Douglas Onyango wrote: > While internal knowledge of the community is key, I think it may confines our search team to only the community, which may or may not deliver the very best candidate. To my observation, an executive who?s able to represent an RIR autonomously, without carting around a planeload of technical advisors, is a great economy and efficiency. The down-side is that, as you say, that means recruiting from ?within the community? which limits the pool, and may mean that you don?t get someone who _also_ has the very best management skills. But RIRs are medium-to-small organizations, so a top-flight manager is probably a lot less important than someone who can address policy issues with authority, and speak for the RIR in Internet governance meetings.? To some degree, ARIN has addressed the issue by bifurcating the senior managerial role: John Curran, our CEO, is the public face of the organization, and consequently has to be on the road at meetings a lot.? Nate Davis, our COO, provides much of the day-to-day management of the staff and business operations.? So that?s one approach, and it works well for ARIN. It also costs two salaries.? So, it seems like the ideal CEO candidate for AfriNIC would be a single person who embodies experience with the community and organization (perhaps a past board member, or active community member?), managerial experience, and the financial experience needed to guide AfriNIC through its current difficulties.? Someone who wears a suit well and can easily project a reassuring demeanor to the many governments and regulators in the African region, would be an added benefit. ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? -Bill -----Inline Attachment Follows----- _______________________________________________ rpd mailing list rpd at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd From woody at pch.net Sat Nov 22 19:35:31 2014 From: woody at pch.net (Bill Woodcock) Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2014 11:35:31 -0800 Subject: [rpd] Recruitment of AfriNIC CEO In-Reply-To: <1416630263.81654.YahooMailBasic@web162802.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> References: <1416630263.81654.YahooMailBasic@web162802.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1A047D50-D245-458D-A903-06A5175BCE60@pch.net> On Nov 21, 2014, at 8:24 PM, Walubengo J wrote: > @Bill, You might be the recruitment agency we are talking about :-) We ALL are! I?ve been on a lot of nomination committees, and that?s the only way we?ll get a good result: if we all think hard about who could do a good job, and then try to convince them to apply for it! The following may not be entirely welcome, since I?m sure the board is already well along the path of thinking through how they want to handle it, but there seems to be a desire to discuss the process publicly, which seems healthy to me, so I?m going to just make a straw-man proposal regarding the recruitment and hiring process, aimed largely at transparency? I don?t expect it to be sufficient, just a starting-point for conversation, or perhaps input to the board?s process-definition process. :-) -Bill 0) Unless noted otherwise, each of these steps is publicly logged and timestamped, for the purpose of transparency. 1) Public call for nominees to the position. Nominators remain anonymous, their identity isn?t relevant to the process. A nomination must consist of the full name of the candidate and valid contact information for the candidate. 2) Public call for relevant questionnaire questions to be publicly put to candidates. Likewise, proposers remain anonymous. 3) All nominated candidate names are posted publicly, within 24 hours of receipt of each one, and candidates are notified as their nominations are received. 4) All received questionnaire questions are posted publicly, within 24 hours of receipt of each one. 5) AfriNIC members select the questionnaire questions they think most applicable, and the four that receive the most votes, plus two composed or chosen by the Board, constitute a candidate questionnaire, which is finalized and posted publicly. 6) The posted candidate list is divided into four categories: ?accepted nomination,? ?declined nomination,? ?no response,? and ?pending." All names start in the latter category. Any decline is permanent, nobody changes their mind after having declined. Anyone who fails to respond for two weeks, or by the final deadline, is moved from ?pending? to ?no response,? and that?s also permanent, they may not change their mind later. 7) Any nominee that wishes to move their name into the ?accepted nomination? category supplies: a) A statement to the effect that, if the job is offered to them, they agree to accept it and serve. b) A biographical statement containing, at a minimum, their CV and photo. c) A salary and compensation package range within which they?d accept the position. d) Answers to each of the selected questionnaire questions. e) A resignation from the AfriNIC board, effective immediately, if they?re currently serving, to avoid conflict of interest. f) A disclosure of any other conflicts of interest, and a commitment to resign from them if selected as CEO. 8) Within 24 hours of receipt by the staff of all of these pieces of information, the candidate?s name is moved from the ?pending? to the ?accepted nomination? category, and all of these pieces of information are published in a link from the candidate?s name. 9) Staff or an external agency attempt to verify factual information from the CV of each candidate, and will publicly verify or contest the truth of each item. Likewise, any assertions of fact within the answers to the questionnaire questions will be fact-checked publicly. 10) Public call for statements-of-support for any candidates in the ?accepted nomination? category. Only AfriNIC members (or resource recipients) may make statements-of-support. They aren?t published yet. 11) Wait for at least five candidates to move into the ?accepted nomination? category, and then start a three-week timer. When that timer expires, no more candidates will be moved into ?accepted nomination? and anyone remaining in ?pending? will be moved to ?no response." 12) All statements of support published, along with the name and organization of the person who submitted them. 13) Wait two weeks, then close the list of statements of support. 14) The five highest statement-of-support recipients are forwarded to the board for an interview and negotiation process. 15) The board selects a new CEO from among the five final candidates, with a compensation package which is public, and within the range originally proposed by the candidate. Alternatively, the board may reject all five candidates, and start the process over, after a public explanation of why the process failed or the candidates were collectively insufficient. -end- -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 841 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From ondouglas at gmail.com Sat Nov 22 23:11:52 2014 From: ondouglas at gmail.com (Douglas Onyango) Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2014 02:11:52 +0300 Subject: [members-discuss] Re: [rpd] Recruitment of AfriNIC CEO In-Reply-To: <1A047D50-D245-458D-A903-06A5175BCE60@pch.net> References: <1416630263.81654.YahooMailBasic@web162802.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <1A047D50-D245-458D-A903-06A5175BCE60@pch.net> Message-ID: Hi Bill, Thanks for your pragmatism on this very important task. My two comments are inline: On 22 November 2014 at 22:35, Bill Woodcock wrote: > 2) Public call for relevant questionnaire questions to be publicly put to candidates. My view is that a lot of precious time is going to be lost in this processes. I think the committee should be able to draft the JD as well as any questions which should be administered by an external agency. > 5) AfriNIC members select the questionnaire questions they think most applicable, and the four that receive the most votes, plus two composed or chosen by the Board, constitute a candidate questionnaire, which is finalized and posted publicly. The role of CEO is not something that everyone in the community may be familiar with. Against this backdrop I suggest the Search Committee elicits views from the community during the ongoing meeting and puts together the questions instead. This way we can include community views without any unnecessary delays. Regards, -- Douglas Onyango, PRINCE 2, ITILv3 UG: +256 776 716 138 | NG: +234 706 202 8375 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From apb at cequrux.com Sun Nov 23 04:27:58 2014 From: apb at cequrux.com (Alan Barrett) Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2014 08:27:58 +0400 Subject: [rpd] Afrinic policy =?utf-8?Q?proposa?= =?utf-8?B?bOKAlEFmcmluaWM=?= Service guild lines In-Reply-To: References: <1B27840E-C9B7-4514-9B7B-1E34AFECEB3E@virtualized.org> Message-ID: <20141123042758.GG9375@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> On Fri, 21 Nov 2014, Lu Heng wrote: >My allocation has been told that under board decision for past 2 month. I am not aware of anything in the IPv4 allocation policy, (AFPUB-2005-v4-001 ) that provides for review or decision making by the board. >And for whom ask about how and why we used up our allocation--simple >reply--none of your business. It is very much Afrinic's business to know how an applicant is using or plans to use their address space, so that they can check how much address space is appropriate, and whether policies have been followed. Policies specifically require applicants to provide documentation of their network plans. For example, see the following parts of AFPUB-2005-v4-001: 6.5 Assignment ... Assignments must only be made for specific purposes documented by specific organisations and are not to be sub-assigned to other parties. 7.2 Conflict of goals ... IRs evaluating requests for allocations and assignments must carefully analyze all relevant considerations and must seek to balance the needs of the applicant with the needs of the Internet community as a whole. ... 7.3 Documentation In order to properly evaluate requests, an RIR must carefully examine all relevant documentation relating to the networks in question. Such documentation may include network engineering plans, subnetting plans, descriptions of network topology, and descriptions of network routing plans. All documentation should conform to a consistent standard and any estimates and predictions that are documented must be realistic and justifiable. 8.1 Introduction ... Determination of IP address space allocation size is the responsibility of AFRINIC staff. 9.1 Documentation The information required by AFRINIC to justify an end-user's IP address requirements include addressing needs, network infrastructure and future plans. Such information is required when an LIR is requesting IP space for their end-users at the time of sending in the request. In order to ensure that previous sub-allocation are not duplicated, the current address space usage is also required. This information is essential in making the appropriate sub-allocation approvals, and the level of detail will depend on the size of the request and complexity of the network. ... If it's an end user assignment, then in addition to the general requirements in AFPUB-2005-v4-001, the requirements in AFPUB-2006-GEN-001 also apply. They include: 4 Additional Assignment ... Requestors must show exactly how previous address assignments have been utilized and must provide appropriate details to verify their one-year growth projection. ... --apb (Alan Barrett) From princessa.vella at gmail.com Sun Nov 23 04:44:22 2014 From: princessa.vella at gmail.com (Ijang) Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2014 08:44:22 +0400 Subject: [AfrICANN-discuss] Re: [members-discuss] Re: [rpd] Recruitment of AfriNIC CEO In-Reply-To: References: <1416630263.81654.YahooMailBasic@web162802.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <1A047D50-D245-458D-A903-06A5175BCE60@pch.net> Message-ID: On 23 November 2014 at 03:11, Douglas Onyango wrote: > > Thanks for your pragmatism on this very important task. > ++1 million. Bill proposal is the fondation of a very open and transparent process. > My two comments are inline: > On 22 November 2014 at 22:35, Bill Woodcock wrote: > > 2) Public call for relevant questionnaire questions to be publicly put > to candidates. > > My view is that a lot of precious time is going to be lost in this > processes. > I prefere we spent time in the process so that it give us a good result at the end. May we can limit the time for these step to x week? > I think the committee should be able to draft the JD as well as any > questions which should be administered by an external agency. > Good suggestion. Maybe committee can kickstart the brainstorm on questionaire by proposing a draft? > > > > 5) AfriNIC members select the questionnaire questions they think most > applicable, and the four that receive the most votes, plus two composed or > chosen by the Board, constitute a candidate questionnaire, which is > finalized and posted publicly. > > The role of CEO is not something that everyone in the community may be > familiar with. Against this backdrop I suggest the Search Committee > elicits views from the community during the ongoing meeting and puts > together the questions instead. This way we can include community views > without any unnecessary delays. > > Regards, > -- > Douglas Onyango, PRINCE 2, ITILv3 > UG: +256 776 716 138 | NG: +234 706 202 8375 > > _______________________________________________ > AfrICANN mailing list > AfrICANN at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/africann Borg le Chevalier ___________________________________ "Common sense is what tells us the world is flat" -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From h.lu at anytimechinese.com Sun Nov 23 07:10:44 2014 From: h.lu at anytimechinese.com (Lu Heng) Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2014 15:10:44 +0800 Subject: =?UTF-8?Q?Re=3A_=5Brpd=5D_Afrinic_policy_proposal=E2=80=94Afrinic_Service_?= =?UTF-8?Q?guild_lines?= In-Reply-To: <20141123042758.GG9375@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> References: <1B27840E-C9B7-4514-9B7B-1E34AFECEB3E@virtualized.org> <20141123042758.GG9375@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> Message-ID: Hi Alan: I have confirmed it with almost every RIR staff, none RIR board should be involved in member's allocation decision, however, following sentence is what we receive directly in our ticket with Afrinic: "In response to your follow-up call yesterday - your request is still pending board decision. We shall advise you of the same as soon as received." And for the second part, you simply misunderstand what I said, of course we will provide(and we did, our allocation request has been pending for 10 months now!) document for Afrinic to review. I am simply saying what we do and how we use our resource is not people in this mailing's business(as people ware asking here what we do in this mailing list). We have no obligation as well as no reason to answer such question in a public mailing list. On 11/23/14, Alan Barrett wrote: > On Fri, 21 Nov 2014, Lu Heng wrote: >>My allocation has been told that under board decision for past 2 month. > > I am not aware of anything in the IPv4 > allocation policy, (AFPUB-2005-v4-001 > ) > that provides for review or decision making by the board. > >>And for whom ask about how and why we used up our allocation--simple >>reply--none of your business. > > It is very much Afrinic's business to know how an applicant is > using or plans to use their address space, so that they can check > how much address space is appropriate, and whether policies have > been followed. Policies specifically require applicants to > provide documentation of their network plans. > > For example, see the following parts of AFPUB-2005-v4-001: > > 6.5 Assignment > ... Assignments must only be made for specific purposes documented > by specific organisations and are not to be sub-assigned to other > parties. > > 7.2 Conflict of goals > ... IRs evaluating requests for allocations and assignments must > carefully analyze all relevant considerations and must seek to > balance the needs of the applicant with the needs of the Internet > community as a whole. ... > > 7.3 Documentation > In order to properly evaluate requests, an RIR must carefully > examine all relevant documentation relating to the networks in > question. Such documentation may include network engineering > plans, subnetting plans, descriptions of network topology, and > descriptions of network routing plans. All documentation should > conform to a consistent standard and any estimates and predictions > that are documented must be realistic and justifiable. > > 8.1 Introduction > ... Determination of IP address space allocation size is the > responsibility of AFRINIC staff. > > 9.1 Documentation > The information required by AFRINIC to justify an end-user's > IP address requirements include addressing needs, network > infrastructure and future plans. Such information is required > when an LIR is requesting IP space for their end-users at the > time of sending in the request. In order to ensure that previous > sub-allocation are not duplicated, the current address space usage > is also required. This information is essential in making the > appropriate sub-allocation approvals, and the level of detail will > depend on the size of the request and complexity of the network. > ... > > If it's an end user assignment, then in > addition to the general requirements in > AFPUB-2005-v4-001, the requirements in AFPUB-2006-GEN-001 > > also apply. They include: > > 4 Additional Assignment > ... Requestors must show exactly how previous address assignments > have been utilized and must provide appropriate details to verify > their one-year growth projection. ... > > --apb (Alan Barrett) > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > -- -- Kind regards. Lu This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this message and including the text of the transmission received. From kofi.ansa at gmail.com Sun Nov 23 08:25:15 2014 From: kofi.ansa at gmail.com (Kofi ANSA AKUFO) Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2014 12:25:15 +0400 Subject: =?UTF-8?Q?Re=3A_=5Brpd=5D_Afrinic_policy_proposal=E2=80=94Afrinic_Service_?= =?UTF-8?Q?guild_lines?= In-Reply-To: References: <1B27840E-C9B7-4514-9B7B-1E34AFECEB3E@virtualized.org> <20141123042758.GG9375@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> Message-ID: Hi Lu On 23 November 2014 at 11:10, Lu Heng wrote: > Hi Alan: > > I have confirmed it with almost every RIR staff, none RIR board should > be involved in member's allocation decision, however, following > sentence is what we receive directly in our ticket with Afrinic: > > "In response to your follow-up call yesterday - your request is still > pending board decision. We > shall advise you of the same as soon as received." > > And for the second part, you simply misunderstand what I said, of > course we will provide(and we did, our allocation request has been > pending for 10 months now!) document for Afrinic to review. > > I am simply saying what we do and how we use our resource is not > people in this mailing's business(as people ware asking here what we > do in this mailing list). We have no obligation as well as no reason > to answer such question in a public mailing list. > > In deed what you do and how you use your resource is not this list's business. But any well rooted organisation involved in transparent business would have taken the opportunity to enlighten the community of its services and the impact of the delays so the community could enquire from the RIR why your additional allocation request is delaying. Your are not helping your organisation by adopting "what we do is none of your business" attitude. > On 11/23/14, Alan Barrett wrote: > > On Fri, 21 Nov 2014, Lu Heng wrote: > >>My allocation has been told that under board decision for past 2 month. > > > > I am not aware of anything in the IPv4 > > allocation policy, (AFPUB-2005-v4-001 > > ) > > that provides for review or decision making by the board. > > > >>And for whom ask about how and why we used up our allocation--simple > >>reply--none of your business. > > > > It is very much Afrinic's business to know how an applicant is > > using or plans to use their address space, so that they can check > > how much address space is appropriate, and whether policies have > > been followed. Policies specifically require applicants to > > provide documentation of their network plans. > > > > For example, see the following parts of AFPUB-2005-v4-001: > > > > 6.5 Assignment > > ... Assignments must only be made for specific purposes documented > > by specific organisations and are not to be sub-assigned to other > > parties. > > > > 7.2 Conflict of goals > > ... IRs evaluating requests for allocations and assignments must > > carefully analyze all relevant considerations and must seek to > > balance the needs of the applicant with the needs of the Internet > > community as a whole. ... > > > > 7.3 Documentation > > In order to properly evaluate requests, an RIR must carefully > > examine all relevant documentation relating to the networks in > > question. Such documentation may include network engineering > > plans, subnetting plans, descriptions of network topology, and > > descriptions of network routing plans. All documentation should > > conform to a consistent standard and any estimates and predictions > > that are documented must be realistic and justifiable. > > > > 8.1 Introduction > > ... Determination of IP address space allocation size is the > > responsibility of AFRINIC staff. > > > > 9.1 Documentation > > The information required by AFRINIC to justify an end-user's > > IP address requirements include addressing needs, network > > infrastructure and future plans. Such information is required > > when an LIR is requesting IP space for their end-users at the > > time of sending in the request. In order to ensure that previous > > sub-allocation are not duplicated, the current address space usage > > is also required. This information is essential in making the > > appropriate sub-allocation approvals, and the level of detail will > > depend on the size of the request and complexity of the network. > > ... > > > > If it's an end user assignment, then in > > addition to the general requirements in > > AFPUB-2005-v4-001, the requirements in AFPUB-2006-GEN-001 > > > > also apply. They include: > > > > 4 Additional Assignment > > ... Requestors must show exactly how previous address assignments > > have been utilized and must provide appropriate details to verify > > their one-year growth projection. ... > > > > --apb (Alan Barrett) > > _______________________________________________ > > rpd mailing list > > rpd at afrinic.net > > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > > > > -- > -- > Kind regards. > Lu > > This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. > It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or > otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use > of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the > intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received > this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and > e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this > message and including the text of the transmission received. > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jacksonmuthi at gmail.com Sun Nov 23 08:36:14 2014 From: jacksonmuthi at gmail.com (Jackson Muthili) Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2014 12:36:14 +0400 Subject: =?UTF-8?Q?Re=3A_=5Brpd=5D_Afrinic_policy_proposal=E2=80=94Afrinic_Service_?= =?UTF-8?Q?guild_lines?= In-Reply-To: References: <1B27840E-C9B7-4514-9B7B-1E34AFECEB3E@virtualized.org> <20141123042758.GG9375@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> Message-ID: Why is it you have big issue to disclosing your activities? Why they are so secret yet you ask two full /12?? What are you hiding? Legitimate member in community are concerned because you seem to be siphoning Africa resources into China. No smoke with no fire. You already demonstrated your ability to lie in afrinic election at djibouti. This reason enough to believe you Lie to afrinic about your activity to grab two /12. Afrinic is right to be cautious on you. Yours is special case and board is right also to specially be advise of you. On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Lu Heng wrote: > Hi Alan: > > I have confirmed it with almost every RIR staff, none RIR board should > be involved in member's allocation decision, however, following > sentence is what we receive directly in our ticket with Afrinic: > > "In response to your follow-up call yesterday - your request is still > pending board decision. We > shall advise you of the same as soon as received." > > And for the second part, you simply misunderstand what I said, of > course we will provide(and we did, our allocation request has been > pending for 10 months now!) document for Afrinic to review. > > I am simply saying what we do and how we use our resource is not > people in this mailing's business(as people ware asking here what we > do in this mailing list). We have no obligation as well as no reason > to answer such question in a public mailing list. > > On 11/23/14, Alan Barrett wrote: >> On Fri, 21 Nov 2014, Lu Heng wrote: >>>My allocation has been told that under board decision for past 2 month. >> >> I am not aware of anything in the IPv4 >> allocation policy, (AFPUB-2005-v4-001 >> ) >> that provides for review or decision making by the board. >> >>>And for whom ask about how and why we used up our allocation--simple >>>reply--none of your business. >> >> It is very much Afrinic's business to know how an applicant is >> using or plans to use their address space, so that they can check >> how much address space is appropriate, and whether policies have >> been followed. Policies specifically require applicants to >> provide documentation of their network plans. >> >> For example, see the following parts of AFPUB-2005-v4-001: >> >> 6.5 Assignment >> ... Assignments must only be made for specific purposes documented >> by specific organisations and are not to be sub-assigned to other >> parties. >> >> 7.2 Conflict of goals >> ... IRs evaluating requests for allocations and assignments must >> carefully analyze all relevant considerations and must seek to >> balance the needs of the applicant with the needs of the Internet >> community as a whole. ... >> >> 7.3 Documentation >> In order to properly evaluate requests, an RIR must carefully >> examine all relevant documentation relating to the networks in >> question. Such documentation may include network engineering >> plans, subnetting plans, descriptions of network topology, and >> descriptions of network routing plans. All documentation should >> conform to a consistent standard and any estimates and predictions >> that are documented must be realistic and justifiable. >> >> 8.1 Introduction >> ... Determination of IP address space allocation size is the >> responsibility of AFRINIC staff. >> >> 9.1 Documentation >> The information required by AFRINIC to justify an end-user's >> IP address requirements include addressing needs, network >> infrastructure and future plans. Such information is required >> when an LIR is requesting IP space for their end-users at the >> time of sending in the request. In order to ensure that previous >> sub-allocation are not duplicated, the current address space usage >> is also required. This information is essential in making the >> appropriate sub-allocation approvals, and the level of detail will >> depend on the size of the request and complexity of the network. >> ... >> >> If it's an end user assignment, then in >> addition to the general requirements in >> AFPUB-2005-v4-001, the requirements in AFPUB-2006-GEN-001 >> >> also apply. They include: >> >> 4 Additional Assignment >> ... Requestors must show exactly how previous address assignments >> have been utilized and must provide appropriate details to verify >> their one-year growth projection. ... >> >> --apb (Alan Barrett) >> _______________________________________________ >> rpd mailing list >> rpd at afrinic.net >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >> > > > -- > -- > Kind regards. > Lu > > This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. > It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or > otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use > of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the > intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received > this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and > e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this > message and including the text of the transmission received. > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd From h.lu at anytimechinese.com Sun Nov 23 11:58:38 2014 From: h.lu at anytimechinese.com (Lu) Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2014 15:58:38 +0400 Subject: =?utf-8?Q?Re:_[rpd]_Afrinic_policy_proposal=E2=80=94Afrinic_Serv?= =?utf-8?Q?ice_guild_lines?= In-Reply-To: References: <1B27840E-C9B7-4514-9B7B-1E34AFECEB3E@virtualized.org> <20141123042758.GG9375@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> Message-ID: Both of you (Jackson and kofi) have no support ground and have no understanding of basic principal of the policy, so for two of you: none of your business! Unless your guys able to passing a policy force such disclosure, I guess you will never know the answer in a legitimate manner. So just stoping asking other people's business in a public mailing list. > On 2014?11?23?, at ??12:36, Jackson Muthili wrote: > > Why is it you have big issue to disclosing your activities? Why they > are so secret yet you ask two full /12?? > > What are you hiding? > > Legitimate member in community are concerned because you seem to be > siphoning Africa resources into China. No smoke with no fire. > > You already demonstrated your ability to lie in afrinic election at > djibouti. This reason enough to believe you Lie to afrinic about your > activity to grab two /12. Afrinic is right to be cautious on you. > Yours is special case and board is right also to specially be advise > of you. > >> On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Lu Heng wrote: >> Hi Alan: >> >> I have confirmed it with almost every RIR staff, none RIR board should >> be involved in member's allocation decision, however, following >> sentence is what we receive directly in our ticket with Afrinic: >> >> "In response to your follow-up call yesterday - your request is still >> pending board decision. We >> shall advise you of the same as soon as received." >> >> And for the second part, you simply misunderstand what I said, of >> course we will provide(and we did, our allocation request has been >> pending for 10 months now!) document for Afrinic to review. >> >> I am simply saying what we do and how we use our resource is not >> people in this mailing's business(as people ware asking here what we >> do in this mailing list). We have no obligation as well as no reason >> to answer such question in a public mailing list. >> >>> On 11/23/14, Alan Barrett wrote: >>>> On Fri, 21 Nov 2014, Lu Heng wrote: >>>> My allocation has been told that under board decision for past 2 month. >>> >>> I am not aware of anything in the IPv4 >>> allocation policy, (AFPUB-2005-v4-001 >>> ) >>> that provides for review or decision making by the board. >>> >>>> And for whom ask about how and why we used up our allocation--simple >>>> reply--none of your business. >>> >>> It is very much Afrinic's business to know how an applicant is >>> using or plans to use their address space, so that they can check >>> how much address space is appropriate, and whether policies have >>> been followed. Policies specifically require applicants to >>> provide documentation of their network plans. >>> >>> For example, see the following parts of AFPUB-2005-v4-001: >>> >>> 6.5 Assignment >>> ... Assignments must only be made for specific purposes documented >>> by specific organisations and are not to be sub-assigned to other >>> parties. >>> >>> 7.2 Conflict of goals >>> ... IRs evaluating requests for allocations and assignments must >>> carefully analyze all relevant considerations and must seek to >>> balance the needs of the applicant with the needs of the Internet >>> community as a whole. ... >>> >>> 7.3 Documentation >>> In order to properly evaluate requests, an RIR must carefully >>> examine all relevant documentation relating to the networks in >>> question. Such documentation may include network engineering >>> plans, subnetting plans, descriptions of network topology, and >>> descriptions of network routing plans. All documentation should >>> conform to a consistent standard and any estimates and predictions >>> that are documented must be realistic and justifiable. >>> >>> 8.1 Introduction >>> ... Determination of IP address space allocation size is the >>> responsibility of AFRINIC staff. >>> >>> 9.1 Documentation >>> The information required by AFRINIC to justify an end-user's >>> IP address requirements include addressing needs, network >>> infrastructure and future plans. Such information is required >>> when an LIR is requesting IP space for their end-users at the >>> time of sending in the request. In order to ensure that previous >>> sub-allocation are not duplicated, the current address space usage >>> is also required. This information is essential in making the >>> appropriate sub-allocation approvals, and the level of detail will >>> depend on the size of the request and complexity of the network. >>> ... >>> >>> If it's an end user assignment, then in >>> addition to the general requirements in >>> AFPUB-2005-v4-001, the requirements in AFPUB-2006-GEN-001 >>> >>> also apply. They include: >>> >>> 4 Additional Assignment >>> ... Requestors must show exactly how previous address assignments >>> have been utilized and must provide appropriate details to verify >>> their one-year growth projection. ... >>> >>> --apb (Alan Barrett) >>> _______________________________________________ >>> rpd mailing list >>> rpd at afrinic.net >>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >> >> >> -- >> -- >> Kind regards. >> Lu >> >> This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. >> It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or >> otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use >> of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the >> intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received >> this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and >> e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this >> message and including the text of the transmission received. >> _______________________________________________ >> rpd mailing list >> rpd at afrinic.net >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd From v at kangin.org Sun Nov 23 12:45:12 2014 From: v at kangin.org (Vladimir Kangin) Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2014 16:45:12 +0400 Subject: [rpd] Afrinic policy proposal?Afrinic Service guild lines Message-ID: <1416746712.10410.52.camel@localhost.localdomain> Dear all, It's a shame to see a battle instead of open friendly discussion. We also had some "strange" requests to present invoices that suppose to be confidential and we've manage to discuss it with Arthur Carindal N'Guessan and rectify it. I do not know what was the story at Djibouti but in fact I shall tell you that till that morning I were embarrassed with request from AfriNIC to share confidential information. Apparently it was not required and there are a way to provide evidence in a different way. Therefore I would to emphasize that instead of fighting we better all work on policy in way that it will work for all of us and would simplify life for Internet of Things companies and benefit Africa's Internet development. Just to add another bite of dust to current situation. IPTP Networks is a top 100 Autonomous System AS41095 in the world for last 6 years (if you need more info you can download our corporate magazine at https://cloud.iptp.net/public.php?service=files&t=1b8eed81c1f6a51d608b19185d01c3a3 We've been delay to enter Africa market for at least 2 years because our legal/compliance departments are so much confused with AfriNIC Policy, regulation and other legal aspects of business in Africa. We could be in Africa and set up a number of POPs (Points of Presence) for benefit of continent at 2012 while we are almost in 2015 and still working around weird problems and miscommunications. Once again I would to emphasize that we shall cooperate to find a solution for benefit of Internet development in Africa continent. I'll hope that you can rectify your conflict in the table while all members of AfriNIC list will get messages with valuable content rather then reading a "battle stories". Thank you for you time. Best regards, Vladimir Kangin Message: 3 Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2014 15:58:38 +0400 From: Lu Subject: Re: [rpd] Afrinic policy proposal?Afrinic Service guild lines To: Jackson Muthili Cc: rpd Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=gb2312 Both of you (Jackson and kofi) have no support ground and have no understanding of basic principal of the policy, so for two of you: none of your business! Unless your guys able to passing a policy force such disclosure, I guess you will never know the answer in a legitimate manner. So just stoping asking other people's business in a public mailing list. > On 20141123, at 12:36, Jackson Muthili wrote: > > Why is it you have big issue to disclosing your activities? Why they > are so secret yet you ask two full /12?? > > What are you hiding? > > Legitimate member in community are concerned because you seem to be > siphoning Africa resources into China. No smoke with no fire. > > You already demonstrated your ability to lie in afrinic election at > djibouti. This reason enough to believe you Lie to afrinic about your > activity to grab two /12. Afrinic is right to be cautious on you. > Yours is special case and board is right also to specially be advise > of you. From kofi.ansa at gmail.com Sun Nov 23 13:14:42 2014 From: kofi.ansa at gmail.com (Kofi ANSA AKUFO) Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2014 17:14:42 +0400 Subject: =?UTF-8?Q?Re=3A_=5Brpd=5D_Afrinic_policy_proposal=E2=80=94Afrinic_Service_?= =?UTF-8?Q?guild_lines?= In-Reply-To: References: <1B27840E-C9B7-4514-9B7B-1E34AFECEB3E@virtualized.org> <20141123042758.GG9375@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> Message-ID: I asked a simple question Lu - organisations usually have publications and websites stating products and services. Do we consider such information as private? You should be thinking about how to hold on to your existing /12 - IMHO policy was not well interpreted. Our RIR may be facing financial constraints but that is not "justification" for executives to irresponsibly dish out /12s. Aside policy and by-laws AfriNIC has mission and goal statements which should also guide its operations and partnership. On Nov 23, 2014 4:04 PM, "Lu" wrote: > Both of you (Jackson and kofi) have no support ground and have no > understanding of basic principal of the policy, so for two of you: none of > your business! Unless your guys able to passing a policy force such > disclosure, I guess you will never know the answer in a legitimate manner. > So just stoping asking other people's business in a public mailing list. > > > > > On 2014?11?23?, at ??12:36, Jackson Muthili > wrote: > > > > Why is it you have big issue to disclosing your activities? Why they > > are so secret yet you ask two full /12?? > > > > What are you hiding? > > > > Legitimate member in community are concerned because you seem to be > > siphoning Africa resources into China. No smoke with no fire. > > > > You already demonstrated your ability to lie in afrinic election at > > djibouti. This reason enough to believe you Lie to afrinic about your > > activity to grab two /12. Afrinic is right to be cautious on you. > > Yours is special case and board is right also to specially be advise > > of you. > > > >> On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Lu Heng > wrote: > >> Hi Alan: > >> > >> I have confirmed it with almost every RIR staff, none RIR board should > >> be involved in member's allocation decision, however, following > >> sentence is what we receive directly in our ticket with Afrinic: > >> > >> "In response to your follow-up call yesterday - your request is still > >> pending board decision. We > >> shall advise you of the same as soon as received." > >> > >> And for the second part, you simply misunderstand what I said, of > >> course we will provide(and we did, our allocation request has been > >> pending for 10 months now!) document for Afrinic to review. > >> > >> I am simply saying what we do and how we use our resource is not > >> people in this mailing's business(as people ware asking here what we > >> do in this mailing list). We have no obligation as well as no reason > >> to answer such question in a public mailing list. > >> > >>> On 11/23/14, Alan Barrett wrote: > >>>> On Fri, 21 Nov 2014, Lu Heng wrote: > >>>> My allocation has been told that under board decision for past 2 > month. > >>> > >>> I am not aware of anything in the IPv4 > >>> allocation policy, (AFPUB-2005-v4-001 > >>> ) > >>> that provides for review or decision making by the board. > >>> > >>>> And for whom ask about how and why we used up our allocation--simple > >>>> reply--none of your business. > >>> > >>> It is very much Afrinic's business to know how an applicant is > >>> using or plans to use their address space, so that they can check > >>> how much address space is appropriate, and whether policies have > >>> been followed. Policies specifically require applicants to > >>> provide documentation of their network plans. > >>> > >>> For example, see the following parts of AFPUB-2005-v4-001: > >>> > >>> 6.5 Assignment > >>> ... Assignments must only be made for specific purposes documented > >>> by specific organisations and are not to be sub-assigned to other > >>> parties. > >>> > >>> 7.2 Conflict of goals > >>> ... IRs evaluating requests for allocations and assignments must > >>> carefully analyze all relevant considerations and must seek to > >>> balance the needs of the applicant with the needs of the Internet > >>> community as a whole. ... > >>> > >>> 7.3 Documentation > >>> In order to properly evaluate requests, an RIR must carefully > >>> examine all relevant documentation relating to the networks in > >>> question. Such documentation may include network engineering > >>> plans, subnetting plans, descriptions of network topology, and > >>> descriptions of network routing plans. All documentation should > >>> conform to a consistent standard and any estimates and predictions > >>> that are documented must be realistic and justifiable. > >>> > >>> 8.1 Introduction > >>> ... Determination of IP address space allocation size is the > >>> responsibility of AFRINIC staff. > >>> > >>> 9.1 Documentation > >>> The information required by AFRINIC to justify an end-user's > >>> IP address requirements include addressing needs, network > >>> infrastructure and future plans. Such information is required > >>> when an LIR is requesting IP space for their end-users at the > >>> time of sending in the request. In order to ensure that previous > >>> sub-allocation are not duplicated, the current address space usage > >>> is also required. This information is essential in making the > >>> appropriate sub-allocation approvals, and the level of detail will > >>> depend on the size of the request and complexity of the network. > >>> ... > >>> > >>> If it's an end user assignment, then in > >>> addition to the general requirements in > >>> AFPUB-2005-v4-001, the requirements in AFPUB-2006-GEN-001 > >>> > >>> also apply. They include: > >>> > >>> 4 Additional Assignment > >>> ... Requestors must show exactly how previous address assignments > >>> have been utilized and must provide appropriate details to verify > >>> their one-year growth projection. ... > >>> > >>> --apb (Alan Barrett) > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> rpd mailing list > >>> rpd at afrinic.net > >>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > >> > >> > >> -- > >> -- > >> Kind regards. > >> Lu > >> > >> This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. > >> It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or > >> otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use > >> of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the > >> intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received > >> this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and > >> e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this > >> message and including the text of the transmission received. > >> _______________________________________________ > >> rpd mailing list > >> rpd at afrinic.net > >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From h.lu at anytimechinese.com Sun Nov 23 13:26:25 2014 From: h.lu at anytimechinese.com (Lu) Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2014 17:26:25 +0400 Subject: =?utf-8?Q?Re:_[rpd]_Afrinic_policy_proposal=E2=80=94Afrinic_Serv?= =?utf-8?Q?ice_guild_lines?= In-Reply-To: References: <1B27840E-C9B7-4514-9B7B-1E34AFECEB3E@virtualized.org> <20141123042758.GG9375@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> Message-ID: <31E381CF-E1E8-41E7-881E-010F0B3B2C38@anytimechinese.com> Hi > On 2014?11?23?, at ??5:14, Kofi ANSA AKUFO wrote: > > I asked a simple question Lu - organisations usually have publications and websites stating products and services. Do we consider such information as private? > Usually, but not always, and we don't want to explain to you--- no reason to telling you any way as you are not our target customer group. > You should be thinking about how to hold on to your existing /12 - IMHO policy was not well interpreted. Our RIR may be facing financial constraints but that is not "justification" for executives to irresponsibly dish out /12s. > You are accusing Afrinic's taking corruption to give me allocation? If that is the case, be prepared for legal responsibility as you are making such claim without any supporting evidence in a public space, you are subject to defamation law. > Aside policy and by-laws AfriNIC has mission and goal statements which should also guide its operations and partnership. > Of course, and seems you are breaking it by question other member's confidential business info in its public mailing list. I stay silence does not means I was fear of such defamation activity in the public, I was simply trusting the community for its responsibility to respect each and every member of this continent. And it is person like you stop future investment coming to Africa--as just mentioned by Vladimir, in which potentially cost millions of job loss, while you sitting in front of your comfort desk stoping other Africans getting job, I don't think that is the right thing to do for Africa. >> On Nov 23, 2014 4:04 PM, "Lu" wrote: >> Both of you (Jackson and kofi) have no support ground and have no understanding of basic principal of the policy, so for two of you: none of your business! Unless your guys able to passing a policy force such disclosure, I guess you will never know the answer in a legitimate manner. So just stoping asking other people's business in a public mailing list. >> >> >> >> > On 2014?11?23?, at ??12:36, Jackson Muthili wrote: >> > >> > Why is it you have big issue to disclosing your activities? Why they >> > are so secret yet you ask two full /12?? >> > >> > What are you hiding? >> > >> > Legitimate member in community are concerned because you seem to be >> > siphoning Africa resources into China. No smoke with no fire. >> > >> > You already demonstrated your ability to lie in afrinic election at >> > djibouti. This reason enough to believe you Lie to afrinic about your >> > activity to grab two /12. Afrinic is right to be cautious on you. >> > Yours is special case and board is right also to specially be advise >> > of you. >> > >> >> On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Lu Heng wrote: >> >> Hi Alan: >> >> >> >> I have confirmed it with almost every RIR staff, none RIR board should >> >> be involved in member's allocation decision, however, following >> >> sentence is what we receive directly in our ticket with Afrinic: >> >> >> >> "In response to your follow-up call yesterday - your request is still >> >> pending board decision. We >> >> shall advise you of the same as soon as received." >> >> >> >> And for the second part, you simply misunderstand what I said, of >> >> course we will provide(and we did, our allocation request has been >> >> pending for 10 months now!) document for Afrinic to review. >> >> >> >> I am simply saying what we do and how we use our resource is not >> >> people in this mailing's business(as people ware asking here what we >> >> do in this mailing list). We have no obligation as well as no reason >> >> to answer such question in a public mailing list. >> >> >> >>> On 11/23/14, Alan Barrett wrote: >> >>>> On Fri, 21 Nov 2014, Lu Heng wrote: >> >>>> My allocation has been told that under board decision for past 2 month. >> >>> >> >>> I am not aware of anything in the IPv4 >> >>> allocation policy, (AFPUB-2005-v4-001 >> >>> ) >> >>> that provides for review or decision making by the board. >> >>> >> >>>> And for whom ask about how and why we used up our allocation--simple >> >>>> reply--none of your business. >> >>> >> >>> It is very much Afrinic's business to know how an applicant is >> >>> using or plans to use their address space, so that they can check >> >>> how much address space is appropriate, and whether policies have >> >>> been followed. Policies specifically require applicants to >> >>> provide documentation of their network plans. >> >>> >> >>> For example, see the following parts of AFPUB-2005-v4-001: >> >>> >> >>> 6.5 Assignment >> >>> ... Assignments must only be made for specific purposes documented >> >>> by specific organisations and are not to be sub-assigned to other >> >>> parties. >> >>> >> >>> 7.2 Conflict of goals >> >>> ... IRs evaluating requests for allocations and assignments must >> >>> carefully analyze all relevant considerations and must seek to >> >>> balance the needs of the applicant with the needs of the Internet >> >>> community as a whole. ... >> >>> >> >>> 7.3 Documentation >> >>> In order to properly evaluate requests, an RIR must carefully >> >>> examine all relevant documentation relating to the networks in >> >>> question. Such documentation may include network engineering >> >>> plans, subnetting plans, descriptions of network topology, and >> >>> descriptions of network routing plans. All documentation should >> >>> conform to a consistent standard and any estimates and predictions >> >>> that are documented must be realistic and justifiable. >> >>> >> >>> 8.1 Introduction >> >>> ... Determination of IP address space allocation size is the >> >>> responsibility of AFRINIC staff. >> >>> >> >>> 9.1 Documentation >> >>> The information required by AFRINIC to justify an end-user's >> >>> IP address requirements include addressing needs, network >> >>> infrastructure and future plans. Such information is required >> >>> when an LIR is requesting IP space for their end-users at the >> >>> time of sending in the request. In order to ensure that previous >> >>> sub-allocation are not duplicated, the current address space usage >> >>> is also required. This information is essential in making the >> >>> appropriate sub-allocation approvals, and the level of detail will >> >>> depend on the size of the request and complexity of the network. >> >>> ... >> >>> >> >>> If it's an end user assignment, then in >> >>> addition to the general requirements in >> >>> AFPUB-2005-v4-001, the requirements in AFPUB-2006-GEN-001 >> >>> >> >>> also apply. They include: >> >>> >> >>> 4 Additional Assignment >> >>> ... Requestors must show exactly how previous address assignments >> >>> have been utilized and must provide appropriate details to verify >> >>> their one-year growth projection. ... >> >>> >> >>> --apb (Alan Barrett) >> >>> _______________________________________________ >> >>> rpd mailing list >> >>> rpd at afrinic.net >> >>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> -- >> >> Kind regards. >> >> Lu >> >> >> >> This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. >> >> It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or >> >> otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use >> >> of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the >> >> intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received >> >> this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and >> >> e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this >> >> message and including the text of the transmission received. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> rpd mailing list >> >> rpd at afrinic.net >> >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >> _______________________________________________ >> rpd mailing list >> rpd at afrinic.net >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From woody at pch.net Sun Nov 23 13:43:11 2014 From: woody at pch.net (Bill Woodcock) Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2014 05:43:11 -0800 Subject: =?utf-8?Q?Re:_[rpd]_Afrinic_policy_proposal=E2=80=94Afrinic_Serv?= =?utf-8?Q?ice_guild_lines?= In-Reply-To: References: <1B27840E-C9B7-4514-9B7B-1E34AFECEB3E@virtualized.org> <20141123042758.GG9375@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> Message-ID: <28D4B0F0-0ACB-4A37-82CF-5E99562735A7@pch.net> How other RIRs happen to do things under normal circumstances is not a relevant argument with respect to AfriNIC and the AfriNIC board under abnormal circumstances. The AfriNIC board's primary purpose is to defend the interests of AfriNIC and its members. If it's necessary for them to intervene in this allocation request in order to protect AfriNIC and its members against the possible misallocation of a /11 of space, then they're doing their job. -Bill > On Nov 22, 2014, at 23:34, "Lu Heng" wrote: > > Hi Alan: > > I have confirmed it with almost every RIR staff, none RIR board should > be involved in member's allocation decision, however, following > sentence is what we receive directly in our ticket with Afrinic: > > "In response to your follow-up call yesterday - your request is still > pending board decision. We > shall advise you of the same as soon as received." > > And for the second part, you simply misunderstand what I said, of > course we will provide(and we did, our allocation request has been > pending for 10 months now!) document for Afrinic to review. > > I am simply saying what we do and how we use our resource is not > people in this mailing's business(as people ware asking here what we > do in this mailing list). We have no obligation as well as no reason > to answer such question in a public mailing list. > >> On 11/23/14, Alan Barrett wrote: >>> On Fri, 21 Nov 2014, Lu Heng wrote: >>> My allocation has been told that under board decision for past 2 month. >> >> I am not aware of anything in the IPv4 >> allocation policy, (AFPUB-2005-v4-001 >> ) >> that provides for review or decision making by the board. >> >>> And for whom ask about how and why we used up our allocation--simple >>> reply--none of your business. >> >> It is very much Afrinic's business to know how an applicant is >> using or plans to use their address space, so that they can check >> how much address space is appropriate, and whether policies have >> been followed. Policies specifically require applicants to >> provide documentation of their network plans. >> >> For example, see the following parts of AFPUB-2005-v4-001: >> >> 6.5 Assignment >> ... Assignments must only be made for specific purposes documented >> by specific organisations and are not to be sub-assigned to other >> parties. >> >> 7.2 Conflict of goals >> ... IRs evaluating requests for allocations and assignments must >> carefully analyze all relevant considerations and must seek to >> balance the needs of the applicant with the needs of the Internet >> community as a whole. ... >> >> 7.3 Documentation >> In order to properly evaluate requests, an RIR must carefully >> examine all relevant documentation relating to the networks in >> question. Such documentation may include network engineering >> plans, subnetting plans, descriptions of network topology, and >> descriptions of network routing plans. All documentation should >> conform to a consistent standard and any estimates and predictions >> that are documented must be realistic and justifiable. >> >> 8.1 Introduction >> ... Determination of IP address space allocation size is the >> responsibility of AFRINIC staff. >> >> 9.1 Documentation >> The information required by AFRINIC to justify an end-user's >> IP address requirements include addressing needs, network >> infrastructure and future plans. Such information is required >> when an LIR is requesting IP space for their end-users at the >> time of sending in the request. In order to ensure that previous >> sub-allocation are not duplicated, the current address space usage >> is also required. This information is essential in making the >> appropriate sub-allocation approvals, and the level of detail will >> depend on the size of the request and complexity of the network. >> ... >> >> If it's an end user assignment, then in >> addition to the general requirements in >> AFPUB-2005-v4-001, the requirements in AFPUB-2006-GEN-001 >> >> also apply. They include: >> >> 4 Additional Assignment >> ... Requestors must show exactly how previous address assignments >> have been utilized and must provide appropriate details to verify >> their one-year growth projection. ... >> >> --apb (Alan Barrett) >> _______________________________________________ >> rpd mailing list >> rpd at afrinic.net >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > > -- > -- > Kind regards. > Lu > > This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. > It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or > otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use > of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the > intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received > this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and > e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this > message and including the text of the transmission received. > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd From kofi.ansa at gmail.com Sun Nov 23 13:46:29 2014 From: kofi.ansa at gmail.com (Kofi ANSA AKUFO) Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2014 17:46:29 +0400 Subject: =?UTF-8?Q?Re=3A_=5Brpd=5D_Afrinic_policy_proposal=E2=80=94Afrinic_Service_?= =?UTF-8?Q?guild_lines?= In-Reply-To: <31E381CF-E1E8-41E7-881E-010F0B3B2C38@anytimechinese.com> References: <1B27840E-C9B7-4514-9B7B-1E34AFECEB3E@virtualized.org> <20141123042758.GG9375@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> <31E381CF-E1E8-41E7-881E-010F0B3B2C38@anytimechinese.com> Message-ID: Forgive me community it is not my sincere wish to feed this troll but ... Mr. Lu "PAY ATTENTION" to how Vladimir presented his contribution and his concerns to the list. It may guide you to address your concerns with your allocation. 1. Noticed how he used diplomacy to negotiate unnecessary document requests for justification for resources. 2. Noticed how he introduced his organisation to the community and how they intend to contribute to the AfriNIC service region. If you really beleive you have a case of defamation bring it on. cheers K. On 23 November 2014 at 17:26, Lu wrote: > Hi > > > > > > On 2014?11?23?, at ??5:14, Kofi ANSA AKUFO wrote: > > I asked a simple question Lu - organisations usually have publications and > websites stating products and services. Do we consider such information as > private? > > > Usually, but not always, and we don't want to explain to you--- no reason > to telling you any way as you are not our target customer group. > > You should be thinking about how to hold on to your existing /12 - IMHO > policy was not well interpreted. Our RIR may be facing financial > constraints but that is not "justification" for executives to irresponsibly > dish out /12s. > > > You are accusing Afrinic's taking corruption to give me allocation? If > that is the case, be prepared for legal responsibility as you are making > such claim without any supporting evidence in a public space, you are > subject to defamation law. > > Aside policy and by-laws AfriNIC has mission and goal statements which > should also guide its operations and partnership. > > > Of course, and seems you are breaking it by question other member's > confidential business info in its public mailing list. > > I stay silence does not means I was fear of such defamation activity in > the public, I was simply trusting the community for its responsibility to > respect each and every member of this continent. > > And it is person like you stop future investment coming to Africa--as just > mentioned by Vladimir, in which potentially cost millions of job loss, > while you sitting in front of your comfort desk stoping other Africans > getting job, I don't think that is the right thing to do for Africa. > > On Nov 23, 2014 4:04 PM, "Lu" wrote: > >> Both of you (Jackson and kofi) have no support ground and have no >> understanding of basic principal of the policy, so for two of you: none of >> your business! Unless your guys able to passing a policy force such >> disclosure, I guess you will never know the answer in a legitimate manner. >> So just stoping asking other people's business in a public mailing list. >> >> >> >> > On 2014?11?23?, at ??12:36, Jackson Muthili >> wrote: >> > >> > Why is it you have big issue to disclosing your activities? Why they >> > are so secret yet you ask two full /12?? >> > >> > What are you hiding? >> > >> > Legitimate member in community are concerned because you seem to be >> > siphoning Africa resources into China. No smoke with no fire. >> > >> > You already demonstrated your ability to lie in afrinic election at >> > djibouti. This reason enough to believe you Lie to afrinic about your >> > activity to grab two /12. Afrinic is right to be cautious on you. >> > Yours is special case and board is right also to specially be advise >> > of you. >> > >> >> On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Lu Heng >> wrote: >> >> Hi Alan: >> >> >> >> I have confirmed it with almost every RIR staff, none RIR board should >> >> be involved in member's allocation decision, however, following >> >> sentence is what we receive directly in our ticket with Afrinic: >> >> >> >> "In response to your follow-up call yesterday - your request is still >> >> pending board decision. We >> >> shall advise you of the same as soon as received." >> >> >> >> And for the second part, you simply misunderstand what I said, of >> >> course we will provide(and we did, our allocation request has been >> >> pending for 10 months now!) document for Afrinic to review. >> >> >> >> I am simply saying what we do and how we use our resource is not >> >> people in this mailing's business(as people ware asking here what we >> >> do in this mailing list). We have no obligation as well as no reason >> >> to answer such question in a public mailing list. >> >> >> >>> On 11/23/14, Alan Barrett wrote: >> >>>> On Fri, 21 Nov 2014, Lu Heng wrote: >> >>>> My allocation has been told that under board decision for past 2 >> month. >> >>> >> >>> I am not aware of anything in the IPv4 >> >>> allocation policy, (AFPUB-2005-v4-001 >> >>> ) >> >>> that provides for review or decision making by the board. >> >>> >> >>>> And for whom ask about how and why we used up our allocation--simple >> >>>> reply--none of your business. >> >>> >> >>> It is very much Afrinic's business to know how an applicant is >> >>> using or plans to use their address space, so that they can check >> >>> how much address space is appropriate, and whether policies have >> >>> been followed. Policies specifically require applicants to >> >>> provide documentation of their network plans. >> >>> >> >>> For example, see the following parts of AFPUB-2005-v4-001: >> >>> >> >>> 6.5 Assignment >> >>> ... Assignments must only be made for specific purposes documented >> >>> by specific organisations and are not to be sub-assigned to other >> >>> parties. >> >>> >> >>> 7.2 Conflict of goals >> >>> ... IRs evaluating requests for allocations and assignments must >> >>> carefully analyze all relevant considerations and must seek to >> >>> balance the needs of the applicant with the needs of the Internet >> >>> community as a whole. ... >> >>> >> >>> 7.3 Documentation >> >>> In order to properly evaluate requests, an RIR must carefully >> >>> examine all relevant documentation relating to the networks in >> >>> question. Such documentation may include network engineering >> >>> plans, subnetting plans, descriptions of network topology, and >> >>> descriptions of network routing plans. All documentation should >> >>> conform to a consistent standard and any estimates and predictions >> >>> that are documented must be realistic and justifiable. >> >>> >> >>> 8.1 Introduction >> >>> ... Determination of IP address space allocation size is the >> >>> responsibility of AFRINIC staff. >> >>> >> >>> 9.1 Documentation >> >>> The information required by AFRINIC to justify an end-user's >> >>> IP address requirements include addressing needs, network >> >>> infrastructure and future plans. Such information is required >> >>> when an LIR is requesting IP space for their end-users at the >> >>> time of sending in the request. In order to ensure that previous >> >>> sub-allocation are not duplicated, the current address space usage >> >>> is also required. This information is essential in making the >> >>> appropriate sub-allocation approvals, and the level of detail will >> >>> depend on the size of the request and complexity of the network. >> >>> ... >> >>> >> >>> If it's an end user assignment, then in >> >>> addition to the general requirements in >> >>> AFPUB-2005-v4-001, the requirements in AFPUB-2006-GEN-001 >> >>> >> >>> also apply. They include: >> >>> >> >>> 4 Additional Assignment >> >>> ... Requestors must show exactly how previous address assignments >> >>> have been utilized and must provide appropriate details to verify >> >>> their one-year growth projection. ... >> >>> >> >>> --apb (Alan Barrett) >> >>> _______________________________________________ >> >>> rpd mailing list >> >>> rpd at afrinic.net >> >>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> -- >> >> Kind regards. >> >> Lu >> >> >> >> This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. >> >> It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or >> >> otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use >> >> of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the >> >> intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received >> >> this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and >> >> e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this >> >> message and including the text of the transmission received. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> rpd mailing list >> >> rpd at afrinic.net >> >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >> _______________________________________________ >> rpd mailing list >> rpd at afrinic.net >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From apb at cequrux.com Sun Nov 23 14:16:09 2014 From: apb at cequrux.com (Alan Barrett) Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2014 18:16:09 +0400 Subject: [rpd] Fwd: update on policy Afrinic service Guide Lines policy proposal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20141123141609.GH9375@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> On Fri, 21 Nov 2014, Karmann Olumomo wrote: >After taking the community feed back, I'd like to update my proposal to the >following: [snip] Before I go through your message point by point, let me state the principle that service level agreements are out of scope of the policy development process. A policy can say what information an applicant needs to provide, and what calculations Afrinic stff will perform to see how much space the applicant qualifies for, but it should not say how quickly the staff will do their job. Of course, it would be nice if most applications were handled quickly, and if there were good reasons for any unusual delays, but that's outside the scope of the policy process. >1) Summary of the Problem Being Addressed by this Policy Proposal Some >member are experiencing extreme long wait for their additional allocation >request to get passed, some members are experiencing none technical >information requested from Afrinic(customer data, marketing channel etc), >in order to improve overall service quality of Afrinic, here is the policy. >2) Summary of How this Proposal Addresses the Problem To improve overall >service quality and transparency of Afrinic?s number resource services by >documenting roles and responsibilities of AFRINIC. 3) Proposal > >1.Afrinic should make decision on subsequent allocation requests based on >Afrinic policy, and conclude a request no longer than the 20% of the >total period AFRNIC approves the resources for. (E.g. If Afrinic is issuing >resources to its member to meet its 12 months needs, the longest waiting >time for Afrinic allocation process should not be longer than 20%*12month, >to cope with 80% utilization requirement for additional allocation). If >Afrinic was not able to make decision on a certain request within this >period, for each additional month beyond this period, the requesting member >should receive percentage of the requested period of the total request >until such decision has been made, in order to protect member from smooth >running of its business. I think it would be fine to give Afrinic staff the option to allocate or assign some smaller amount of space, but not to force them to do so. If they have some doubt about the information provided in the aplication, I do not want them to be forced to allocate or assign a fixed percentage of the requested space. > 2.Afrinic should publish standardized base information request for each >typical type of resource allocation. That seems reasonable, provided it's understood that the staff is free to request more information, over and above the base information. >3.Afrinic should not store, request any marketing or business related >none-technical information from its member, for example, customer data, >marketing channel, and marketing budget. They might sometimes need such information to help them decide whether arequest is fraudulent. However, it should be subject to an NDA. >4.Afrinic allocations should be solely made based on current policy, no >other factor other than policy should infer with afrinic?s decision on >processing allocation requests. I agree with this goal, but I am not sure that a new policy is the right place to codify it. >5.Afrinic board should never being involved in any form of resource >allocation process. I agree with this goal, but I am not sure that a new policy is the right place to codify it. >6.For the interest of overall policy development process, other RIR staff >as well as it's governing body personnel(advisor or board member, for >example) should not be involve in Afrinic policy development process. We have a long tradition of an open policy development process. I would not want to exclude input from anywhere. >7.Afrinic policy working group chair election should be conducted >independent from Afrinic board nomination committee, candidates should be >free of any requirement. I don't understand this point. Finally, it seems to me that your message is more like a list of goals than an actual policy proposal. --apb (Alan Barrett) From apb at cequrux.com Sun Nov 23 14:28:35 2014 From: apb at cequrux.com (Alan Barrett) Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2014 18:28:35 +0400 Subject: [rpd] Afrinic policy =?utf-8?Q?proposa?= =?utf-8?B?bOKAlEFmcmluaWM=?= Service guild lines In-Reply-To: References: <1B27840E-C9B7-4514-9B7B-1E34AFECEB3E@virtualized.org> <20141123042758.GG9375@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> Message-ID: <20141123142835.GI9375@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> On Sun, 23 Nov 2014, Lu Heng wrote: > I have confirmed it with almost every RIR staff, none RIR board > should be involved in member's allocation decision, however, > following sentence is what we receive directly in our ticket > with Afrinic: > > "In response to your follow-up call yesterday - your request is > still pending board decision. We shall advise you of the same as > soon as received." I don't know what's happening there. It seems to me that reviewing alocation decisions is not something that the Board would normally do, and I don't see anything in the policy development process, or in the relevant policies, that give the Board such a role. However, the bylaws do give the Board quite broad powers, which might include review of staff decisions (but I haven't checked for particular clauses that might be relevant to this situation). > And for the second part, you simply misunderstand what I said, > of course we will provide(and we did, our allocation request has > been pending for 10 months now!) document for Afrinic to review. > > I am simply saying what we do and how we use our resource is not > people in this mailing's business(as people ware asking here > what we do in this mailing list). We have no obligation as well > as no reason to answer such question in a public mailing list. Yes, I misunderstood. If you provide the information to Afrinic staff (under NDA if appropriate), then that is enough. There is no requirement for you to provide the information in public. --apb (Alan Barrett) From jacksonmuthi at gmail.com Sun Nov 23 15:19:06 2014 From: jacksonmuthi at gmail.com (Jackson Muthili) Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2014 19:19:06 +0400 Subject: =?UTF-8?Q?Re=3A_=5Brpd=5D_Afrinic_policy_proposal=E2=80=94Afrinic_Service_?= =?UTF-8?Q?guild_lines?= In-Reply-To: <31E381CF-E1E8-41E7-881E-010F0B3B2C38@anytimechinese.com> References: <1B27840E-C9B7-4514-9B7B-1E34AFECEB3E@virtualized.org> <20141123042758.GG9375@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> <31E381CF-E1E8-41E7-881E-010F0B3B2C38@anytimechinese.com> Message-ID: On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 5:26 PM, Lu wrote: > Hi > > On 2014?11?23?, at ??5:14, Kofi ANSA AKUFO wrote: > >> I asked a simple question Lu - organisations usually have publications and >> websites stating products and services. Do we consider such information as >> private? > > Usually, but not always, and we don't want to explain to you--- no reason to > telling you any way as you are not our target customer group. > >> You should be thinking about how to hold on to your existing /12 - IMHO >> policy was not well interpreted. Our RIR may be facing financial constraints >> but that is not "justification" for executives to irresponsibly dish out >> /12s. > > You are accusing Afrinic's taking corruption to give me allocation? If that > is the case, be prepared for legal responsibility as you are making such > claim without any supporting evidence in a public space, you are subject to > defamation law. > >> Aside policy and by-laws AfriNIC has mission and goal statements which >> should also guide its operations and partnership. > > Of course, and seems you are breaking it by question other member's > confidential business info in its public mailing list. > > I stay silence does not means I was fear of such defamation activity in the > public, I was simply trusting the community for its responsibility to > respect each and every member of this continent. > > And it is person like you stop future investment coming to Africa--as just > mentioned by Vladimir, in which potentially cost millions of job loss, while > you sitting in front of your comfort desk stoping other Africans getting > job, I don't think that is the right thing to do for Africa. I urge Afrinic for now to reject Lu IP. I challenge Lu to tell community what business he does in Africa to take two /12. Other company with big IP bloc have visible business on continent. Lu, what business you are doing? You see that as member we appoint board to protect our interest. We can ask our board anytime to stop your allocation. It their duty to protect interest of our continent and our registry. Lu already lie community at meeting in Djibouti and he admit to lying when cornered. From jacksonmuthi at gmail.com Sun Nov 23 15:23:34 2014 From: jacksonmuthi at gmail.com (Jackson Muthili) Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2014 19:23:34 +0400 Subject: =?UTF-8?Q?Re=3A_=5Brpd=5D_Afrinic_policy_proposal=E2=80=94Afrinic_Service_?= =?UTF-8?Q?guild_lines?= In-Reply-To: <28D4B0F0-0ACB-4A37-82CF-5E99562735A7@pch.net> References: <1B27840E-C9B7-4514-9B7B-1E34AFECEB3E@virtualized.org> <20141123042758.GG9375@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> <28D4B0F0-0ACB-4A37-82CF-5E99562735A7@pch.net> Message-ID: 100% agree with Bill. On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 5:43 PM, Bill Woodcock wrote: > > How other RIRs happen to do things under normal circumstances is not a relevant argument with respect to AfriNIC and the AfriNIC board under abnormal circumstances. The AfriNIC board's primary purpose is to defend the interests of AfriNIC and its members. If it's necessary for them to intervene in this allocation request in order to protect AfriNIC and its members against the possible misallocation of a /11 of space, then they're doing their job. > > > -Bill > > >> On Nov 22, 2014, at 23:34, "Lu Heng" wrote: >> >> Hi Alan: >> >> I have confirmed it with almost every RIR staff, none RIR board should >> be involved in member's allocation decision, however, following >> sentence is what we receive directly in our ticket with Afrinic: >> >> "In response to your follow-up call yesterday - your request is still >> pending board decision. We >> shall advise you of the same as soon as received." >> >> And for the second part, you simply misunderstand what I said, of >> course we will provide(and we did, our allocation request has been >> pending for 10 months now!) document for Afrinic to review. >> >> I am simply saying what we do and how we use our resource is not >> people in this mailing's business(as people ware asking here what we >> do in this mailing list). We have no obligation as well as no reason >> to answer such question in a public mailing list. >> >>> On 11/23/14, Alan Barrett wrote: >>>> On Fri, 21 Nov 2014, Lu Heng wrote: >>>> My allocation has been told that under board decision for past 2 month. >>> >>> I am not aware of anything in the IPv4 >>> allocation policy, (AFPUB-2005-v4-001 >>> ) >>> that provides for review or decision making by the board. >>> >>>> And for whom ask about how and why we used up our allocation--simple >>>> reply--none of your business. >>> >>> It is very much Afrinic's business to know how an applicant is >>> using or plans to use their address space, so that they can check >>> how much address space is appropriate, and whether policies have >>> been followed. Policies specifically require applicants to >>> provide documentation of their network plans. >>> >>> For example, see the following parts of AFPUB-2005-v4-001: >>> >>> 6.5 Assignment >>> ... Assignments must only be made for specific purposes documented >>> by specific organisations and are not to be sub-assigned to other >>> parties. >>> >>> 7.2 Conflict of goals >>> ... IRs evaluating requests for allocations and assignments must >>> carefully analyze all relevant considerations and must seek to >>> balance the needs of the applicant with the needs of the Internet >>> community as a whole. ... >>> >>> 7.3 Documentation >>> In order to properly evaluate requests, an RIR must carefully >>> examine all relevant documentation relating to the networks in >>> question. Such documentation may include network engineering >>> plans, subnetting plans, descriptions of network topology, and >>> descriptions of network routing plans. All documentation should >>> conform to a consistent standard and any estimates and predictions >>> that are documented must be realistic and justifiable. >>> >>> 8.1 Introduction >>> ... Determination of IP address space allocation size is the >>> responsibility of AFRINIC staff. >>> >>> 9.1 Documentation >>> The information required by AFRINIC to justify an end-user's >>> IP address requirements include addressing needs, network >>> infrastructure and future plans. Such information is required >>> when an LIR is requesting IP space for their end-users at the >>> time of sending in the request. In order to ensure that previous >>> sub-allocation are not duplicated, the current address space usage >>> is also required. This information is essential in making the >>> appropriate sub-allocation approvals, and the level of detail will >>> depend on the size of the request and complexity of the network. >>> ... >>> >>> If it's an end user assignment, then in >>> addition to the general requirements in >>> AFPUB-2005-v4-001, the requirements in AFPUB-2006-GEN-001 >>> >>> also apply. They include: >>> >>> 4 Additional Assignment >>> ... Requestors must show exactly how previous address assignments >>> have been utilized and must provide appropriate details to verify >>> their one-year growth projection. ... >>> >>> --apb (Alan Barrett) >>> _______________________________________________ >>> rpd mailing list >>> rpd at afrinic.net >>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >> >> >> -- >> -- >> Kind regards. >> Lu >> >> This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. >> It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or >> otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use >> of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the >> intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received >> this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and >> e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this >> message and including the text of the transmission received. >> _______________________________________________ >> rpd mailing list >> rpd at afrinic.net >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd From h.lu at anytimechinese.com Sun Nov 23 16:14:54 2014 From: h.lu at anytimechinese.com (Lu) Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2014 20:14:54 +0400 Subject: =?utf-8?Q?Re:_[rpd]_Afrinic_policy_proposal=E2=80=94Afrinic_Serv?= =?utf-8?Q?ice_guild_lines?= In-Reply-To: <28D4B0F0-0ACB-4A37-82CF-5E99562735A7@pch.net> References: <1B27840E-C9B7-4514-9B7B-1E34AFECEB3E@virtualized.org> <20141123042758.GG9375@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> <28D4B0F0-0ACB-4A37-82CF-5E99562735A7@pch.net> Message-ID: Hi bill According to which policy you are referring to back up your statement? And is this an official statement from ARIN? > On 2014?11?23?, at ??5:43, Bill Woodcock wrote: > > > > How other RIRs happen to do things under normal circumstances is not a relevant argument with respect to AfriNIC and the AfriNIC board under abnormal circumstances. The AfriNIC board's primary purpose is to defend the interests of AfriNIC and its members. If it's necessary for them to intervene in this allocation request in order to protect AfriNIC and its members against the possible misallocation of a /11 of space, then they're doing their job. > > > -Bill > > >> On Nov 22, 2014, at 23:34, "Lu Heng" wrote: >> >> Hi Alan: >> >> I have confirmed it with almost every RIR staff, none RIR board should >> be involved in member's allocation decision, however, following >> sentence is what we receive directly in our ticket with Afrinic: >> >> "In response to your follow-up call yesterday - your request is still >> pending board decision. We >> shall advise you of the same as soon as received." >> >> And for the second part, you simply misunderstand what I said, of >> course we will provide(and we did, our allocation request has been >> pending for 10 months now!) document for Afrinic to review. >> >> I am simply saying what we do and how we use our resource is not >> people in this mailing's business(as people ware asking here what we >> do in this mailing list). We have no obligation as well as no reason >> to answer such question in a public mailing list. >> >>>> On 11/23/14, Alan Barrett wrote: >>>> On Fri, 21 Nov 2014, Lu Heng wrote: >>>> My allocation has been told that under board decision for past 2 month. >>> >>> I am not aware of anything in the IPv4 >>> allocation policy, (AFPUB-2005-v4-001 >>> ) >>> that provides for review or decision making by the board. >>> >>>> And for whom ask about how and why we used up our allocation--simple >>>> reply--none of your business. >>> >>> It is very much Afrinic's business to know how an applicant is >>> using or plans to use their address space, so that they can check >>> how much address space is appropriate, and whether policies have >>> been followed. Policies specifically require applicants to >>> provide documentation of their network plans. >>> >>> For example, see the following parts of AFPUB-2005-v4-001: >>> >>> 6.5 Assignment >>> ... Assignments must only be made for specific purposes documented >>> by specific organisations and are not to be sub-assigned to other >>> parties. >>> >>> 7.2 Conflict of goals >>> ... IRs evaluating requests for allocations and assignments must >>> carefully analyze all relevant considerations and must seek to >>> balance the needs of the applicant with the needs of the Internet >>> community as a whole. ... >>> >>> 7.3 Documentation >>> In order to properly evaluate requests, an RIR must carefully >>> examine all relevant documentation relating to the networks in >>> question. Such documentation may include network engineering >>> plans, subnetting plans, descriptions of network topology, and >>> descriptions of network routing plans. All documentation should >>> conform to a consistent standard and any estimates and predictions >>> that are documented must be realistic and justifiable. >>> >>> 8.1 Introduction >>> ... Determination of IP address space allocation size is the >>> responsibility of AFRINIC staff. >>> >>> 9.1 Documentation >>> The information required by AFRINIC to justify an end-user's >>> IP address requirements include addressing needs, network >>> infrastructure and future plans. Such information is required >>> when an LIR is requesting IP space for their end-users at the >>> time of sending in the request. In order to ensure that previous >>> sub-allocation are not duplicated, the current address space usage >>> is also required. This information is essential in making the >>> appropriate sub-allocation approvals, and the level of detail will >>> depend on the size of the request and complexity of the network. >>> ... >>> >>> If it's an end user assignment, then in >>> addition to the general requirements in >>> AFPUB-2005-v4-001, the requirements in AFPUB-2006-GEN-001 >>> >>> also apply. They include: >>> >>> 4 Additional Assignment >>> ... Requestors must show exactly how previous address assignments >>> have been utilized and must provide appropriate details to verify >>> their one-year growth projection. ... >>> >>> --apb (Alan Barrett) >>> _______________________________________________ >>> rpd mailing list >>> rpd at afrinic.net >>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >> >> >> -- >> -- >> Kind regards. >> Lu >> >> This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. >> It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or >> otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use >> of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the >> intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received >> this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and >> e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this >> message and including the text of the transmission received. >> _______________________________________________ >> rpd mailing list >> rpd at afrinic.net >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > From woody at pch.net Sun Nov 23 18:34:03 2014 From: woody at pch.net (Bill Woodcock) Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2014 10:34:03 -0800 Subject: [members-discuss] Re: [rpd] Recruitment of AfriNIC CEO In-Reply-To: References: <1416630263.81654.YahooMailBasic@web162802.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <1A047D50-D245-458D-A903-06A5175BCE60@pch.net> Message-ID: On Nov 22, 2014, at 3:11 PM, Douglas Onyango wrote: > > 2) Public call for relevant questionnaire questions to be publicly put to candidates. > > My view is that a lot of precious time is going to be lost in this processes. I suggest the Search Committee elicits views from the community during the ongoing meeting and puts together the questions instead. This way we can include community views without any unnecessary delays. That seems like an excellent way to accelerate the process. The sort of questions I was imagining are things like: How has your executive management background prepared you to lead AfriNIC out of its current financial situation? What changes can you imagine making to AfriNIC, to improve its financial and staffing stability? What is your position on the NTIA-ICANN oversight transition? What are your views on needs-based allocation, RFC2050 and RFC7020, and IP address markets? If I were in a position to help select a new CEO, those would all be things I?d like to hear from the candidates about. -Bill -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 841 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From ondouglas at gmail.com Sun Nov 23 18:52:31 2014 From: ondouglas at gmail.com (Douglas Onyango) Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2014 21:52:31 +0300 Subject: [members-discuss] Re: [rpd] Recruitment of AfriNIC CEO In-Reply-To: References: <1416630263.81654.YahooMailBasic@web162802.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <1A047D50-D245-458D-A903-06A5175BCE60@pch.net> Message-ID: Hi Bill, On 23 Nov 2014 22:36, "Bill Woodcock" wrote: > That seems like an excellent way to accelerate the process. Thanks. ...agreed. I hope the search committee will take this into advisement. > If I were in a position to help select a new >CEO, those would all be things I'd like to hear >from the candidates about. +1. Again my expectation is that the search committee know this. Regards, > > -Bill > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > members-discuss mailing list > members-discuss at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/members-discuss > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From badru.ntege at nftconsult.com Mon Nov 24 20:45:28 2014 From: badru.ntege at nftconsult.com (Badru Ntege) Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2014 20:45:28 +0000 Subject: [rpd] Change of Board Leadership Message-ID: Members In the interest of a smooth transition at AFRINIC, with the departure of Adiel Akplogan in January 2015, I have decided to step down as Chair to enable Sunday Folayan who was acting as my Vice Chair assume the role of Chair of AFRINIC?s Board of Directors, with immediate effect. My term as Board member and Chair would have come to an end in June 2015. Therefore this decision was taken to ensure that the incoming CEO is inducted and strongly supported by an established Chairmanship, and not by one that would be incoming as well. As Sunday Folayan assumes the role of Chairman of the Board I will become Vice-Chair for the rest of my term. Myself and the board believe this will give a good foundation for the transition process, since it is evident that the process to find a new CEO will take some time I have enjoyed my tenure as the chair of the Afrinic board and would like to thank the community for entrusting me with such an important role to the Region. Regards Badru Ntege Vice Chair Afrinic [cid:475F4148-0B2E-4A51-BD68-63717EA6A372] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: A6B4555D-F867-4A2F-A9F9-BAF29039D12B.png Type: image/png Size: 65261 bytes Desc: A6B4555D-F867-4A2F-A9F9-BAF29039D12B.png URL: From sfolayan at gmail.com Tue Nov 25 06:19:55 2014 From: sfolayan at gmail.com (Sunday Folayan) Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 07:19:55 +0100 Subject: [rpd] Mr Kris Seeburn: AfriNIC Board member Message-ID: <54741F8B.7050806@gmail.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 The Board is sad to announce to the community that Mr Kris Seeburn, a member of the AFRINIC Board, was found unconscious in his room in the morning of Monday, 23 November 2014. He is currently in good care at the Apollo Bramwell Hospital in the intensive care unit with the full support of his family. Representatives of the AFRINIC Board and Management have also visited him. We are in constant communication with the hospital for updates on his health condition and will inform the community as appropriate. The Board invites the community to join in praying for a positive outcome. Sunday A. Folayan Chair, AfriNIC Board -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUdB+LAAoJEH6UvSz6fA25OBcIAKEA32JUvE2CZUZIvKDCQw/X SZc7GRSMUR8SVYy8eRLMTBydlD8XcornYNjgNoe95GtNcKngEcnh356qxjGzqAkv 9PvTZEf+E5p+jNrD67FkrF5m7oA03B5qC7f0XRF2H8Q7bPDlbIPmY0UIgNMRONK1 2soRWp/TkJi1lxgjmVtyZ5NzDJoP257ID2wolPmeGKofZTylUuB+OpscdL1U57JB M6nPn5eSt9IJUeFuC92eZB3L3p+VxSkdM6TF5sopKKQzRk6PBIDua0jG0fZXjtqw McogZMubNMU8QNryDiFnl6Py5WYxoAj1GxaPgPQD5ZY/s41Egw74TuC68vZlmy0= =WamV -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From ernest at afrinic.net Tue Nov 25 06:59:21 2014 From: ernest at afrinic.net (Ernest) Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 10:59:21 +0400 Subject: [rpd] Fwd: [members-discuss] AFRINIC is Recruiting a Chief Executive Officer In-Reply-To: <705029C5-0C4F-4F07-8120-E8BBD6C93857@afrinic.net> References: <705029C5-0C4F-4F07-8120-E8BBD6C93857@afrinic.net> Message-ID: <547428C9.5070503@afrinic.net> -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [members-discuss] AFRINIC is Recruiting a Chief Executive Officer Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 10:20:25 +0400 From: AFRINIC Communication To: announce at afrinic.net AFRINIC seeks to engage a Chief Executive Officer (CEO) who will lead a team of dedicated staff, and work with the Board of Directors to execute the strategic plans of the Company. The CEO will be stationed in Eb?ne, Mauritius. ABOUT THE ORGANISATION? The African Network Information Centre (AFRINIC) is the Regional Internet Registry (RIR) for Africa. It is responsible for the distribution and management of Internet number resources - IPv4, IPv6 addresses and ASN (Autonomous System Numbers) - for the African region. AFRINIC?s mission is to provide professional and efficient distribution of Internet number resources to the African Internet community, to support Internet technology usage and infrastructure development across the continent and to strengthen Internet self-governance in Africa by facilitating and encouraging participatory policy development. AFRINIC operations are overseen by a Board of Directors (BoD) elected by members on a regional or independent representation basis, as defined by Article 11 of its bylaws [http://www.afrinic.net/en/about-us/bylaws?start=10]. Once appointed to the Board, each Director represents and works for the whole region and not their organisations, country or sub-region. THE ROLE (Eb?ne Cyber City, Mauritius) The details of the job and the expectations are fully described in the document ?Chief Executive Officer (CEO) Role? available for download from the AFRINIC website at http://afrinic.net/images/staff/CEO-Role-final-24-11-14-SG.pdf How to Apply To apply you should: 1. Submit a full C.V. and a personally signed cover letter that clearly documents your relevant experience in line with the appointment criteria. 2. Include details of expected salary and benefits package in your cover letter 3. Please also include names, positions, organisations and telephone contact numbers for at least two references, one of who should be your current/most recent employer. If you specifically do not wish referees to be contacted without your permission, please indicate this clearly. We will only approach referees if you are invited to attend the final interview round and will only do so with your permission. 4. Finally, please ensure that you include your mobile telephone number and email address as well as any dates when you will not be available for interview. Please email your application to: ceorole at afrinic.net with the reference AFJOB-CEO2014 in the subject line. All applications must be received by 17:00 UTC Friday 19th December 2014. You can read more about the selection process and associated timeline at: http://afrinic.net/en/about-us/career/1259-ceo-recruitment-process-timeline _______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/members-discuss From dawda.jatta at utg.edu.gm Tue Nov 25 07:24:42 2014 From: dawda.jatta at utg.edu.gm (Dawda Jatta) Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 08:24:42 +0100 Subject: [rpd] Mr Kris Seeburn: AfriNIC Board member In-Reply-To: <54741F8B.7050806@gmail.com> References: <54741F8B.7050806@gmail.com> Message-ID: Wishing him speedy recovery. Regards, Dawda On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 7:19 AM, Sunday Folayan wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > The Board is sad to announce to the community that Mr Kris Seeburn, a > member of the AFRINIC Board, was found unconscious in his room in the > morning of Monday, 23 November 2014. He is currently in good care at > the Apollo Bramwell Hospital in the intensive care unit with the full > support of his family. Representatives of the AFRINIC Board and > Management have also visited him. > > We are in constant communication with the hospital for updates on his > health condition and will inform the community as appropriate. > > The Board invites the community to join in praying for a positive outcome. > > Sunday A. Folayan > Chair, AfriNIC Board > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) > > iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUdB+LAAoJEH6UvSz6fA25OBcIAKEA32JUvE2CZUZIvKDCQw/X > SZc7GRSMUR8SVYy8eRLMTBydlD8XcornYNjgNoe95GtNcKngEcnh356qxjGzqAkv > 9PvTZEf+E5p+jNrD67FkrF5m7oA03B5qC7f0XRF2H8Q7bPDlbIPmY0UIgNMRONK1 > 2soRWp/TkJi1lxgjmVtyZ5NzDJoP257ID2wolPmeGKofZTylUuB+OpscdL1U57JB > M6nPn5eSt9IJUeFuC92eZB3L3p+VxSkdM6TF5sopKKQzRk6PBIDua0jG0fZXjtqw > McogZMubNMU8QNryDiFnl6Py5WYxoAj1GxaPgPQD5ZY/s41Egw74TuC68vZlmy0= > =WamV > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > -- Best Regards, Dawda Jatta -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From abibu at tznic.or.tz Tue Nov 25 07:40:54 2014 From: abibu at tznic.or.tz (Abibu Ntahigiye) Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 10:40:54 +0300 Subject: [rpd] Mr Kris Seeburn: AfriNIC Board member In-Reply-To: <54741F8B.7050806@gmail.com> References: <54741F8B.7050806@gmail.com> Message-ID: <545A476C-39B6-4582-AD0D-A1EAD3FD1820@tznic.or.tz> Thanks new Chair for info. Wishing him a quick recovery. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Eng. Abibu R. Ntahigiye; Manager, tzNIC; +255 784 279 511 On Nov 25, 2014, at 9:19 AM, Sunday Folayan wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > The Board is sad to announce to the community that Mr Kris Seeburn, a > member of the AFRINIC Board, was found unconscious in his room in the > morning of Monday, 23 November 2014. He is currently in good care at > the Apollo Bramwell Hospital in the intensive care unit with the full > support of his family. Representatives of the AFRINIC Board and > Management have also visited him. > > We are in constant communication with the hospital for updates on his > health condition and will inform the community as appropriate. > > The Board invites the community to join in praying for a positive outcome. > > Sunday A. Folayan > Chair, AfriNIC Board > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) > > iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUdB+LAAoJEH6UvSz6fA25OBcIAKEA32JUvE2CZUZIvKDCQw/X > SZc7GRSMUR8SVYy8eRLMTBydlD8XcornYNjgNoe95GtNcKngEcnh356qxjGzqAkv > 9PvTZEf+E5p+jNrD67FkrF5m7oA03B5qC7f0XRF2H8Q7bPDlbIPmY0UIgNMRONK1 > 2soRWp/TkJi1lxgjmVtyZ5NzDJoP257ID2wolPmeGKofZTylUuB+OpscdL1U57JB > M6nPn5eSt9IJUeFuC92eZB3L3p+VxSkdM6TF5sopKKQzRk6PBIDua0jG0fZXjtqw > McogZMubNMU8QNryDiFnl6Py5WYxoAj1GxaPgPQD5ZY/s41Egw74TuC68vZlmy0= > =WamV > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Kivuva at transworldafrica.com Tue Nov 25 07:50:28 2014 From: Kivuva at transworldafrica.com (Mwendwa Kivuva) Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 10:50:28 +0300 Subject: [rpd] Mr Kris Seeburn: AfriNIC Board member In-Reply-To: <54741F8B.7050806@gmail.com> References: <54741F8B.7050806@gmail.com> Message-ID: We wish Kris Seeburn a speedy recovery. ______________________ Mwendwa Kivuva, Nairobi, Kenya L: https://www.linkedin.com/in/lordmwesh B: http://lord.me.ke/ T: twitter.com/lordmwesh "There are some men who lift the age they inhabit, till all men walk on higher ground in that lifetime." - Maxwell Anderson On 25 November 2014 at 09:19, Sunday Folayan wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > The Board is sad to announce to the community that Mr Kris Seeburn, a > member of the AFRINIC Board, was found unconscious in his room in the > morning of Monday, 23 November 2014. He is currently in good care at > the Apollo Bramwell Hospital in the intensive care unit with the full > support of his family. Representatives of the AFRINIC Board and > Management have also visited him. > > We are in constant communication with the hospital for updates on his > health condition and will inform the community as appropriate. > > The Board invites the community to join in praying for a positive outcome. > > Sunday A. Folayan > Chair, AfriNIC Board > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) > > iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUdB+LAAoJEH6UvSz6fA25OBcIAKEA32JUvE2CZUZIvKDCQw/X > SZc7GRSMUR8SVYy8eRLMTBydlD8XcornYNjgNoe95GtNcKngEcnh356qxjGzqAkv > 9PvTZEf+E5p+jNrD67FkrF5m7oA03B5qC7f0XRF2H8Q7bPDlbIPmY0UIgNMRONK1 > 2soRWp/TkJi1lxgjmVtyZ5NzDJoP257ID2wolPmeGKofZTylUuB+OpscdL1U57JB > M6nPn5eSt9IJUeFuC92eZB3L3p+VxSkdM6TF5sopKKQzRk6PBIDua0jG0fZXjtqw > McogZMubNMU8QNryDiFnl6Py5WYxoAj1GxaPgPQD5ZY/s41Egw74TuC68vZlmy0= > =WamV > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd From tespok at tespok.co.ke Tue Nov 25 08:21:01 2014 From: tespok at tespok.co.ke (Fiona Asonga) Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 11:21:01 +0300 (EAT) Subject: [rpd] Mr Kris Seeburn: AfriNIC Board member In-Reply-To: <54741F8B.7050806@gmail.com> References: <54741F8B.7050806@gmail.com> Message-ID: <774571490.3943.1416903661043.JavaMail.zimbra@tespok.co.ke> We wish him a quick recovery and will pray for a positive outcome Regards Fiona Asonga Chief Executive Officer Telecommunications Service Providers Association of Kenya/ Kenya Internet Exchange Point Member Strategic Committee of the Africa Computer Emergency Response Team NRO Number Council http://www.nro.net/about/number-council.html ASO Address Council http://aso.icann.org/ac/ 14 th Floor, Bruce House Standard Street Tel: +254 20 2245 036 Cell: +254 721 713 504 Website: www.tespok.or.ke ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sunday Folayan" To: "AfriNIC Discuss" Cc: "rpd >> AfriNIC Resource Policy" Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2014 10:19:55 AM Subject: [rpd] Mr Kris Seeburn: AfriNIC Board member -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 The Board is sad to announce to the community that Mr Kris Seeburn, a member of the AFRINIC Board, was found unconscious in his room in the morning of Monday, 23 November 2014. He is currently in good care at the Apollo Bramwell Hospital in the intensive care unit with the full support of his family. Representatives of the AFRINIC Board and Management have also visited him. We are in constant communication with the hospital for updates on his health condition and will inform the community as appropriate. The Board invites the community to join in praying for a positive outcome. Sunday A. Folayan Chair, AfriNIC Board -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUdB+LAAoJEH6UvSz6fA25OBcIAKEA32JUvE2CZUZIvKDCQw/X SZc7GRSMUR8SVYy8eRLMTBydlD8XcornYNjgNoe95GtNcKngEcnh356qxjGzqAkv 9PvTZEf+E5p+jNrD67FkrF5m7oA03B5qC7f0XRF2H8Q7bPDlbIPmY0UIgNMRONK1 2soRWp/TkJi1lxgjmVtyZ5NzDJoP257ID2wolPmeGKofZTylUuB+OpscdL1U57JB M6nPn5eSt9IJUeFuC92eZB3L3p+VxSkdM6TF5sopKKQzRk6PBIDua0jG0fZXjtqw McogZMubNMU8QNryDiFnl6Py5WYxoAj1GxaPgPQD5ZY/s41Egw74TuC68vZlmy0= =WamV -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ rpd mailing list rpd at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd From sfolayan at gmail.com Tue Nov 25 08:32:27 2014 From: sfolayan at gmail.com (Sunday Folayan) Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 09:32:27 +0100 Subject: [rpd] Fwd: Mr Kris Seeburn: AfriNIC Board member In-Reply-To: <54741F8B.7050806@gmail.com> References: <54741F8B.7050806@gmail.com> Message-ID: <54743E9B.80907@gmail.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I am pleased to update the community that Mr Kris Seeburn is now awake and has spoken to an AfriNIC Staff member who visited. The Board appreciates the concern and support of the community, especially those here in Mauritius. We will keep you updated of his progress, until he is out of the hospital. Best Regards ... Sunday A. Folayan Chair, AfriNIC Board - -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Mr Kris Seeburn: AfriNIC Board member The Board is sad to announce to the community that Mr Kris Seeburn, a member of the AFRINIC Board, was found unconscious in his room in the morning of Monday, 23 November 2014. He is currently in good care at the Apollo Bramwell Hospital in the intensive care unit with the full support of his family. Representatives of the AFRINIC Board and Management have also visited him. We are in constant communication with the hospital for updates on his health condition and will inform the community as appropriate. The Board invites the community to join in praying for a positive outcome. Sunday A. Folayan Chair, AfriNIC Board -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUdD6bAAoJEH6UvSz6fA25MIAH/1wGS2TULmpMGTidIKP25V0j /fQtII7vA0FUqkXR1kRKglUtURCYnIc2Yo2jBZ8/LZEImNrZMMv+sAVp6Amv9KPt zpPGN5fKGAmuQiU6NXMwgQ8vR0vEhb7mhi1vsDedKxLCTz/cjRBLnoOPoU29fvSz bIpYyO6VsLWtluUV/D3V84Qw+wz4wid3Y5VRW1iDZYD0f2odbJGu92Sy/aQdlmMU jy609jO9hbi5KRF025EMhnzCJ+O8ps2iiYFcaPZWbnTMQ2LHAo2v4WkHuQqzZcrQ hNqo/LdKlC6O5BLvgqt9Ze5W/oS6/qnMdV2+XeTR5IHcymw6vfQLiK5+sfbH3m0= =QLUK -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From honlue at gmail.com Tue Nov 25 08:50:50 2014 From: honlue at gmail.com (Stephen Musa HONLUE) Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 08:50:50 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [rpd] Fwd: Mr Kris Seeburn: AfriNIC Board member In-Reply-To: <54743E9B.80907@gmail.com> References: <54743E9B.80907@gmail.com> Message-ID: <219808474.661601.1416905450544.JavaMail.yahoo@jws11168.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> That is great and we thank GOD for that.What actualy is the problem.?----------- M. Musa Stephen HONLUE, @BrightMind CISCO Instructor (ITE 5.0, CCNA RnS, CCNA Security) LPIC(101, 102, 201), SUSE CLA, Centreon Eng.Tel (237) 699 49 12 32 -------------------------------------------- La r?ussite ne simprovise pas!!! The Future is Mine From: Sunday Folayan To: AfriNIC Discuss Cc: "rpd >> AfriNIC Resource Policy" Sent: Tuesday, 25 November 2014, 9:32 Subject: [rpd] Fwd: Mr Kris Seeburn: AfriNIC Board member -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I am pleased to update the community that Mr Kris Seeburn is now awake and has spoken to an AfriNIC Staff member who visited. The Board appreciates the concern and support of the community, especially those here in Mauritius. We will keep you updated of his progress, until he is out of the hospital. Best Regards ... Sunday A. Folayan Chair, AfriNIC Board - -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Mr Kris Seeburn: AfriNIC Board member The Board is sad to announce to the community that Mr Kris Seeburn, a member of the AFRINIC Board, was found unconscious in his room in the morning of Monday, 23 November 2014.? He is currently in good care at the Apollo Bramwell Hospital in the intensive care unit with the full support of his family.? Representatives of the AFRINIC Board and Management have also visited him. We are in constant communication with the hospital for updates on his health condition and will inform the community as appropriate. The Board invites the community to join in praying for a positive outcome. Sunday A. Folayan Chair, AfriNIC Board -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUdD6bAAoJEH6UvSz6fA25MIAH/1wGS2TULmpMGTidIKP25V0j /fQtII7vA0FUqkXR1kRKglUtURCYnIc2Yo2jBZ8/LZEImNrZMMv+sAVp6Amv9KPt zpPGN5fKGAmuQiU6NXMwgQ8vR0vEhb7mhi1vsDedKxLCTz/cjRBLnoOPoU29fvSz bIpYyO6VsLWtluUV/D3V84Qw+wz4wid3Y5VRW1iDZYD0f2odbJGu92Sy/aQdlmMU jy609jO9hbi5KRF025EMhnzCJ+O8ps2iiYFcaPZWbnTMQ2LHAo2v4WkHuQqzZcrQ hNqo/LdKlC6O5BLvgqt9Ze5W/oS6/qnMdV2+XeTR5IHcymw6vfQLiK5+sfbH3m0= =QLUK -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ rpd mailing list rpd at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From otieno.barrack at gmail.com Tue Nov 25 09:00:51 2014 From: otieno.barrack at gmail.com (Barrack Otieno) Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 12:00:51 +0300 Subject: [rpd] Fwd: Mr Kris Seeburn: AfriNIC Board member In-Reply-To: <219808474.661601.1416905450544.JavaMail.yahoo@jws11168.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> References: <54743E9B.80907@gmail.com> <219808474.661601.1416905450544.JavaMail.yahoo@jws11168.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Good news, we wish him a quick recovery. Best Regards On 11/25/14, Stephen Musa HONLUE wrote: > That is great and we thank GOD for that.What actualy is the > problem. ----------- > M. Musa Stephen HONLUE, > @BrightMind > CISCO Instructor (ITE 5.0, CCNA RnS, CCNA Security) > LPIC(101, 102, 201), SUSE CLA, Centreon Eng.Tel (237) 699 49 12 32 > -------------------------------------------- > La r?ussite ne simprovise pas!!! > The Future is Mine > From: Sunday Folayan > To: AfriNIC Discuss > Cc: "rpd >> AfriNIC Resource Policy" > Sent: Tuesday, 25 November 2014, 9:32 > Subject: [rpd] Fwd: Mr Kris Seeburn: AfriNIC Board member > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > I am pleased to update the community that Mr Kris Seeburn is now awake > and has spoken to an AfriNIC Staff member who visited. > > The Board appreciates the concern and support of the community, > especially those here in Mauritius. > > We will keep you updated of his progress, until he is out of the hospital. > > Best Regards ... > > Sunday A. Folayan > Chair, AfriNIC Board > > > - -------- Forwarded Message -------- > Subject: Mr Kris Seeburn: AfriNIC Board member > > The Board is sad to announce to the community that Mr Kris Seeburn, a > member of the AFRINIC Board, was found unconscious in his room in the > morning of Monday, 23 November 2014. He is currently in good care at > the Apollo Bramwell Hospital in the intensive care unit with the full > support of his family. Representatives of the AFRINIC Board and > Management have also visited him. > > We are in constant communication with the hospital for updates on his > health condition and will inform the community as appropriate. > > The Board invites the community to join in praying for a positive outcome. > > Sunday A. Folayan > Chair, AfriNIC Board > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) > > iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUdD6bAAoJEH6UvSz6fA25MIAH/1wGS2TULmpMGTidIKP25V0j > /fQtII7vA0FUqkXR1kRKglUtURCYnIc2Yo2jBZ8/LZEImNrZMMv+sAVp6Amv9KPt > zpPGN5fKGAmuQiU6NXMwgQ8vR0vEhb7mhi1vsDedKxLCTz/cjRBLnoOPoU29fvSz > bIpYyO6VsLWtluUV/D3V84Qw+wz4wid3Y5VRW1iDZYD0f2odbJGu92Sy/aQdlmMU > jy609jO9hbi5KRF025EMhnzCJ+O8ps2iiYFcaPZWbnTMQ2LHAo2v4WkHuQqzZcrQ > hNqo/LdKlC6O5BLvgqt9Ze5W/oS6/qnMdV2+XeTR5IHcymw6vfQLiK5+sfbH3m0= > =QLUK > > > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > > -- Barrack O. Otieno +254721325277 +254-20-2498789 Skype: barrack.otieno http://www.otienobarrack.me.ke/ From abibu at tznic.or.tz Tue Nov 25 09:49:55 2014 From: abibu at tznic.or.tz (Abibu Ntahigiye) Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 12:49:55 +0300 Subject: [rpd] Mr Kris Seeburn: AfriNIC Board member In-Reply-To: <54743E9B.80907@gmail.com> References: <54741F8B.7050806@gmail.com> <54743E9B.80907@gmail.com> Message-ID: <962541A2-A63C-4626-9233-0471B2444071@tznic.or.tz> Our fingers still crossed. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Eng. Abibu R. Ntahigiye; Manager, tzNIC; +255 784 279 511 On Nov 25, 2014, at 11:32 AM, Sunday Folayan wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > I am pleased to update the community that Mr Kris Seeburn is now awake > and has spoken to an AfriNIC Staff member who visited. > > The Board appreciates the concern and support of the community, > especially those here in Mauritius. > > We will keep you updated of his progress, until he is out of the hospital. > > Best Regards ... > > Sunday A. Folayan > Chair, AfriNIC Board > > > - -------- Forwarded Message -------- > Subject: Mr Kris Seeburn: AfriNIC Board member > > The Board is sad to announce to the community that Mr Kris Seeburn, a > member of the AFRINIC Board, was found unconscious in his room in the > morning of Monday, 23 November 2014. He is currently in good care at > the Apollo Bramwell Hospital in the intensive care unit with the full > support of his family. Representatives of the AFRINIC Board and > Management have also visited him. > > We are in constant communication with the hospital for updates on his > health condition and will inform the community as appropriate. > > The Board invites the community to join in praying for a positive outcome. > > Sunday A. Folayan > Chair, AfriNIC Board > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) > > iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUdD6bAAoJEH6UvSz6fA25MIAH/1wGS2TULmpMGTidIKP25V0j > /fQtII7vA0FUqkXR1kRKglUtURCYnIc2Yo2jBZ8/LZEImNrZMMv+sAVp6Amv9KPt > zpPGN5fKGAmuQiU6NXMwgQ8vR0vEhb7mhi1vsDedKxLCTz/cjRBLnoOPoU29fvSz > bIpYyO6VsLWtluUV/D3V84Qw+wz4wid3Y5VRW1iDZYD0f2odbJGu92Sy/aQdlmMU > jy609jO9hbi5KRF025EMhnzCJ+O8ps2iiYFcaPZWbnTMQ2LHAo2v4WkHuQqzZcrQ > hNqo/LdKlC6O5BLvgqt9Ze5W/oS6/qnMdV2+XeTR5IHcymw6vfQLiK5+sfbH3m0= > =QLUK > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com Tue Nov 25 10:46:26 2014 From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji) Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 14:46:26 +0400 Subject: [rpd] Fwd: Mr Kris Seeburn: AfriNIC Board member In-Reply-To: <54743E9B.80907@gmail.com> References: <54741F8B.7050806@gmail.com> <54743E9B.80907@gmail.com> Message-ID: This part is particularly comforting and relieving. We pray all other recovery phases will be smooth. Thanks for the update As a side note, I am sure we have not overworked the board in the last few days...lol Cheers! sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 25 Nov 2014 12:38, "Sunday Folayan" wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > I am pleased to update the community that Mr Kris Seeburn is now awake > and has spoken to an AfriNIC Staff member who visited. > > The Board appreciates the concern and support of the community, > especially those here in Mauritius. > > We will keep you updated of his progress, until he is out of the hospital. > > Best Regards ... > > Sunday A. Folayan > Chair, AfriNIC Board > > > - -------- Forwarded Message -------- > Subject: Mr Kris Seeburn: AfriNIC Board member > > The Board is sad to announce to the community that Mr Kris Seeburn, a > member of the AFRINIC Board, was found unconscious in his room in the > morning of Monday, 23 November 2014. He is currently in good care at > the Apollo Bramwell Hospital in the intensive care unit with the full > support of his family. Representatives of the AFRINIC Board and > Management have also visited him. > > We are in constant communication with the hospital for updates on his > health condition and will inform the community as appropriate. > > The Board invites the community to join in praying for a positive outcome. > > Sunday A. Folayan > Chair, AfriNIC Board > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) > > iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUdD6bAAoJEH6UvSz6fA25MIAH/1wGS2TULmpMGTidIKP25V0j > /fQtII7vA0FUqkXR1kRKglUtURCYnIc2Yo2jBZ8/LZEImNrZMMv+sAVp6Amv9KPt > zpPGN5fKGAmuQiU6NXMwgQ8vR0vEhb7mhi1vsDedKxLCTz/cjRBLnoOPoU29fvSz > bIpYyO6VsLWtluUV/D3V84Qw+wz4wid3Y5VRW1iDZYD0f2odbJGu92Sy/aQdlmMU > jy609jO9hbi5KRF025EMhnzCJ+O8ps2iiYFcaPZWbnTMQ2LHAo2v4WkHuQqzZcrQ > hNqo/LdKlC6O5BLvgqt9Ze5W/oS6/qnMdV2+XeTR5IHcymw6vfQLiK5+sfbH3m0= > =QLUK > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sfolayan at gmail.com Tue Nov 25 12:57:53 2014 From: sfolayan at gmail.com (Sunday Folayan) Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 13:57:53 +0100 Subject: [rpd] Board Statement with regards to allocation of large blocks of IP Addresses Message-ID: <54747CD1.5060507@gmail.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Dear Members, Recently, there has been much discussion regarding the allocation of large blocks of address space by AfriNIC. Specifically, these discussions have focused on allocations of space which some members of the community feel is being utilized off continent and not for the benefit of the AfriNIC service region. The board of AfriNIC has followed these discussions closely, and has also sought explanations from management on the matter. It needs to be stated that the board in its deliberations on the issue is being guided by certain AfriNIC founding principles. Namely: a.) AfriNIC is governed by its bylaws which were agreed to by the members, and as such without a request from the members and a vote by means of a special resolution to modify these bylaws, it would be wrong for the board to step outside of these governing principles. b.) AfriNIC IP allocations are governed by policies as set forth through the policy development process. The policy development process is well documented and finds its legitimacy through the community and bylaws. Neither the board nor internal management of AfriNIC have been given a mandate which allows for the violation of the policies defined through the policy development process, except in the case where the board feels an urgent and necessary policy is needed with immediate effect. In this exception, such emergency policy would still require ratification by the community at the next public meeting. The board has been given every assurance that AfriNIC staff followed the IP allocation policy with regards to all allocations already made. Consequently, the board cannot retroactively act on these allocations because of perceived unhappiness in the community. To do so would be to disregard the RSA and current policies which are in place and the policy formulation process that has been defined and agreed upon by the community. With regards to future allocations, again, it is the responsibility of the board to provide a reasonable level of assurance to the community that the company is acting within the bylaws and the policies defined. It is of concern to the board that despite much debate, it is clear that the current policies may potentially allow for external parties to drain AfriNIC of large pools of resources with little benefit to the region. That being said, this concern must be weighed against the will of the community as expressed through the policy development process. It should also be clearly stated that the board does not review allocations, and allocations submitted to AfriNIC are handled by staff. Considering all of the above, the Board has advised the staff to proceed with any applications as per current policies. In the case of any dispute, the Board is looking at dispute resolution mechanisms. Staff have already reported to the community in the past, observations on current policy implementation can be found at http://internetsummitafrica.org/images/AIS14_assets/powerpoint_template/af20_policy_implementat_report.ppt The board appeals to the community and to the AfriNIC members to examine the current policies in light of the discussions held in recent weeks and should the community feel that a change is needed, the board encourages the members to follow the processes defined and propose suitable changes to the current policies. Sunday A. Folayan Chair, AFRINIC Board -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUdHzQAAoJEH6UvSz6fA25q1QH/2PCjkcHW25CxTVfSDjWlzGo 66GrA+3iPMTBJag9LfWQ3xux3xdS/jzC0iMFyhnzDL23aY27tQMmbUcWk++sF2pe Y4lVrLWK5RebfsL5yhoH8fzIul/2xpEMbcDs4iya4KvvC9351hc+dk2DqsD02Vvu SNJ180n51Po7R1hU14D8bBxPeO1wKrls1hWQmGkQziCyJSs+Ee1wzj6fte0HLyHz 2lQ5KoZShZJnGGMR/dktmteAagARaIFQAbZCvy6Q5Jkk9GO1kAsyX0v8nJG4XnJa GxLpU/cvuw1VIDQ9dck6iLvQfEOTPA9BnwjwUyin6K1o1xzHVBQh+XHT/2s31zE= =IoBB -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From vincent at ngundi.me.ke Tue Nov 25 13:20:37 2014 From: vincent at ngundi.me.ke (Vincent Ngundi) Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 15:20:37 +0200 Subject: [rpd] Fwd: Mr Kris Seeburn: AfriNIC Board member In-Reply-To: <54743E9B.80907@gmail.com> References: <54741F8B.7050806@gmail.com> <54743E9B.80907@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20141125132037.5980304.53903.674@ngundi.me.ke> I wish Kris a quick and full recovery. Regards, Vincent ? Original Message ? From: Sunday Folayan Sent: Tuesday, 25 November 2014 10:39 To: AfriNIC Discuss Cc: rpd >> AfriNIC Resource Policy Subject: [rpd] Fwd: Mr Kris Seeburn: AfriNIC Board member -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I am pleased to update the community that Mr Kris Seeburn is now awake and has spoken to an AfriNIC Staff member who visited. The Board appreciates the concern and support of the community, especially those here in Mauritius. We will keep you updated of his progress, until he is out of the hospital. Best Regards ... Sunday A. Folayan Chair, AfriNIC Board - -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Mr Kris Seeburn: AfriNIC Board member The Board is sad to announce to the community that Mr Kris Seeburn, a member of the AFRINIC Board, was found unconscious in his room in the morning of Monday, 23 November 2014. He is currently in good care at the Apollo Bramwell Hospital in the intensive care unit with the full support of his family. Representatives of the AFRINIC Board and Management have also visited him. We are in constant communication with the hospital for updates on his health condition and will inform the community as appropriate. The Board invites the community to join in praying for a positive outcome. Sunday A. Folayan Chair, AfriNIC Board -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUdD6bAAoJEH6UvSz6fA25MIAH/1wGS2TULmpMGTidIKP25V0j /fQtII7vA0FUqkXR1kRKglUtURCYnIc2Yo2jBZ8/LZEImNrZMMv+sAVp6Amv9KPt zpPGN5fKGAmuQiU6NXMwgQ8vR0vEhb7mhi1vsDedKxLCTz/cjRBLnoOPoU29fvSz bIpYyO6VsLWtluUV/D3V84Qw+wz4wid3Y5VRW1iDZYD0f2odbJGu92Sy/aQdlmMU jy609jO9hbi5KRF025EMhnzCJ+O8ps2iiYFcaPZWbnTMQ2LHAo2v4WkHuQqzZcrQ hNqo/LdKlC6O5BLvgqt9Ze5W/oS6/qnMdV2+XeTR5IHcymw6vfQLiK5+sfbH3m0= =QLUK -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ rpd mailing list rpd at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd From ndonnang at nvconsulting.biz Tue Nov 25 13:24:14 2014 From: ndonnang at nvconsulting.biz (Victor Ndonnang) Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 08:24:14 -0500 Subject: [rpd] Fwd: Mr Kris Seeburn: AfriNIC Board member In-Reply-To: References: <54741F8B.7050806@gmail.com> <54743E9B.80907@gmail.com> Message-ID: <034201d008b3$1c263aa0$5472afe0$@nvconsulting.biz> I join others and pray for his quick and smooth recovery. Regards, Victor. ***************************** Victor Ndonnang From: rpd-bounces at afrinic.net [mailto:rpd-bounces at afrinic.net] On Behalf Of Seun Ojedeji Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2014 5:46 AM To: Sunday Folayan Cc: AfriNIC Discuss; rpd Subject: Re: [rpd] Fwd: Mr Kris Seeburn: AfriNIC Board member This part is particularly comforting and relieving. We pray all other recovery phases will be smooth. Thanks for the update As a side note, I am sure we have not overworked the board in the last few days...lol Cheers! sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 25 Nov 2014 12:38, "Sunday Folayan" > wrote: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I am pleased to update the community that Mr Kris Seeburn is now awake and has spoken to an AfriNIC Staff member who visited. The Board appreciates the concern and support of the community, especially those here in Mauritius. We will keep you updated of his progress, until he is out of the hospital. Best Regards ... Sunday A. Folayan Chair, AfriNIC Board - -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Mr Kris Seeburn: AfriNIC Board member The Board is sad to announce to the community that Mr Kris Seeburn, a member of the AFRINIC Board, was found unconscious in his room in the morning of Monday, 23 November 2014. He is currently in good care at the Apollo Bramwell Hospital in the intensive care unit with the full support of his family. Representatives of the AFRINIC Board and Management have also visited him. We are in constant communication with the hospital for updates on his health condition and will inform the community as appropriate. The Board invites the community to join in praying for a positive outcome. Sunday A. Folayan Chair, AfriNIC Board -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUdD6bAAoJEH6UvSz6fA25MIAH/1wGS2TULmpMGTidIKP25V0j /fQtII7vA0FUqkXR1kRKglUtURCYnIc2Yo2jBZ8/LZEImNrZMMv+sAVp6Amv9KPt zpPGN5fKGAmuQiU6NXMwgQ8vR0vEhb7mhi1vsDedKxLCTz/cjRBLnoOPoU29fvSz bIpYyO6VsLWtluUV/D3V84Qw+wz4wid3Y5VRW1iDZYD0f2odbJGu92Sy/aQdlmMU jy609jO9hbi5KRF025EMhnzCJ+O8ps2iiYFcaPZWbnTMQ2LHAo2v4WkHuQqzZcrQ hNqo/LdKlC6O5BLvgqt9Ze5W/oS6/qnMdV2+XeTR5IHcymw6vfQLiK5+sfbH3m0= =QLUK -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ rpd mailing list rpd at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From otieno.barrack at gmail.com Tue Nov 25 13:32:14 2014 From: otieno.barrack at gmail.com (Barrack Otieno) Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 16:32:14 +0300 Subject: [rpd] Board Statement with regards to allocation of large blocks of IP Addresses In-Reply-To: <54747CD1.5060507@gmail.com> References: <54747CD1.5060507@gmail.com> Message-ID: Dear Chair, I had an opportunity to attend the AFRINIC training (INRM) and asked the same questions. I am happy with the response i received from Staff (the training team) which is in line with the advise we have received from you on behalf of the board. Indeed the ball is in the Communities court. Regards On 11/25/14, Sunday Folayan wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Dear Members, > > Recently, there has been much discussion regarding the allocation of > large blocks of address space by AfriNIC. Specifically, these > discussions have focused on allocations of space which some members of > the community feel is being utilized off continent and not for the > benefit of the AfriNIC service region. > > The board of AfriNIC has followed these discussions closely, and has > also sought explanations from management on the matter. It needs to > be stated that the board in its deliberations on the issue is being > guided by certain AfriNIC founding principles. Namely: > > a.) AfriNIC is governed by its bylaws which were agreed to by the > members, and as such without a request from the members and a vote by > means of a special resolution to modify these bylaws, it would be > wrong for the board to step outside of these governing principles. > > b.) AfriNIC IP allocations are governed by policies as set forth > through the policy development process. The policy development > process is well documented and finds its legitimacy through the > community and bylaws. Neither the board nor internal management of > AfriNIC have been given a mandate which allows for the violation of > the policies defined through the policy development process, except > in the case where the board feels an urgent and necessary policy is > needed with immediate effect. In this exception, such emergency > policy would still require ratification by the community at the next > public meeting. > > The board has been given every assurance that AfriNIC staff followed > the IP allocation policy with regards to all allocations already made. > > Consequently, the board cannot retroactively act on these allocations > because of perceived unhappiness in the community. To do so would be > to disregard the RSA and current policies which are in place and the > policy formulation process that has been defined and agreed upon by > the community. > > With regards to future allocations, again, it is the responsibility of > the board to provide a reasonable level of assurance to the community > that the company is acting within the bylaws and the policies defined. > > It is of concern to the board that despite much debate, it is clear > that the current policies may potentially allow for external parties > to drain AfriNIC of large pools of resources with little benefit to > the region. > > That being said, this concern must be weighed against the will of the > community as expressed through the policy development process. It > should also be clearly stated that the board does not review > allocations, and allocations submitted to AfriNIC are handled by staff. > > Considering all of the above, the Board has advised the staff to > proceed with any applications as per current policies. > > In the case of any dispute, the Board is looking at dispute resolution > mechanisms. > > Staff have already reported to the community in the past, observations > on current policy implementation can be found at > http://internetsummitafrica.org/images/AIS14_assets/powerpoint_template/af20_policy_implementat_report.ppt > > The board appeals to the community and to the AfriNIC members to > examine the current policies in light of the discussions held in > recent weeks and should the community feel that a change is needed, > the board encourages the members to follow the processes defined and > propose suitable changes to the current policies. > > Sunday A. Folayan > Chair, AFRINIC Board > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) > > iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUdHzQAAoJEH6UvSz6fA25q1QH/2PCjkcHW25CxTVfSDjWlzGo > 66GrA+3iPMTBJag9LfWQ3xux3xdS/jzC0iMFyhnzDL23aY27tQMmbUcWk++sF2pe > Y4lVrLWK5RebfsL5yhoH8fzIul/2xpEMbcDs4iya4KvvC9351hc+dk2DqsD02Vvu > SNJ180n51Po7R1hU14D8bBxPeO1wKrls1hWQmGkQziCyJSs+Ee1wzj6fte0HLyHz > 2lQ5KoZShZJnGGMR/dktmteAagARaIFQAbZCvy6Q5Jkk9GO1kAsyX0v8nJG4XnJa > GxLpU/cvuw1VIDQ9dck6iLvQfEOTPA9BnwjwUyin6K1o1xzHVBQh+XHT/2s31zE= > =IoBB > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > -- Barrack O. Otieno +254721325277 +254-20-2498789 Skype: barrack.otieno http://www.otienobarrack.me.ke/ From kofi.ansa at gmail.com Tue Nov 25 13:44:32 2014 From: kofi.ansa at gmail.com (Kofi ANSA AKUFO) Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 17:44:32 +0400 Subject: [rpd] Board Statement with regards to allocation of large blocks of IP Addresses In-Reply-To: <54747CD1.5060507@gmail.com> References: <54747CD1.5060507@gmail.com> Message-ID: Dear Sunday, In deed allocation and assignment of resources are guided by ratified policies. AfriNIC as the 5th Regional Internet Registry (RIR) was setup and gained accreditation from ICANN. I beleive the mission and vision for the RIR still holds http://afrinic.net/en/about-us/origins IP resource analyst otherwise known as hostmasters I understand evaluate request for resources and make decisions based on the ratified policies. It will be reassuring if board members could clarify why some of these huge allocation request which hostmasters may have enforced a slow start policy were overridden by management. That said policy interpretation may be subjective which requires the board and council of elders to put their foot down to act in the interest of the community. It is unfortunate I will have to disagree on your first statement regarding resource allocation upon assuming chairmanship today. cheers K. On 25 November 2014 at 16:57, Sunday Folayan wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Dear Members, > > Recently, there has been much discussion regarding the allocation of > large blocks of address space by AfriNIC. Specifically, these > discussions have focused on allocations of space which some members of > the community feel is being utilized off continent and not for the > benefit of the AfriNIC service region. > > The board of AfriNIC has followed these discussions closely, and has > also sought explanations from management on the matter. It needs to > be stated that the board in its deliberations on the issue is being > guided by certain AfriNIC founding principles. Namely: > > a.) AfriNIC is governed by its bylaws which were agreed to by the > members, and as such without a request from the members and a vote by > means of a special resolution to modify these bylaws, it would be > wrong for the board to step outside of these governing principles. > > b.) AfriNIC IP allocations are governed by policies as set forth > through the policy development process. The policy development > process is well documented and finds its legitimacy through the > community and bylaws. Neither the board nor internal management of > AfriNIC have been given a mandate which allows for the violation of > the policies defined through the policy development process, except > in the case where the board feels an urgent and necessary policy is > needed with immediate effect. In this exception, such emergency > policy would still require ratification by the community at the next > public meeting. > > The board has been given every assurance that AfriNIC staff followed > the IP allocation policy with regards to all allocations already made. > > Consequently, the board cannot retroactively act on these allocations > because of perceived unhappiness in the community. To do so would be > to disregard the RSA and current policies which are in place and the > policy formulation process that has been defined and agreed upon by > the community. > > With regards to future allocations, again, it is the responsibility of > the board to provide a reasonable level of assurance to the community > that the company is acting within the bylaws and the policies defined. > > It is of concern to the board that despite much debate, it is clear > that the current policies may potentially allow for external parties > to drain AfriNIC of large pools of resources with little benefit to > the region. > > That being said, this concern must be weighed against the will of the > community as expressed through the policy development process. It > should also be clearly stated that the board does not review > allocations, and allocations submitted to AfriNIC are handled by staff. > > Considering all of the above, the Board has advised the staff to > proceed with any applications as per current policies. > > In the case of any dispute, the Board is looking at dispute resolution > mechanisms. > > Staff have already reported to the community in the past, observations > on current policy implementation can be found at > > http://internetsummitafrica.org/images/AIS14_assets/powerpoint_template/af20_policy_implementat_report.ppt > > The board appeals to the community and to the AfriNIC members to > examine the current policies in light of the discussions held in > recent weeks and should the community feel that a change is needed, > the board encourages the members to follow the processes defined and > propose suitable changes to the current policies. > > Sunday A. Folayan > Chair, AFRINIC Board > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) > > iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUdHzQAAoJEH6UvSz6fA25q1QH/2PCjkcHW25CxTVfSDjWlzGo > 66GrA+3iPMTBJag9LfWQ3xux3xdS/jzC0iMFyhnzDL23aY27tQMmbUcWk++sF2pe > Y4lVrLWK5RebfsL5yhoH8fzIul/2xpEMbcDs4iya4KvvC9351hc+dk2DqsD02Vvu > SNJ180n51Po7R1hU14D8bBxPeO1wKrls1hWQmGkQziCyJSs+Ee1wzj6fte0HLyHz > 2lQ5KoZShZJnGGMR/dktmteAagARaIFQAbZCvy6Q5Jkk9GO1kAsyX0v8nJG4XnJa > GxLpU/cvuw1VIDQ9dck6iLvQfEOTPA9BnwjwUyin6K1o1xzHVBQh+XHT/2s31zE= > =IoBB > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From yaovito at yahoo.fr Tue Nov 25 14:10:45 2014 From: yaovito at yahoo.fr (Yaovi Atohoun) Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 14:10:45 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [rpd] Fwd: Mr Kris Seeburn: AfriNIC Board member In-Reply-To: <034201d008b3$1c263aa0$5472afe0$@nvconsulting.biz> References: <034201d008b3$1c263aa0$5472afe0$@nvconsulting.biz> Message-ID: <1828976588.874715.1416924645574.JavaMail.yahoo@jws11111.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> We wish him a prompt recovery. RegardsYaovi -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I am pleased to update the community that Mr Kris Seeburn is now awake and has spoken to an AfriNIC Staff member who visited. The Board appreciates the concern and support of the community, especially those here in Mauritius. We will keep you updated of his progress, until he is out of the hospital. Best Regards ... Sunday A. Folayan Chair, AfriNIC Board - -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Mr Kris Seeburn: AfriNIC Board member The Board is sad to announce to the community that Mr Kris Seeburn, a member of the AFRINIC Board, was found unconscious in his room in the morning of Monday, 23 November 2014.? He is currently in good care at the Apollo Bramwell Hospital in the intensive care unit with the full support of his family.? Representatives of the AFRINIC Board and Management have also visited him. We are in constant communication with the hospital for updates on his health condition and will inform the community as appropriate. The Board invites the community to join in praying for a positive outcome. Sunday A. Folayan Chair, AfriNIC Board -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wafa at ati.tn Tue Nov 25 15:09:45 2014 From: wafa at ati.tn (Wafa Dahmani) Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 16:09:45 +0100 Subject: [rpd] Mr Kris Seeburn: AfriNIC Board member In-Reply-To: <54741F8B.7050806@gmail.com> References: <54741F8B.7050806@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20141125150827.M25705@ati.tn> We are all praying for a quick recovery On Tue, 25 Nov 2014 07:19:55 +0100, Sunday Folayan wrote > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > The Board is sad to announce to the community that Mr Kris Seeburn, a > member of the AFRINIC Board, was found unconscious in his room in the > morning of Monday, 23 November 2014. He is currently in good care at > the Apollo Bramwell Hospital in the intensive care unit with the full > support of his family. Representatives of the AFRINIC Board and > Management have also visited him. > > We are in constant communication with the hospital for updates on his > health condition and will inform the community as appropriate. > > The Board invites the community to join in praying for a positive outcome. > > Sunday A. Folayan > Chair, AfriNIC Board > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) > > iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUdB+LAAoJEH6UvSz6fA25OBcIAKEA3 2JUvE2CZUZIvKDCQw/X > SZc7GRSMUR8SVYy8eRLMTBydlD8XcornYNjgNoe95GtN cKngEcnh356qxjGzqAkv > 9PvTZEf+E5p+jNrD67FkrF5m7oA03B5qC7f0XRF2H8Q7bP DlbIPmY0UIgNMRONK1 > 2soRWp/ TkJi1lxgjmVtyZ5NzDJoP257ID2wolPmeGKofZTylUuB+Op scdL1U57JB > M6nPn5eSt9IJUeFuC92eZB3L3p+VxSkdM6TF5sopKKQzR k6PBIDua0jG0fZXjtqw > McogZMubNMU8QNryDiFnl6Py5WYxoAj1GxaPgPQD5ZY/ s41Egw74TuC68vZlmy0= > =WamV > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd -- Mme Wafa Dahmani Zaafouri Ing???nieur en chef Sous Directeur ressources rares (NIC/LIR) Agence Tunisienne d'Internet Tel: +216 71 846 100 Fax : +216 71 846 600 From h.lu at anytimechinese.com Tue Nov 25 15:56:43 2014 From: h.lu at anytimechinese.com (Lu) Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 19:56:43 +0400 Subject: [rpd] Mr Kris Seeburn: AfriNIC Board member In-Reply-To: <20141125150827.M25705@ati.tn> References: <54741F8B.7050806@gmail.com> <20141125150827.M25705@ati.tn> Message-ID: <010F516C-D120-458D-9120-AC094E652F04@anytimechinese.com> Get better soon > On 2014?11?25?, at ??7:09, Wafa Dahmani wrote: > > We are all praying for a quick recovery > On Tue, 25 Nov 2014 07:19:55 +0100, Sunday Folayan > wrote >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> The Board is sad to announce to the community that Mr > Kris Seeburn, a >> member of the AFRINIC Board, was found unconscious > in his room in the >> morning of Monday, 23 November 2014. He is currently > in good care at >> the Apollo Bramwell Hospital in the intensive care unit > with the full >> support of his family. Representatives of the AFRINIC > Board and >> Management have also visited him. >> >> We are in constant communication with the hospital for > updates on his >> health condition and will inform the community as > appropriate. >> >> The Board invites the community to join in praying for a > positive outcome. >> >> Sunday A. Folayan >> Chair, AfriNIC Board >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >> Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) >> >> > iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUdB+LAAoJEH6UvSz6fA25OBcIAKEA3 > 2JUvE2CZUZIvKDCQw/X >> > SZc7GRSMUR8SVYy8eRLMTBydlD8XcornYNjgNoe95GtN > cKngEcnh356qxjGzqAkv >> > 9PvTZEf+E5p+jNrD67FkrF5m7oA03B5qC7f0XRF2H8Q7bP > DlbIPmY0UIgNMRONK1 >> 2soRWp/ > TkJi1lxgjmVtyZ5NzDJoP257ID2wolPmeGKofZTylUuB+Op > scdL1U57JB >> > M6nPn5eSt9IJUeFuC92eZB3L3p+VxSkdM6TF5sopKKQzR > k6PBIDua0jG0fZXjtqw >> > McogZMubNMU8QNryDiFnl6Py5WYxoAj1GxaPgPQD5ZY/ > s41Egw74TuC68vZlmy0= >> =WamV >> -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >> _______________________________________________ >> rpd mailing list >> rpd at afrinic.net >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > > -- > Mme Wafa Dahmani Zaafouri > Ing?nieur en chef > Sous Directeur ressources rares (NIC/LIR) > Agence Tunisienne d'Internet > Tel: +216 71 846 100 > Fax : +216 71 846 600 > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd From emilemilan at gmail.com Wed Nov 26 09:16:11 2014 From: emilemilan at gmail.com (Emile Milandou) Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2014 10:16:11 +0100 Subject: [rpd] Mr Kris Seeburn: AfriNIC Board member In-Reply-To: <54743E9B.80907@gmail.com> References: <54741F8B.7050806@gmail.com> <54743E9B.80907@gmail.com> Message-ID: Thanks chair for the update. I join all other in prayers and wish to Kris a promptness recovery. Cheers, -em On Tuesday, November 25, 2014, Sunday Folayan wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > I am pleased to update the community that Mr Kris Seeburn is now awake > and has spoken to an AfriNIC Staff member who visited. > > The Board appreciates the concern and support of the community, > especially those here in Mauritius. > > We will keep you updated of his progress, until he is out of the hospital. > > Best Regards ... > > Sunday A. Folayan > Chair, AfriNIC Board > > > - -------- Forwarded Message -------- > Subject: Mr Kris Seeburn: AfriNIC Board member > > The Board is sad to announce to the community that Mr Kris Seeburn, a > member of the AFRINIC Board, was found unconscious in his room in the > morning of Monday, 23 November 2014. He is currently in good care at > the Apollo Bramwell Hospital in the intensive care unit with the full > support of his family. Representatives of the AFRINIC Board and > Management have also visited him. > > We are in constant communication with the hospital for updates on his > health condition and will inform the community as appropriate. > > The Board invites the community to join in praying for a positive outcome. > > Sunday A. Folayan > Chair, AfriNIC Board > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) > > iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUdD6bAAoJEH6UvSz6fA25MIAH/1wGS2TULmpMGTidIKP25V0j > /fQtII7vA0FUqkXR1kRKglUtURCYnIc2Yo2jBZ8/LZEImNrZMMv+sAVp6Amv9KPt > zpPGN5fKGAmuQiU6NXMwgQ8vR0vEhb7mhi1vsDedKxLCTz/cjRBLnoOPoU29fvSz > bIpYyO6VsLWtluUV/D3V84Qw+wz4wid3Y5VRW1iDZYD0f2odbJGu92Sy/aQdlmMU > jy609jO9hbi5KRF025EMhnzCJ+O8ps2iiYFcaPZWbnTMQ2LHAo2v4WkHuQqzZcrQ > hNqo/LdKlC6O5BLvgqt9Ze5W/oS6/qnMdV2+XeTR5IHcymw6vfQLiK5+sfbH3m0= > =QLUK > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From apb at cequrux.com Wed Nov 26 13:12:48 2014 From: apb at cequrux.com (Alan Barrett) Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2014 17:12:48 +0400 Subject: [rpd] Board Statement with regards to allocation of large blocks of IP Addresses In-Reply-To: <54747CD1.5060507@gmail.com> References: <54747CD1.5060507@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20141126131248.GG2652@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> Thank you Sunday, for that report. I am in agreement with all of it, but I would like to hightlght these two paragraphs: >The board has been given every assurance that AfriNIC staff followed >the IP allocation policy with regards to all allocations already made. >The board appeals to the community and to the AfriNIC members to >examine the current policies in light of the discussions held in >recent weeks and should the community feel that a change is needed, >the board encourages the members to follow the processes defined and >propose suitable changes to the current policies. I think it's especially important that both members applying for address space, and staff handling such applications, should follow both the letter and the spirit of the existing policies. The staff should take reasonable measures to check the information presented in applications, and the amount of checking that is reasonable goes up with the size of the requested space. The Board should be aware of what's going on, especially when it may be controversial, but should not interfere without very good cause. If people think that the policies allow things that should not be allowed, then the correct remedial action is not to petition the staff or the board to do things outside the policy, but rather to go through the policy development process to change the policy. Finally, may we interpret the Board's message as meaning that Heng Lu's application is now approved, and no longer under review? --apb (Alan Barrett) From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com Wed Nov 26 13:42:14 2014 From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji) Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2014 14:42:14 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] Re: [rpd] Board Statement with regards to allocation of large blocks of IP Addresses In-Reply-To: <20141126131248.GG2652@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> References: <54747CD1.5060507@gmail.com> <20141126131248.GG2652@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> Message-ID: On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 2:12 PM, Alan Barrett wrote: > Thank you Sunday, for that report. I am in agreement with all of it, > but I would like to hightlght these two paragraphs: > > The board has been given every assurance that AfriNIC staff followed >> the IP allocation policy with regards to all allocations already made. >> > > The board appeals to the community and to the AfriNIC members to >> examine the current policies in light of the discussions held in >> recent weeks and should the community feel that a change is needed, >> the board encourages the members to follow the processes defined and >> propose suitable changes to the current policies. >> > > I think it's especially important that both members applying for address > space, and staff handling such applications, should follow both the letter > and the spirit of the existing policies. > > The staff should take reasonable measures to check the information > presented in applications, and the amount of checking that is reasonable > goes up with the size of the requested space. The Board should be aware of > what's going on, especially when it may be controversial, but should not > interfere without very good cause. > > If people think that the policies allow things that should not be allowed, > then the correct remedial action is not to petition the staff or the board > to do things outside the policy, but rather to go through the policy > development process to change the policy. > > Finally, may we interpret the Board's message as meaning that Heng Lu's > application is now approved, and no longer under review? > I think i will be surprised if board respond with a yes or no to this question as it will most likely go against the principle that they have highlighted in their earlier mail. Basically the way i have understood board's message is that the board is not in the position to review/approve allocation request as that is the role of staff. I also understand from boards mail that staff is expected to make their assessment and decisions based on the existing policies and procedures. Regards > > --apb (Alan Barrett) > _______________________________________________ > members-discuss mailing list > members-discuss at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/members-discuss > -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng * The key to understanding is humility - my view ! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gehoumi at benintelecoms.bj Wed Nov 26 19:00:55 2014 From: gehoumi at benintelecoms.bj (gehoumi) Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2014 20:00:55 +0100 Subject: [rpd] Recruitment of AfriNIC CEO date In-Reply-To: <201411241201.sAOC1LJT030449@mail.afrinic.net> References: <201411241201.sAOC1LJT030449@mail.afrinic.net> Message-ID: <86ED8EAC-7258-442D-89BA-5935775EB8C3@benintelecoms.bj> I think that the date of 19 december 2014 to search for another CEO is not enough to do something durable. We do not need to waste time. Gregoire EHOUMI BENIN TELECOMS SA From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com Wed Nov 26 19:12:07 2014 From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji) Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2014 20:12:07 +0100 Subject: [rpd] Recruitment of AfriNIC CEO date In-Reply-To: <86ED8EAC-7258-442D-89BA-5935775EB8C3@benintelecoms.bj> References: <201411241201.sAOC1LJT030449@mail.afrinic.net> <86ED8EAC-7258-442D-89BA-5935775EB8C3@benintelecoms.bj> Message-ID: Hi Gregoire, Are you saying 3 weeks+ window for application is not enough? Because me thinks it's long enough for anyone interested to apply. What may be important is that enough social engagement should happen... and we as individual should share the information with our respective communities. Regards sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 26 Nov 2014 23:07, "gehoumi" wrote: > > I think that the date of 19 december 2014 to search for another CEO is not > enough to do something durable. We do not need to waste time. > > Gregoire EHOUMI > > BENIN TELECOMS SA > > > > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mainanoa at gmail.com Wed Nov 26 19:23:53 2014 From: mainanoa at gmail.com (Noah Maina) Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2014 22:23:53 +0300 Subject: [members-discuss] Re: [rpd] Board Statement with regards to allocation of large blocks of IP Addresses In-Reply-To: References: <54747CD1.5060507@gmail.com> <20141126131248.GG2652@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> Message-ID: On 26 Nov 2014 16:46, "Seun Ojedeji" wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 2:12 PM, Alan Barrett wrote: >> >> Thank you Sunday, for that report. I am in agreement with all of it, >> but I would like to hightlght these two paragraphs: >> >>> The board has been given every assurance that AfriNIC staff followed >>> the IP allocation policy with regards to all allocations already made. >> >> >>> The board appeals to the community and to the AfriNIC members to >>> examine the current policies in light of the discussions held in >>> recent weeks and should the community feel that a change is needed, >>> the board encourages the members to follow the processes defined and >>> propose suitable changes to the current policies. >> >> >> I think it's especially important that both members applying for address space, and staff handling such applications, should follow both the letter and the spirit of the existing policies. >> >> The staff should take reasonable measures to check the information presented in applications, and the amount of checking that is reasonable goes up with the size of the requested space. The Board should be aware of what's going on, especially when it may be controversial, but should not interfere without very good cause. >> >> If people think that the policies allow things that should not be allowed, then the correct remedial action is not to petition the staff or the board to do things outside the policy, but rather to go through the policy development process to change the policy. >> >> Finally, may we interpret the Board's message as meaning that Heng Lu's application is now approved, and no longer under review? > > > I think i will be surprised if board respond with a yes or no to this question as it will most likely go against the principle that they have highlighted in their earlier mail. Basically the way i have understood board's message is that the board is not in the position to review/approve allocation request as that is the role of staff. I also understand from boards mail that staff is expected to make their assessment and decisions based on the existing policies and procedures. > Which also means the ball is in the hands of the operations team or rather responsible stuff ref: IP allocation and if their due diligence returns positive results like " the previous allocation was used up to foster internt development in Africa to a larger extent and there is really need to allocate more" ...then another allocation is worthy a short..... Otherwsimply drop the additional allocation of more space :-).... Regards Noah > Regards >> >>e >> --apb (Alan Barrett) >> _______________________________________________ >> members-discuss mailing list >> members-discuss at afrinic.net >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/members-discuss > > > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> Seun Ojedeji, >> Federal University Oye-Ekiti >> web: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng >> Mobile: +2348035233535 >> alt email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng >> >>> The key to understanding is humility - my view ! > > > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From honlue at gmail.com Wed Nov 26 19:31:43 2014 From: honlue at gmail.com (honlue at gmail.com) Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2014 19:31:43 +0000 Subject: [rpd] Recruitment of AfriNIC CEO date In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <1417030303.55863.YahooMailAndroidMobile@web172603.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> You are right seun. I have been sharing the newa and I beleive we will have the best from the campain. Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rbiramah at ipi9.com Wed Nov 26 19:43:21 2014 From: rbiramah at ipi9.com (Raz BIRAMAH) Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2014 23:43:21 +0400 Subject: [rpd] Recruitment of AfriNIC CEO date In-Reply-To: References: <201411241201.sAOC1LJT030449@mail.afrinic.net> <86ED8EAC-7258-442D-89BA-5935775EB8C3@benintelecoms.bj> Message-ID: The first question to point out here is are enough aware of the process to follow to appoint a new CEO? What do the policies say? Obviously we need, i mean the community need to try to do thing surely and replacing a CEO should be something not to do in hurry but just follow a clearly define policy. I also think that the delay to collect candidates seems short. Regards Raz BIRAMAH iPi9 > Le 26 nov. 2014 ? 23:12, Seun Ojedeji a ?crit : > > Hi Gregoire, > > Are you saying 3 weeks+ window for application is not enough? Because me thinks it's long enough for anyone interested to apply. > What may be important is that enough social engagement should happen... and we as individual should share the information with our respective communities. > > Regards > sent from Google nexus 4 > kindly excuse brevity and typos. > >> On 26 Nov 2014 23:07, "gehoumi" wrote: >> >> I think that the date of 19 december 2014 to search for another CEO is not enough to do something durable. We do not need to waste time. >> >> Gregoire EHOUMI >> >> BENIN TELECOMS SA >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> rpd mailing list >> rpd at afrinic.net >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rbiramah at ipi9.com Wed Nov 26 20:07:47 2014 From: rbiramah at ipi9.com (Raz BIRAMAH) Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2014 00:07:47 +0400 Subject: [rpd] Recruitment of AfriNIC CEO date In-Reply-To: References: <201411241201.sAOC1LJT030449@mail.afrinic.net> <86ED8EAC-7258-442D-89BA-5935775EB8C3@benintelecoms.bj> Message-ID: Thanks Seun, I may have missed something then. For my full information, can you help me find the process as it has been defined in the board processes, and i hope it is not "confidential". Consider this as a member request for information. Can someone help me locate and read that process to be followed by the board to recruite a new CEO? Also relating to the delay, it is a good idea to consider that an interim might be necessary and i will propose than the interim CEO could not be a candidate for the definitive recruitment, except as i said priorly the define board process already planned something else. Thanks Cheers ;-) Raz BIRAMAH iPi9 > Le 26 nov. 2014 ? 23:49, Seun Ojedeji a ?crit : > > Hi Raz, > > Employment process does not go through policy. It's within the capacity of board members to initiate a process to selecting a CEO and they ultimately do the appointment. I think they have now released a timeline which is an indication of action on their side. The timeline also put into consideration the reality that a CEO may not be available soon hence the interim that will be appointed. > > Hope this helps clarify the issue. > > Cheers! > > sent from Google nexus 4 > kindly excuse brevity and typos. > >> On 26 Nov 2014 23:43, "Raz BIRAMAH" wrote: >> The first question to point out here is are enough aware of the process to follow to appoint a new CEO? What do the policies say? Obviously we need, i mean the community need to try to do thing surely and replacing a CEO should be something not to do in hurry but just follow a clearly define policy. >> >> I also think that the delay to collect candidates seems short. >> >> Regards >> Raz BIRAMAH >> iPi9 >> >>> Le 26 nov. 2014 ? 23:12, Seun Ojedeji a ?crit : >>> >>> Hi Gregoire, >>> >>> Are you saying 3 weeks+ window for application is not enough? Because me thinks it's long enough for anyone interested to apply. >>> What may be important is that enough social engagement should happen... and we as individual should share the information with our respective communities. >>> >>> Regards >>> sent from Google nexus 4 >>> kindly excuse brevity and typos. >>> >>>> On 26 Nov 2014 23:07, "gehoumi" wrote: >>>> >>>> I think that the date of 19 december 2014 to search for another CEO is not enough to do something durable. We do not need to waste time. >>>> >>>> Gregoire EHOUMI >>>> >>>> BENIN TELECOMS SA >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> rpd mailing list >>>> rpd at afrinic.net >>>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >>> _______________________________________________ >>> rpd mailing list >>> rpd at afrinic.net >>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From vassangbewotto at benintelecoms.bj Thu Nov 27 00:01:12 2014 From: vassangbewotto at benintelecoms.bj (ASSANGBE WOTTO Vivien) Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2014 01:01:12 +0100 Subject: [rpd] Recruitment of AfriNIC CEO date In-Reply-To: References: <201411241201.sAOC1LJT030449@mail.afrinic.net> <86ED8EAC-7258-442D-89BA-5935775EB8C3@benintelecoms.bj> Message-ID: <01a501d009d5$422ffe70$c68ffb50$@bj> I certainly late, but I think I would like that does not precipitate the recruitment of the new Director. Why not found an interim? this will be well organized to elect a new CEO. following a call for candidatures Vivien G. ASSANGBE WOTTO B?NIN TELECOMS SA _____________________________________________ cid:2.3243420219 at web132401.mail.ird.yahoo.com De : rpd-bounces at afrinic.net [mailto:rpd-bounces at afrinic.net] De la part de Raz BIRAMAH Envoy? : mercredi 26 novembre 2014 21:08 ? : Seun Ojedeji Cc : rpd Objet : Re: [rpd] Recruitment of AfriNIC CEO date Thanks Seun, I may have missed something then. For my full information, can you help me find the process as it has been defined in the board processes, and i hope it is not "confidential". Consider this as a member request for information. Can someone help me locate and read that process to be followed by the board to recruite a new CEO? Also relating to the delay, it is a good idea to consider that an interim might be necessary and i will propose than the interim CEO could not be a candidate for the definitive recruitment, except as i said priorly the define board process already planned something else. Thanks Cheers ;-) Raz BIRAMAH iPi9 Le 26 nov. 2014 ? 23:49, Seun Ojedeji a ?crit : Hi Raz, Employment process does not go through policy. It's within the capacity of board members to initiate a process to selecting a CEO and they ultimately do the appointment. I think they have now released a timeline which is an indication of action on their side. The timeline also put into consideration the reality that a CEO may not be available soon hence the interim that will be appointed. Hope this helps clarify the issue. Cheers! sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 26 Nov 2014 23:43, "Raz BIRAMAH" wrote: The first question to point out here is are enough aware of the process to follow to appoint a new CEO? What do the policies say? Obviously we need, i mean the community need to try to do thing surely and replacing a CEO should be something not to do in hurry but just follow a clearly define policy. I also think that the delay to collect candidates seems short. Regards Raz BIRAMAH iPi9 Le 26 nov. 2014 ? 23:12, Seun Ojedeji a ?crit : Hi Gregoire, Are you saying 3 weeks+ window for application is not enough? Because me thinks it's long enough for anyone interested to apply. What may be important is that enough social engagement should happen... and we as individual should share the information with our respective communities. Regards sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 26 Nov 2014 23:07, "gehoumi" wrote: I think that the date of 19 december 2014 to search for another CEO is not enough to do something durable. We do not need to waste time. Gregoire EHOUMI BENIN TELECOMS SA _______________________________________________ rpd mailing list rpd at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd _______________________________________________ rpd mailing list rpd at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 4725 bytes Desc: not available URL: From neriah at afrinic.net Thu Nov 27 02:38:06 2014 From: neriah at afrinic.net (Neriah Sossou) Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2014 06:38:06 +0400 Subject: [rpd] Recruitment of AfriNIC CEO date In-Reply-To: References: <201411241201.sAOC1LJT030449@mail.afrinic.net> <86ED8EAC-7258-442D-89BA-5935775EB8C3@benintelecoms.bj> Message-ID: <5BB5BCC6-1E30-456D-B684-0196CF0883E1@afrinic.net> On Nov 27, 2014, at 12:07 AM, Raz BIRAMAH wrote: > Consider this as a member request for information. Can someone help me locate and read that process to be followed by the board to recruite a new CEO? For process and timeline, please refer to http://afrinic.net/en/about-us/career/1259-ceo-recruitment-process-timeline Neriah -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 495 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From rbiramah at ipi9.com Thu Nov 27 04:18:50 2014 From: rbiramah at ipi9.com (Raz BIRAMAH) Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2014 08:18:50 +0400 Subject: [rpd] Recruitment of AfriNIC CEO date In-Reply-To: <5BB5BCC6-1E30-456D-B684-0196CF0883E1@afrinic.net> References: <201411241201.sAOC1LJT030449@mail.afrinic.net> <86ED8EAC-7258-442D-89BA-5935775EB8C3@benintelecoms.bj> <5BB5BCC6-1E30-456D-B684-0196CF0883E1@afrinic.net> Message-ID: <40AED2E6-711A-4A46-B636-A61DDBAE10CB@ipi9.com> Thanks Neriah for the link, usefull. By the way do you know when and why the present CEO has resigned ? Regards Raz BIRAMAH > Le 27 nov. 2014 ? 06:38, Neriah Sossou a ?crit : > > > >> On Nov 27, 2014, at 12:07 AM, Raz BIRAMAH wrote: >> >> Consider this as a member request for information. Can someone help me locate and read that process to be followed by the board to recruite a new CEO? > > For process and timeline, please refer to http://afrinic.net/en/about-us/career/1259-ceo-recruitment-process-timeline > Neriah -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rbiramah at ipi9.com Thu Nov 27 04:44:08 2014 From: rbiramah at ipi9.com (Raz BIRAMAH) Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2014 08:44:08 +0400 Subject: [AfrICANN-discuss] Re: [members-discuss] Re: [rpd] Recruitment of AfriNIC CEO In-Reply-To: References: <1416630263.81654.YahooMailBasic@web162802.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <1A047D50-D245-458D-A903-06A5175BCE60@pch.net> Message-ID: <49513AEC-CADB-461A-99B2-DD7DA6BC772D@ipi9.com> Hi all here, All your discussions confort me in the idea that we do not need to quick the process with the risk to get medium or poor list of candidate. In my opinion we should give more time to collect much more candidatures. I also agree too that some outsource point of vue can be welcomed to help us if needed. Regards Raz B. > Le 23 nov. 2014 ? 08:44, Ijang a ?crit : > > > > >> On 23 November 2014 at 03:11, Douglas Onyango wrote: >> >> Thanks for your pragmatism on this very important task. > > ++1 million. Bill proposal is the fondation of a very open and transparent process. > >> My two comments are inline: >> On 22 November 2014 at 22:35, Bill Woodcock wrote: >> > 2) Public call for relevant questionnaire questions to be publicly put to candidates. >> >> My view is that a lot of precious time is going to be lost in this processes. > > > I prefere we spent time in the process so that it give us a good result at the end. May we can limit the time for these step to x week? > > >> I think the committee should be able to draft the JD as well as any questions which should be administered by an external agency. > > > Good suggestion. Maybe committee can kickstart the brainstorm on questionaire by proposing a draft? > >> >> >> > 5) AfriNIC members select the questionnaire questions they think most applicable, and the four that receive the most votes, plus two composed or chosen by the Board, constitute a candidate questionnaire, which is finalized and posted publicly. >> >> The role of CEO is not something that everyone in the community may be familiar with. Against this backdrop I suggest the Search Committee elicits views from the community during the ongoing meeting and puts together the questions instead. This way we can include community views without any unnecessary delays. >> >> Regards, >> -- >> Douglas Onyango, PRINCE 2, ITILv3 >> UG: +256 776 716 138 | NG: +234 706 202 8375 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> AfrICANN mailing list >> AfrICANN at afrinic.net >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/africann > > > Borg le Chevalier > ___________________________________ > "Common sense is what tells us the world is flat" > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From neriah at afrinic.net Thu Nov 27 06:16:20 2014 From: neriah at afrinic.net (Neriah Sossou) Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2014 10:16:20 +0400 Subject: [rpd] Recruitment of AfriNIC CEO date In-Reply-To: <40AED2E6-711A-4A46-B636-A61DDBAE10CB@ipi9.com> References: <201411241201.sAOC1LJT030449@mail.afrinic.net> <86ED8EAC-7258-442D-89BA-5935775EB8C3@benintelecoms.bj> <5BB5BCC6-1E30-456D-B684-0196CF0883E1@afrinic.net> <40AED2E6-711A-4A46-B636-A61DDBAE10CB@ipi9.com> Message-ID: <86D7DFE5-56F6-4013-9D7C-2AFB6F547782@afrinic.net> Hello Raz, On Nov 27, 2014, at 8:18 AM, Raz BIRAMAH wrote: > By the way do you know when Announcement was made on 17 Sept 2014. > and why the present CEO has resigned ? I think this question will be best answered by the CEO himself. > > Regards > Raz BIRAMAH > > Le 27 nov. 2014 ? 06:38, Neriah Sossou a ?crit : > >> >> >> On Nov 27, 2014, at 12:07 AM, Raz BIRAMAH wrote: >> >>> Consider this as a member request for information. Can someone help me locate and read that process to be followed by the board to recruite a new CEO? >> >> For process and timeline, please refer to http://afrinic.net/en/about-us/career/1259-ceo-recruitment-process-timeline >> Neriah -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 495 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From sfolayan at gmail.com Thu Nov 27 07:40:00 2014 From: sfolayan at gmail.com (Sunday Folayan) Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2014 08:40:00 +0100 Subject: [rpd] Update: Mr Kris Seeburn: AfriNIC Board member In-Reply-To: <54743E9B.80907@gmail.com> References: <54743E9B.80907@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5476D550.4000200@gmail.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Dear Members, I took time after the opening ceremony yesterday, to visit Mr Kris Seeburn in the hospital, in company of three other Board members. Though still in Intensive care, We had a very warm discussion and he was quite appreciative of the concerns and wishes of the Board and the community. We are pleased he is recovering. For your information. Best Regards Sunday Folayan. Chair, AFRINIC Board - -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Fwd: Mr Kris Seeburn: AfriNIC Board member I am pleased to update the community that Mr Kris Seeburn is now awake and has spoken to an AfriNIC Staff member who visited. The Board appreciates the concern and support of the community, especially those here in Mauritius. We will keep you updated of his progress, until he is out of the hospital. Best Regards ... Sunday A. Folayan Chair, AfriNIC Board - -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Mr Kris Seeburn: AfriNIC Board member The Board is sad to announce to the community that Mr Kris Seeburn, a member of the AFRINIC Board, was found unconscious in his room in the morning of Monday, 23 November 2014. He is currently in good care at the Apollo Bramwell Hospital in the intensive care unit with the full support of his family. Representatives of the AFRINIC Board and Management have also visited him. We are in constant communication with the hospital for updates on his health condition and will inform the community as appropriate. The Board invites the community to join in praying for a positive outcome. Sunday A. Folayan Chair, AfriNIC Board -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUdtVQAAoJEH6UvSz6fA25BN0H/2TaCUYGN/NLdMwfGrGAvJYw V8NL3VDog9hUKl0AvNVBUYRh+bbdzNsoMGBz42VX7lbSS+MoAn5QHQe9nTtu4EbC /ll38Ya0IZ8JvpQcG4F6Y/jKfmYn8VKDZAOBSZpwaB6e5jPUigqVjyqcQMrEJSNJ 6M91eu2TtbcsRc7/wFnsKp7k2XpJf6drezd6/W+Bxr7uKQB9UOcnvDAKe8otQQS1 /RMPV8ifhOtHWKUkMrT3fzaKnRL6t8/P8w0v+B1N+7GvDi9Wa7yRi3ftYeIPtEV6 KvR4hqGmzdzn9nLfizD3Lioak8HtFTKNFVyBbqb9W8a4++vddFMpjEncHovu8+Y= =x4uG -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From kofi.ansa at gmail.com Fri Nov 28 03:43:05 2014 From: kofi.ansa at gmail.com (Kofi ANSA AKUFO) Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2014 07:43:05 +0400 Subject: [rpd] Interpret based on Policy but Regional Developement should be Priority 1 Message-ID: Noah how are these organisations contributing to regional development? Anyway I put the challenge to these organisations which aquire such huge allocations to take up some social responsibilities in the region. IT is great to hear AfriNIC has a Research Department now and I hope it is not going to continue blindly copying or replicating what other research depts in other RIRs (i.e RIPE) are doing which has insignificant impact in our region, but to be creative and take up initiatives to reflect the critical issues on the ground. There are many interesting and passionate youth initiatives going on in our region. The new research department can work with the AfriNIC FIRE team to identify such initiatives. One that quickly comes into mind is about a student in Ghana - Kpetermeni Siakor who is helping to use internet technology to help eradicate the Ebola epidermic. You can read more from the link below. http://ashesi.edu.gh/news-and-events/1915-how-one-liberian-student-at-ashesi-is-using-technology-to-help-his-country-fight-ebola.html And whilst we have AN OPPORTUNITY to appoint a new CEO I need not stress the importance of picking a leader who is passionate about the African course, a team player who is smart to put the link between our resource management and regional development in terms of content and internet enabled activities in our region. Cheers K. take up projects that reflects issues on the ground in On 26 November 2014 at 23:23, Noah Maina wrote: > > On 26 Nov 2014 16:46, "Seun Ojedeji" wrote: > > > > On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 2:12 PM, Alan Barrett wrote: > >> > >> Thank you Sunday, for that report. I am in agreement with all of it, > >> but I would like to hightlght these two paragraphs: > >> > >>> The board has been given every assurance that AfriNIC staff followed > >>> the IP allocation policy with regards to all allocations already made. > >> > >> > >>> The board appeals to the community and to the AfriNIC members to > >>> examine the current policies in light of the discussions held in > >>> recent weeks and should the community feel that a change is needed, > >>> the board encourages the members to follow the processes defined and > >>> propose suitable changes to the current policies. > >> > >> > >> I think it's especially important that both members applying for > address space, and staff handling such applications, should follow both the > letter and the spirit of the existing policies. > >> > >> The staff should take reasonable measures to check the information > presented in applications, and the amount of checking that is reasonable > goes up with the size of the requested space. The Board should be aware of > what's going on, especially when it may be controversial, but should not > interfere without very good cause. > >> > >> If people think that the policies allow things that should not be > allowed, then the correct remedial action is not to petition the staff or > the board to do things outside the policy, but rather to go through the > policy development process to change the policy. > >> > >> Finally, may we interpret the Board's message as meaning that Heng Lu's > application is now approved, and no longer under review? > > > > > > I think i will be surprised if board respond with a yes or no to this > question as it will most likely go against the principle that they have > highlighted in their earlier mail. Basically the way i have understood > board's message is that the board is not in the position to review/approve > allocation request as that is the role of staff. I also understand from > boards mail that staff is expected to make their assessment and decisions > based on the existing policies and procedures. > > > > Which also means the ball is in the hands of the operations team or rather > responsible stuff ref: IP allocation and if their due diligence returns > positive results like " the previous allocation was used up to foster > internt development in Africa to a larger extent and there is really need > to allocate more" ...then another allocation is worthy a short..... > Otherwsimply drop the additional allocation of more space :-).... > > Regards > > Noah > > > Regards > >> > >>e > >> --apb (Alan Barrett) > >> _______________________________________________ > >> members-discuss mailing list > >> members-discuss at afrinic.net > >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/members-discuss > > > > > > > > > > -- > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >> > >> Seun Ojedeji, > >> Federal University Oye-Ekiti > >> web: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng > >> Mobile: +2348035233535 > >> alt email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng > >> > >>> The key to understanding is humility - my view ! > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > rpd mailing list > > rpd at afrinic.net > > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rbiramah at ipi9.com Fri Nov 28 05:19:31 2014 From: rbiramah at ipi9.com (Raz BIRAMAH) Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2014 09:19:31 +0400 Subject: [rpd] Recruitment of AfriNIC CEO date In-Reply-To: <86D7DFE5-56F6-4013-9D7C-2AFB6F547782@afrinic.net> References: <201411241201.sAOC1LJT030449@mail.afrinic.net> <86ED8EAC-7258-442D-89BA-5935775EB8C3@benintelecoms.bj> <5BB5BCC6-1E30-456D-B684-0196CF0883E1@afrinic.net> <40AED2E6-711A-4A46-B636-A61DDBAE10CB@ipi9.com> <86D7DFE5-56F6-4013-9D7C-2AFB6F547782@afrinic.net> Message-ID: <2A8D9D7B-77E1-4A3A-9878-E541D267C43A@ipi9.com> Hi all, I would like to submit again my proposal made yesterday during the open mic on Afrinic Services Updates (Afrinic21): the close date of december 19th is too much close. Why are we stressing? I find a contradiction: the board will appoint an interim? So why hurry then to short the normal process? Also the annoucement of the process only reach our community few days ago, we should let candidate analyse the offer, the opportunity and be really aware about Afrinic CEO life full of sacrifices. Life changement, life relocation is not a decision so easy and quick to take, so let enoughh time to the community. My proposal is still to close the collection of candidatures in 3 MOUNTHS. Raz B. > Le 27 nov. 2014 ? 10:16, Neriah Sossou a ?crit : > > Hello Raz, > >> On Nov 27, 2014, at 8:18 AM, Raz BIRAMAH wrote: >> >> By the way do you know when > Announcement was made on 17 Sept 2014. >> and why the present CEO has resigned ? > I think this question will be best answered by the CEO himself. >> >> Regards >> Raz BIRAMAH >> >>> Le 27 nov. 2014 ? 06:38, Neriah Sossou a ?crit : >>> >>> >>> >>>> On Nov 27, 2014, at 12:07 AM, Raz BIRAMAH wrote: >>>> >>>> Consider this as a member request for information. Can someone help me locate and read that process to be followed by the board to recruite a new CEO? >>> >>> For process and timeline, please refer to http://afrinic.net/en/about-us/career/1259-ceo-recruitment-process-timeline >>> Neriah > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From honlue at gmail.com Fri Nov 28 06:05:47 2014 From: honlue at gmail.com (honlue at gmail.com) Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2014 06:05:47 +0000 Subject: [rpd] Recruitment of AfriNIC CEO date In-Reply-To: <2A8D9D7B-77E1-4A3A-9878-E541D267C43A@ipi9.com> Message-ID: <1417154747.25706.YahooMailAndroidMobile@web172605.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> Hello Raz, I dont understand the motivation of your obstination to demonstrate that the period given is short and it seems to me that you are new to yhislist. This vacancy was announced long ago here, the commitee worked well and came out with a calendar that was adopted. Go to AFRINIC's website to see that the process has gone a long way. Also, if it will take more than a month for someone to someone to deceide on applying or not then that one will not make a good CEO for AFRINIC. Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sami at ntc.gov.sd Fri Nov 28 07:29:49 2014 From: sami at ntc.gov.sd (SamiSalih) Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2014 10:29:49 +0300 (EAT) Subject: [rpd] Recruitment of AfriNIC CEO date In-Reply-To: <1417154747.25706.YahooMailAndroidMobile@web172605.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> References: <1417154747.25706.YahooMailAndroidMobile@web172605.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1644842538.746355.1417159789959.JavaMail.zimbra@ntc.gov.sd> Hi All, AfriNIC CEO is not just a position, we have to find a best of the best to continue the success of this organization, also we don't want some one come because he take the dissension very quickly! May be those quick applicant run away quickly! we need wise candidates with enough experiences and motivation, so as Raz I don't see any need for hurry, let us give adequate time for our new CEO to think twice (may be more) before applying. Regards, Sami. Dr. Sami Salih | Chief Executive Officer, CEO Sudanese Research and Education Network | Address Nile St. | University of Khartoum Tel: +2491556620 50 | Mob: +24912 2045707 This e-mail message may contain confidential or legally privileged information and is intended only for the use of the intended recipient(s). Any unauthorized disclosure, dissemination, distribution, copying or the taking of any action in reliance on the information herein is prohibited. ----- Original Message ----- From: honlue at gmail.com To: "Raz BIRAMAH" , "AfriNIC Discuss" , "rpd" Sent: Friday, November 28, 2014 9:05:47 AM Subject: Re: [rpd] Recruitment of AfriNIC CEO date Hello Raz, I dont understand the motivation of your obstination to demonstrate that the period given is short and it seems to me that you are new to yhislist. This vacancy was announced long ago here, the commitee worked well and came out with a calendar that was adopted. Go to AFRINIC's website to see that the process has gone a long way. Also, if it will take more than a month for someone to someone to deceide on applying or not then that one will not make a good CEO for AFRINIC. Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android From: Raz BIRAMAH ; To: AfriNIC Discuss ; rpd ; Subject: Re: [rpd] Recruitment of AfriNIC CEO date Sent: Fri, Nov 28, 2014 5:19:31 AM Hi all, I would like to submit again my proposal made yesterday during the open mic on Afrinic Services Updates (Afrinic21): the close date of december 19th is too much close. Why are we stressing? I find a contradiction: the board will appoint an interim? So why hurry then to short the normal process? Also the annoucement of the process only reach our community few days ago, we should let candidate analyse the offer, the opportunity and be really aware about Afrinic CEO life full of sacrifices. Life changement, life relocation is not a decision so easy and quick to take, so let enoughh time to the community. My proposal is still to close the collection of candidatures in 3 MOUNTHS. Raz B. Le 27 nov. 2014 ? 10:16, Neriah Sossou < neriah at afrinic.net > a ?crit : Hello Raz, On Nov 27, 2014, at 8:18 AM, Raz BIRAMAH wrote:
By the way do you know when Announcement was made on 17 Sept 2014.
and why the present CEO has resigned ?
I think this question will be best answered by the CEO himself.
Regards Raz BIRAMAH Le 27 nov. 2014 ? 06:38, Neriah Sossou < neriah at afrinic.net > a ?crit :
On Nov 27, 2014, at 12:07 AM, Raz BIRAMAH wrote:
Consider this as a member request for information. Can someone help me locate and read that process to be followed by the board to recruite a new CEO?
For process and timeline, please refer to http://afrinic.net/en/about-us/career/1259-ceo-recruitment-process-timeline Neriah
_______________________________________________ rpd mailing list rpd at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rbiramah at ipi9.com Fri Nov 28 07:51:18 2014 From: rbiramah at ipi9.com (Raz BIRAMAH) Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2014 11:51:18 +0400 Subject: [rpd] Recruitment of AfriNIC CEO date In-Reply-To: <1417154747.25706.YahooMailAndroidMobile@web172605.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> References: <1417154747.25706.YahooMailAndroidMobile@web172605.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7AD74AF5-14DA-40E4-B1E3-57AE3A238885@ipi9.com> If you think expressing my point of vue is an obstination is up to you. I think i'm not the only one who think we do not run fast. And i think it is not a question of being new or not, it is a question of expression what i think is right for which may not be your point of vue, you are free to not agree as am i... Raz BIRAMAH > Le 28 nov. 2014 ? 10:05, "honlue at gmail.com" a ?crit : > > > Hello Raz, I dont understand the motivation of your obstination to demonstrate that the period given is short and it seems to me that you are new to yhislist. This vacancy was announced long ago here, the commitee worked well and came out with a calendar that was adopted. Go to AFRINIC's website to see that the process has gone a long way. Also, if it will take more than a month for someone to someone to deceide on applying or not then that one will not make a good CEO for AFRINIC. > > Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android > > > From: Raz BIRAMAH ; > To: AfriNIC Discuss ; rpd ; > Subject: Re: [rpd] Recruitment of AfriNIC CEO date > Sent: Fri, Nov 28, 2014 5:19:31 AM > > Hi all, > > I would like to submit again my proposal made yesterday during the open mic on Afrinic Services Updates (Afrinic21): the close date of december 19th is too much close. Why are we stressing? > > I find a contradiction: the board will appoint an interim? So why hurry then to short the normal process? Also the annoucement of the process only reach our community few days ago, we should let candidate analyse the offer, the opportunity and be really aware about Afrinic CEO life full of sacrifices. Life changement, life relocation is not a decision so easy and quick to take, so let enoughh time to the community. > > My proposal is still to close the collection of candidatures in 3 MOUNTHS. > > Raz B. > >> Le 27 nov. 2014 ? 10:16, Neriah Sossou a ?crit : >> > >> Hello Raz, >> >>> On Nov 27, 2014, at 8:18 AM, Raz BIRAMAH wrote: >>> >>> By the way do you know when >> Announcement was made on 17 Sept 2014. >>> and why the present CEO has resigned ? >> I think this question will be best answered by the CEO himself. >>> >>> Regards >>> Raz BIRAMAH >>> >>>> Le 27 nov. 2014 ? 06:38, Neriah Sossou a ?crit : >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Nov 27, 2014, at 12:07 AM, Raz BIRAMAH wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Consider this as a member request for information. Can someone help me locate and read that process to be followed by the board to recruite a new CEO? >>>> >>>> For process and timeline, please refer to http://afrinic.net/en/about-us/career/1259-ceo-recruitment-process-timeline >>>> Neriah -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mainanoa at gmail.com Fri Nov 28 11:01:33 2014 From: mainanoa at gmail.com (Noah Maina) Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2014 14:01:33 +0300 Subject: [rpd] Interpret based on Policy but Regional Developement should be Priority 1 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Kofi I can only speak for my employer and the evidence in our case is all over...we dont need to say much.... Even on a social responsibility front...we are doing also alot and organizations that are fostering engineering capacity building initiatives across Africa like AfNOG, SafNOG, tzNOG, Capacity Africa, Africom et' all ..have been supported by us over the past couple of years.... Noah On 28 Nov 2014 06:43, "Kofi ANSA AKUFO" wrote: > Noah how are these organisations contributing to regional development? > > Anyway I put the challenge to these organisations which aquire such huge > allocations to take up some social responsibilities in the region. > > IT is great to hear AfriNIC has a Research Department now and I hope it is > not going to continue blindly copying or replicating what other research > depts in other RIRs (i.e RIPE) are doing which has insignificant impact in > our region, but to be creative and take up initiatives to reflect the > critical issues on the ground. There are many interesting and passionate > youth initiatives going on in our region. The new research department can > work with the AfriNIC FIRE team to identify such initiatives. > > One that quickly comes into mind is about a student in Ghana - Kpetermeni > Siakor who is helping to use internet technology to help eradicate the > Ebola epidermic. You can read more from the link below. > > http://ashesi.edu.gh/news-and-events/1915-how-one-liberian-student-at-ashesi-is-using-technology-to-help-his-country-fight-ebola.html > > And whilst we have AN OPPORTUNITY to appoint a new CEO I need not stress > the importance of picking a leader who is passionate about the African > course, a team player who is smart to put the link between our resource > management and regional development in terms of content and internet > enabled activities in our region. > > Cheers > > K. > > > > take up projects that reflects issues on the ground in > > On 26 November 2014 at 23:23, Noah Maina wrote: > >> >> On 26 Nov 2014 16:46, "Seun Ojedeji" wrote: >> > >> > On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 2:12 PM, Alan Barrett wrote: >> >> >> >> Thank you Sunday, for that report. I am in agreement with all of it, >> >> but I would like to hightlght these two paragraphs: >> >> >> >>> The board has been given every assurance that AfriNIC staff followed >> >>> the IP allocation policy with regards to all allocations already made. >> >> >> >> >> >>> The board appeals to the community and to the AfriNIC members to >> >>> examine the current policies in light of the discussions held in >> >>> recent weeks and should the community feel that a change is needed, >> >>> the board encourages the members to follow the processes defined and >> >>> propose suitable changes to the current policies. >> >> >> >> >> >> I think it's especially important that both members applying for >> address space, and staff handling such applications, should follow both the >> letter and the spirit of the existing policies. >> >> >> >> The staff should take reasonable measures to check the information >> presented in applications, and the amount of checking that is reasonable >> goes up with the size of the requested space. The Board should be aware of >> what's going on, especially when it may be controversial, but should not >> interfere without very good cause. >> >> >> >> If people think that the policies allow things that should not be >> allowed, then the correct remedial action is not to petition the staff or >> the board to do things outside the policy, but rather to go through the >> policy development process to change the policy. >> >> >> >> Finally, may we interpret the Board's message as meaning that Heng >> Lu's application is now approved, and no longer under review? >> > >> > >> > I think i will be surprised if board respond with a yes or no to this >> question as it will most likely go against the principle that they have >> highlighted in their earlier mail. Basically the way i have understood >> board's message is that the board is not in the position to review/approve >> allocation request as that is the role of staff. I also understand from >> boards mail that staff is expected to make their assessment and decisions >> based on the existing policies and procedures. >> > >> >> Which also means the ball is in the hands of the operations team or >> rather responsible stuff ref: IP allocation and if their due diligence >> returns positive results like " the previous allocation was used up to >> foster internt development in Africa to a larger extent and there is really >> need to allocate more" ...then another allocation is worthy a short..... >> Otherwsimply drop the additional allocation of more space :-).... >> >> Regards >> >> Noah >> >> > Regards >> >> >> >>e >> >> --apb (Alan Barrett) >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> members-discuss mailing list >> >> members-discuss at afrinic.net >> >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/members-discuss >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> >> >> Seun Ojedeji, >> >> Federal University Oye-Ekiti >> >> web: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng >> >> Mobile: +2348035233535 >> >> alt email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng >> >> >> >>> The key to understanding is humility - my view ! >> > >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > rpd mailing list >> > rpd at afrinic.net >> > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >> > >> >> _______________________________________________ >> rpd mailing list >> rpd at afrinic.net >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From apb at cequrux.com Fri Nov 28 11:26:04 2014 From: apb at cequrux.com (Alan Barrett) Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2014 15:26:04 +0400 Subject: [rpd] AnyCast assignments - Update In-Reply-To: <1412845710.3847.251.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> References: <1412845710.3847.251.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> Message-ID: <20141128112604.GA1088@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> >2. Summary of how this proposal addresses the problem > >This proposal allows the use of: > >a. One (1) /24 of IPv4 for anycast services from a PA allocation of >an LIR or direct end-user assignment. >b. One /48 of IPv6 for anycast services from an IPv6 LIR allocation >or direct end-user assignment. >c. An AS Number for anycast purposes. Clause 2 appears to require the applicant to use all three of the IPv4, IPv6, and ASN. However, under clause 3, it uses "and/or" to allow the applicant to choose any subset of those three items. I think this should be clarified, possibly by the use of words like this in the first sentence of clause 2: 2. This proposal allows the use of any one or more of the following: It's also not clear whether the restriction to "one" IPv4 /24, IPv6 /48, or ASN, means only one forever, or one per application (with the freedom to apply for another one later). I'd prefer to allow the use of multiple such subnets or ASNs, if the applicant is providing multiple anycast services and has adequate justification for not placing them all in the same subnet or ASN. I'd also like this proposal to be usable for any kind of anycast, even those not invented yet. --apb (Alan Barrett) From dogwallah at gmail.com Fri Nov 28 11:56:54 2014 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2014 05:56:54 -0600 Subject: [rpd] AnyCast assignments - Update In-Reply-To: <20141128112604.GA1088@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> References: <1412845710.3847.251.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> <20141128112604.GA1088@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> Message-ID: sure, I am all for future proofing as APB suggests. I don't think that there is groounds for confusion, but I would support the change that Alan suggests in the interests of clarity. rgds, McTim On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 5:26 AM, Alan Barrett wrote: > 2. Summary of how this proposal addresses the problem >> >> This proposal allows the use of: >> >> a. One (1) /24 of IPv4 for anycast services from a PA allocation of >> an LIR or direct end-user assignment. >> b. One /48 of IPv6 for anycast services from an IPv6 LIR allocation >> or direct end-user assignment. >> c. An AS Number for anycast purposes. >> > > Clause 2 appears to require the applicant to use all three of the IPv4, > IPv6, and ASN. However, under clause 3, it uses "and/or" to allow the > applicant to choose any subset of those three items. I think this > should be clarified, possibly by the use of words like this in the first > sentence of clause 2: > > 2. This proposal allows the use of any one or more of the following: > > It's also not clear whether the restriction to "one" IPv4 /24, IPv6 > /48, or ASN, means only one forever, or one per application (with the > freedom to apply for another one later). I'd prefer to allow the use of > multiple such subnets or ASNs, if the applicant is providing multiple > anycast services and has adequate justification for not placing them all > in the same subnet or ASN. > > I'd also like this proposal to be usable for any kind of anycast, even > those not invented yet. > > --apb (Alan Barrett) > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gehoumi at benintelecoms.bj Wed Nov 26 19:25:04 2014 From: gehoumi at benintelecoms.bj (gehoumi) Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2014 23:25:04 +0400 Subject: [rpd] Recruitment of AfriNIC CEO date Message-ID: <7f2cbp1nqm0hx7hxmap7xlnv.1417029670316@email.android.com> Hi Seun, Yes is not enough for someone who's not prepared for this. It's why I said durable. If we want to go fast, without any preparation, we will not go far. Gr?goire. Seun Ojedeji wrote: >HiGregoire,Areyousaying3weeks+windowforapplicationisnotenough?Becausemethinksitslongenoughforanyoneinterestedtoapply.Whatmaybeimportantisthatenoughsocialengagementshouldhappen...andweasindividualshouldsharetheinformationwithourrespectivecommunities.RegardssentfromGooglenexus4kindlyexcusebrevityandtypos.On26Nov201423:07,gehoumigehoumi at benintelecoms.bjwrote:Ithinkthatthedateof19december2014tosearchforanotherCEOisnotenoughtodosomethingdurable.Wedonotneedtowastetime.GregoireEHOUMIBENINTELECOMSSA_______________________________________________rpdmailinglistrpd at afrinic.nethttps://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sfolayan at gmail.com Sun Nov 30 13:31:41 2014 From: sfolayan at gmail.com (Sunday Folayan) Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2014 14:31:41 +0100 Subject: [rpd] Thank You from the Board Message-ID: <547B1C3D.9090808@gmail.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Dear AFRINIC Members, Dear AFRINIC friends, This is a note of appreciation from the Board for your participation at the recently concluded AFRINIC-21 meeting. The technical sessions were very rich and rewarding. I must commend the level of discussions at the policy meeting. Your contributions and debates were deep and gives one the joy that Africa has finally come of age. AFRINIC-21 was very successful. I would like to acknowledge the contributions of the entire AFRINIC staff, who gave us the fantastic meeting, without a local host. I guess their knowledge of the local terrain helped, but I must say it was their commitment and dedication that did it. I appreciate the coordination role played by the CEO, Adiel. He has not slowed down, even after serving us notice of his departure. Thank you very much Adiel. To our Sponsors and supporters, Thank you and do remember my request that you consider doing this for the next 10 years. The Board appreciates the concerns of all, regarding our Colleague, Mr Kris Seeburn who took ill. He is now out of intensive care, and recuperating. Thank you for the prayers, good wishes and show of solidarity. The Board has taken note of the various inputs and suggestions from the community, regarding the application period for recruiting a new CEO, and we will soon make a statement once a decision is made in that regard. Thank you all, and see you at AIS-2015. Best Regards ... Sunday Folayan Board Chair -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUexw9AAoJEH6UvSz6fA25f1AH/RaU1HKAblg5XhjVPViKJn2H vYMQZcQpDursh3Lq6ukWbbjguuNyQTuLDTVEI5q6ItDSQQnyCHGMbX5+Cusu4xPm VITG3EBRECkuH0gYKuVw2WYFssirZGW4S2KNX2CcMNHkKApDTbT/aKLmFah1lBQg N8ny+w3rYVDjm0IvvziodULEVMhE7TTvTNwWuYkwIBLDRlMv3eIxsw9DmcNDLKb0 L7q+m61QDESUtsUul1Dj1fjOvUhAkXyXcqyYYUxngEE0EjcQ1WwO0Yfejazg/Yw7 apWbqHMLcOXAjx08L2HMX4TczYMgP2s/7/EHYf998L5JVJTmc4SdLcevikcRCpk= =S1Xw -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From list-admin at afrinic.net Mon Dec 1 05:11:13 2014 From: list-admin at afrinic.net (list-admin at afrinic.net) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2014 05:11:13 GMT Subject: [rpd] Monthly statistics for mailing-list: rpd@afrinic.net Message-ID: <201412010511.sB15BDJZ019253@ns1.afrinic.net> Monthly statistics for mailing-list: rpd at afrinic.net (Generated at: Mon Dec 1 05:11:01 UTC 2014) Statistics for month: November 2014 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ***** Authors with the most number of messages posted: +----+-----Author-----------------------------------+--Msg-+-Percent-+ | 1 | adam at varud.com | 13 | 9.49 % | | 2 | kofi.ansa at gmail.com | 11 | 8.03 % | | 3 | sfolayan at gmail.com | 10 | 7.30 % | | 4 | h.lu at anytimechinese.com | 7 | 5.11 % | | 5 | seun.ojedeji at gmail.com | 7 | 5.11 % | | 6 | apb at cequrux.com | 7 | 5.11 % | | 7 | rbiramah at ipi9.com | 6 | 4.38 % | | 8 | mark.tinka at seacom.mu | 5 | 3.65 % | | 9 | woody at pch.net | 5 | 3.65 % | | 10 | ondouglas at gmail.com | 4 | 2.92 % | | 11 | karmann.olumomo at gmail.com | 3 | 2.19 % | | 12 | jacksonmuthi at gmail.com | 3 | 2.19 % | | 13 | otieno.barrack at gmail.com | 3 | 2.19 % | | 14 | honlue at gmail.com | 3 | 2.19 % | | 15 | mainanoa at gmail.com | 3 | 2.19 % | | 16 | owen at delong.com | 2 | 1.46 % | | 17 | geier at geier.ne.tz | 2 | 1.46 % | | 18 | jnoulaye at yahoo.fr | 2 | 1.46 % | | 19 | mje at posix.co.za | 2 | 1.46 % | | 20 | Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com | 2 | 1.46 % | +----+----------------------------------------------+------+---------+ | | other | 37 | 27.01 % | +----+----------------------------------------------+------+---------+ ***** Authors with the largest total size of messages posted: +----+-----Author-------------------------------------------+-KBytes-+ | 1 | kofi.ansa at gmail.com | 164.1 | | 2 | adam at varud.com | 132.3 | | 3 | badru.ntege at nftconsult.com | 89.9 | | 4 | Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com | 65.9 | | 5 | seun.ojedeji at gmail.com | 61.8 | | 6 | lan.ye at chinaccsi.com | 53.2 | | 7 | karmann.olumomo at gmail.com | 37.5 | | 8 | arthur at afrinic.net | 29.5 | | 9 | rbiramah at ipi9.com | 26.7 | | 10 | h.lu at anytimechinese.com | 24.7 | | 11 | jnoulaye at yahoo.fr | 20.3 | | 12 | vassangbewotto at benintelecoms.bj | 19.3 | | 13 | sfolayan at gmail.com | 18.2 | | 14 | sami at ntc.gov.sd | 17.8 | | 15 | bakajika at yahoo.fr | 17.6 | | 16 | mje at posix.co.za | 17.1 | | 17 | mainanoa at gmail.com | 17.1 | | 18 | honlue at gmail.com | 17.0 | | 19 | owen at delong.com | 13.7 | | 20 | woody at pch.net | 13.5 | +----+------------------------------------------------------+--------+ ***** Authors with the largest average size of messages posted: +----+-----Author--------------------------------------------+-bytes-+ | 1 | lan.ye at chinaccsi.com | 54437 | | 2 | badru.ntege at nftconsult.com | 46025 | | 3 | Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com | 33762 | | 4 | arthur at afrinic.net | 30166 | | 5 | vassangbewotto at benintelecoms.bj | 19768 | | 6 | sami at ntc.gov.sd | 18242 | | 7 | bakajika at yahoo.fr | 18029 | | 8 | kofi.ansa at gmail.com | 15277 | | 9 | karmann.olumomo at gmail.com | 12812 | | 10 | sergekbk at yahoo.fr | 11032 | | 11 | adam at varud.com | 10418 | | 12 | jnoulaye at yahoo.fr | 10383 | | 13 | list-admin at afrinic.net | 9823 | | 14 | seun.ojedeji at gmail.com | 9034 | | 15 | mje at posix.co.za | 8758 | | 16 | leo.vegoda at icann.org | 8302 | | 17 | ndonnang at nvconsulting.biz | 8096 | | 18 | owen at delong.com | 7017 | | 19 | mainanoa at gmail.com | 5838 | | 20 | abibu at tznic.or.tz | 5819 | +----+-------------------------------------------------------+-------+ ***** Top subjects by popularity: +----+----Subject-----------------------------------+--Msg-+-Percent-+ | 1 | [rpd] Re: [afnog] IPv4 Allocations by Length | 15 | 10.95 % | | 2 | [rpd] Recruitment of AfriNIC CEO | 14 | 10.22 % | | 3 | [rpd] Recruitment of AfriNIC CEO date | 14 | 10.22 % | | 4 | [rpd] AnyCast assignments - Update | 10 | 7.30 % | | 5 | [rpd] Afrinic policy proposal???Afrinic Serv | 9 | 6.57 % | | 6 | [rpd] Mr Kris Seeburn: AfriNIC Board member | 9 | 6.57 % | | 7 | [rpd] Fwd: update on policy Afrinic service | 7 | 5.11 % | | 8 | [rpd] Fwd: Mr Kris Seeburn: AfriNIC Board me | 7 | 5.11 % | | 9 | [rpd] proposed policy: reservation of resour | 6 | 4.38 % | | 10 | [rpd] [afnog] IPv4 Allocations by Length Sta | 6 | 4.38 % | | 11 | [rpd] Afrinic policy proposal???Afrinic Serv | 4 | 2.92 % | | 12 | [members-discuss] Re: [rpd] Recruitment of A | 3 | 2.19 % | | 13 | [rpd] Board Statement with regards to alloca | 3 | 2.19 % | | 14 | [afnog] [rpd] IPv4 Allocations by Length Sta | 2 | 1.46 % | | 15 | [rpd] CRISP - AfriNIC Representatives Select | 2 | 1.46 % | | 16 | [rpd] Re: [afnog] CRISP - AfriNIC Representa | 2 | 1.46 % | | 17 | [rpd] Re: Recruitment of AfriNIC CEO | 2 | 1.46 % | | 18 | [rpd] Afrinic policy proposa | 2 | 1.46 % | | 19 | [members-discuss] Re: [rpd] Board Statement | 2 | 1.46 % | | 20 | [AfrICANN-discuss] Re: [members-discuss] Re: | 2 | 1.46 % | +----+----------------------------------------------+------+---------+ | | other | 16 | 11.68 % | +----+----------------------------------------------+------+---------+ ***** Graph showing number of messages written during hours of day: 100% ---------------------#--------------------------- - 18 90% ---------------------#--------------------------- msgs 80% ---------------------#--------------------------- 70% -----------------#---#-------#------------------- 60% -----------------#---#---#---#------------------- 50% -----------------#---#-#-#---#-#----------------- 40% -----------------#---#-#-#---#-#---------#------- 30% -----------------#-#-#-#-#---#-#-#-#-----#------- 20% -------------#-#-#-#-#-#-#---#-#-#-#---#-#------- 10% -#---#-----#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#---#- * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * hour 0 5 11 17 23 ***** Graph showing number of messages written during days of month: 100% ---------------------------------------------#---#------------- - 19 90% ---------------------------------------------#---#------------- msgs 80% -----------#---------------------------------#---#------------- 70% -----------#-----------------------------#---#---#------------- 60% -----------#-----------------------------#---#---#------------- 50% -----------#-#---------------------------#---#---#------------- 40% -----------#-#---------------------------#---#---#-#---#------- 30% -------#---#-#-------------------------#-#---#---#-#-#-#------- 20% -------#-#-#-#-----------#-------------#-#---#---#-#-#-#------- 10% -------#-#-#-#-#---------#-#-------#---#-#---#---#-#-#-#------- * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * day 1 6 12 18 24 31 ***** Graph showing number of messages written during days of week: 100% -----------------#----------- - 36 90% -------------#---#----------- msgs 80% -------------#---#----------- 70% -----#-------#---#----------- 60% -----#-------#---#----------- 50% -----#-------#---#-------#--- 40% -----#-------#---#-------#--- 30% -----#---#---#---#-------#--- 20% -----#---#---#---#-------#--- 10% -----#---#---#---#---#---#--- * * * * * * * Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun ***** Longest message: Author : badru.ntege at nftconsult.com Subject : [rpd] Change of Board Leadership Date : Mon, 24 Nov 2014 20:45:28 +0000 Size : 92104 bytes ***** Most popular subject: Subject : [rpd] Re: [afnog] IPv4 Allocations by Length Statistics for 2014 No. of msgs: 15 Total size : 257656 bytes ***** Final summary: Total number of messages: 137 Total number of different authors: 49 Total number of different subjects: 35 Total size of messages (w/o headers): 1428202 bytes Average size of a message: 10424 bytes -- Regards, AFRINIC _____________________ powered by grepmail and MailListStat From madomey at hotmail.com Mon Dec 1 11:05:54 2014 From: madomey at hotmail.com (Marcus K. G. Adomey) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2014 11:05:54 +0000 Subject: [rpd] IPv4 issues Message-ID: Dear Chairman of AFRINIC Board and Board Members, 28 November 2014 marked the conclusion of the 21st meeting of AFRINIC. The following are my reflection which I want to share with you. As you are aware, the saga of IPv4 /12 has generated a lot of discussions with lot controversies in which a lot of AFRINIC community members and observers concluded that something went wrong, maybe at the policy level, operations level, the board level or elsewhere. Also, it is noticed that there is a hard push from some members of the community to ease or simplify the process of acquiring resources from AFRINIC. Why this hard push? The duty of the board is to protect the interest of the community by using the policies the community has put in place. When there is no policy to guide the actions of the board in some circumstances, and when the interest of the AFRINIC community is as take, the board is supposed to do everything possible to protect the interest and the resources of the AFRINIC community who elected them there as board members to represent their interest. There are precedence of this unwritten disposition in the history of the world. AFRINIC is entering the state of transition caused by the announcement of the resignation of the CEO. Moreover, for the sake of ?smooth transition?, there is a change in the chairmanship of the Board of AFRINIC. In general, it is observed that, at times, some transitions can be chaotic due to a number of reasons. In the AFRINIC community the resources attribution that has generated a lot of discussions and indignation from the community and observers is IPv4 /12. To protect the resources of the AFRINIC community as well as protect the image and the integrity of the AFINIC board during this transition, I believe that the allocation of the IPv4 address above IPv4 /18 should be done in a way and manner that would protect the interest of the AFRINIC community. Thank you, Marcus -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com Mon Dec 1 12:22:28 2014 From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2014 13:22:28 +0100 Subject: [rpd] IPv4 issues In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 12:05 PM, Marcus K. G. Adomey wrote: > > To protect the resources of the AFRINIC community as well as protect the > image and the integrity of the AFINIC board during this transition, I > believe that the allocation of the IPv4 address above IPv4 /18 should be > done in a way and manner that would protect the interest of the AFRINIC > community. > > Hi Marcus, I have spotted a possible policy item ;) could you consider writing a policy that achieve what you've mentioned above? Thanks Cheers! Thank you, > > > > Marcus > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng * The key to understanding is humility - my view ! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sfolayan at gmail.com Mon Dec 1 13:32:40 2014 From: sfolayan at gmail.com (Sunday Folayan) Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2014 14:32:40 +0100 Subject: [rpd] Merci du conseil d'AfriNIC In-Reply-To: <69C258D7-977F-442B-8AA5-EF609616C3A9@afrinic.net> References: <69C258D7-977F-442B-8AA5-EF609616C3A9@afrinic.net> Message-ID: <547C6DF8.10506@gmail.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Chers membres d'AFRINIC, Chers amis d'AFRINIC, Le Conseil d'administration d?AFRINIC vous remercie pour votre participation ? la r?union d'AFRINIC-21 qui s'est achev?e r?cemment. Les sessions techniques ont ?t? tr?s gratifiantes et benefiques. Je f?licite le niveau des discussions lors de la r?union sur les politiques de gestion des ressources Internet. Votre contribution et votre participation aux d?bats ?taient constructifs et nous eu avons le plaisir de constater que l'Afrique a enfin atteint sa maturit?. AFRINIC-21 a ?t? une r?ussite. Je tiens ? souligner la contribution de toute l??quipe d'AFRINIC. Le personnel, qui nous a donn? une r?union fantastique, et cela sans un h?te local. Je devine que cela est due ? leur connaissance du territoire local, mais je dois dire que leur engagement et leur d?vouement ont fait la diff?rence. J?appr?cie ?galement le r?le de coordinateur jou? par le Directeur g?n?ral, Adiel. Il n'a pas baiss? les bras, m?me apr?s avoir transmis son pr?avis de d?part. Merci beaucoup Adiel. Merci ? nos sponsors et partisans, n'oubliez pas ma requ?te de consid?rer de nous sponsoriser pour les 10 prochaines ann?es. Le Conseil d'administration appr?cie tout le soutien re?u ? l??gard de notre coll?gue, M. Kris Seeburn qui est tomb? malade. Il est maintenant hors des soins intensifs, et sur le chemin d'un bon r?tablissement. Merci pour les pri?res, v?ux et d?monstration de solidarit?. Le Conseil d'administration a pris note des diverses contributions et suggestions de la communaut?, concernant la p?riode pour le recrutement d'un nouveau directeur g?n?ral, et nous allons bient?t faire une d?claration ? cet ?gard une fois qu'une d?cision est prise. Merci ? vous tous, et au plaisir de vous voir ? AIS 2015. Cordialement, Sunday Folayan Pr?sident du conseil d'administration -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUfG34AAoJEH6UvSz6fA25IAQH/2ak2y7xGME4kCSLGbvNXAdp xOsDdPdmVBgY8aosAdlrHb5nDK0pOI8yPa0OERezg7ahus3M8yu5KzmUD5+j6ymm SuZdQrbz+2AiY/zlBve+LJgy9Zyc/gnAB+uCeaDgP3mIRANinesSPLVYVTvM2qoV GNITlAxeB5qqszgZVnZw0MWQqUvPu1U/NJTETlQQVYa/EP7GfPEbTVH1bb3Qf9fc ie0nIQVRND4FyMz0O7xHheXBxuJDHIXaSwnRZftNpVvjQdYaD/b+f8h41eSTAfMo ULNKrqeSU9QOfP4IwsqttQq1EZIPNlOoBWIS27Labl6hq42CKIDF/jniM/b8egA= =tpcs -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From mark.tinka at seacom.mu Mon Dec 1 14:03:55 2014 From: mark.tinka at seacom.mu (Mark Tinka) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2014 16:03:55 +0200 Subject: [rpd] IPv4 issues In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <201412011603.55526.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> On Monday, December 01, 2014 02:22:28 PM Seun Ojedeji wrote: > I have spotted a possible policy item ;) could you > consider writing a policy that achieve what you've > mentioned above? During the AFRINIC-21 meeting, someone mentioned a valuable point where the AFRINIC region should be careful about creating policy that would cause other regions to counter against us in the future. It doesn't have to be related to IPv4 (probably not since other regions have run out), but it could be something equally as important in the future that we can't foresee today. I'm neither sanctioning nor opposing a policy to address Marcus' concerns, but I'm stating that if such a policy is, indeed, drafted, it be careful of what I mention above. Mark. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. URL: From sfolayan at gmail.com Mon Dec 1 14:38:03 2014 From: sfolayan at gmail.com (Sunday Folayan) Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2014 15:38:03 +0100 Subject: [rpd] IPv4 issues In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <547C7D4B.5000205@gmail.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Dear Marcus, Thank you very much for your Email. I will get the Board to discuss it and revert within the next 48 hours. Thanks and Regards ... Sunday Folayan Board Chair On 01/12/2014 12:05, Marcus K. G. Adomey wrote: > Dear Chairman of AFRINIC Board and Board Members, > > 28 November 2014 marked the conclusion of the 21st meeting of > AFRINIC. The following are my reflection which I want to share with > you. > > As you are aware, the saga of IPv4 /12 has generated a lot of > discussions with lot controversies in which a lot of AFRINIC > community members and observers concluded that something went > wrong, maybe at the policy level, operations level, the board level > or elsewhere. Also, it is noticed that there is a hard push from > some members of the community to ease or simplify the process of > acquiring resources from AFRINIC. Why this hard push? > > The duty of the board is to protect the interest of the community > by using the policies the community has put in place. When there > is no policy to guide the actions of the board in some > circumstances, and when the interest of the AFRINIC community is as > take, the board is supposed to do everything possible to protect > the interest and the resources of the AFRINIC community who elected > them there as board members to represent their interest. There are > precedence of this unwritten disposition in the history of the > world. > > AFRINIC is entering the state of transition caused by the > announcement of the resignation of the CEO. Moreover, for the sake > of ?smooth transition?, there is a change in the chairmanship of > the Board of AFRINIC. In general, it is observed that, at times, > some transitions can be chaotic due to a number of reasons. In the > AFRINIC community the resources attribution that has generated a > lot of discussions and indignation from the community and observers > is IPv4 /12. > > To protect the resources of the AFRINIC community as well as > protect the image and the integrity of the AFINIC board during this > transition, I believe that the allocation of the IPv4 address above > IPv4 /18 should be done in a way and manner that would protect the > interest of the AFRINIC community. > > Thank you, > > > > Marcus > > > > _______________________________________________ rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > - -- - ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sunday Adekunle Folayan blog: http://www.sundayfolayan.name.ng email: sfolayan at skannet.com.ng, sfolayan at gmail.com phone: +234-816-866-7523, +234-802-291-2202 skype: sfolayan fcbk: www.facebook.com/sfolayan tweet: sfolayan linkedin: sfolayan : http://free.lanci.ng - Anyone, Anyjob, Anywhere, Anytime - ------------------------------------------------------------------ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUfH1LAAoJEH6UvSz6fA25/4kH/3DXDcRuEh4mmfqGUaWj8GXW NApOPliXCRyHpPQHBS3y3LOH4G1kr6psSiPce3cz1OLNgqZOKtNh0lME7hxjwTUB uU1nF4uCowW49d5OaE2B8ZEfPUg1z1jKyzhCmRXFQjEH4gK4vkFTpkIbd/pXXOcj w20Z9935sxH8/hmKrEAvOxKXI1P5ayQOgYqzt/EZKakNlQUp4fVWPRdgq5pkof+n 2J2D1ZB/iSEoosZzTI7JITCvzsgwgiMQ2Q48ISyLzfbBuSLLe+CTpvdcNaQ6TDG3 xQFJ/ry5HHtCA43CFSKykA5IOhi6xw3D6mQuKH1tebGbHvxkQl8oVU+qED7VJWA= =rfq6 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From ondouglas at gmail.com Mon Dec 1 14:38:16 2014 From: ondouglas at gmail.com (Douglas Onyango) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2014 18:38:16 +0400 Subject: [rpd] IPv4 issues In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Marcus, On 1 Dec 2014 15:09, "Marcus K. G. Adomey" wrote: and observers is IPv4 /12. > To protect the resources of the AFRINIC community as well as protect the image and the integrity of the AFINIC board during this transition, I believe that the allocation of the IPv4 address above IPv4 /18 should be done in a way and manner that would protect the interest of the AFRINIC community. > Protecting the interests of the community during internet number allocations/assignments is something I agree with you on completely. However, the idea of confining this to only blocks of /18 + is something that I am averse to. I Beleive ALL address space: /8 or /30 should be done in the best interest of the community. Regards, -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From virtual.borg at gmail.com Mon Dec 1 15:15:12 2014 From: virtual.borg at gmail.com (Borg) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2014 19:15:12 +0400 Subject: [rpd] IPv4 issues In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: While I can identify with the need to keep afrinic resource within for legitimate africain company to on their infrastructure anywhere AND protect it from the dubious, it is useless to try protect something which you yourself don't use. Where are the legitime africain companies asking for IPv4? As I see, afrinic staff time is better use allocating ipv4 to legitime companies with office and staff in africa than play detective on dubious demande. If you don't value it to use it, then maybe let some who value it to take it. Borg le Chevalier ___________________________________ "Common sense is what tells us the world is flat" From rbiramah at ipi9.com Mon Dec 1 15:44:22 2014 From: rbiramah at ipi9.com (Raz BIRAMAH) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2014 19:44:22 +0400 Subject: [rpd] IPv4 issues In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <09089DE1-03D6-444B-A51C-F029D823DA0F@ipi9.com> Borg, In that case why those ressources are distributed to all RIR, why aren't they be kept at IANA level and then those who need them send their request directly or even via an RIR? I agree with the principle to better serve our community in ressources allocation, just we need to find the suitable way to avoid lost and unuse. For me, our policies and rules are clear even i think the may need some reeforcement. Raz > Le 1 d?c. 2014 ? 19:15, Borg a ?crit : > > While I can identify with the need to keep afrinic resource within for > legitimate africain company to on their infrastructure anywhere AND > protect it from the dubious, it is useless to try protect something > which you yourself don't use. > > > Where are the legitime africain companies asking for IPv4? As I see, > afrinic staff time is better use allocating ipv4 to legitime > companies with office and staff in africa than play detective on > dubious demande. > > If you don't value it to use it, then maybe let some who value it to take it. > > Borg le Chevalier > ___________________________________ > "Common sense is what tells us the world is flat" > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From chittra.seeparsad at gmail.com Mon Dec 1 18:00:51 2014 From: chittra.seeparsad at gmail.com (Chittra Seeparsad) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2014 22:00:51 +0400 Subject: [rpd] ip and security Message-ID: Dear All I just want to highlight on the importance of educating companies when they get their ips. since there is a huge demand of ips and now transition to ipv6, the security part is critical. What I mean to say is afrinic continues to provide the normal work scenario and africa cert provides the training on security aspects. If we start preparing now we will reach to a certain level of understanding towards the demands of the industry. Best Chittra -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jnoulaye at yahoo.fr Mon Dec 1 20:04:42 2014 From: jnoulaye at yahoo.fr (jnoulaye at yahoo.fr) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2014 20:04:42 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [rpd] Tr : Fwd: Chapter Leaders Community : IANA: Last call on protocol parameters proposal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1071785253.3936247.1417464282489.JavaMail.yahoo@jws11120.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> This may interest you, your input is expected.The link for the full document:?http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response/?include_text=1? | ? | | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | | draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-06Draft Response to the Internet Coordination Group Request for Proposals on the IANA protocol parameters registries (Internet-Draft, 2014) | | | | Afficher sur datatracker.ietf.org | Aper?u par Yahoo | | | | ? | ?Regards/Janvier Ngnoulaye ----- Mail transf?r? ----- De?: Janvier Noulaye ??: jnoulaye Envoy? le : Lundi 1 d?cembre 2014 18h07 Objet?: Fwd: Chapter Leaders Community : IANA: Last call on protocol parameters proposal ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Konstantinos Komaitis via Internet Society Date: 2014-12-01 11:37 GMT+01:00 Subject: Chapter Leaders Community : IANA: Last call on protocol parameters proposal To: jnoulaye at gmail.com == Please, write your reply ABOVE THIS LINE == This message has been cross posted to the following Discussions: Chapter Leaders Community and Advisory Council . ------------------------------------------- Dear all, The Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG), which is responsible is responsible for technical management of IETF activities and the Internet standards process, has received a request from the Planning for the IANA/NTIA Transition WG (ianaplan) to consider the following document: - 'Draft Response to the Internet Coordination Group Request for Proposals on the IANA protocol parameters registries' as Informational RFC. The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf at ietf.org mailing lists by 2014-12-15. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg at ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Thanks Konstantinos ------------------------------ komaitis at isoc.org Note: replies will be sent to the full discussion group. ------------------------------ Reply to Sender : http://connect.internetsociety.org/eGroups/PostReply/?GroupId=31&SenderKey=dc458e8e-c17b-47a1-829a-7e7b6a96ad9e&MID=2178&MDATE=7569467456&UserKey=e77fd63e-3ac1-437b-b82f-de9e33d79b78&sKey=8949d215a61c4c049043 Reply to Discussion : http://connect.internetsociety.org/eGroups/PostReply/?GroupId=31&MID=2178&MDATE=7569467456&UserKey=e77fd63e-3ac1-437b-b82f-de9e33d79b78&sKey=8949d215a61c4c049043 You are subscribed to "Chapter Leaders Community" as jnoulaye at gmail.com. To change your subscriptions, go to http://connect.internetsociety.org/MySubscriptions?a1=1&MDATE=7569467456&UserKey=e77fd63e-3ac1-437b-b82f-de9e33d79b78&sKey=8949d215a61c4c049043. To unsubscribe from this community discussion, go to http://connect.internetsociety.org/HigherLogic/eGroups/Unsubscribe.aspx?UserKey=e77fd63e-3ac1-437b-b82f-de9e33d79b78&sKey=8949d215a61c4c049043&GroupKey=679aae94-6767-4b89-af2f-4f6122e16416. ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From owen at delong.com Tue Dec 2 01:53:12 2014 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2014 17:53:12 -0800 Subject: [rpd] Recruitment of AfriNIC CEO In-Reply-To: References: <201411201031.25534.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> Message-ID: > On Nov 21, 2014, at 1:13 AM, Douglas Onyango wrote: > > All, > While internal knowledge of the community is key, I think it may confines our search team to only the community, which may or may not deliver the very best candidate. > Depending on how you are intending to define the community, I would argue that recruiting outside of the community would be very unlikely to yield an ideal result. Permit me to elaborate? If you define the community broadly (all internet users within the AfriNIC region), then surely the best candidate must be within the community as I do not believe that someone coming from outside of the community would have the necessary understanding of the unique challenges within the region. If you define the community more narrowly as only those who participate in this mailing list or some other limited subset of the internet-using community within the region, then you may be right that such a definition could well exclude an ideal candidate. > Couple this with admin & and logistical requirements needed to look for executive candidates in a short period of time and think involving an agency would be more efficient. > For all the reasons that Woody mentioned, and based on my experience, I don?t think it would. I think it would be a great way to waste time and resources looking at a number of candidates that fit some generic profile, but are not necessarily well suited to the task at hand. > My suggestion is to engage a competent agency which can take care of the logistics and initial vetting of candidates, they can then forward the cream to an internal team for a final round of interviews. > In my experience, down this path lies madness as I have yet to encounter a ?competent agency? which does an initial vetting which proves useful. YMMV. > This path gives us the best of both worlds with the shortest turn around time. > This is one of those examples where we see a clear demonstration of the difference between theory and practice. (The difference being that ?In theory, there is no difference.?) In theory, you are absolutely correct and this looks like a great idea on paper. However, experience has shown that this is not necessarily the case because it turns out that there are a number of more subtle difficulties that come into play: 1. Finding a competent agency is hard. 2. Getting the competent agency to truly understand the job requirements is even harder. 3. Finding qualified candidates for such a unique role is quite hard. 4. There is no downside to an agency to shotgun the position and send you the N candidates they think are closest. The worst that can happen is that you don?t hire one of their candidates. They have no skin in the game and they will do whatever they do within the confines of the deadline you give them rather than really searching for the truly right candidate. If you don?t give them a deadline, they will send you every remotely qualified candidate as soon as they can to minimize risk of not getting the contract. As such, I think that using a recruiter is likely to be a waste. I think you might have better success using a community survey where you ask people to nominate a candidate they think would do the job well and then solicit resumes from the names that get entered most often. (write-in only and one-name per respondent only.) This may not work, either, but I think it?s likely to be at least as effective as using a recruiter. Owen > Regards, > On 20 Nov 2014 11:46, "Mark Tinka" > wrote: > > > > On Thursday, November 20, 2014 09:44:57 AM Bill Woodcock > > wrote: > > > > > Speaking from my own experience on the ARIN board when we > > > had a similar transition to make, I?d say that > > > ?recruitment professionals? are an unmitigated disaster. > > > They?ll find you a set of generic and mediocre > > > candidates, none particularly prepared for the task. > > > After two false starts using ?recruitment professionals? > > > we gave up on them and hired someone we knew was capable > > > of handling the job, and who wouldn?t flake out. And > > > that?s worked out really well for us. > > > > I'd tend to agree, in this case. > > > > We know the community, and that's an advantage worth > > exploiting. > > > > Mark. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > rpd mailing list > > rpd at afrinic.net > > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jacksonmuthi at gmail.com Tue Dec 2 05:51:14 2014 From: jacksonmuthi at gmail.com (Jackson Muthili) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2014 09:51:14 +0400 Subject: [rpd] IPv4 issues In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Marcus makes good points. Afrinic yesterday give out that /12. Here my take on Markus inputs: By Laws have the following as some of powers of Afrinic Board 15.1.ii Supervising the management of the business and affairs of the Company. 15.3.i Determine the guidelines for the allocation of address space to members in line with the member driven PDP 15.1.ii give board supervisory authority of all Afrinic business. I dont see why Board now come out and say they dont get involved in IP allocation affairs YET THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT business of Afrinic! Have board read these by law or have Afrinic legal staffs educated board of the responsibility give to them by these by-law? Separately may I point 6.1.i of by law which say Afrinic to give IPs to companies geographically based within, and providing services in the Africa. Does Afrinic enforce this clause? J. On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 3:05 PM, Marcus K. G. Adomey wrote: > Dear Chairman of AFRINIC Board and Board Members, > > 28 November 2014 marked the conclusion of the 21st meeting of AFRINIC. The > following are my reflection which I want to share with you. > > As you are aware, the saga of IPv4 /12 has generated a lot of discussions > with lot controversies in which a lot of AFRINIC community members and > observers concluded that something went wrong, maybe at the policy level, > operations level, the board level or elsewhere. Also, it is noticed that > there is a hard push from some members of the community to ease or simplify > the process of acquiring resources from AFRINIC. Why this hard push? > > The duty of the board is to protect the interest of the community by using > the policies the community has put in place. When there is no policy to > guide the actions of the board in some circumstances, and when the interest > of the AFRINIC community is as take, the board is supposed to do everything > possible to protect the interest and the resources of the AFRINIC community > who elected them there as board members to represent their interest. There > are precedence of this unwritten disposition in the history of the world. > > AFRINIC is entering the state of transition caused by the announcement of > the resignation of the CEO. Moreover, for the sake of ?smooth transition?, > there is a change in the chairmanship of the Board of AFRINIC. In general, > it is observed that, at times, some transitions can be chaotic due to a > number of reasons. In the AFRINIC community the resources attribution that > has generated a lot of discussions and indignation from the community and > observers is IPv4 /12. > > To protect the resources of the AFRINIC community as well as protect the > image and the integrity of the AFINIC board during this transition, I > believe that the allocation of the IPv4 address above IPv4 /18 should be > done in a way and manner that would protect the interest of the AFRINIC > community. > > Thank you, > > > > Marcus > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > From kofi.ansa at gmail.com Tue Dec 2 06:51:30 2014 From: kofi.ansa at gmail.com (Kofi ANSA AKUFO) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2014 10:51:30 +0400 Subject: [rpd] IPv4 issues In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Jackson Are you saying AfriNIC gave out another /12 IPv4 yesterday? Anyway the stats as of December 02, 2014 (according to ftp://ftp.afrinic.net/pub/stats/afrinic/ ) indicates 6 organisations have received /12 IPv4 allocations for 2014. Find attached files for your perusal. cheers K. On 2 December 2014 at 09:51, Jackson Muthili wrote: > Marcus makes good points. Afrinic yesterday give out that /12. > > Here my take on Markus inputs: > > By Laws have the following as some of powers of Afrinic Board > > 15.1.ii Supervising the management of the business and affairs of > the Company. > 15.3.i Determine the guidelines for the allocation of address space > to members in line with the member driven PDP > > 15.1.ii give board supervisory authority of all Afrinic business. I > dont see why Board now come out and say they dont get involved in IP > allocation affairs YET THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT business of Afrinic! > Have board read these by law or have Afrinic legal staffs educated > board of the responsibility give to them by these by-law? > > Separately may I point 6.1.i of by law which say Afrinic to give IPs > to companies geographically based within, and providing services in > the Africa. Does Afrinic enforce this clause? > > J. > > On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 3:05 PM, Marcus K. G. Adomey > wrote: > > Dear Chairman of AFRINIC Board and Board Members, > > > > 28 November 2014 marked the conclusion of the 21st meeting of AFRINIC. > The > > following are my reflection which I want to share with you. > > > > As you are aware, the saga of IPv4 /12 has generated a lot of discussions > > with lot controversies in which a lot of AFRINIC community members and > > observers concluded that something went wrong, maybe at the policy level, > > operations level, the board level or elsewhere. Also, it is noticed that > > there is a hard push from some members of the community to ease or > simplify > > the process of acquiring resources from AFRINIC. Why this hard push? > > > > The duty of the board is to protect the interest of the community by > using > > the policies the community has put in place. When there is no policy to > > guide the actions of the board in some circumstances, and when the > interest > > of the AFRINIC community is as take, the board is supposed to do > everything > > possible to protect the interest and the resources of the AFRINIC > community > > who elected them there as board members to represent their interest. > There > > are precedence of this unwritten disposition in the history of the world. > > > > AFRINIC is entering the state of transition caused by the announcement of > > the resignation of the CEO. Moreover, for the sake of ?smooth > transition?, > > there is a change in the chairmanship of the Board of AFRINIC. In > general, > > it is observed that, at times, some transitions can be chaotic due to a > > number of reasons. In the AFRINIC community the resources attribution > that > > has generated a lot of discussions and indignation from the community and > > observers is IPv4 /12. > > > > To protect the resources of the AFRINIC community as well as protect the > > image and the integrity of the AFINIC board during this transition, I > > believe that the allocation of the IPv4 address above IPv4 /18 should be > > done in a way and manner that would protect the interest of the AFRINIC > > community. > > > > Thank you, > > > > > > > > Marcus > > > > _______________________________________________ > > rpd mailing list > > rpd at afrinic.net > > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: delegated-afrinic-20141202.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 66398 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: delegated-afrinic-20141202.xlsx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet Size: 25139 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jacksonmuthi at gmail.com Tue Dec 2 09:02:29 2014 From: jacksonmuthi at gmail.com (Jackson Muthili) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2014 13:02:29 +0400 Subject: [rpd] IPv4 issues In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 10:51 AM, Kofi ANSA AKUFO wrote:> Hi Jackson > > Are you saying AfriNIC gave out another /12 IPv4 yesterday? yes inetnum: 45.192.0.0 - 45.207.255.255 netname: Cloud-Innovation-v4-I descr: Cloud Innovation Ltd country: SC org: ORG-CIL1-AFRINIC admin-c: OS9-AFRINIC tech-c: OS9-AFRINIC status: ALLOCATED PA notify: tech at cloudinnovation.org mnt-by: AFRINIC-HM-MNT mnt-lower: CIL1-MNT mnt-domains: CIL1-MNT changed: hostmaster at afrinic.net 20141201 source: AFRINIC parent: 45.192.0.0 - 45.222.255.255 organisation: ORG-CIL1-AFRINIC org-name: Cloud Innovation Ltd org-type: LIR country: SC address: C/o Abacus (Seychelles) Limited address: Mont Fleuri, Mahe address: Seychelles address: Mahe e-mail: tech at cloudinnovation.org phone: +248 4 610 795 phone: +248 4 610 795 admin-c: OS9-AFRINIC tech-c: OS9-AFRINIC mnt-ref: AFRINIC-HM-MNT mnt-ref: CIL1-MNT mnt-by: AFRINIC-HM-MNT notify: tech at cloudinnovation.org changed: hostmaster at afrinic.net 20130716 changed: hostmaster at afrinic.net 20130722 changed: hostmaster at afrinic.net 20130724 changed: support at outsideheaven.com 20140120 source: AFRINIC person: OutsideHeaven Support nic-hdl: OS9-AFRINIC address: Ebene address: MU address: Mahe address: Seychelles e-mail: tech at cloudinnovation.org phone: +248 4 610 795 changed: support at outsideheaven.com 20130416 changed: tech at cloudinnovation.org 20140120 source: AFRINIC > > Anyway the stats as of December 02, 2014 (according to > ftp://ftp.afrinic.net/pub/stats/afrinic/ ) indicates 6 organisations have > received /12 IPv4 allocations for 2014. > > Find attached files for your perusal. > > cheers > > K. > > On 2 December 2014 at 09:51, Jackson Muthili wrote: >> >> Marcus makes good points. Afrinic yesterday give out that /12. >> >> Here my take on Markus inputs: >> >> By Laws have the following as some of powers of Afrinic Board >> >> 15.1.ii Supervising the management of the business and affairs of >> the Company. >> 15.3.i Determine the guidelines for the allocation of address space >> to members in line with the member driven PDP >> >> 15.1.ii give board supervisory authority of all Afrinic business. I >> dont see why Board now come out and say they dont get involved in IP >> allocation affairs YET THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT business of Afrinic! >> Have board read these by law or have Afrinic legal staffs educated >> board of the responsibility give to them by these by-law? >> >> Separately may I point 6.1.i of by law which say Afrinic to give IPs >> to companies geographically based within, and providing services in >> the Africa. Does Afrinic enforce this clause? >> >> J. >> >> On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 3:05 PM, Marcus K. G. Adomey >> wrote: >> > Dear Chairman of AFRINIC Board and Board Members, >> > >> > 28 November 2014 marked the conclusion of the 21st meeting of AFRINIC. >> > The >> > following are my reflection which I want to share with you. >> > >> > As you are aware, the saga of IPv4 /12 has generated a lot of >> > discussions >> > with lot controversies in which a lot of AFRINIC community members and >> > observers concluded that something went wrong, maybe at the policy >> > level, >> > operations level, the board level or elsewhere. Also, it is noticed that >> > there is a hard push from some members of the community to ease or >> > simplify >> > the process of acquiring resources from AFRINIC. Why this hard push? >> > >> > The duty of the board is to protect the interest of the community by >> > using >> > the policies the community has put in place. When there is no policy to >> > guide the actions of the board in some circumstances, and when the >> > interest >> > of the AFRINIC community is as take, the board is supposed to do >> > everything >> > possible to protect the interest and the resources of the AFRINIC >> > community >> > who elected them there as board members to represent their interest. >> > There >> > are precedence of this unwritten disposition in the history of the >> > world. >> > >> > AFRINIC is entering the state of transition caused by the announcement >> > of >> > the resignation of the CEO. Moreover, for the sake of ?smooth >> > transition?, >> > there is a change in the chairmanship of the Board of AFRINIC. In >> > general, >> > it is observed that, at times, some transitions can be chaotic due to a >> > number of reasons. In the AFRINIC community the resources attribution >> > that >> > has generated a lot of discussions and indignation from the community >> > and >> > observers is IPv4 /12. >> > >> > To protect the resources of the AFRINIC community as well as protect the >> > image and the integrity of the AFINIC board during this transition, I >> > believe that the allocation of the IPv4 address above IPv4 /18 should be >> > done in a way and manner that would protect the interest of the AFRINIC >> > community. >> > >> > Thank you, >> > >> > >> > >> > Marcus >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > rpd mailing list >> > rpd at afrinic.net >> > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >> > >> _______________________________________________ >> rpd mailing list >> rpd at afrinic.net >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > From mukom.tamon at gmail.com Tue Dec 2 09:28:12 2014 From: mukom.tamon at gmail.com (Mukom Akong T.) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2014 13:28:12 +0400 Subject: [rpd] proposed policy: reservation of resources for IXPs In-Reply-To: <705036E2-86B3-4F4D-AFEC-D485E27EBB84@yahoo.fr> References: <5450F341.3070005@geier.ne.tz> <1682758160.13366.1415089178733.JavaMail.zimbra@tespok.co.ke> <809541757.234203.1415290689668.JavaMail.yahoo@jws11130.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> <705036E2-86B3-4F4D-AFEC-D485E27EBB84@yahoo.fr> Message-ID: ****speaking without any hats and not taking any position******* During the discussions about this proposal in Mauritius, I offered some text that is aimed at addressing the concern that this proposal opens up room for tying up resources in reservations that may not get used eventually. Here's my proposed text for the author's consideration ********************************************************************************************************************* The authors understand that a policy doesn't exist in isolation from other policies. Specifically the community has expressed fear that this policy proposal could set a precedent where other groups (e.g. RENs, ccTLDs etc) start making reservations that may end up not getting used. To address these concerns, if by NN years from now, at least X% of the reserved space has not been used, then this proposal becomes void and the reserved space should be returned to the normal pool! ****************************************************************************************************************** I leave it to the authors and community to decide what reasonable values for NN and X are, or even to subsitute better checks. On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 7:48 AM, Serge ILUNGA wrote: > ++1 > > Serge ILUNGA KABWIKA > Skype: sergekbk > Cell: +243814443160 > > Le 6 nov. 2014 ? 17:18, nico tshintu a ?crit : > > Hello All, > > I support this proposal > > > Nico TSHINTU BAKAJIKA > T?l: 243 818149372 > > > Le Mardi 4 novembre 2014 9h19, Fiona Asonga a > ?crit : > > > Hallo All > > Based on our experience at KIXP and growth strategy moving forward. I > support the proposal as it allows room for the IXPs to grow with minimum > challenges on management of their allocation space. > > Kind regards > > Fiona Asonga > > Chief Executive Officer > > Telecommunications Service Providers Association of Kenya/ Kenya Internet > Exchange Point > > Member Strategic Committee of the Africa Computer Emergency Response Team > > > > > NRO Number Council http://www.nro.net/about/number-council.html > > > > > ASO Address Council http://aso.icann.org/ac/ > > > > > > > > 14 th Floor, Bruce House > > Standard Street > > > > > Tel: +254 20 2245 036 > > Cell: +254 721 713 504 > > Website: www.tespok.or.ke > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Frank Habicht" > To: "rpd" > Cc: "Nishal Goburdhan" > Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2014 7:31:37 PM > Subject: [rpd] proposed policy: reservation of resources for IXPs > > Hello all, > > please find this proposed policy, which we (3 co-authors) have submitted to > the pdpwg last week: > > Resource Reservation for Internet Exchange Points > > Author(s): > a) Frank Habicht, Tanzania Internet Exchange > b) Michuki Mwangi, Internet Society/KIXP > c) Nishal Goburdhan, Packet Clearing House/JINX > > 1) Summary of the Problem being addressed by this proposal > > This policy reserves IPv4 and 2-byte ASNs resources for public Internet > Exchange Points (IXPs) in the African region, ensuring that there would be > discrete IPv4 resources to allow the establishment and growth of future > IXPs. > > > 2) Summary of How this Proposal Addresses the Problem > > This policy requests AfriNIC to reserve, and publish IPv4 resources, and > 2-byte ASNs for use by IXPs only. > > > 3) Proposal > > 3.1 Introduction > > It is widely considered that Internet Exchange Points (IXPs) are one of the > critical elements needed for Internet economies to develop. Africa is still > in the process of developing these, and is, at the same time, faced with > the imminent exhaustion of its IPv4 resources. Not having IPv4 addresses to > grow, or start new, IXPs would create unnecessary and unneeded routing > complexity for Internet connected networks, looking to peer at IXPs to > further their network scope. AfriNIC already has an existing policy to make > allocations to IXPs [1], but that policy does not specifically reserve IPV4 > space to ensure that there will be such, for future IXPs to grow and > develop. Additionally, this policy reserves a set of 2-byte ASNs for use by > IXPs for use at IXP BGP Route Servers. > > > 3.2 Distinction between IXP peering and management networks > > We distinguish between two kinds of IP address resources needed and used at > IXPs. An IXP peering LAN is the contiguous network address block that the > IXP would use to assign unique IP addresses to each peering member, for > each peering participant to exchange network traffic across the shared > peering infrastructure. Best practice has the IXP peering LAN *not* being > visible in a view of the global routing table, among other things to reduce > the attack vectors for ISP border routers via the IXP. > > >From a network identification, monitoring and analysis perspective, it is > thus desirable, that the "peering LAN" space be provided from a contiguous > block. The IXP management LAN is the management network that the IXP uses > to provision services at the IXP, like monitoring, statistics, mail, ticket > systems, provisioning of transit to DNS Roots, etc. > > Management networks, are meant to be reachable globally, for instance to > publish data and allow remote access for common good network infrastructure > (such as root and TLD DNS servers) and research projects. > > > 3.3 BGP Route Servers use > > Typically IXPs use BGP route servers to help manage peering sessions > between different participants. The route servers implement IXP routing > policy in the form of BGP communities, typically in the form of A:B, where > A,B represent A=IXP BGP route server and B=participant ASN. Current BGP > implementations utilise 6 bytes for the extended community attribute > [RFC5668]. Therefore, an IXP with a 4-byte ASN in use at its route server > would not be able to successfully implement the A:B BGP community mapping, > if an IXP participant has a 4-byte ASN. This situation is likely to be > experienced by more IXPs, as additional 4-byte ASNs are allocated through > the current AfriNIC process. > > If, IXP route server communities include the IXP ASN and the peer's ASN > (expected to be 4-byte), and a total of only 6 bytes are available, it > follows that IXP route servers ASN could not be longer than a 2-byte ASN. > > > 3.4 Proposal > > To ensure that there are sufficient resources for IXPs to develop, this > policy proposes that AfriNIC reserve IPv4 addresses for IXP peering LANs > out of an address block marked particularly, and exclusively, for IXP > peering LAN use. Assignments for IXP peering LANs must be from one > dedicated block, published as such by AfriNIC. Assignments for IXP > management addresses should NOT be provided from the same block as the IXP > peering LANs. > > It is proposed that a /16 block be reserved for future requirements for IXP > peering LANs in the AfriNIC service region, and that AfriNIC publish this > block as such. > > It is further proposed to reserve the equivalent of an additional /16 block > for IXP management prefixes, separate from the peering LANs. It is proposed > that AfriNIC reserves a block of 2-byte ASNs for use in BGP route servers > at IXPs in the AfriNIC service region. > > The number of ASNs to be reserved should be the larger of 114, or half of > the remaining 2-byte ASNs within AfriNIC's block at the date of > ratification of this policy. > > AfriNIC will allocate these resources on a first come first served basis. > > > 3.5 Evaluation criteria > > This policy does not suggest new evaluation criteria for what determines a > valid IXP. > > > 4.0 References > > [1] AfriNIC Policy for End User Assignments - AFPUB-2006-GEN-001 > http://afrinic.net/en/library/policies/127-afpub-2006-gen-001 Sections 5) > and 6) > > > > > Note: proposal also available at > > http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposals/1231-resource-reservation-for-internet-exchange-points > > > Regards, > Frank > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > -- Mukom Akong T. http://about.me/perfexcellence | twitter: @perfexcellent ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ?When you work, you are the FLUTE through whose lungs the whispering of the hours turns to MUSIC" - Kahlil Gibran ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kofi.ansa at gmail.com Tue Dec 2 10:11:12 2014 From: kofi.ansa at gmail.com (Kofi ANSA AKUFO) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2014 14:11:12 +0400 Subject: [rpd] IPv4 issues In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Jackson Interesting events going on anyway. 1. A committee is setup to look for a new CEO. When exactly did the CEO officially resign and when was it made public to the community? 2. Is it necessary the committtee setup to oversee the search of a new CEO include the current chair and the outgoing CEO? 3. The recent board chariman steps down giving reasons another board director would be better positioned to usher in the new CEO. How does that affect chairmanship? 4. Within 24 hours of assuming chairmanship, the new chair comes out with a statement which basically means the board cannot intervene where necessary with regards to resource allocation. 5. Now IF IT IS TRUE another /12 IPv4 has been issued to ORG-CIL1-AFRINIC - 45.192.0.0/12 - which seems to be out of the normal pool the RIR has allocated in 2014 then we really need to have a look at the composition of the board and how AfriNIC staff interpret the current policies. The exisiting policies if WELL INTERPRETED should not allow some of these allocations. All the LIRs which have been assigned huge IPv4 blocks at least originate part of the allocated blocks from their allocated ASN but this particular LIR prefers to originate his blocks from other LIR ASN. http://bgp.he.net/net/154.87.0.0/16#_dns 6. And if some of these evaluation of allocations are been overiden by management or permitted due to financial crises then the community has to call for an external audit into the the operations of the RIR or dissolve the board. Lastly if we in the region are not creating enterprises to boost regional development cant we create partnerships with genuine investors and task them to help build capacity in our region rather than watch them take our resources away. There are better and productive ways to deal with some of these problems. cheers K. On 2 December 2014 at 13:02, Jackson Muthili wrote: > On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 10:51 AM, Kofi ANSA AKUFO > wrote:> Hi Jackson > > > > Are you saying AfriNIC gave out another /12 IPv4 yesterday? > > yes > > inetnum: 45.192.0.0 - 45.207.255.255 > > netname: Cloud-Innovation-v4-I > > descr: Cloud Innovation Ltd > > country: SC > > org: ORG-CIL1-AFRINIC > > admin-c: OS9-AFRINIC > > tech-c: OS9-AFRINIC > > status: ALLOCATED PA > > notify: tech at cloudinnovation.org > > mnt-by: AFRINIC-HM-MNT > > mnt-lower: CIL1-MNT > > mnt-domains: CIL1-MNT > > changed: hostmaster at afrinic.net 20141201 > > source: AFRINIC > > parent: 45.192.0.0 - 45.222.255.255 > > > organisation: ORG-CIL1-AFRINIC > > org-name: Cloud Innovation Ltd > > org-type: LIR > > country: SC > > address: C/o Abacus (Seychelles) Limited > > address: Mont Fleuri, Mahe > > address: Seychelles > > address: Mahe > > e-mail: tech at cloudinnovation.org > > phone: +248 4 610 795 > > phone: +248 4 610 795 > > admin-c: OS9-AFRINIC > > tech-c: OS9-AFRINIC > > mnt-ref: AFRINIC-HM-MNT > > mnt-ref: CIL1-MNT > > mnt-by: AFRINIC-HM-MNT > > notify: tech at cloudinnovation.org > > changed: hostmaster at afrinic.net 20130716 > > changed: hostmaster at afrinic.net 20130722 > > changed: hostmaster at afrinic.net 20130724 > > changed: support at outsideheaven.com 20140120 > > source: AFRINIC > > > person: OutsideHeaven Support > > nic-hdl: OS9-AFRINIC > > address: Ebene > > address: MU > > address: Mahe > > address: Seychelles > > e-mail: tech at cloudinnovation.org > > phone: +248 4 610 795 > > changed: support at outsideheaven.com 20130416 > > changed: tech at cloudinnovation.org 20140120 > > source: AFRINIC > > > > > > Anyway the stats as of December 02, 2014 (according to > > ftp://ftp.afrinic.net/pub/stats/afrinic/ ) indicates 6 organisations > have > > received /12 IPv4 allocations for 2014. > > > > Find attached files for your perusal. > > > > cheers > > > > K. > > > > On 2 December 2014 at 09:51, Jackson Muthili > wrote: > >> > >> Marcus makes good points. Afrinic yesterday give out that /12. > >> > >> Here my take on Markus inputs: > >> > >> By Laws have the following as some of powers of Afrinic Board > >> > >> 15.1.ii Supervising the management of the business and affairs of > >> the Company. > >> 15.3.i Determine the guidelines for the allocation of address space > >> to members in line with the member driven PDP > >> > >> 15.1.ii give board supervisory authority of all Afrinic business. I > >> dont see why Board now come out and say they dont get involved in IP > >> allocation affairs YET THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT business of Afrinic! > >> Have board read these by law or have Afrinic legal staffs educated > >> board of the responsibility give to them by these by-law? > >> > >> Separately may I point 6.1.i of by law which say Afrinic to give IPs > >> to companies geographically based within, and providing services in > >> the Africa. Does Afrinic enforce this clause? > >> > >> J. > >> > >> On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 3:05 PM, Marcus K. G. Adomey < > madomey at hotmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> > Dear Chairman of AFRINIC Board and Board Members, > >> > > >> > 28 November 2014 marked the conclusion of the 21st meeting of > AFRINIC. > >> > The > >> > following are my reflection which I want to share with you. > >> > > >> > As you are aware, the saga of IPv4 /12 has generated a lot of > >> > discussions > >> > with lot controversies in which a lot of AFRINIC community members and > >> > observers concluded that something went wrong, maybe at the policy > >> > level, > >> > operations level, the board level or elsewhere. Also, it is noticed > that > >> > there is a hard push from some members of the community to ease or > >> > simplify > >> > the process of acquiring resources from AFRINIC. Why this hard push? > >> > > >> > The duty of the board is to protect the interest of the community by > >> > using > >> > the policies the community has put in place. When there is no policy > to > >> > guide the actions of the board in some circumstances, and when the > >> > interest > >> > of the AFRINIC community is as take, the board is supposed to do > >> > everything > >> > possible to protect the interest and the resources of the AFRINIC > >> > community > >> > who elected them there as board members to represent their interest. > >> > There > >> > are precedence of this unwritten disposition in the history of the > >> > world. > >> > > >> > AFRINIC is entering the state of transition caused by the announcement > >> > of > >> > the resignation of the CEO. Moreover, for the sake of ?smooth > >> > transition?, > >> > there is a change in the chairmanship of the Board of AFRINIC. In > >> > general, > >> > it is observed that, at times, some transitions can be chaotic due to > a > >> > number of reasons. In the AFRINIC community the resources attribution > >> > that > >> > has generated a lot of discussions and indignation from the community > >> > and > >> > observers is IPv4 /12. > >> > > >> > To protect the resources of the AFRINIC community as well as protect > the > >> > image and the integrity of the AFINIC board during this transition, I > >> > believe that the allocation of the IPv4 address above IPv4 /18 should > be > >> > done in a way and manner that would protect the interest of the > AFRINIC > >> > community. > >> > > >> > Thank you, > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > Marcus > >> > > >> > _______________________________________________ > >> > rpd mailing list > >> > rpd at afrinic.net > >> > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > >> > > >> _______________________________________________ > >> rpd mailing list > >> rpd at afrinic.net > >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From abscoco2001 at yahoo.fr Tue Dec 2 11:28:17 2014 From: abscoco2001 at yahoo.fr (sylvain aboka baya) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2014 11:28:17 +0000 Subject: Fw : Re: [rpd] proposed policy: reservation of resources for IXPs Message-ID: <1417519697.50900.YahooMailBasic@web173105.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> Hi all, Dear Mukom, --- En date de?: Mar 2.12.14, Mukom Akong T. a ?crit?: > De: Mukom Akong T. > Objet: Re: [rpd] proposed policy: reservation of resources for IXPs > ?: "rpd" > Cc: "Nishal Goburdhan" > Date: Mardi 2 d?cembre 2014, 10h28 > ****speaking without any hats and not taking > any position******* > > During > the discussions about this proposal in?Mauritius, I offered > some text that is aimed at addressing the concern that this > proposal opens up room for tying up resources in > reservations that may not get used > eventually.? > Here's my proposed text for the > author's consideration > > ********************************************************************************************************************* > The authors understand that a policy > doesn't exist in isolation from other policies. > Specifically the community has expressed fear that this > policy proposal could set a precedent where other groups > (e.g. RENs, > ccTLDs > etc) > start making reservations that may end up not getting > used. > To address these > concerns, if by NN years from now, at least X% of the > reserved space has not been used, then this proposal becomes > void and the reserved space should be returned to the normal > pool! > ****************************************************************************************************************** > Your proposal is very wise dear Mukom ! > I leave > it to the authors and community > to decide what reasonable values for NN and X are, or even > to subsitute > better checks. > I don't want to directly propose values for "NN" and "X" because I think that we can add something to upgrade this interesting proposal and better motivate a quick use of our ressources: ********************************************************************************************************************* When "at least X% of the reserved space has not been used", it "returned to the normal pool!"; then to be able/allowed to apply/request for another same kind of ressources, the concerned Organization (Network Operators, ISP, AfriNIC's Member, Others, ...) must wait [Y] years/months to submit that request. ********************************************************************************************************************* Excuse me ;-) I have add a new unknown factor "Y" for which we have to also give/affect a value. Best Regards, --sb. > > On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 7:48 > AM, Serge ILUNGA > wrote: > ++1 > > Serge ILUNGA KABWIKASkype: > sergekbkCell: +243814443160 > Le 6 nov. 2014 ? 17:18, nico tshintu > a ?crit?: > > Hello All, > I support this > proposal? > Nico > TSHINTU BAKAJIKA > T?l: 243 818149372 > > > Le Mardi 4 novembre 2014 > 9h19, Fiona Asonga > a ?crit : > > > Hallo All > > Based on our experience at > KIXP and growth strategy moving forward. I support the > proposal as it allows room for the IXPs to grow with minimum > challenges on management of their allocation space. > > Kind regards > > Fiona Asonga > > Chief Executive Officer > > Telecommunications Service > Providers Association of Kenya/ Kenya Internet Exchange > Point > > Member Strategic > Committee of the Africa Computer Emergency Response Team > > > > > NRO Number Council http://www.nro.net/about/number-council.html > > > > > > ASO Address Council http://aso.icann.org/ac/ > > > > > > > > > 14 th Floor, Bruce House > > Standard Street > > > > > Tel: +254 20 2245 036 > > Cell: +254 721 713 504 > > Website: www.tespok.or.ke > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Frank Habicht" > To: "rpd" > Cc: "Nishal Goburdhan" > Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2014 7:31:37 PM > Subject: [rpd] proposed policy: reservation of > resources for IXPs > > Hello > all, > > please find this > proposed policy, which we (3 co-authors) have submitted > to > the pdpwg last week: > > Resource Reservation for Internet Exchange > Points > > Author(s): > a) Frank Habicht, Tanzania Internet Exchange > b) Michuki Mwangi, Internet Society/KIXP > c) Nishal Goburdhan, Packet Clearing > House/JINX > > 1) Summary of > the Problem being addressed by this proposal > > This policy reserves IPv4 and > 2-byte ASNs resources for public Internet > Exchange Points (IXPs) in the African region, > ensuring that there would be > discrete IPv4 > resources to allow the establishment and growth of future > IXPs. > > > 2) > Summary of How this Proposal Addresses the Problem > > This policy requests AfriNIC > to reserve, and publish IPv4 resources, and > 2-byte ASNs for use by IXPs only. > > > 3) > Proposal > > 3.1 > Introduction > > It is widely > considered that Internet Exchange Points (IXPs) are one of > the > critical elements needed for Internet > economies to develop. Africa is still > in the > process of developing these, and is, at the same time, faced > with > the imminent exhaustion of its IPv4 > resources. Not having IPv4 addresses to > grow, or start new, IXPs would create > unnecessary and unneeded routing > complexity > for Internet connected networks, looking to peer at IXPs > to > further their network scope. AfriNIC > already has an existing policy to make > allocations to IXPs [1], but that policy does > not specifically reserve IPV4 > space to > ensure that there will be such, for future IXPs to grow > and > develop. Additionally, this policy > reserves a set of 2-byte ASNs for use by > IXPs for use at IXP BGP Route Servers. > > > 3.2 > Distinction between IXP peering and management networks > > We distinguish between two > kinds of IP address resources needed and used at > IXPs. An IXP peering LAN is the contiguous > network address block that the > IXP would use > to assign unique IP addresses to each peering member, for > each peering participant to exchange network > traffic across the shared > peering > infrastructure. Best practice has the IXP peering LAN *not* > being > visible in a view of the global > routing table, among other things to reduce > the attack vectors for ISP border routers via > the IXP. > > >From a network > identification, monitoring and analysis perspective, it > is > thus desirable, that the "peering > LAN" space be provided from a contiguous > block. The IXP management LAN is the management > network that the IXP uses > to provision > services at the IXP, like monitoring, statistics, mail, > ticket > systems, provisioning of transit to > DNS Roots, etc. > > Management > networks, are meant to be reachable globally, for instance > to > publish data and allow remote access for > common good network infrastructure > (such as > root and TLD DNS servers) and research projects. > > > 3.3 BGP Route > Servers use > > Typically IXPs > use BGP route servers to help manage peering sessions > between different participants. The route > servers implement IXP routing > policy in the > form of BGP communities, typically in the form of A:B, > where > A,B represent A=IXP BGP route server > and B=participant ASN. Current BGP > implementations utilise 6 bytes for the > extended community attribute > [RFC5668]. > Therefore, an IXP with a 4-byte ASN in use at its route > server > would not be able to successfully > implement the A:B BGP community mapping, > if > an IXP participant has a 4-byte ASN. This situation is > likely to be > experienced by more IXPs, as > additional 4-byte ASNs are allocated through > the current AfriNIC process. > > If, IXP route server > communities include the IXP ASN and the peer's ASN > (expected to be 4-byte), and a total of only 6 > bytes are available, it > follows that IXP > route servers ASN could not be longer than a 2-byte ASN. > > > 3.4 > Proposal > > To ensure that > there are sufficient resources for IXPs to develop, this > policy proposes that AfriNIC reserve IPv4 > addresses for IXP peering LANs > out of an > address block marked particularly, and exclusively, for > IXP > peering LAN use. Assignments for IXP > peering LANs must be from one > dedicated > block, published as such by AfriNIC. Assignments for IXP > management addresses should NOT be provided > from the same block as the IXP > peering > LANs. > > It is proposed that a > /16 block be reserved for future requirements for IXP > peering LANs in the AfriNIC service region, and > that AfriNIC publish this > block as such. > > It is further proposed to > reserve the equivalent of an additional /16 block > for IXP management prefixes, separate from the > peering LANs. It is proposed > that AfriNIC > reserves a block of 2-byte ASNs for use in BGP route > servers > at IXPs in the AfriNIC service > region. > > The number of ASNs > to be reserved should be the larger of 114, or half of > the remaining 2-byte ASNs within AfriNIC's > block at the date of > ratification of this > policy. > > AfriNIC will > allocate these resources on a first come first served > basis. > > > 3.5 > Evaluation criteria > > This > policy does not suggest new evaluation criteria for what > determines a > valid IXP. > > > 4.0 References > > [1] AfriNIC Policy for End > User Assignments - AFPUB-2006-GEN-001 > http://afrinic.net/en/library/policies/127-afpub-2006-gen-001 > Sections 5) > and 6) > > > > > Note: proposal also available at > http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposals/1231-resource-reservation-for-internet-exchange-points > > > Regards, > Frank > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > _______________________________________________ > > rpd mailing list > > rpd at afrinic.net > > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > > > > > -- > > > Mukom > Akong T. > > http://about.me/perfexcellence | > ?twitter: @perfexcellent > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > ?When you work, you are the FLUTE through > whose lungs the whispering of the hours turns to MUSIC" > - Kahlil Gibran > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > -----La pi?ce jointe associ?e suit----- > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > ? Best Regards?!????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ? ************************ Sylvain BAYA ?CCNA cmNOG's Co-Founder & Coordinator ISOC Cameroon Board's Member ?(+237) 77005341?????????????????????????????? PO Box 13107 YAOUNDE / CAMEROON baya.sylvain [AT cmnog DOT cm]? abscoco2001 [AT yahoo DOT fr] http://www.cmnog.cm http://www.isoc.cm http://www.internetsociety.org ************************ "?1 J?ai attendu patiemment l??ternel; et il s?est pench? vers moi, et a entendu mon cri. 2 Il m?a fait monter hors du puits de la destruction, hors d?un bourbier fangeux; et il a mis mes pieds sur un roc, il a ?tabli mes pas. 3 Et il a mis dans ma bouche un cantique nouveau, la louange de notre Dieu. Plusieurs le verront, et craindront, et se confieront en l??ternel.?" (Psaumes 40 : 1- 2, 3) From owen at delong.com Tue Dec 2 18:55:39 2014 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2014 10:55:39 -0800 Subject: =?utf-8?Q?Re=3A_=5Brpd=5D_Afrinic_policy_proposal=E2=80=94Afrini?= =?utf-8?Q?c_Service_guild_lines?= In-Reply-To: References: <1B27840E-C9B7-4514-9B7B-1E34AFECEB3E@virtualized.org> <20141123042758.GG9375@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> Message-ID: Lu, Neither of them asked your business. They attempted to explain to you how you are fostering an air of suspicion around your request. Instead of taking this attempt to help you at face value and engaging with the community in a positive way, you have chosen to again lash out at the community with hostility. There is an old saying in american culture which I think applies here: ?You will catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.? The closest Chinese equivalent that I found in a brief search was Confucian proverb: ?Kindness is always repaid ten-fold?. The american proverb tells us that if you are trying to obtain something from a person or a group, you are more likely to succeed if you are pleasant and take a cooperative approach than if you attempt to take what you want through intimidation. While I have no doubt that your current application to AfriNIC was began with this approach, every interaction I have seen you conduct with this community has been hostile, defensive, confrontational, and (frankly) a little arrogant. I don?t care whether or not you ever disclose your use of addresses to the community, but, I also don?t care whether or not you ever receive any additional resources for your business. I do think that your attitude and your actions are not good for your image in the community. The way you conducted yourself in Djibouti was, as Jackson pointed out, indicative that you are willing to attempt to circumvent legitimate process and are willing to lie, cheat, and likely steal if you think you can get away with it. As such, I think that the community has expressed legitimate concern about the nature of your request. I think there is legitimate reason for AfriNIC staff to hold your request pending review. In ARIN, that review would be conducted by the CEO and not the board. I don?t know the details of the appeal process in the other RIRs. I know that if I were the AfriNIC CEO, I would take the concerns raised by the community and by the staff reviewing your request very seriously and I would look at it very carefully. Since I?m not privy to the details, I cannot tell you whether I would deny or approve your request for certain, but based on your conduct here, your repeated attempts to bully the AfriNIC staff, the nature of your actions at various meetings, I will say that my intuition is that your request should not be approved and AfriNIC should work with the authorities in whatever country(ies) your company is operating in to investigate your business practices and the veracity of the information you provided on your application. I think passing your request to the board instead of merely having the CEO deny it outright is probably a kindness being done for you by AfriNIC which, IMHO, you are unlikely to deserve. Owen > On Nov 23, 2014, at 3:58 AM, Lu wrote: > > Both of you (Jackson and kofi) have no support ground and have no understanding of basic principal of the policy, so for two of you: none of your business! Unless your guys able to passing a policy force such disclosure, I guess you will never know the answer in a legitimate manner. So just stoping asking other people's business in a public mailing list. > > > >> On 2014?11?23?, at ??12:36, Jackson Muthili wrote: >> >> Why is it you have big issue to disclosing your activities? Why they >> are so secret yet you ask two full /12?? >> >> What are you hiding? >> >> Legitimate member in community are concerned because you seem to be >> siphoning Africa resources into China. No smoke with no fire. >> >> You already demonstrated your ability to lie in afrinic election at >> djibouti. This reason enough to believe you Lie to afrinic about your >> activity to grab two /12. Afrinic is right to be cautious on you. >> Yours is special case and board is right also to specially be advise >> of you. >> >>> On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Lu Heng wrote: >>> Hi Alan: >>> >>> I have confirmed it with almost every RIR staff, none RIR board should >>> be involved in member's allocation decision, however, following >>> sentence is what we receive directly in our ticket with Afrinic: >>> >>> "In response to your follow-up call yesterday - your request is still >>> pending board decision. We >>> shall advise you of the same as soon as received." >>> >>> And for the second part, you simply misunderstand what I said, of >>> course we will provide(and we did, our allocation request has been >>> pending for 10 months now!) document for Afrinic to review. >>> >>> I am simply saying what we do and how we use our resource is not >>> people in this mailing's business(as people ware asking here what we >>> do in this mailing list). We have no obligation as well as no reason >>> to answer such question in a public mailing list. >>> >>>> On 11/23/14, Alan Barrett wrote: >>>>> On Fri, 21 Nov 2014, Lu Heng wrote: >>>>> My allocation has been told that under board decision for past 2 month. >>>> >>>> I am not aware of anything in the IPv4 >>>> allocation policy, (AFPUB-2005-v4-001 >>>> ) >>>> that provides for review or decision making by the board. >>>> >>>>> And for whom ask about how and why we used up our allocation--simple >>>>> reply--none of your business. >>>> >>>> It is very much Afrinic's business to know how an applicant is >>>> using or plans to use their address space, so that they can check >>>> how much address space is appropriate, and whether policies have >>>> been followed. Policies specifically require applicants to >>>> provide documentation of their network plans. >>>> >>>> For example, see the following parts of AFPUB-2005-v4-001: >>>> >>>> 6.5 Assignment >>>> ... Assignments must only be made for specific purposes documented >>>> by specific organisations and are not to be sub-assigned to other >>>> parties. >>>> >>>> 7.2 Conflict of goals >>>> ... IRs evaluating requests for allocations and assignments must >>>> carefully analyze all relevant considerations and must seek to >>>> balance the needs of the applicant with the needs of the Internet >>>> community as a whole. ... >>>> >>>> 7.3 Documentation >>>> In order to properly evaluate requests, an RIR must carefully >>>> examine all relevant documentation relating to the networks in >>>> question. Such documentation may include network engineering >>>> plans, subnetting plans, descriptions of network topology, and >>>> descriptions of network routing plans. All documentation should >>>> conform to a consistent standard and any estimates and predictions >>>> that are documented must be realistic and justifiable. >>>> >>>> 8.1 Introduction >>>> ... Determination of IP address space allocation size is the >>>> responsibility of AFRINIC staff. >>>> >>>> 9.1 Documentation >>>> The information required by AFRINIC to justify an end-user's >>>> IP address requirements include addressing needs, network >>>> infrastructure and future plans. Such information is required >>>> when an LIR is requesting IP space for their end-users at the >>>> time of sending in the request. In order to ensure that previous >>>> sub-allocation are not duplicated, the current address space usage >>>> is also required. This information is essential in making the >>>> appropriate sub-allocation approvals, and the level of detail will >>>> depend on the size of the request and complexity of the network. >>>> ... >>>> >>>> If it's an end user assignment, then in >>>> addition to the general requirements in >>>> AFPUB-2005-v4-001, the requirements in AFPUB-2006-GEN-001 >>>> >>>> also apply. They include: >>>> >>>> 4 Additional Assignment >>>> ... Requestors must show exactly how previous address assignments >>>> have been utilized and must provide appropriate details to verify >>>> their one-year growth projection. ... >>>> >>>> --apb (Alan Barrett) >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> rpd mailing list >>>> rpd at afrinic.net >>>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >>> >>> >>> -- >>> -- >>> Kind regards. >>> Lu >>> >>> This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. >>> It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or >>> otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use >>> of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the >>> intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received >>> this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and >>> e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this >>> message and including the text of the transmission received. >>> _______________________________________________ >>> rpd mailing list >>> rpd at afrinic.net >>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd From owen at delong.com Wed Dec 3 02:01:05 2014 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2014 18:01:05 -0800 Subject: [rpd] AnyCast assignments - Update In-Reply-To: References: <1412845710.3847.251.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> <20141128112604.GA1088@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> Message-ID: <81C615EA-6B5E-40D3-9A14-F4187447E160@delong.com> The problem I have with Alan?s suggestion for allowing subsequent requests is that at least in the IPv4 case, this could easily be used to artificially consume massive amounts of resources with very little investment in infrastructure or deployment. Owen > On Nov 28, 2014, at 3:56 AM, McTim wrote: > > sure, I am all for future proofing as APB suggests. > > I don't think that there is groounds for confusion, but I would support the change that Alan suggests in the interests of clarity. > > rgds, > > McTim > > On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 5:26 AM, Alan Barrett > wrote: > 2. Summary of how this proposal addresses the problem > > This proposal allows the use of: > > a. One (1) /24 of IPv4 for anycast services from a PA allocation of > an LIR or direct end-user assignment. > b. One /48 of IPv6 for anycast services from an IPv6 LIR allocation > or direct end-user assignment. > c. An AS Number for anycast purposes. > > Clause 2 appears to require the applicant to use all three of the IPv4, > IPv6, and ASN. However, under clause 3, it uses "and/or" to allow the > applicant to choose any subset of those three items. I think this > should be clarified, possibly by the use of words like this in the first > sentence of clause 2: > > 2. This proposal allows the use of any one or more of the following: > > It's also not clear whether the restriction to "one" IPv4 /24, IPv6 > /48, or ASN, means only one forever, or one per application (with the > freedom to apply for another one later). I'd prefer to allow the use of > multiple such subnets or ASNs, if the applicant is providing multiple > anycast services and has adequate justification for not placing them all > in the same subnet or ASN. > > I'd also like this proposal to be usable for any kind of anycast, even > those not invented yet. > > --apb (Alan Barrett) > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From otieno.barrack at gmail.com Wed Dec 3 03:27:28 2014 From: otieno.barrack at gmail.com (Barrack Otieno) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2014 06:27:28 +0300 Subject: [rpd] Re: [AfrICANN-discuss] Merci du conseil d'AfriNIC In-Reply-To: <547e365d.d022460a.4ba5.ffffb75eSMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com> References: <69C258D7-977F-442B-8AA5-EF609616C3A9@afrinic.net> <547C6DF8.10506@gmail.com> <547e365d.d022460a.4ba5.ffffb75eSMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com> Message-ID: Dear Colleagues, I join the rest in thanking the Afrinic Community, Staff and board of directors for organizing a successfull AFRINIC 21 meeting. Thank you Best Regards On 12/3/14, Tijani BEN JEMAA wrote: > Thank you Sunday for this wonderful message. > > > > I would like to thank you and all AFRINIC board members, Adiel and all his > team. You were all wonderful and professional. Yes, AFRINIC 21 was a > success; Congratulations! > > I wish you more success and full prosperity. > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ---- > > Tijani BEN JEMAA > > Executive Director > > Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) > > Phone: + 216 41 649 605 > > Mobile: + 216 98 330 114 > > Fax: + 216 70 853 376 > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ---- > > > > > > > > > > -----Message d'origine----- > De : africann-bounces at afrinic.net [mailto:africann-bounces at afrinic.net] De > la part de Sunday Folayan > Envoy? : lundi 1 d?cembre 2014 14:33 > ? : afrinic-discuss at afrinic.net > Cc : AfrICANN list; rpd >> AfriNIC Resource Policy > Objet : [AfrICANN-discuss] Merci du conseil d'AfriNIC > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > Hash: SHA1 > > > > Chers membres d'AFRINIC, > > > > Chers amis d'AFRINIC, > > > > Le Conseil d'administration d?AFRINIC vous remercie pour votre > > participation ? la r?union d'AFRINIC-21 qui s'est achev?e r?cemment. > > > > Les sessions techniques ont ?t? tr?s gratifiantes et benefiques. Je > > f?licite le niveau des discussions lors de la r?union sur les > > politiques de gestion des ressources Internet. Votre contribution et > > votre participation aux d?bats ?taient constructifs et nous eu avons > > le plaisir de constater que l'Afrique a enfin atteint sa maturit?. > > AFRINIC-21 a ?t? une r?ussite. > > > > Je tiens ? souligner la contribution de toute l??quipe d'AFRINIC. Le > > personnel, qui nous a donn? une r?union fantastique, et cela sans un > > h?te local. Je devine que cela est due ? leur connaissance du > > territoire local, mais je dois dire que leur engagement et leur > > d?vouement ont fait la diff?rence. > > > > J?appr?cie ?galement le r?le de coordinateur jou? par le Directeur > > g?n?ral, Adiel. Il n'a pas baiss? les bras, m?me apr?s avoir transmis > > son pr?avis de d?part. > > > > Merci beaucoup Adiel. > > > > Merci ? nos sponsors et partisans, n'oubliez pas ma requ?te de > > consid?rer de nous sponsoriser pour les 10 prochaines ann?es. > > > > Le Conseil d'administration appr?cie tout le soutien re?u ? l??gard de > > notre coll?gue, M. Kris Seeburn qui est tomb? malade. Il est > > maintenant hors des soins intensifs, et > > > > sur le chemin d'un bon r?tablissement. Merci pour les pri?res, v?ux et > > d?monstration de solidarit?. > > > > Le Conseil d'administration a pris note des diverses contributions et > > suggestions de la communaut?, concernant la p?riode pour le > > recrutement d'un nouveau directeur g?n?ral, et nous allons bient?t > > faire une d?claration ? cet ?gard une fois qu'une d?cision est prise. > > > > Merci ? vous tous, et au plaisir de vous voir ? AIS 2015. > > > > Cordialement, > > > > Sunday Folayan > > Pr?sident du conseil d'administration > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > > Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) > > > > iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUfG34AAoJEH6UvSz6fA25IAQH/2ak2y7xGME4kCSLGbvNXAdp > > xOsDdPdmVBgY8aosAdlrHb5nDK0pOI8yPa0OERezg7ahus3M8yu5KzmUD5+j6ymm > > SuZdQrbz+2AiY/zlBve+LJgy9Zyc/gnAB+uCeaDgP3mIRANinesSPLVYVTvM2qoV > > GNITlAxeB5qqszgZVnZw0MWQqUvPu1U/NJTETlQQVYa/EP7GfPEbTVH1bb3Qf9fc > > ie0nIQVRND4FyMz0O7xHheXBxuJDHIXaSwnRZftNpVvjQdYaD/b+f8h41eSTAfMo > > ULNKrqeSU9QOfP4IwsqttQq1EZIPNlOoBWIS27Labl6hq42CKIDF/jniM/b8egA= > > =tpcs > > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > _______________________________________________ > > AfrICANN mailing list > > AfrICANN at afrinic.net > > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/africann > > > > --- > Ce courrier ?lectronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant > parce que la protection avast! Antivirus est active. > http://www.avast.com > -- Barrack O. Otieno +254721325277 +254-20-2498789 Skype: barrack.otieno http://www.otienobarrack.me.ke/ From h.lu at anytimechinese.com Wed Dec 3 04:29:09 2014 From: h.lu at anytimechinese.com (Lu) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2014 08:29:09 +0400 Subject: [rpd] Re: [AfrICANN-discuss] Merci du conseil d'AfriNIC In-Reply-To: References: <69C258D7-977F-442B-8AA5-EF609616C3A9@afrinic.net> <547C6DF8.10506@gmail.com> <547e365d.d022460a.4ba5.ffffb75eSMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <450D4D46-48AB-42D0-A8EB-C8E55BF7D7F2@anytimechinese.com> Hi It was lovely face to face meeting, thanks for the input:) > On 2014?12?3?, at ??7:27, Barrack Otieno wrote: > > Dear Colleagues, > > I join the rest in thanking the Afrinic Community, Staff and board of > directors for organizing a successfull AFRINIC 21 meeting. > > Thank you > > Best Regards > >> On 12/3/14, Tijani BEN JEMAA wrote: >> Thank you Sunday for this wonderful message. >> >> >> >> I would like to thank you and all AFRINIC board members, Adiel and all his >> team. You were all wonderful and professional. Yes, AFRINIC 21 was a >> success; Congratulations! >> >> I wish you more success and full prosperity. >> >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> ---- >> >> Tijani BEN JEMAA >> >> Executive Director >> >> Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) >> >> Phone: + 216 41 649 605 >> >> Mobile: + 216 98 330 114 >> >> Fax: + 216 70 853 376 >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> ---- >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -----Message d'origine----- >> De : africann-bounces at afrinic.net [mailto:africann-bounces at afrinic.net] De >> la part de Sunday Folayan >> Envoy? : lundi 1 d?cembre 2014 14:33 >> ? : afrinic-discuss at afrinic.net >> Cc : AfrICANN list; rpd >> AfriNIC Resource Policy >> Objet : [AfrICANN-discuss] Merci du conseil d'AfriNIC >> >> >> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> >> >> Chers membres d'AFRINIC, >> >> >> >> Chers amis d'AFRINIC, >> >> >> >> Le Conseil d'administration d?AFRINIC vous remercie pour votre >> >> participation ? la r?union d'AFRINIC-21 qui s'est achev?e r?cemment. >> >> >> >> Les sessions techniques ont ?t? tr?s gratifiantes et benefiques. Je >> >> f?licite le niveau des discussions lors de la r?union sur les >> >> politiques de gestion des ressources Internet. Votre contribution et >> >> votre participation aux d?bats ?taient constructifs et nous eu avons >> >> le plaisir de constater que l'Afrique a enfin atteint sa maturit?. >> >> AFRINIC-21 a ?t? une r?ussite. >> >> >> >> Je tiens ? souligner la contribution de toute l??quipe d'AFRINIC. Le >> >> personnel, qui nous a donn? une r?union fantastique, et cela sans un >> >> h?te local. Je devine que cela est due ? leur connaissance du >> >> territoire local, mais je dois dire que leur engagement et leur >> >> d?vouement ont fait la diff?rence. >> >> >> >> J?appr?cie ?galement le r?le de coordinateur jou? par le Directeur >> >> g?n?ral, Adiel. Il n'a pas baiss? les bras, m?me apr?s avoir transmis >> >> son pr?avis de d?part. >> >> >> >> Merci beaucoup Adiel. >> >> >> >> Merci ? nos sponsors et partisans, n'oubliez pas ma requ?te de >> >> consid?rer de nous sponsoriser pour les 10 prochaines ann?es. >> >> >> >> Le Conseil d'administration appr?cie tout le soutien re?u ? l??gard de >> >> notre coll?gue, M. Kris Seeburn qui est tomb? malade. Il est >> >> maintenant hors des soins intensifs, et >> >> >> >> sur le chemin d'un bon r?tablissement. Merci pour les pri?res, v?ux et >> >> d?monstration de solidarit?. >> >> >> >> Le Conseil d'administration a pris note des diverses contributions et >> >> suggestions de la communaut?, concernant la p?riode pour le >> >> recrutement d'un nouveau directeur g?n?ral, et nous allons bient?t >> >> faire une d?claration ? cet ?gard une fois qu'une d?cision est prise. >> >> >> >> Merci ? vous tous, et au plaisir de vous voir ? AIS 2015. >> >> >> >> Cordialement, >> >> >> >> Sunday Folayan >> >> Pr?sident du conseil d'administration >> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >> >> Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) >> >> >> >> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUfG34AAoJEH6UvSz6fA25IAQH/2ak2y7xGME4kCSLGbvNXAdp >> >> xOsDdPdmVBgY8aosAdlrHb5nDK0pOI8yPa0OERezg7ahus3M8yu5KzmUD5+j6ymm >> >> SuZdQrbz+2AiY/zlBve+LJgy9Zyc/gnAB+uCeaDgP3mIRANinesSPLVYVTvM2qoV >> >> GNITlAxeB5qqszgZVnZw0MWQqUvPu1U/NJTETlQQVYa/EP7GfPEbTVH1bb3Qf9fc >> >> ie0nIQVRND4FyMz0O7xHheXBxuJDHIXaSwnRZftNpVvjQdYaD/b+f8h41eSTAfMo >> >> ULNKrqeSU9QOfP4IwsqttQq1EZIPNlOoBWIS27Labl6hq42CKIDF/jniM/b8egA= >> >> =tpcs >> >> -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> AfrICANN mailing list >> >> AfrICANN at afrinic.net >> >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/africann >> >> >> >> --- >> Ce courrier ?lectronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant >> parce que la protection avast! Antivirus est active. >> http://www.avast.com > > > -- > Barrack O. Otieno > +254721325277 > +254-20-2498789 > Skype: barrack.otieno > http://www.otienobarrack.me.ke/ > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd From dkpeall at gmail.com Wed Dec 3 05:31:08 2014 From: dkpeall at gmail.com (David Peall) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2014 07:31:08 +0200 Subject: [rpd] AnyCast assignments - Update In-Reply-To: <20141128112604.GA1088@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> References: <1412845710.3847.251.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> <20141128112604.GA1088@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> Message-ID: <7DA54092-76DA-4078-AC68-52DA0804760F@gmail.com> > On Nov 28, 2014, at 13:26, Alan Barrett wrote: > >> 2. Summary of how this proposal addresses the problem >> >> This proposal allows the use of: >> >> a. One (1) /24 of IPv4 for anycast services from a PA allocation of >> an LIR or direct end-user assignment. >> b. One /48 of IPv6 for anycast services from an IPv6 LIR allocation >> or direct end-user assignment. >> c. An AS Number for anycast purposes. > > Clause 2 appears to require the applicant to use all three of the IPv4, > IPv6, and ASN. However, under clause 3, it uses "and/or" to allow the > applicant to choose any subset of those three items. I think this > should be clarified, possibly by the use of words like this in the first > sentence of clause 2: > > 2. This proposal allows the use of any one or more of the following: > > It's also not clear whether the restriction to "one" IPv4 /24, IPv6 > /48, or ASN, means only one forever, or one per application (with the > freedom to apply for another one later). I'd prefer to allow the use of > multiple such subnets or ASNs, if the applicant is providing multiple > anycast services and has adequate justification for not placing them all > in the same subnet or ASN. > > I'd also like this proposal to be usable for any kind of anycast, even > those not invented yet. > > --apb (Alan Barrett) > _______________________________________________ I support the policy and APB?s suggestions but would also suggest allowing slightly larger allocations like /23 or /22 to allow the use of routing tools that Frank has already suggested. Regards ? David Peall -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 4133 bytes Desc: not available URL: From sfolayan at gmail.com Wed Dec 3 09:28:45 2014 From: sfolayan at gmail.com (Sunday Folayan) Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2014 10:28:45 +0100 Subject: Update: [rpd] IPv4 issues In-Reply-To: <547C7D4B.5000205@gmail.com> References: <547C7D4B.5000205@gmail.com> Message-ID: <547ED7CD.5040401@gmail.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Dear Marcus, As promised, just to inform you that the Board is still discussing the issues you have raised in your email, viz-a-viz the position of the Board as communicated to the Community in my email of 25/11/2014. Regrettably, I have been on the road, on my way back home hence not able to moderate/participate in the discussions as I would have wanted. I definitely will get back to you and other interested members. Thanks and Regards ... Sunday Folayan. Chair, AFRINIC Board On 01/12/2014 15:38, Sunday Folayan wrote: > Dear Marcus, > > Thank you very much for your Email. I will get the Board to discuss > it and revert within the next 48 hours. > > Thanks and Regards ... > > Sunday Folayan Board Chair > > > On 01/12/2014 12:05, Marcus K. G. Adomey wrote: >> Dear Chairman of AFRINIC Board and Board Members, > >> 28 November 2014 marked the conclusion of the 21st meeting of >> AFRINIC. The following are my reflection which I want to share >> with you. > >> As you are aware, the saga of IPv4 /12 has generated a lot of >> discussions with lot controversies in which a lot of AFRINIC >> community members and observers concluded that something went >> wrong, maybe at the policy level, operations level, the board >> level or elsewhere. Also, it is noticed that there is a hard push >> from some members of the community to ease or simplify the >> process of acquiring resources from AFRINIC. Why this hard push? > >> The duty of the board is to protect the interest of the >> community by using the policies the community has put in place. >> When there is no policy to guide the actions of the board in >> some circumstances, and when the interest of the AFRINIC >> community is as take, the board is supposed to do everything >> possible to protect the interest and the resources of the AFRINIC >> community who elected them there as board members to represent >> their interest. There are precedence of this unwritten >> disposition in the history of the world. > >> AFRINIC is entering the state of transition caused by the >> announcement of the resignation of the CEO. Moreover, for the >> sake of ?smooth transition?, there is a change in the >> chairmanship of the Board of AFRINIC. In general, it is observed >> that, at times, some transitions can be chaotic due to a number >> of reasons. In the AFRINIC community the resources attribution >> that has generated a lot of discussions and indignation from the >> community and observers is IPv4 /12. > >> To protect the resources of the AFRINIC community as well as >> protect the image and the integrity of the AFINIC board during >> this transition, I believe that the allocation of the IPv4 >> address above IPv4 /18 should be done in a way and manner that >> would protect the interest of the AFRINIC community. > >> Thank you, > > > >> Marcus > > > >> _______________________________________________ rpd mailing list >> rpd at afrinic.net >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > > > - -- - ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sunday Adekunle Folayan blog: http://www.sundayfolayan.name.ng email: sfolayan at skannet.com.ng, sfolayan at gmail.com phone: +234-816-866-7523, +234-802-291-2202 skype: sfolayan fcbk: www.facebook.com/sfolayan tweet: sfolayan linkedin: sfolayan : http://free.lanci.ng - Anyone, Anyjob, Anywhere, Anytime - ------------------------------------------------------------------ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUftfNAAoJEH6UvSz6fA258eYIAJU11roJFf2vpLgS2Mbce53h FbuKNB2cEABOXsv5BtG0OWKhloYOe/fm/mutAzS9A5D6agzaYhRdP87FXWsl/cs4 yL+bmhHruSrOmi8FP5sWrn+zaVb21Hwho9+mDE3+A9+RDcIMIYQc4iNDJS49vjwN sBGQtP7qCfr7mZCcEURGhypA/+/3qK/fpLJ7YhsTMsKAzbCoknRJaow5f/RKngKr pszbByb3+MveRrxzIH/nDO42W7s+0WJxYahYWG5Du3rzSJFns0RT6Rh4cypmVjaP RXsy5ko406EBm5Soc012On4AxdGJjDkHJk1+wobCm88vsh5nExWjGyX1h93b2TU= =Ugmb -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com Fri Dec 5 12:13:44 2014 From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2014 13:13:44 +0100 Subject: [rpd] Policy Proposals and Minutes of the PDP Meeting in Mauritius - Status Message-ID: > > Dear Colleagues, > > Following the face-to-face discussions in Mauritius during AFRINIC 21, the > proposals under discussion achieved the following statuses: > > *Summary of decisions on the policy proposals* > *Proposal* *Decision* > > Out-Of-Region Use of AFRINIC Internet Number Resources > > No Consensus ? back to *rpd *list > > AFRINIC *whois* Database Update Process > > Withdrawn by author > > *anycast* Resource Assignments in the AFRINIC region > > Consensus - Last Call (with minor changes) > > Resource Reservation for Internet Exchange Points > > No Consensus ? back to *rpd *list > > AFRINIC Service Guidelines > > No Consensus ? back to *rpd *list > > > The full minutes of the meeting are now available at the following url: > > > http://www.afrinic.net/en/library/policies/archive/ppm-minutes/1273-pdp-minutes > > To read through the AFRINIC Policy Development Process, > please browse to: http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development > > Regards, > > Seun Ojedeji & Adam Nelson > PDWG Co-Chairs > -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng * The key to understanding is humility - my view ! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From seeburn.k at gmail.com Sun Dec 7 08:04:09 2014 From: seeburn.k at gmail.com (Kris Seeburn) Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2014 12:04:09 +0400 Subject: [rpd] Mr Kris Seeburn: AfriNIC Board member In-Reply-To: References: <54741F8B.7050806@gmail.com> <54743E9B.80907@gmail.com> Message-ID: <95592D5B-7A24-41E8-91E8-17D8E03B55AF@gmail.com> Excuse for cross-posting and perhaps non appropriateness of same on the RPD list. Dear friends/colleagues et all., I have not fully quite recovered but now out of the hospital with close family. I have been grounded by the doctors for two weeks at least before i start my busy schedule again. I wanted to put on record and to thank each and everyone of you for your kindness/love and affection. I suddenly realised how life can just run out in an instant. "For a quicky i went to my room on Sunday Afternoon to grab some Pain medication whilst i was suffering from a very bad headache and pain in the left arm which was becoming severe. I thought i would catch medication to calm things down and that was the last thing i remembered and passed out. The next thing i remember was that i was in Intensive care at the hospital on Tuesday. All tests was done until i had my mind put together but we could not understand and after chat with the the specialist we decided to double check my heart with an ANGIO. Finally the cardiologist said he was surprised to find two of the main left coronary arteries blocked at 99% it was very thin and the heart was not in a good shape and was completely dark on the left side. And no proper blood flow. So i had to be placed with two STENTS." I am now in recovery mode but i would like to thank two persons through here without whom perhaps i may not have come out of this episode " Adiel and Sunday" both for insisting on checking on me without whom i would not have been writing this thread and all members of the Afrinic Board and staff. Above all the community for your kind prayers and support without whom the future of me would have been sealed. Through this thread i wish to thank each and everyone of you. I do not wish same for anyone as it can really be frightening to have lost few days in your life not knowing what happened. Again i just wanted to write this note to thank you all and to re-assure you, we will meet again and continue where we left. Kris > On Nov 26, 2014, at 1:16 PM, Emile Milandou wrote: > > Thanks chair for the update. > > I join all other in prayers and wish to Kris a promptness recovery. > > Cheers, > -em > > On Tuesday, November 25, 2014, Sunday Folayan > wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > I am pleased to update the community that Mr Kris Seeburn is now awake > and has spoken to an AfriNIC Staff member who visited. > > The Board appreciates the concern and support of the community, > especially those here in Mauritius. > > We will keep you updated of his progress, until he is out of the hospital. > > Best Regards ... > > Sunday A. Folayan > Chair, AfriNIC Board > > > - -------- Forwarded Message -------- > Subject: Mr Kris Seeburn: AfriNIC Board member > > The Board is sad to announce to the community that Mr Kris Seeburn, a > member of the AFRINIC Board, was found unconscious in his room in the > morning of Monday, 23 November 2014. He is currently in good care at > the Apollo Bramwell Hospital in the intensive care unit with the full > support of his family. Representatives of the AFRINIC Board and > Management have also visited him. > > We are in constant communication with the hospital for updates on his > health condition and will inform the community as appropriate. > > The Board invites the community to join in praying for a positive outcome. > > Sunday A. Folayan > Chair, AfriNIC Board > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) > > iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUdD6bAAoJEH6UvSz6fA25MIAH/1wGS2TULmpMGTidIKP25V0j > /fQtII7vA0FUqkXR1kRKglUtURCYnIc2Yo2jBZ8/LZEImNrZMMv+sAVp6Amv9KPt > zpPGN5fKGAmuQiU6NXMwgQ8vR0vEhb7mhi1vsDedKxLCTz/cjRBLnoOPoU29fvSz > bIpYyO6VsLWtluUV/D3V84Qw+wz4wid3Y5VRW1iDZYD0f2odbJGu92Sy/aQdlmMU > jy609jO9hbi5KRF025EMhnzCJ+O8ps2iiYFcaPZWbnTMQ2LHAo2v4WkHuQqzZcrQ > hNqo/LdKlC6O5BLvgqt9Ze5W/oS6/qnMdV2+XeTR5IHcymw6vfQLiK5+sfbH3m0= > =QLUK > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd Kris Seeburn seeburn.k at gmail.com www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 4139 bytes Desc: not available URL: From aalain at trstech.net Sun Dec 7 08:37:13 2014 From: aalain at trstech.net (ALAIN AINA) Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2014 08:37:13 +0000 Subject: [rpd] AnyCast assignments - Update In-Reply-To: <7DA54092-76DA-4078-AC68-52DA0804760F@gmail.com> References: <1412845710.3847.251.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> <20141128112604.GA1088@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> <7DA54092-76DA-4078-AC68-52DA0804760F@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi, As discussed at the meeting, using multiple subnets is ok as far as reference to BCP126 is in there. To add Multiple ASNs on this, i suggest, reference to BCP 169 --Alain On Dec 3, 2014, at 5:31 AM, David Peall wrote: > >> On Nov 28, 2014, at 13:26, Alan Barrett wrote: >> >>> 2. Summary of how this proposal addresses the problem >>> >>> This proposal allows the use of: >>> >>> a. One (1) /24 of IPv4 for anycast services from a PA allocation of >>> an LIR or direct end-user assignment. >>> b. One /48 of IPv6 for anycast services from an IPv6 LIR allocation >>> or direct end-user assignment. >>> c. An AS Number for anycast purposes. >> >> Clause 2 appears to require the applicant to use all three of the IPv4, >> IPv6, and ASN. However, under clause 3, it uses "and/or" to allow the >> applicant to choose any subset of those three items. I think this >> should be clarified, possibly by the use of words like this in the first >> sentence of clause 2: >> >> 2. This proposal allows the use of any one or more of the following: >> >> It's also not clear whether the restriction to "one" IPv4 /24, IPv6 >> /48, or ASN, means only one forever, or one per application (with the >> freedom to apply for another one later). I'd prefer to allow the use of >> multiple such subnets or ASNs, if the applicant is providing multiple >> anycast services and has adequate justification for not placing them all >> in the same subnet or ASN. >> >> I'd also like this proposal to be usable for any kind of anycast, even >> those not invented yet. >> >> --apb (Alan Barrett) >> _______________________________________________ > > I support the policy and APB?s suggestions but would also suggest allowing slightly larger allocations like /23 or /22 to allow the use of routing tools that Frank has already suggested. > > Regards > ? > David Peall_______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com Sun Dec 7 08:41:02 2014 From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji) Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2014 09:41:02 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] Re: [rpd] Mr Kris Seeburn: AfriNIC Board member In-Reply-To: <95592D5B-7A24-41E8-91E8-17D8E03B55AF@gmail.com> References: <54741F8B.7050806@gmail.com> <54743E9B.80907@gmail.com> <95592D5B-7A24-41E8-91E8-17D8E03B55AF@gmail.com> Message-ID: Good to read from you Kris... we thank God for the gift of life and wish you a speedy recovery. Please stay off busy schedule for now and don't worry the community will also stay off board's nerves for now ;) It's good to get to the stage of making fun of the situation. We thank God again. Cheers! sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 7 Dec 2014 09:26, "Kris Seeburn" wrote: > *Excuse for cross-posting and perhaps non appropriateness of same on the > RPD list.* > > Dear friends/colleagues et all., > > I have not fully quite recovered but now out of the hospital with close > family. I have been grounded by the doctors for two weeks at least before i > start my busy schedule again. > > I wanted to put on record and to thank each and everyone of you for your > kindness/love and affection. I suddenly realised how life can just run out > in an instant. > > "For a quicky i went to my room on Sunday Afternoon to grab some Pain > medication whilst i was suffering from a very bad headache and pain in the > left arm which was becoming severe. I thought i would catch medication to > calm things down and that was the last thing i remembered and passed out. > The next thing i remember was that i was in Intensive care at the hospital > on Tuesday. All tests was done until i had my mind put together but we > could not understand and after chat with the the specialist we decided to > double check my heart with an ANGIO. Finally the cardiologist said he was > surprised to find two of the main left coronary arteries blocked at 99% it > was very thin and the heart was not in a good shape and was completely dark > on the left side. And no proper blood flow. So i had to be placed with two > STENTS." > > I am now in recovery mode but i would like to thank two persons through > here without whom perhaps i may not have come out of this episode " Adiel > and Sunday" both for insisting on checking on me without whom i would not > have been writing this thread and all members of the Afrinic Board and > staff. Above all the community for your kind prayers and support without > whom the future of me would have been sealed. > > Through this thread i wish to thank each and everyone of you. I do not > wish same for anyone as it can really be frightening to have lost few days > in your life not knowing what happened. > > Again i just wanted to write this note to thank you all and to re-assure > you, we will meet again and continue where we left. > > Kris > > > On Nov 26, 2014, at 1:16 PM, Emile Milandou wrote: > > Thanks chair for the update. > > I join all other in prayers and wish to Kris a promptness recovery. > > Cheers, > -em > > On Tuesday, November 25, 2014, Sunday Folayan wrote: > >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> I am pleased to update the community that Mr Kris Seeburn is now awake >> and has spoken to an AfriNIC Staff member who visited. >> >> The Board appreciates the concern and support of the community, >> especially those here in Mauritius. >> >> We will keep you updated of his progress, until he is out of the hospital. >> >> Best Regards ... >> >> Sunday A. Folayan >> Chair, AfriNIC Board >> >> >> - -------- Forwarded Message -------- >> Subject: Mr Kris Seeburn: AfriNIC Board member >> >> The Board is sad to announce to the community that Mr Kris Seeburn, a >> member of the AFRINIC Board, was found unconscious in his room in the >> morning of Monday, 23 November 2014. He is currently in good care at >> the Apollo Bramwell Hospital in the intensive care unit with the full >> support of his family. Representatives of the AFRINIC Board and >> Management have also visited him. >> >> We are in constant communication with the hospital for updates on his >> health condition and will inform the community as appropriate. >> >> The Board invites the community to join in praying for a positive outcome. >> >> Sunday A. Folayan >> Chair, AfriNIC Board >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >> Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) >> >> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUdD6bAAoJEH6UvSz6fA25MIAH/1wGS2TULmpMGTidIKP25V0j >> /fQtII7vA0FUqkXR1kRKglUtURCYnIc2Yo2jBZ8/LZEImNrZMMv+sAVp6Amv9KPt >> zpPGN5fKGAmuQiU6NXMwgQ8vR0vEhb7mhi1vsDedKxLCTz/cjRBLnoOPoU29fvSz >> bIpYyO6VsLWtluUV/D3V84Qw+wz4wid3Y5VRW1iDZYD0f2odbJGu92Sy/aQdlmMU >> jy609jO9hbi5KRF025EMhnzCJ+O8ps2iiYFcaPZWbnTMQ2LHAo2v4WkHuQqzZcrQ >> hNqo/LdKlC6O5BLvgqt9Ze5W/oS6/qnMdV2+XeTR5IHcymw6vfQLiK5+sfbH3m0= >> =QLUK >> -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >> _______________________________________________ >> rpd mailing list >> rpd at afrinic.net >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >> > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > > Kris Seeburn > seeburn.k at gmail.com > > - www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/ > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > members-discuss mailing list > members-discuss at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/members-discuss > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From h.lu at anytimechinese.com Sun Dec 7 08:47:54 2014 From: h.lu at anytimechinese.com (Lu) Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2014 12:47:54 +0400 Subject: [rpd] Mr Kris Seeburn: AfriNIC Board member In-Reply-To: <95592D5B-7A24-41E8-91E8-17D8E03B55AF@gmail.com> References: <54741F8B.7050806@gmail.com> <54743E9B.80907@gmail.com> <95592D5B-7A24-41E8-91E8-17D8E03B55AF@gmail.com> Message-ID: <21F2B02F-62AE-40E4-8B6B-81A2B8FC2E47@anytimechinese.com> Hi Great to hear that, and hope fully recovered soon! > On 2014?12?7?, at ??12:04, Kris Seeburn wrote: > > Excuse for cross-posting and perhaps non appropriateness of same on the RPD list. > > Dear friends/colleagues et all., > > I have not fully quite recovered but now out of the hospital with close family. I have been grounded by the doctors for two weeks at least before i start my busy schedule again. > > I wanted to put on record and to thank each and everyone of you for your kindness/love and affection. I suddenly realised how life can just run out in an instant. > > "For a quicky i went to my room on Sunday Afternoon to grab some Pain medication whilst i was suffering from a very bad headache and pain in the left arm which was becoming severe. I thought i would catch medication to calm things down and that was the last thing i remembered and passed out. The next thing i remember was that i was in Intensive care at the hospital on Tuesday. All tests was done until i had my mind put together but we could not understand and after chat with the the specialist we decided to double check my heart with an ANGIO. Finally the cardiologist said he was surprised to find two of the main left coronary arteries blocked at 99% it was very thin and the heart was not in a good shape and was completely dark on the left side. And no proper blood flow. So i had to be placed with two STENTS." > > I am now in recovery mode but i would like to thank two persons through here without whom perhaps i may not have come out of this episode " Adiel and Sunday" both for insisting on checking on me without whom i would not have been writing this thread and all members of the Afrinic Board and staff. Above all the community for your kind prayers and support without whom the future of me would have been sealed. > > Through this thread i wish to thank each and everyone of you. I do not wish same for anyone as it can really be frightening to have lost few days in your life not knowing what happened. > > Again i just wanted to write this note to thank you all and to re-assure you, we will meet again and continue where we left. > > Kris > > >> On Nov 26, 2014, at 1:16 PM, Emile Milandou wrote: >> >> Thanks chair for the update. >> >> I join all other in prayers and wish to Kris a promptness recovery. >> >> Cheers, >> -em >> >>> On Tuesday, November 25, 2014, Sunday Folayan wrote: >>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >>> Hash: SHA1 >>> >>> I am pleased to update the community that Mr Kris Seeburn is now awake >>> and has spoken to an AfriNIC Staff member who visited. >>> >>> The Board appreciates the concern and support of the community, >>> especially those here in Mauritius. >>> >>> We will keep you updated of his progress, until he is out of the hospital. >>> >>> Best Regards ... >>> >>> Sunday A. Folayan >>> Chair, AfriNIC Board >>> >>> >>> - -------- Forwarded Message -------- >>> Subject: Mr Kris Seeburn: AfriNIC Board member >>> >>> The Board is sad to announce to the community that Mr Kris Seeburn, a >>> member of the AFRINIC Board, was found unconscious in his room in the >>> morning of Monday, 23 November 2014. He is currently in good care at >>> the Apollo Bramwell Hospital in the intensive care unit with the full >>> support of his family. Representatives of the AFRINIC Board and >>> Management have also visited him. >>> >>> We are in constant communication with the hospital for updates on his >>> health condition and will inform the community as appropriate. >>> >>> The Board invites the community to join in praying for a positive outcome. >>> >>> Sunday A. Folayan >>> Chair, AfriNIC Board >>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >>> Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) >>> >>> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUdD6bAAoJEH6UvSz6fA25MIAH/1wGS2TULmpMGTidIKP25V0j >>> /fQtII7vA0FUqkXR1kRKglUtURCYnIc2Yo2jBZ8/LZEImNrZMMv+sAVp6Amv9KPt >>> zpPGN5fKGAmuQiU6NXMwgQ8vR0vEhb7mhi1vsDedKxLCTz/cjRBLnoOPoU29fvSz >>> bIpYyO6VsLWtluUV/D3V84Qw+wz4wid3Y5VRW1iDZYD0f2odbJGu92Sy/aQdlmMU >>> jy609jO9hbi5KRF025EMhnzCJ+O8ps2iiYFcaPZWbnTMQ2LHAo2v4WkHuQqzZcrQ >>> hNqo/LdKlC6O5BLvgqt9Ze5W/oS6/qnMdV2+XeTR5IHcymw6vfQLiK5+sfbH3m0= >>> =QLUK >>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >>> _______________________________________________ >>> rpd mailing list >>> rpd at afrinic.net >>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >> _______________________________________________ >> rpd mailing list >> rpd at afrinic.net >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > Kris Seeburn > seeburn.k at gmail.com > www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/ > > > > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dogwallah at gmail.com Sun Dec 7 11:47:27 2014 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2014 05:47:27 -0600 Subject: [rpd] Mr Kris Seeburn: AfriNIC Board member In-Reply-To: <95592D5B-7A24-41E8-91E8-17D8E03B55AF@gmail.com> References: <54741F8B.7050806@gmail.com> <54743E9B.80907@gmail.com> <95592D5B-7A24-41E8-91E8-17D8E03B55AF@gmail.com> Message-ID: Glad to hear you are back home my friend! rgds, McTim On Sun, Dec 7, 2014 at 2:04 AM, Kris Seeburn wrote: > *Excuse for cross-posting and perhaps non appropriateness of same on the > RPD list.* > > Dear friends/colleagues et all., > > I have not fully quite recovered but now out of the hospital with close > family. I have been grounded by the doctors for two weeks at least before i > start my busy schedule again. > > I wanted to put on record and to thank each and everyone of you for your > kindness/love and affection. I suddenly realised how life can just run out > in an instant. > > "For a quicky i went to my room on Sunday Afternoon to grab some Pain > medication whilst i was suffering from a very bad headache and pain in the > left arm which was becoming severe. I thought i would catch medication to > calm things down and that was the last thing i remembered and passed out. > The next thing i remember was that i was in Intensive care at the hospital > on Tuesday. All tests was done until i had my mind put together but we > could not understand and after chat with the the specialist we decided to > double check my heart with an ANGIO. Finally the cardiologist said he was > surprised to find two of the main left coronary arteries blocked at 99% it > was very thin and the heart was not in a good shape and was completely dark > on the left side. And no proper blood flow. So i had to be placed with two > STENTS." > > I am now in recovery mode but i would like to thank two persons through > here without whom perhaps i may not have come out of this episode " Adiel > and Sunday" both for insisting on checking on me without whom i would not > have been writing this thread and all members of the Afrinic Board and > staff. Above all the community for your kind prayers and support without > whom the future of me would have been sealed. > > Through this thread i wish to thank each and everyone of you. I do not > wish same for anyone as it can really be frightening to have lost few days > in your life not knowing what happened. > > Again i just wanted to write this note to thank you all and to re-assure > you, we will meet again and continue where we left. > > Kris > > > On Nov 26, 2014, at 1:16 PM, Emile Milandou wrote: > > Thanks chair for the update. > > I join all other in prayers and wish to Kris a promptness recovery. > > Cheers, > -em > > On Tuesday, November 25, 2014, Sunday Folayan wrote: > >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> I am pleased to update the community that Mr Kris Seeburn is now awake >> and has spoken to an AfriNIC Staff member who visited. >> >> The Board appreciates the concern and support of the community, >> especially those here in Mauritius. >> >> We will keep you updated of his progress, until he is out of the hospital. >> >> Best Regards ... >> >> Sunday A. Folayan >> Chair, AfriNIC Board >> >> >> - -------- Forwarded Message -------- >> Subject: Mr Kris Seeburn: AfriNIC Board member >> >> The Board is sad to announce to the community that Mr Kris Seeburn, a >> member of the AFRINIC Board, was found unconscious in his room in the >> morning of Monday, 23 November 2014. He is currently in good care at >> the Apollo Bramwell Hospital in the intensive care unit with the full >> support of his family. Representatives of the AFRINIC Board and >> Management have also visited him. >> >> We are in constant communication with the hospital for updates on his >> health condition and will inform the community as appropriate. >> >> The Board invites the community to join in praying for a positive outcome. >> >> Sunday A. Folayan >> Chair, AfriNIC Board >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >> Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) >> >> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUdD6bAAoJEH6UvSz6fA25MIAH/1wGS2TULmpMGTidIKP25V0j >> /fQtII7vA0FUqkXR1kRKglUtURCYnIc2Yo2jBZ8/LZEImNrZMMv+sAVp6Amv9KPt >> zpPGN5fKGAmuQiU6NXMwgQ8vR0vEhb7mhi1vsDedKxLCTz/cjRBLnoOPoU29fvSz >> bIpYyO6VsLWtluUV/D3V84Qw+wz4wid3Y5VRW1iDZYD0f2odbJGu92Sy/aQdlmMU >> jy609jO9hbi5KRF025EMhnzCJ+O8ps2iiYFcaPZWbnTMQ2LHAo2v4WkHuQqzZcrQ >> hNqo/LdKlC6O5BLvgqt9Ze5W/oS6/qnMdV2+XeTR5IHcymw6vfQLiK5+sfbH3m0= >> =QLUK >> -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >> _______________________________________________ >> rpd mailing list >> rpd at afrinic.net >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >> > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > > Kris Seeburn > seeburn.k at gmail.com > > - www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/ > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From adam at varud.com Sun Dec 7 14:42:26 2014 From: adam at varud.com (Adam Nelson) Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2014 17:42:26 +0300 Subject: [rpd] "Anycast Assignments in the AFRINIC region" last call Message-ID: Dear Colleagues, Sequel to the consensus achieved during the PDWG face to face meeting held at AFRINIC 21 and the author?s implementation of changes requested by the community, we hereby notify the commencement of the last call period for the "Anycast Assignments in the AFRINIC region" policy proposal. Below is the relevant information: Policy title: Anycast Assignments in the AFRINIC region Policy ID: AFPUB-2014-GEN-003-DRAFT-04 Author: Mark Elkins Policy url: http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposals/1275-afpub-2014-gen-003-draft-04 The last call period for this proposal ends on the *26th of December 2014*. At the end of the Last Call, we will make a final assessment on whether consensus has been reached by taking into consideration the comments from the Public Policy Meeting as well as those during this Last Call period. *Useful urls:* The full minutes of the meeting: http://www.afrinic.net/en/library/policies/archive/ppm-minutes/1273-pdp-minutes To read through the AFRINIC Policy Development Process, please browse to: http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development Regards --- Seun Ojedeji & Adam Nelson PDWG Co-Chairs -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mje at posix.co.za Sun Dec 7 15:11:52 2014 From: mje at posix.co.za (Mark Elkins) Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2014 17:11:52 +0200 Subject: [rpd] AnyCast assignments - Update In-Reply-To: References: <1412845710.3847.251.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> <20141128112604.GA1088@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> <7DA54092-76DA-4078-AC68-52DA0804760F@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1417965112.3771.8.camel@posix.co.za> On Sun, 2014-12-07 at 08:37 +0000, ALAIN AINA wrote: > Hi, > > As discussed at the meeting, using multiple subnets is ok as far as reference to BCP126 is in there. > > To add Multiple ASNs on this, i suggest, reference to BCP 169 I dislike tying a policy unnecessarily to other external references - in case they (the external policies) change. I believe the trigger to being provided with an ASN for Multi-casting purposes is IP address space - and as such that is already covered by BCP126??? > --Alain > On Dec 3, 2014, at 5:31 AM, David Peall wrote: > > > > >> On Nov 28, 2014, at 13:26, Alan Barrett wrote: > >> > >>> 2. Summary of how this proposal addresses the problem > >>> > >>> This proposal allows the use of: > >>> > >>> a. One (1) /24 of IPv4 for anycast services from a PA allocation of > >>> an LIR or direct end-user assignment. > >>> b. One /48 of IPv6 for anycast services from an IPv6 LIR allocation > >>> or direct end-user assignment. > >>> c. An AS Number for anycast purposes. > >> > >> Clause 2 appears to require the applicant to use all three of the IPv4, > >> IPv6, and ASN. However, under clause 3, it uses "and/or" to allow the > >> applicant to choose any subset of those three items. I think this > >> should be clarified, possibly by the use of words like this in the first > >> sentence of clause 2: > >> > >> 2. This proposal allows the use of any one or more of the following: > >> > >> It's also not clear whether the restriction to "one" IPv4 /24, IPv6 > >> /48, or ASN, means only one forever, or one per application (with the > >> freedom to apply for another one later). I'd prefer to allow the use of > >> multiple such subnets or ASNs, if the applicant is providing multiple > >> anycast services and has adequate justification for not placing them all > >> in the same subnet or ASN. > >> > >> I'd also like this proposal to be usable for any kind of anycast, even > >> those not invented yet. > >> > >> --apb (Alan Barrett) > >> _______________________________________________ > > > > I support the policy and APB?s suggestions but would also suggest allowing slightly larger allocations like /23 or /22 to allow the use of routing tools that Frank has already suggested. > > > > Regards > > ? > > David Peall_______________________________________________ -- Mark James ELKINS - Posix Systems - (South) Africa mje at posix.co.za Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: https://ftth.posix.co.za -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 5810 bytes Desc: not available URL: From ondouglas at gmail.com Sun Dec 7 15:24:35 2014 From: ondouglas at gmail.com (Douglas Onyango) Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2014 18:24:35 +0300 Subject: [members-discuss] Re: [rpd] Mr Kris Seeburn: AfriNIC Board member In-Reply-To: <95592D5B-7A24-41E8-91E8-17D8E03B55AF@gmail.com> References: <54741F8B.7050806@gmail.com> <54743E9B.80907@gmail.com> <95592D5B-7A24-41E8-91E8-17D8E03B55AF@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi Chris, It's comforting to be reading from you, even in your current state. We wish you a quick recovery and hope to you again soon. Regards, On 7 Dec 2014 11:15, "Kris Seeburn" wrote: > > Excuse for cross-posting and perhaps non appropriateness of same on the RPD list. > > Dear friends/colleagues et all., > > I have not fully quite recovered but now out of the hospital with close family. I have been grounded by the doctors for two weeks at least before i start my busy schedule again. > > I wanted to put on record and to thank each and everyone of you for your kindness/love and affection. I suddenly realised how life can just run out in an instant. > > "For a quicky i went to my room on Sunday Afternoon to grab some Pain medication whilst i was suffering from a very bad headache and pain in the left arm which was becoming severe. I thought i would catch medication to calm things down and that was the last thing i remembered and passed out. The next thing i remember was that i was in Intensive care at the hospital on Tuesday. All tests was done until i had my mind put together but we could not understand and after chat with the the specialist we decided to double check my heart with an ANGIO. Finally the cardiologist said he was surprised to find two of the main left coronary arteries blocked at 99% it was very thin and the heart was not in a good shape and was completely dark on the left side. And no proper blood flow. So i had to be placed with two STENTS." > > I am now in recovery mode but i would like to thank two persons through here without whom perhaps i may not have come out of this episode " Adiel and Sunday" both for insisting on checking on me without whom i would not have been writing this thread and all members of the Afrinic Board and staff. Above all the community for your kind prayers and support without whom the future of me would have been sealed. > > Through this thread i wish to thank each and everyone of you. I do not wish same for anyone as it can really be frightening to have lost few days in your life not knowing what happened. > > Again i just wanted to write this note to thank you all and to re-assure you, we will meet again and continue where we left. > > Kris > > >> On Nov 26, 2014, at 1:16 PM, Emile Milandou wrote: >> >> Thanks chair for the update. >> >> I join all other in prayers and wish to Kris a promptness recovery. >> >> Cheers, >> -em >> >> On Tuesday, November 25, 2014, Sunday Folayan wrote: >>> >>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >>> Hash: SHA1 >>> >>> I am pleased to update the community that Mr Kris Seeburn is now awake >>> and has spoken to an AfriNIC Staff member who visited. >>> >>> The Board appreciates the concern and support of the community, >>> especially those here in Mauritius. >>> >>> We will keep you updated of his progress, until he is out of the hospital. >>> >>> Best Regards ... >>> >>> Sunday A. Folayan >>> Chair, AfriNIC Board >>> >>> >>> - -------- Forwarded Message -------- >>> Subject: Mr Kris Seeburn: AfriNIC Board member >>> >>> The Board is sad to announce to the community that Mr Kris Seeburn, a >>> member of the AFRINIC Board, was found unconscious in his room in the >>> morning of Monday, 23 November 2014. He is currently in good care at >>> the Apollo Bramwell Hospital in the intensive care unit with the full >>> support of his family. Representatives of the AFRINIC Board and >>> Management have also visited him. >>> >>> We are in constant communication with the hospital for updates on his >>> health condition and will inform the community as appropriate. >>> >>> The Board invites the community to join in praying for a positive outcome. >>> >>> Sunday A. Folayan >>> Chair, AfriNIC Board >>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >>> Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) >>> >>> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUdD6bAAoJEH6UvSz6fA25MIAH/1wGS2TULmpMGTidIKP25V0j >>> /fQtII7vA0FUqkXR1kRKglUtURCYnIc2Yo2jBZ8/LZEImNrZMMv+sAVp6Amv9KPt >>> zpPGN5fKGAmuQiU6NXMwgQ8vR0vEhb7mhi1vsDedKxLCTz/cjRBLnoOPoU29fvSz >>> bIpYyO6VsLWtluUV/D3V84Qw+wz4wid3Y5VRW1iDZYD0f2odbJGu92Sy/aQdlmMU >>> jy609jO9hbi5KRF025EMhnzCJ+O8ps2iiYFcaPZWbnTMQ2LHAo2v4WkHuQqzZcrQ >>> hNqo/LdKlC6O5BLvgqt9Ze5W/oS6/qnMdV2+XeTR5IHcymw6vfQLiK5+sfbH3m0= >>> =QLUK >>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >>> _______________________________________________ >>> rpd mailing list >>> rpd at afrinic.net >>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >> >> _______________________________________________ >> rpd mailing list >> rpd at afrinic.net >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > > Kris Seeburn > seeburn.k at gmail.com > www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/ > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > members-discuss mailing list > members-discuss at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/members-discuss > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dogwallah at gmail.com Sun Dec 7 15:29:31 2014 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2014 09:29:31 -0600 Subject: [rpd] "Anycast Assignments in the AFRINIC region" last call In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: in favor. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel On Sun, Dec 7, 2014 at 8:42 AM, Adam Nelson wrote: > Dear Colleagues, > > Sequel to the consensus achieved during the PDWG face to face meeting held > at AFRINIC 21 and the author?s implementation of changes requested by the > community, we hereby notify the commencement of the last call period for > the "Anycast Assignments in the AFRINIC region" policy proposal. Below is > the relevant information: > > Policy title: Anycast Assignments in the AFRINIC region > Policy ID: AFPUB-2014-GEN-003-DRAFT-04 > Author: Mark Elkins > Policy url: > http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposals/1275-afpub-2014-gen-003-draft-04 > > > The last call period for this proposal ends on the *26th of December 2014*. > At the end of the Last Call, we will make a final assessment on whether > consensus has been reached by taking into consideration the comments from > the Public Policy Meeting as well as those during this Last Call period. > > *Useful urls:* > > The full minutes of the meeting: > > http://www.afrinic.net/en/library/policies/archive/ppm-minutes/1273-pdp-minutes > > To read through the AFRINIC Policy Development Process, please browse to: > http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development > > Regards > --- > Seun Ojedeji & Adam Nelson > PDWG Co-Chairs > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From aalain at trstech.net Mon Dec 8 11:15:11 2014 From: aalain at trstech.net (ALAIN AINA) Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2014 11:15:11 +0000 Subject: [rpd] AnyCast assignments - Update In-Reply-To: <1417965112.3771.8.camel@posix.co.za> References: <1412845710.3847.251.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> <20141128112604.GA1088@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> <7DA54092-76DA-4078-AC68-52DA0804760F@gmail.com> <1417965112.3771.8.camel@posix.co.za> Message-ID: Hi, On Dec 7, 2014, at 3:11 PM, Mark Elkins wrote: > On Sun, 2014-12-07 at 08:37 +0000, ALAIN AINA wrote: >> Hi, >> >> As discussed at the meeting, using multiple subnets is ok as far as reference to BCP126 is in there. >> >> To add Multiple ASNs on this, i suggest, reference to BCP 169 > > I dislike tying a policy unnecessarily to other external references - in > case they (the external policies) change. > > > I believe the trigger to being provided with an ASN for Multi-casting > purposes is IP address space - and as such that is already covered by > BCP126??? I don't think so. Our common goals are: 1- Make policies clear for both implementor and requesters 2- Minimize the risks of abuse So references to best practices is good. In this case one for the v4/v6 and one for ASN Ressources must be used on need basis and with trust. Best practices changes over time and implementer shall adjust Thanks --Alain > >> --Alain >> On Dec 3, 2014, at 5:31 AM, David Peall wrote: >> >>> >>>> On Nov 28, 2014, at 13:26, Alan Barrett wrote: >>>> >>>>> 2. Summary of how this proposal addresses the problem >>>>> >>>>> This proposal allows the use of: >>>>> >>>>> a. One (1) /24 of IPv4 for anycast services from a PA allocation of >>>>> an LIR or direct end-user assignment. >>>>> b. One /48 of IPv6 for anycast services from an IPv6 LIR allocation >>>>> or direct end-user assignment. >>>>> c. An AS Number for anycast purposes. >>>> >>>> Clause 2 appears to require the applicant to use all three of the IPv4, >>>> IPv6, and ASN. However, under clause 3, it uses "and/or" to allow the >>>> applicant to choose any subset of those three items. I think this >>>> should be clarified, possibly by the use of words like this in the first >>>> sentence of clause 2: >>>> >>>> 2. This proposal allows the use of any one or more of the following: >>>> >>>> It's also not clear whether the restriction to "one" IPv4 /24, IPv6 >>>> /48, or ASN, means only one forever, or one per application (with the >>>> freedom to apply for another one later). I'd prefer to allow the use of >>>> multiple such subnets or ASNs, if the applicant is providing multiple >>>> anycast services and has adequate justification for not placing them all >>>> in the same subnet or ASN. >>>> >>>> I'd also like this proposal to be usable for any kind of anycast, even >>>> those not invented yet. >>>> >>>> --apb (Alan Barrett) >>>> _______________________________________________ >>> >>> I support the policy and APB?s suggestions but would also suggest allowing slightly larger allocations like /23 or /22 to allow the use of routing tools that Frank has already suggested. >>> >>> Regards >>> ? >>> David Peall_______________________________________________ > > -- > Mark James ELKINS - Posix Systems - (South) Africa > mje at posix.co.za Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 > For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: https://ftth.posix.co.za > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd From mje at posix.co.za Mon Dec 8 12:52:12 2014 From: mje at posix.co.za (Mark Elkins) Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2014 14:52:12 +0200 Subject: [rpd] AnyCast assignments - Update In-Reply-To: References: <1412845710.3847.251.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> <20141128112604.GA1088@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> <7DA54092-76DA-4078-AC68-52DA0804760F@gmail.com> <1417965112.3771.8.camel@posix.co.za> Message-ID: <1418043132.2531.5.camel@mje.posix.co.za> OK, if the wording included a reference to BCP169 whenever BCP126 is refereed to? This proposal allows an organization to receive an IPv4/IPv6 allocation or assignment and/or an AS Number purely for anycast or GPRS Roaming Exchange (GRX) usage in line with the provisions of BCP126 and BCP169. -and- These resources must be used for the sole purposes of providing anycast services or GRX (GPRS Roaming Exchanges) as recommended in BCP126 and BCP169. I see this as a minor edit. On Mon, 2014-12-08 at 11:15 +0000, ALAIN AINA wrote: > Hi, > > On Dec 7, 2014, at 3:11 PM, Mark Elkins wrote: > > > On Sun, 2014-12-07 at 08:37 +0000, ALAIN AINA wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> As discussed at the meeting, using multiple subnets is ok as far as reference to BCP126 is in there. > >> > >> To add Multiple ASNs on this, i suggest, reference to BCP 169 > > > > I dislike tying a policy unnecessarily to other external references - in > > case they (the external policies) change. > > > > > > I believe the trigger to being provided with an ASN for Multi-casting > > purposes is IP address space - and as such that is already covered by > > BCP126??? > > I don't think so. > > Our common goals are: > > 1- Make policies clear for both implementor and requesters > 2- Minimize the risks of abuse > > So references to best practices is good. In this case one for the v4/v6 and one for ASN > > Ressources must be used on need basis and with trust. Best practices changes over time and implementer shall adjust > > Thanks > > --Alain > > > > > >> --Alain > >> On Dec 3, 2014, at 5:31 AM, David Peall wrote: > >> > >>> > >>>> On Nov 28, 2014, at 13:26, Alan Barrett wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> 2. Summary of how this proposal addresses the problem > >>>>> > >>>>> This proposal allows the use of: > >>>>> > >>>>> a. One (1) /24 of IPv4 for anycast services from a PA allocation of > >>>>> an LIR or direct end-user assignment. > >>>>> b. One /48 of IPv6 for anycast services from an IPv6 LIR allocation > >>>>> or direct end-user assignment. > >>>>> c. An AS Number for anycast purposes. > >>>> > >>>> Clause 2 appears to require the applicant to use all three of the IPv4, > >>>> IPv6, and ASN. However, under clause 3, it uses "and/or" to allow the > >>>> applicant to choose any subset of those three items. I think this > >>>> should be clarified, possibly by the use of words like this in the first > >>>> sentence of clause 2: > >>>> > >>>> 2. This proposal allows the use of any one or more of the following: > >>>> > >>>> It's also not clear whether the restriction to "one" IPv4 /24, IPv6 > >>>> /48, or ASN, means only one forever, or one per application (with the > >>>> freedom to apply for another one later). I'd prefer to allow the use of > >>>> multiple such subnets or ASNs, if the applicant is providing multiple > >>>> anycast services and has adequate justification for not placing them all > >>>> in the same subnet or ASN. > >>>> > >>>> I'd also like this proposal to be usable for any kind of anycast, even > >>>> those not invented yet. > >>>> > >>>> --apb (Alan Barrett) > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>> > >>> I support the policy and APB?s suggestions but would also suggest allowing slightly larger allocations like /23 or /22 to allow the use of routing tools that Frank has already suggested. > >>> > >>> Regards > >>> ? > >>> David Peall_______________________________________________ > > > > -- > > Mark James ELKINS - Posix Systems - (South) Africa > > mje at posix.co.za Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 > > For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: https://ftth.posix.co.za > > _______________________________________________ > > rpd mailing list > > rpd at afrinic.net > > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd -- Mark James ELKINS - Posix Systems - (South) Africa mje at posix.co.za Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: https://ftth.posix.co.za -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 3832 bytes Desc: not available URL: From aalain at trstech.net Mon Dec 8 20:08:22 2014 From: aalain at trstech.net (ALAIN AINA) Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2014 20:08:22 +0000 Subject: [rpd] AnyCast assignments - Update In-Reply-To: <1418043132.2531.5.camel@mje.posix.co.za> References: <1412845710.3847.251.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> <20141128112604.GA1088@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> <7DA54092-76DA-4078-AC68-52DA0804760F@gmail.com> <1417965112.3771.8.camel@posix.co.za> <1418043132.2531.5.camel@mje.posix.co.za> Message-ID: Mark, Yes. What's about : This proposal allows an organization to receive an IPv4/IPv6 allocation or assignment and/or an AS Number purely for anycast or GPRS Roaming Exchange (GRX) usage in line with the provisions of BCP126 and BCP169 respectively. -and- These resources must be used for the sole purposes of providing anycast services or GRX (GPRS Roaming Exchanges) as recommended in BCP126 and BCP169 respectively. Thanks --Alain On Dec 8, 2014, at 12:52 PM, Mark Elkins wrote: > OK, if the wording included a reference to BCP169 whenever BCP126 is > refereed to? > > > This proposal allows an organization to receive an IPv4/IPv6 allocation > or assignment and/or an AS Number purely for anycast or GPRS Roaming > Exchange (GRX) usage in line with the provisions of BCP126 and BCP169. > > -and- > > These resources must be used for the sole purposes of providing anycast > services or GRX (GPRS Roaming Exchanges) as recommended in BCP126 and > BCP169. > > I see this as a minor edit. > > > On Mon, 2014-12-08 at 11:15 +0000, ALAIN AINA wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On Dec 7, 2014, at 3:11 PM, Mark Elkins wrote: >> >>> On Sun, 2014-12-07 at 08:37 +0000, ALAIN AINA wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> As discussed at the meeting, using multiple subnets is ok as far as reference to BCP126 is in there. >>>> >>>> To add Multiple ASNs on this, i suggest, reference to BCP 169 >>> >>> I dislike tying a policy unnecessarily to other external references - in >>> case they (the external policies) change. >>> >>> >>> I believe the trigger to being provided with an ASN for Multi-casting >>> purposes is IP address space - and as such that is already covered by >>> BCP126??? >> >> I don't think so. >> >> Our common goals are: >> >> 1- Make policies clear for both implementor and requesters >> 2- Minimize the risks of abuse >> >> So references to best practices is good. In this case one for the v4/v6 and one for ASN >> >> Ressources must be used on need basis and with trust. Best practices changes over time and implementer shall adjust >> >> Thanks >> >> --Alain >> >> >>> >>>> --Alain >>>> On Dec 3, 2014, at 5:31 AM, David Peall wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Nov 28, 2014, at 13:26, Alan Barrett wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> 2. Summary of how this proposal addresses the problem >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This proposal allows the use of: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> a. One (1) /24 of IPv4 for anycast services from a PA allocation of >>>>>>> an LIR or direct end-user assignment. >>>>>>> b. One /48 of IPv6 for anycast services from an IPv6 LIR allocation >>>>>>> or direct end-user assignment. >>>>>>> c. An AS Number for anycast purposes. >>>>>> >>>>>> Clause 2 appears to require the applicant to use all three of the IPv4, >>>>>> IPv6, and ASN. However, under clause 3, it uses "and/or" to allow the >>>>>> applicant to choose any subset of those three items. I think this >>>>>> should be clarified, possibly by the use of words like this in the first >>>>>> sentence of clause 2: >>>>>> >>>>>> 2. This proposal allows the use of any one or more of the following: >>>>>> >>>>>> It's also not clear whether the restriction to "one" IPv4 /24, IPv6 >>>>>> /48, or ASN, means only one forever, or one per application (with the >>>>>> freedom to apply for another one later). I'd prefer to allow the use of >>>>>> multiple such subnets or ASNs, if the applicant is providing multiple >>>>>> anycast services and has adequate justification for not placing them all >>>>>> in the same subnet or ASN. >>>>>> >>>>>> I'd also like this proposal to be usable for any kind of anycast, even >>>>>> those not invented yet. >>>>>> >>>>>> --apb (Alan Barrett) >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> >>>>> I support the policy and APB?s suggestions but would also suggest allowing slightly larger allocations like /23 or /22 to allow the use of routing tools that Frank has already suggested. >>>>> >>>>> Regards >>>>> ? >>>>> David Peall_______________________________________________ >>> >>> -- >>> Mark James ELKINS - Posix Systems - (South) Africa >>> mje at posix.co.za Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 >>> For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: https://ftth.posix.co.za >>> _______________________________________________ >>> rpd mailing list >>> rpd at afrinic.net >>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd >> >> _______________________________________________ >> rpd mailing list >> rpd at afrinic.net >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > -- > Mark James ELKINS - Posix Systems - (South) Africa > mje at posix.co.za Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 > For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: https://ftth.posix.co.za > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd From apb at cequrux.com Tue Dec 9 08:24:47 2014 From: apb at cequrux.com (Alan Barrett) Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2014 10:24:47 +0200 Subject: [rpd] AnyCast assignments - Update In-Reply-To: References: <1412845710.3847.251.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> <20141128112604.GA1088@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> <7DA54092-76DA-4078-AC68-52DA0804760F@gmail.com> <1417965112.3771.8.camel@posix.co.za> <1418043132.2531.5.camel@mje.posix.co.za> Message-ID: <20141209082447.GB2013@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> On Mon, 08 Dec 2014, ALAIN AINA wrote: > Yes. What's about : > > This proposal allows an organization to receive an IPv4/IPv6 > allocation or assignment and/or an AS Number purely for anycast > or GPRS Roaming Exchange (GRX) usage in line with the provisions > of BCP126 and BCP169 respectively. What do we want to happen when BCP126 or BCP169 are updated, replaced, or obsoleted? Do we want the relevant Afrinic policy to automatically follow the new BCP without needing to go through the Afrinic policy development process, or do we want the Afrinic policy to keep following the old BCP, until a policy update is passed through the PDP? --apb (Alan Barrett) From aalain at trstech.net Tue Dec 9 11:56:41 2014 From: aalain at trstech.net (ALAIN AINA) Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2014 11:56:41 +0000 Subject: [rpd] AnyCast assignments - Update In-Reply-To: <20141209082447.GB2013@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> References: <1412845710.3847.251.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> <20141128112604.GA1088@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> <7DA54092-76DA-4078-AC68-52DA0804760F@gmail.com> <1417965112.3771.8.camel@posix.co.za> <1418043132.2531.5.camel@mje.posix.co.za> <20141209082447.GB2013@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> Message-ID: Hi, The policy should follow new BCPs( which update, replace old ones) without going through PDP unless we have reasons to do otherwise. Policies must define rules on the targets and how to justify the needs. These two BCPs describe current best way of using the resources for global anycast services. Either we add the requirements in the policy or we refer to the BCP. I support the last option. RFC2026 section 5 says The BCP subseries of the RFC series is designed to be a way to standardize practices and the results of community deliberations. A BCP document is subject to the same basic set of procedures as standards track documents and thus is a vehicle by which the IETF community can define and ratify the community's best current thinking on a statement of principle or on what is believed to be the best way to perform some operations or IETF process function. Hope this helps --Alain On Dec 9, 2014, at 8:24 AM, Alan Barrett wrote: > On Mon, 08 Dec 2014, ALAIN AINA wrote: >> Yes. What's about : >> >> This proposal allows an organization to receive an IPv4/IPv6 allocation or assignment and/or an AS Number purely for anycast or GPRS Roaming Exchange (GRX) usage in line with the provisions of BCP126 and BCP169 respectively. > > What do we want to happen when BCP126 or BCP169 are updated, replaced, or obsoleted? Do we want the relevant Afrinic policy to automatically follow the new BCP without needing to go through the Afrinic policy development process, or do we want the Afrinic policy to keep following the old BCP, until a policy update is passed through the PDP? > > --apb (Alan Barrett) > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd From ernest at afrinic.net Thu Dec 11 12:48:13 2014 From: ernest at afrinic.net (Ernest) Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2014 15:48:13 +0300 Subject: [rpd] CRISP Team Update In-Reply-To: <54898B0D.7040800@afrinic.net> References: <54898B0D.7040800@afrinic.net> Message-ID: <5489928D.3090607@afrinic.net> All, This is an update on the developments from the CRISP Team. The first teleconference was held on 09 December 2014. Here are the highlights from the meeting: o There was participation from all CRISP team members as well as several observers. o Izumi Okutani and Alan Barrett were elected Chair and Vice Chairs respectively. o Apart from voting 8/10 on the the final proposal, other decisions during the period leading to the deadline will be by rough consensus. To meet the deadline of 15 January 2015, there will be two weekly teleconferences up until an initial draft proposal has been put together. o A drafting team has already volunteered to put together the first draft based on the currently existing materials from discussions that were held in each region, which draft will be discussed at the second teleconference on 11 December 2015. We encourage the community to continue providing any feedback and ideas by subscribing to the mailing list ianaoversight at afrinic.net So far, here are the main points coming from our region based on the survey results and discussions at AFRINIC20 and AFRINIC21 pertinent to the following requirements that the transition proposal to the NTIA must meet: Requirement 1: Support and enhance the multi-stakeholder model Requirement 2: Maintain the security, stability, and resiliency of the Internet DNS Requirement 3: Meet the needs and expectation of the global customers and partners of the IANA functions Requirement 4: Maintain the openness of the Internet Requirement 5: The proposal must not replace the NTIA role with a government-led or an inter-governmental organization solution. The community has provided feedback below, which already meets the above stated requirements: o The existing mechanisms for the Policy Development Process in the AFRINIC community (as well as other communities) are already successfully embracing the multi-stakeholder model requirement and shall be maintained. o There should be minimum (or no) changes to the existing IANA services operator (ICANN) to ensure continuity, stability and minimal disruption to critical internet operations. o There should be an agreement (SLA, MoU) between the IANA operator (ICANN) and the NRO or any other body the communities eventually agree on that will provide oversight and accountability to the RIRs. o The existing Global Policy Development Process which is already transparent, open and all-inclusive should be maintained and sustained. Further community input to this critical process is still welcome, and can be shared with us on the ianaoversight at afrinic.net mailing list. CRISP Team info page: https://www.nro.net/nro-and-internet-governance/iana-oversight/consolidated-rir-iana-stewardship-proposal-team-crisp-team Proposals from other regions: https://www.nro.net/nro-and-internet-governance/iana-oversight/timeline-for-rirs-engagement-in-iana-stewardship-transition-process regards, ernest From otieno.barrack at gmail.com Thu Dec 11 13:49:47 2014 From: otieno.barrack at gmail.com (Barrack Otieno) Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2014 16:49:47 +0300 Subject: [rpd] CRISP Team Update In-Reply-To: <5489928D.3090607@afrinic.net> References: <54898B0D.7040800@afrinic.net> <5489928D.3090607@afrinic.net> Message-ID: Noted with thanks Ernest. Best Regards On 12/11/14, Ernest wrote: > > All, > > This is an update on the developments from the CRISP Team. > > The first teleconference was held on 09 December 2014. Here are the > highlights from the meeting: > > o There was participation from all CRISP team members as well as > several observers. > o Izumi Okutani and Alan Barrett were elected Chair and Vice Chairs > respectively. > o Apart from voting 8/10 on the the final proposal, other decisions > during the period leading to the deadline will be by rough > consensus. To meet the deadline of 15 January 2015, there will be > two weekly teleconferences up until an initial draft proposal has > been put together. > o A drafting team has already volunteered to put together the first > draft based on the currently existing materials from discussions > that were held in each region, which draft will be discussed at the > second teleconference on 11 December 2015. > > We encourage the community to continue providing any feedback and > ideas by subscribing to the mailing list ianaoversight at afrinic.net > > So far, here are the main points coming from our region based on the > survey results and discussions at AFRINIC20 and AFRINIC21 pertinent > to the following requirements that the transition proposal to the > NTIA must meet: > > Requirement 1: Support and enhance the multi-stakeholder model > Requirement 2: Maintain the security, stability, and resiliency of > the Internet DNS > Requirement 3: Meet the needs and expectation of the global > customers and partners of the IANA functions > Requirement 4: Maintain the openness of the Internet > Requirement 5: The proposal must not replace the NTIA role with a > government-led or an inter-governmental organization solution. > > The community has provided feedback below, which already meets the > above stated requirements: > > o The existing mechanisms for the Policy Development Process in the > AFRINIC community (as well as other communities) are already > successfully embracing the multi-stakeholder model requirement and > shall be maintained. > > o There should be minimum (or no) changes to the existing IANA > services operator (ICANN) to ensure continuity, stability and > minimal disruption to critical internet operations. > > o There should be an agreement (SLA, MoU) between the IANA operator > (ICANN) and the NRO or any other body the communities eventually > agree on that will provide oversight and accountability to the RIRs. > > o The existing Global Policy Development Process which is already > transparent, open and all-inclusive should be maintained and sustained. > > Further community input to this critical process is still welcome, > and can be shared with us on the ianaoversight at afrinic.net mailing list. > > CRISP Team info page: > https://www.nro.net/nro-and-internet-governance/iana-oversight/consolidated-rir-iana-stewardship-proposal-team-crisp-team > > Proposals from other regions: > https://www.nro.net/nro-and-internet-governance/iana-oversight/timeline-for-rirs-engagement-in-iana-stewardship-transition-process > > regards, > ernest > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > -- Barrack O. Otieno +254721325277 +254-20-2498789 Skype: barrack.otieno http://www.otienobarrack.me.ke/ From ernest at afrinic.net Thu Dec 11 16:34:27 2014 From: ernest at afrinic.net (Ernest) Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2014 19:34:27 +0300 Subject: [rpd] Fwd: [NRO-IANAXFER] Draft for discussion In-Reply-To: <20141211130533.GF26759@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> References: <20141211130533.GF26759@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> Message-ID: <5489C793.3040607@afrinic.net> FYI We encourage those interested in following the work of the CRISP team to subscribe to ianaxfer at nro.net https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer regards ernest -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [NRO-IANAXFER] Draft for discussion Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2014 15:05:33 +0200 From: Alan Barrett To: ianaxfer at nro.net The attached draft document will be discussed during the CRISP teleconference, beginning in a few minutes. This is a rough draft intended as input to the discussion process. --apb (Alan Barrett) -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: CRISP IANA PROPOSAL Draft 10122014-clean.docx Type: application/octet-stream Size: 36449 bytes Desc: not available URL: From apb at cequrux.com Thu Dec 11 19:23:41 2014 From: apb at cequrux.com (Alan Barrett) Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2014 21:23:41 +0200 Subject: [rpd] AnyCast assignments - Update In-Reply-To: References: <1412845710.3847.251.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> <20141128112604.GA1088@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> <7DA54092-76DA-4078-AC68-52DA0804760F@gmail.com> <1417965112.3771.8.camel@posix.co.za> <1418043132.2531.5.camel@mje.posix.co.za> <20141209082447.GB2013@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> Message-ID: <20141211192341.GM26759@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> On Tue, 09 Dec 2014, ALAIN AINA wrote: > The policy should follow new BCPs( which update, replace old > ones) without going through PDP unless we have reasons to do > otherwise. I agree with that goal. However, that's not what the proposed policy says. I suggest text like this, to make the wording better match the intent: This proposal allows an organization to receive an IPv4/IPv6 allocation or assignment and/or an AS Number purely for anycast or GPRS Roaming Exchange (GRX) usage. The usage must be in line with industry best practices as described in BCP126, BCP169, or their successors. The "or their successors" part is what makes the policy automatically follow any newer BCPs that update or obsolete the older BCPs. --apb (Alan Barrett) From geier at geier.ne.tz Fri Dec 12 04:30:38 2014 From: geier at geier.ne.tz (Frank Habicht) Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2014 07:30:38 +0300 Subject: [rpd] AnyCast assignments - Update In-Reply-To: <20141211192341.GM26759@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> References: <1412845710.3847.251.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> <20141128112604.GA1088@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> <7DA54092-76DA-4078-AC68-52DA0804760F@gmail.com> <1417965112.3771.8.camel@posix.co.za> <1418043132.2531.5.camel@mje.posix.co.za> <20141209082447.GB2013@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> <20141211192341.GM26759@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> Message-ID: <548A6F6E.40500@geier.ne.tz> +1 Frank On 12/11/2014 10:23 PM, Alan Barrett wrote: > On Tue, 09 Dec 2014, ALAIN AINA wrote: >> The policy should follow new BCPs( which update, replace old ones) >> without going through PDP unless we have reasons to do otherwise. > > I agree with that goal. However, that's not what the proposed policy says. > > I suggest text like this, to make the wording better match the intent: > > This proposal allows an organization to receive an IPv4/IPv6 > allocation or assignment and/or an AS Number purely for > anycast or GPRS Roaming Exchange (GRX) usage. The usage must be > in line with industry best practices as described in > BCP126, BCP169, or their successors. > > The "or their successors" part is what makes the policy automatically > follow any newer BCPs that update or obsolete the older BCPs. > > --apb (Alan Barrett) > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd From mje at posix.co.za Fri Dec 12 14:54:49 2014 From: mje at posix.co.za (Mark Elkins) Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2014 16:54:49 +0200 Subject: [rpd] AnyCast assignments - Update In-Reply-To: <20141211192341.GM26759@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> References: <1412845710.3847.251.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> <20141128112604.GA1088@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> <7DA54092-76DA-4078-AC68-52DA0804760F@gmail.com> <1417965112.3771.8.camel@posix.co.za> <1418043132.2531.5.camel@mje.posix.co.za> <20141209082447.GB2013@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> <20141211192341.GM26759@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> Message-ID: <1418396089.3467.59.camel@posix.co.za> Thanks Alan. I like that. Ernest - can you please update the current online wording to reflect what Alan says. I believe this now satisfies everybody???? On Thu, 2014-12-11 at 21:23 +0200, Alan Barrett wrote: > On Tue, 09 Dec 2014, ALAIN AINA wrote: > > The policy should follow new BCPs( which update, replace old > > ones) without going through PDP unless we have reasons to do > > otherwise. > > I agree with that goal. However, that's not what the proposed > policy says. > > I suggest text like this, to make the wording better match the > intent: > > This proposal allows an organization to receive an IPv4/IPv6 > allocation or assignment and/or an AS Number purely for > anycast or GPRS Roaming Exchange (GRX) usage. The usage must be > in line with industry best practices as described in > BCP126, BCP169, or their successors. > > The "or their successors" part is what makes the policy > automatically follow any newer BCPs that update or obsolete the > older BCPs. > > --apb (Alan Barrett) > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd -- Mark James ELKINS - Posix Systems - (South) Africa mje at posix.co.za Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: https://ftth.posix.co.za -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 5810 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jnoulaye at yahoo.fr Fri Dec 12 17:49:15 2014 From: jnoulaye at yahoo.fr (jnoulaye at yahoo.fr) Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2014 17:49:15 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [rpd] AnyCast assignments - Update In-Reply-To: <1418396089.3467.59.camel@posix.co.za> References: <1418396089.3467.59.camel@posix.co.za> Message-ID: <1465468179.4649903.1418406555730.JavaMail.yahoo@jws11140.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> I also agree on that.?Ernest should proceed with the updates now. Regards,/Janvier Ngnoulaye De?: Mark Elkins ??: rpd at afrinic.net Envoy? le : Vendredi 12 d?cembre 2014 15h54 Objet?: Re: [rpd] AnyCast assignments - Update Thanks Alan. I like that. Ernest - can you please update the current online wording to reflect what Alan says. I believe this now satisfies everybody???? On Thu, 2014-12-11 at 21:23 +0200, Alan Barrett wrote: > On Tue, 09 Dec 2014, ALAIN AINA wrote: > > The policy should follow new BCPs( which update, replace old > > ones) without going through PDP unless we have reasons to do > > otherwise. > > I agree with that goal.? However, that's not what the proposed > policy says. > > I suggest text like this, to make the wording better match the > intent: > >? ? This proposal allows an organization to receive an IPv4/IPv6 >? ? allocation or assignment and/or an AS Number purely for >? ? anycast or GPRS Roaming Exchange (GRX) usage.? The usage must be >? ? in line with industry best practices as described in >? ? BCP126, BCP169, or their successors. > > The "or their successors" part is what makes the policy > automatically follow any newer BCPs that update or obsolete the > older BCPs. > > --apb (Alan Barrett) > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd -- Mark James ELKINS? -? Posix Systems - (South) Africa mje at posix.co.za? ? ? Tel: +27.128070590? Cell: +27.826010496 For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: https://ftth.posix.co.za _______________________________________________ rpd mailing list rpd at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nishal at controlfreak.co.za Wed Dec 17 09:13:07 2014 From: nishal at controlfreak.co.za (Nishal Goburdhan) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2014 11:13:07 +0200 Subject: [rpd] AnyCast assignments - Update In-Reply-To: <20141211192341.GM26759@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> References: <1412845710.3847.251.camel@mjelap.posix.co.za> <20141128112604.GA1088@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> <7DA54092-76DA-4078-AC68-52DA0804760F@gmail.com> <1417965112.3771.8.camel@posix.co.za> <1418043132.2531.5.camel@mje.posix.co.za> <20141209082447.GB2013@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> <20141211192341.GM26759@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> Message-ID: <5F5A839A-9A52-485B-A70A-6A9180F4D1A5@controlfreak.co.za> On 11 Dec 2014, at 21:23, Alan Barrett wrote: > On Tue, 09 Dec 2014, ALAIN AINA wrote: >> The policy should follow new BCPs( which update, replace old ones) without going through PDP unless we have reasons to do otherwise. > > I agree with that goal. However, that's not what the proposed policy says. > > I suggest text like this, to make the wording better match the intent: > > This proposal allows an organization to receive an IPv4/IPv6 > allocation or assignment and/or an AS Number purely for > anycast or GPRS Roaming Exchange (GRX) usage. The usage must be > in line with industry best practices as described in > BCP126, BCP169, or their successors. > > The "or their successors" part is what makes the policy automatically follow any newer BCPs that update or obsolete the older BCPs. support. see this as a minor change. --n. From sfolayan at gmail.com Fri Dec 26 04:21:19 2014 From: sfolayan at gmail.com (Sunday Folayan) Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2014 05:21:19 +0100 Subject: [rpd] Update on the Search for the AFRINIC CEO In-Reply-To: <42374AD0B05558458E006DC2AAAB95E501D6344D@NTRA-EXCH-02.TRA.GOV.EG> References: <42374AD0B05558458E006DC2AAAB95E501D6344D@NTRA-EXCH-02.TRA.GOV.EG> Message-ID: <549CE23F.3080401@gmail.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Dear Members, Seasons Greetings to you all. I am pleased to update you on the Search for the AFRINIC CEO. The Deadline for the submission of applications was Friday 19th of Dec. 2014 at 17:00 UTC as scheduled on the Timeline. The Board decided that if an applicant fails to provide more than one critical information, as listed under "How to Apply" in the CEO role document, such application will be discarded. For those who failed to provide just one critical information, such candidates will be contacted to complete the missing information. We received a total of 16 applications from 11 countries covering all the six sub-regions used by AFRINIC, distributed as follows: - Nine Applications were complete - Three applicants were contacted for just one missing information and all of them replied with the Information. - Four applications were discarded, because they failed to provide more than one critical information. A long list of Twelve (12) candidates have now been made, and the Board will proceed with the evaluation. The next milestone is the appointment of the Interim CEO. The Board is working to meet this milestone. We are pleased that the process is on track. Kind and Personal Regards. Sunday Folayan Board Chair. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUnOI/AAoJEH6UvSz6fA253Z8IAI58pSgGFz09YwVUQ7vNnk/T YpRsqxfInhw9IlCcBH5LkTSd/HgSbno+UjyPlrohv7qomIwj4q1Mi0vUy7kpwM0N ZPYAJI23JPhwGXMYqZboVHSKGeU3tnZw3zlHmjP2wgvnMWx81dpHtDCzEwpltdry aed5iflYmGFQ/bezPDMXT7BPw1b95dzrVzz5rBkq8IWjFf1qj93YLGVsnYiTofrm iq0IWTozylqkdNplCZhgrafaEN5ujkv8sOxFrOugiVu9FNdyFL7oE3RQhHRSTkof DazgElI8eY8Jh1zeCpPX+NItG9mjUru8qnjC0crOcTPDvGiROtWvsf3CH0tETo4= =xm+f -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From jnoulaye at yahoo.fr Mon Dec 29 11:29:00 2014 From: jnoulaye at yahoo.fr (jnoulaye at yahoo.fr) Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2014 11:29:00 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [rpd] Fwd: NETmundial Initiative Announces Formation of its Inaugural Coordination Council and a Broad Global Community Consultation Phase | NETmundial In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <902855618.2259573.1419852540459.JavaMail.yahoo@jws11110.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> Hi All,?Congratulations to the four Africans for having been selected in the Inaugural NETmundial Initiative Coordination Council. There are named:- Nii Narku Quaynor,University of Cape Coast, Ghana- Anriette Esterhuysen, Association for Progressive Communications, APC- Atef Helmy, Minister of Communications & Information Technology, Egypt- Andile Ngcaba, Convergence Partners Investments.@ selected: You have the full support of the African Internet community. Read more here:?https://www.netmundial.org/blog/secretariat/netmundial-initiative-announces-formation-its-inaugural-coordination-council-and Warm regards,/Janvier NgnoulayeUniversity of Yaounde 1 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sfolayan at gmail.com Wed Dec 31 05:14:55 2014 From: sfolayan at gmail.com (Sunday Folayan) Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2014 06:14:55 +0100 Subject: [rpd] Appointment of an Interim CEO for AFRINIC In-Reply-To: <54A23591.4030800@gmail.com> References: <54A23591.4030800@gmail.com> Message-ID: <54A3864F.3010406@gmail.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Dear Members and Friends, As part of the ongoing process to find a successor to our founding CEO, I am pleased to announce the appointment of Mr Patrisse Deesse at the Interim Chief Executive Officer of AFRINIC. Patrisse joined AFRINIC in September 2007 as Finance and Administration Manager. He has been involved in all aspects of the organisation including Finance, Human Resources and Administration. He worked on and implemented several projects relating to Billing and set up of the financial processes and procedures. Prior to working at AFRINIC, his previous work experience extends over 30 years at a large international conglomerate in Malawi (one of the largest private Companies in the country) in accounting, occupying several senior managerial positions, including Head Office Accountant and Treasury Manager. He is Exposed to international management practices and standards in a multicultural environment. He is a Fellow member of an International Accounting body. Until his appointment, Patrisse was the Finance and Accounts Director of AFRINIC. In his new role, He will lead the AFRINIC team, pending the appointment and resumption of the substantive Chief Executive. The process of the recruiting the Chief Executive Officer Board has entered the candidates evaluation phase. The Board is pleased with the progress made so far. Congratulations Patrisse. Best Regards ... Sunday Folayan Chair, AFRINIC Board -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUo4ZPAAoJEH6UvSz6fA25VgUIAKapMvZJEEy8MJMALWKE5olV IZ0iX4iLpCkJufNCdEmuCsbj7L1x5/PoL6kHRZ5depM1yYzNDPTJ5broa04S22az EpKe8nCxmN2QPIx2J5GxN9L4LoHEZCNjoCYRfkp1Wvz+w+xbz5wkCANVuRs0CFJV Zq+8q98nVvFr4c+gJoLB7bvxGV7+O5QoTQ63OPGB/5tzrXGh0XACFHO2zGM850n4 xkl20dQDDhZIT9/ypp1PuI56W+h6y6KPrhd3JZcNAgzAyqJAsAF6qC2OfW6EDF1p k3oaP5aID6MeGSwaMo15fcSUyzqzmYQ1GBrft3+6zzsWJ2bMSknZZ8uIPm72dgc= =bFCh -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From honlue at gmail.com Wed Dec 31 05:37:05 2014 From: honlue at gmail.com (honlue at gmail.com) Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2014 05:37:05 +0000 Subject: [rpd] Appointment of an Interim CEO for AFRINIC In-Reply-To: <54A3864F.3010406@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1420004225.55898.YahooMailAndroidMobile@web172604.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> Congrats Pasteese for this important role in at the head of our organisation we wish you the best in all you do. Stay blessed. Stephen. Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kofi.ansa at inet.com.gh Wed Dec 31 06:19:13 2014 From: kofi.ansa at inet.com.gh (Kofi Ansa Akufo) Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2014 06:19:13 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [rpd] Appointment of an Interim CEO for AFRINIC In-Reply-To: <1793239787.1739.1420006750241.JavaMail.zimbra@inet.com.gh> References: <54A23591.4030800@gmail.com> <54A3864F.3010406@gmail.com> Message-ID: <78151752.1743.1420006753158.JavaMail.zimbra@inet.com.gh> Dear Mr. Chairman Thank you for the update and congratulations to Patrisse for assuming the interim CEO role. What is the nationality of Mr. Patrisse Deesse? Is he a national of Malawi? I would however like clarification of article 17.3 of the AFRINIC Bylaws which states; "The nationals of the country hosting the headquarters of AFRINIC shall be ineligible for appointment to the office of Chief Executive Officer" The current by-laws does not currently define clearly the protocols of appointing an interim CEO so what framework is currently used to appoint interim CEO? Could persons appointed to interim CEO include nationals of the country hosting the headquarters of AFRINIC? Thank you Kofi Ansa Akufo Technical Consultant iNET Communications Ltd. E-mail: kofi.ansa at inet.com.gh ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sunday Folayan" To: "members-disc >> AfriNIC Discuss" Cc: "AfrICANN list" , "rpd" Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2014 9:14:55 AM Subject: [rpd] Appointment of an Interim CEO for AFRINIC -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Dear Members and Friends, As part of the ongoing process to find a successor to our founding CEO, I am pleased to announce the appointment of Mr Patrisse Deesse at the Interim Chief Executive Officer of AFRINIC. Patrisse joined AFRINIC in September 2007 as Finance and Administration Manager. He has been involved in all aspects of the organisation including Finance, Human Resources and Administration. He worked on and implemented several projects relating to Billing and set up of the financial processes and procedures. Prior to working at AFRINIC, his previous work experience extends over 30 years at a large international conglomerate in Malawi (one of the largest private Companies in the country) in accounting, occupying several senior managerial positions, including Head Office Accountant and Treasury Manager. He is Exposed to international management practices and standards in a multicultural environment. He is a Fellow member of an International Accounting body. Until his appointment, Patrisse was the Finance and Accounts Director of AFRINIC. In his new role, He will lead the AFRINIC team, pending the appointment and resumption of the substantive Chief Executive. The process of the recruiting the Chief Executive Officer Board has entered the candidates evaluation phase. The Board is pleased with the progress made so far. Congratulations Patrisse. Best Regards ... Sunday Folayan Chair, AFRINIC Board -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUo4ZPAAoJEH6UvSz6fA25VgUIAKapMvZJEEy8MJMALWKE5olV IZ0iX4iLpCkJufNCdEmuCsbj7L1x5/PoL6kHRZ5depM1yYzNDPTJ5broa04S22az EpKe8nCxmN2QPIx2J5GxN9L4LoHEZCNjoCYRfkp1Wvz+w+xbz5wkCANVuRs0CFJV Zq+8q98nVvFr4c+gJoLB7bvxGV7+O5QoTQ63OPGB/5tzrXGh0XACFHO2zGM850n4 xkl20dQDDhZIT9/ypp1PuI56W+h6y6KPrhd3JZcNAgzAyqJAsAF6qC2OfW6EDF1p k3oaP5aID6MeGSwaMo15fcSUyzqzmYQ1GBrft3+6zzsWJ2bMSknZZ8uIPm72dgc= =bFCh -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ rpd mailing list rpd at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd From: "Sunday Folayan" To: "members-disc >> AfriNIC Discuss" Cc: "AfrICANN list" , "rpd" Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2014 9:14:55 AM Subject: [rpd] Appointment of an Interim CEO for AFRINIC -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Dear Members and Friends, As part of the ongoing process to find a successor to our founding CEO, I am pleased to announce the appointment of Mr Patrisse Deesse at the Interim Chief Executive Officer of AFRINIC. Patrisse joined AFRINIC in September 2007 as Finance and Administration Manager. He has been involved in all aspects of the organisation including Finance, Human Resources and Administration. He worked on and implemented several projects relating to Billing and set up of the financial processes and procedures. Prior to working at AFRINIC, his previous work experience extends over 30 years at a large international conglomerate in Malawi (one of the largest private Companies in the country) in accounting, occupying several senior managerial positions, including Head Office Accountant and Treasury Manager. He is Exposed to international management practices and standards in a multicultural environment. He is a Fellow member of an International Accounting body. Until his appointment, Patrisse was the Finance and Accounts Director of AFRINIC. In his new role, He will lead the AFRINIC team, pending the appointment and resumption of the substantive Chief Executive. The process of the recruiting the Chief Executive Officer Board has entered the candidates evaluation phase. The Board is pleased with the progress made so far. Congratulations Patrisse. Best Regards ... Sunday Folayan Chair, AFRINIC Board -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUo4ZPAAoJEH6UvSz6fA25VgUIAKapMvZJEEy8MJMALWKE5olV IZ0iX4iLpCkJufNCdEmuCsbj7L1x5/PoL6kHRZ5depM1yYzNDPTJ5broa04S22az EpKe8nCxmN2QPIx2J5GxN9L4LoHEZCNjoCYRfkp1Wvz+w+xbz5wkCANVuRs0CFJV Zq+8q98nVvFr4c+gJoLB7bvxGV7+O5QoTQ63OPGB/5tzrXGh0XACFHO2zGM850n4 xkl20dQDDhZIT9/ypp1PuI56W+h6y6KPrhd3JZcNAgzAyqJAsAF6qC2OfW6EDF1p k3oaP5aID6MeGSwaMo15fcSUyzqzmYQ1GBrft3+6zzsWJ2bMSknZZ8uIPm72dgc= =bFCh -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ rpd mailing list rpd at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akeem at futa.edu.ng Wed Dec 31 10:44:50 2014 From: akeem at futa.edu.ng (Akeem MUFUTAU) Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2014 10:44:50 +0000 Subject: [rpd] RE: rpd Digest, Vol 99, Issue 21 In-Reply-To: <201412310647.sBV6lA2E002095@mail.afrinic.net> References: <201412310647.sBV6lA2E002095@mail.afrinic.net> Message-ID: Mr. Chairman Congratulations Mr. Patrisse. I also congratulate the Board for the steps taken so far for appointing an interim CEO for AfriNIC. I want to believe alot of criteria must have considered before choosing Mr. Patrisse. However, the issues of Nationality and protocols for the appointment of an interim CEO should be address now for the future. What does AFRINIC Bylaws say about this? Thank you Akeem O. MUFUTAU Federal University of Technology, Akure, Nigeria Sent from my Windows Phone ________________________________ From: rpd-request at afrinic.net Sent: 31-Dec-14 7:50 AM To: rpd at afrinic.net Subject: rpd Digest, Vol 99, Issue 21 Send rpd mailing list submissions to rpd at afrinic.net To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to rpd-request at afrinic.net You can reach the person managing the list at rpd-owner at afrinic.net When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of rpd digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Appointment of an Interim CEO for AFRINIC (Sunday Folayan) 2. Re: Appointment of an Interim CEO for AFRINIC (honlue at gmail.com) 3. Re: Appointment of an Interim CEO for AFRINIC (Kofi Ansa Akufo) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2014 06:14:55 +0100 From: Sunday Folayan Subject: [rpd] Appointment of an Interim CEO for AFRINIC To: "members-disc >> AfriNIC Discuss" Cc: AfrICANN list , AfriNIC Resource Policy Message-ID: <54A3864F.3010406 at gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Dear Members and Friends, As part of the ongoing process to find a successor to our founding CEO, I am pleased to announce the appointment of Mr Patrisse Deesse at the Interim Chief Executive Officer of AFRINIC. Patrisse joined AFRINIC in September 2007 as Finance and Administration Manager. He has been involved in all aspects of the organisation including Finance, Human Resources and Administration. He worked on and implemented several projects relating to Billing and set up of the financial processes and procedures. Prior to working at AFRINIC, his previous work experience extends over 30 years at a large international conglomerate in Malawi (one of the largest private Companies in the country) in accounting, occupying several senior managerial positions, including Head Office Accountant and Treasury Manager. He is Exposed to international management practices and standards in a multicultural environment. He is a Fellow member of an International Accounting body. Until his appointment, Patrisse was the Finance and Accounts Director of AFRINIC. In his new role, He will lead the AFRINIC team, pending the appointment and resumption of the substantive Chief Executive. The process of the recruiting the Chief Executive Officer Board has entered the candidates evaluation phase. The Board is pleased with the progress made so far. Congratulations Patrisse. Best Regards ... Sunday Folayan Chair, AFRINIC Board -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUo4ZPAAoJEH6UvSz6fA25VgUIAKapMvZJEEy8MJMALWKE5olV IZ0iX4iLpCkJufNCdEmuCsbj7L1x5/PoL6kHRZ5depM1yYzNDPTJ5broa04S22az EpKe8nCxmN2QPIx2J5GxN9L4LoHEZCNjoCYRfkp1Wvz+w+xbz5wkCANVuRs0CFJV Zq+8q98nVvFr4c+gJoLB7bvxGV7+O5QoTQ63OPGB/5tzrXGh0XACFHO2zGM850n4 xkl20dQDDhZIT9/ypp1PuI56W+h6y6KPrhd3JZcNAgzAyqJAsAF6qC2OfW6EDF1p k3oaP5aID6MeGSwaMo15fcSUyzqzmYQ1GBrft3+6zzsWJ2bMSknZZ8uIPm72dgc= =bFCh -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2014 05:37:05 +0000 From: "honlue at gmail.com" Subject: Re: [rpd] Appointment of an Interim CEO for AFRINIC To: Sunday Folayan , "members-disc >> AfriNIC Discuss" Cc: AfrICANN list , AfriNIC Resource Policy Message-ID: <1420004225.55898.YahooMailAndroidMobile at web172604.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Congrats Pasteese for this important role in at the head of our organisation we wish you the best in all you do. Stay blessed. Stephen. Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20141231/3a1838b1/attachment-0001.htm ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2014 06:19:13 +0000 (GMT) From: Kofi Ansa Akufo Subject: Re: [rpd] Appointment of an Interim CEO for AFRINIC To: Sunday Folayan Cc: "members-disc >> AfriNIC Discuss" , AfrICANN list , rpd Message-ID: <78151752.1743.1420006753158.JavaMail.zimbra at inet.com.gh> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Dear Mr. Chairman Thank you for the update and congratulations to Patrisse for assuming the interim CEO role. What is the nationality of Mr. Patrisse Deesse? Is he a national of Malawi? I would however like clarification of article 17.3 of the AFRINIC Bylaws which states; "The nationals of the country hosting the headquarters of AFRINIC shall be ineligible for appointment to the office of Chief Executive Officer" The current by-laws does not currently define clearly the protocols of appointing an interim CEO so what framework is currently used to appoint interim CEO? Could persons appointed to interim CEO include nationals of the country hosting the headquarters of AFRINIC? Thank you Kofi Ansa Akufo Technical Consultant iNET Communications Ltd. E-mail: kofi.ansa at inet.com.gh ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sunday Folayan" To: "members-disc >> AfriNIC Discuss" Cc: "AfrICANN list" , "rpd" Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2014 9:14:55 AM Subject: [rpd] Appointment of an Interim CEO for AFRINIC -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Dear Members and Friends, As part of the ongoing process to find a successor to our founding CEO, I am pleased to announce the appointment of Mr Patrisse Deesse at the Interim Chief Executive Officer of AFRINIC. Patrisse joined AFRINIC in September 2007 as Finance and Administration Manager. He has been involved in all aspects of the organisation including Finance, Human Resources and Administration. He worked on and implemented several projects relating to Billing and set up of the financial processes and procedures. Prior to working at AFRINIC, his previous work experience extends over 30 years at a large international conglomerate in Malawi (one of the largest private Companies in the country) in accounting, occupying several senior managerial positions, including Head Office Accountant and Treasury Manager. He is Exposed to international management practices and standards in a multicultural environment. He is a Fellow member of an International Accounting body. Until his appointment, Patrisse was the Finance and Accounts Director of AFRINIC. In his new role, He will lead the AFRINIC team, pending the appointment and resumption of the substantive Chief Executive. The process of the recruiting the Chief Executive Officer Board has entered the candidates evaluation phase. The Board is pleased with the progress made so far. Congratulations Patrisse. Best Regards ... Sunday Folayan Chair, AFRINIC Board -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUo4ZPAAoJEH6UvSz6fA25VgUIAKapMvZJEEy8MJMALWKE5olV IZ0iX4iLpCkJufNCdEmuCsbj7L1x5/PoL6kHRZ5depM1yYzNDPTJ5broa04S22az EpKe8nCxmN2QPIx2J5GxN9L4LoHEZCNjoCYRfkp1Wvz+w+xbz5wkCANVuRs0CFJV Zq+8q98nVvFr4c+gJoLB7bvxGV7+O5QoTQ63OPGB/5tzrXGh0XACFHO2zGM850n4 xkl20dQDDhZIT9/ypp1PuI56W+h6y6KPrhd3JZcNAgzAyqJAsAF6qC2OfW6EDF1p k3oaP5aID6MeGSwaMo15fcSUyzqzmYQ1GBrft3+6zzsWJ2bMSknZZ8uIPm72dgc= =bFCh -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ rpd mailing list rpd at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd From: "Sunday Folayan" To: "members-disc >> AfriNIC Discuss" Cc: "AfrICANN list" , "rpd" Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2014 9:14:55 AM Subject: [rpd] Appointment of an Interim CEO for AFRINIC -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Dear Members and Friends, As part of the ongoing process to find a successor to our founding CEO, I am pleased to announce the appointment of Mr Patrisse Deesse at the Interim Chief Executive Officer of AFRINIC. Patrisse joined AFRINIC in September 2007 as Finance and Administration Manager. He has been involved in all aspects of the organisation including Finance, Human Resources and Administration. He worked on and implemented several projects relating to Billing and set up of the financial processes and procedures. Prior to working at AFRINIC, his previous work experience extends over 30 years at a large international conglomerate in Malawi (one of the largest private Companies in the country) in accounting, occupying several senior managerial positions, including Head Office Accountant and Treasury Manager. He is Exposed to international management practices and standards in a multicultural environment. He is a Fellow member of an International Accounting body. Until his appointment, Patrisse was the Finance and Accounts Director of AFRINIC. In his new role, He will lead the AFRINIC team, pending the appointment and resumption of the substantive Chief Executive. The process of the recruiting the Chief Executive Officer Board has entered the candidates evaluation phase. The Board is pleased with the progress made so far. Congratulations Patrisse. Best Regards ... Sunday Folayan Chair, AFRINIC Board -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUo4ZPAAoJEH6UvSz6fA25VgUIAKapMvZJEEy8MJMALWKE5olV IZ0iX4iLpCkJufNCdEmuCsbj7L1x5/PoL6kHRZ5depM1yYzNDPTJ5broa04S22az EpKe8nCxmN2QPIx2J5GxN9L4LoHEZCNjoCYRfkp1Wvz+w+xbz5wkCANVuRs0CFJV Zq+8q98nVvFr4c+gJoLB7bvxGV7+O5QoTQ63OPGB/5tzrXGh0XACFHO2zGM850n4 xkl20dQDDhZIT9/ypp1PuI56W+h6y6KPrhd3JZcNAgzAyqJAsAF6qC2OfW6EDF1p k3oaP5aID6MeGSwaMo15fcSUyzqzmYQ1GBrft3+6zzsWJ2bMSknZZ8uIPm72dgc= =bFCh -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ rpd mailing list rpd at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20141231/c7d063e4/attachment.htm ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ rpd mailing list rpd at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd End of rpd Digest, Vol 99, Issue 21 *********************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kofi.ansa at gmail.com Wed Dec 31 11:16:18 2014 From: kofi.ansa at gmail.com (Kofi ANSA AKUFO) Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2014 15:16:18 +0400 Subject: [rpd] RE: rpd Digest, Vol 99, Issue 21 In-Reply-To: References: <201412310647.sBV6lA2E002095@mail.afrinic.net> Message-ID: Well Akeem lets wait for the response from the Chairman to the questions asked in my earlier post. As it stands there is no distinction in bylaws regarding interim, acting or substantive CEO appointment with respect to article 17.3 of the By-laws. Appointment of a national of the country hosting AFRINIC headquarters as CEO be it interim or acting is outrightly against the By-Laws. There is a reason why article 17.3 There situation even gets further murky when the legal council to AFRINIC which advises on the interpretation and of the By-Laws is also a national of the country hosting AFRINIC which exposes a conflict of interest. If the appointed interim CEO is in contradiction of the By-Laws the board of directors should proceed to do the necessary correction. cheers K. On 31 December 2014 at 14:44, Akeem MUFUTAU wrote: > Mr. Chairman > Congratulations Mr. Patrisse. I also congratulate the Board for the steps > taken so far for appointing an interim CEO for AfriNIC. I want to believe > alot of criteria must have considered before choosing Mr. Patrisse. > > However, the issues of Nationality and protocols for the appointment of an > interim CEO should be address now for the future. What does AFRINIC Bylaws > say about this? > > Thank you > > Akeem O. MUFUTAU > Federal University of Technology, Akure, Nigeria > > Sent from my Windows Phone > ------------------------------ > From: rpd-request at afrinic.net > Sent: 31-Dec-14 7:50 AM > To: rpd at afrinic.net > Subject: rpd Digest, Vol 99, Issue 21 > > Send rpd mailing list submissions to > rpd at afrinic.net > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > rpd-request at afrinic.net > > You can reach the person managing the list at > rpd-owner at afrinic.net > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of rpd digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Appointment of an Interim CEO for AFRINIC (Sunday Folayan) > 2. Re: Appointment of an Interim CEO for AFRINIC (honlue at gmail.com) > 3. Re: Appointment of an Interim CEO for AFRINIC (Kofi Ansa Akufo) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2014 06:14:55 +0100 > From: Sunday Folayan > Subject: [rpd] Appointment of an Interim CEO for AFRINIC > To: "members-disc >> AfriNIC Discuss" > Cc: AfrICANN list , AfriNIC Resource Policy > > Message-ID: <54A3864F.3010406 at gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Dear Members and Friends, > > As part of the ongoing process to find a successor to our founding > CEO, I am pleased to announce the appointment of Mr Patrisse Deesse at > the Interim Chief Executive Officer of AFRINIC. > > Patrisse joined AFRINIC in September 2007 as Finance and > Administration Manager. He has been involved in all aspects of the > organisation including Finance, Human Resources and Administration. He > worked on and implemented several projects relating to Billing and set > up of the financial processes and procedures. > > Prior to working at AFRINIC, his previous work experience extends over > 30 years at a large international conglomerate in Malawi (one of the > largest private Companies in the country) in accounting, occupying > several senior managerial positions, including Head Office Accountant > and Treasury Manager. He is Exposed to international management > practices and standards in a multicultural environment. He is a Fellow > member of an International Accounting body. > > Until his appointment, Patrisse was the Finance and Accounts Director > of AFRINIC. In his new role, He will lead the AFRINIC team, pending > the appointment and resumption of the substantive Chief Executive. > > The process of the recruiting the Chief Executive Officer Board has > entered the candidates evaluation phase. The Board is pleased with the > progress made so far. > > Congratulations Patrisse. > > Best Regards ... > > Sunday Folayan > Chair, AFRINIC Board > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) > > iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUo4ZPAAoJEH6UvSz6fA25VgUIAKapMvZJEEy8MJMALWKE5olV > IZ0iX4iLpCkJufNCdEmuCsbj7L1x5/PoL6kHRZ5depM1yYzNDPTJ5broa04S22az > EpKe8nCxmN2QPIx2J5GxN9L4LoHEZCNjoCYRfkp1Wvz+w+xbz5wkCANVuRs0CFJV > Zq+8q98nVvFr4c+gJoLB7bvxGV7+O5QoTQ63OPGB/5tzrXGh0XACFHO2zGM850n4 > xkl20dQDDhZIT9/ypp1PuI56W+h6y6KPrhd3JZcNAgzAyqJAsAF6qC2OfW6EDF1p > k3oaP5aID6MeGSwaMo15fcSUyzqzmYQ1GBrft3+6zzsWJ2bMSknZZ8uIPm72dgc= > =bFCh > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2014 05:37:05 +0000 > From: "honlue at gmail.com" > Subject: Re: [rpd] Appointment of an Interim CEO for AFRINIC > To: Sunday Folayan , "members-disc >> AfriNIC > Discuss" > Cc: AfrICANN list , AfriNIC Resource Policy > > Message-ID: > < > 1420004225.55898.YahooMailAndroidMobile at web172604.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > > Congrats Pasteese for this important role in at the head of our > organisation we wish you the best in all you do. > Stay blessed. > Stephen. > Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20141231/3a1838b1/attachment-0001.htm > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2014 06:19:13 +0000 (GMT) > From: Kofi Ansa Akufo > Subject: Re: [rpd] Appointment of an Interim CEO for AFRINIC > To: Sunday Folayan > Cc: "members-disc >> AfriNIC Discuss" , > AfrICANN list , rpd > Message-ID: <78151752.1743.1420006753158.JavaMail.zimbra at inet.com.gh> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Dear Mr. Chairman > > Thank you for the update and congratulations to Patrisse for assuming the > interim CEO role. > > What is the nationality of Mr. Patrisse Deesse? Is he a national of > Malawi? > > I would however like clarification of article 17.3 of the AFRINIC Bylaws > which states; > > "The nationals of the country hosting the headquarters of AFRINIC shall be > ineligible for appointment to the office of Chief Executive Officer" > > The current by-laws does not currently define clearly the protocols of > appointing an interim CEO so what framework is currently used to appoint > interim CEO? > > Could persons appointed to interim CEO include nationals of the country > hosting the headquarters of AFRINIC? > > Thank you > > Kofi Ansa Akufo > Technical Consultant > iNET Communications Ltd. > E-mail: kofi.ansa at inet.com.gh > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sunday Folayan" > To: "members-disc >> AfriNIC Discuss" > Cc: "AfrICANN list" , "rpd" > Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2014 9:14:55 AM > Subject: [rpd] Appointment of an Interim CEO for AFRINIC > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Dear Members and Friends, > > As part of the ongoing process to find a successor to our founding > CEO, I am pleased to announce the appointment of Mr Patrisse Deesse at > the Interim Chief Executive Officer of AFRINIC. > > Patrisse joined AFRINIC in September 2007 as Finance and > Administration Manager. He has been involved in all aspects of the > organisation including Finance, Human Resources and Administration. He > worked on and implemented several projects relating to Billing and set > up of the financial processes and procedures. > > Prior to working at AFRINIC, his previous work experience extends over > 30 years at a large international conglomerate in Malawi (one of the > largest private Companies in the country) in accounting, occupying > several senior managerial positions, including Head Office Accountant > and Treasury Manager. He is Exposed to international management > practices and standards in a multicultural environment. He is a Fellow > member of an International Accounting body. > > Until his appointment, Patrisse was the Finance and Accounts Director > of AFRINIC. In his new role, He will lead the AFRINIC team, pending > the appointment and resumption of the substantive Chief Executive. > > The process of the recruiting the Chief Executive Officer Board has > entered the candidates evaluation phase. The Board is pleased with the > progress made so far. > > Congratulations Patrisse. > > Best Regards ... > > Sunday Folayan > Chair, AFRINIC Board > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) > > iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUo4ZPAAoJEH6UvSz6fA25VgUIAKapMvZJEEy8MJMALWKE5olV > IZ0iX4iLpCkJufNCdEmuCsbj7L1x5/PoL6kHRZ5depM1yYzNDPTJ5broa04S22az > EpKe8nCxmN2QPIx2J5GxN9L4LoHEZCNjoCYRfkp1Wvz+w+xbz5wkCANVuRs0CFJV > Zq+8q98nVvFr4c+gJoLB7bvxGV7+O5QoTQ63OPGB/5tzrXGh0XACFHO2zGM850n4 > xkl20dQDDhZIT9/ypp1PuI56W+h6y6KPrhd3JZcNAgzAyqJAsAF6qC2OfW6EDF1p > k3oaP5aID6MeGSwaMo15fcSUyzqzmYQ1GBrft3+6zzsWJ2bMSknZZ8uIPm72dgc= > =bFCh > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > > > > > From: "Sunday Folayan" > To: "members-disc >> AfriNIC Discuss" > Cc: "AfrICANN list" , "rpd" > Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2014 9:14:55 AM > Subject: [rpd] Appointment of an Interim CEO for AFRINIC > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Dear Members and Friends, > > As part of the ongoing process to find a successor to our founding > CEO, I am pleased to announce the appointment of Mr Patrisse Deesse at > the Interim Chief Executive Officer of AFRINIC. > > Patrisse joined AFRINIC in September 2007 as Finance and > Administration Manager. He has been involved in all aspects of the > organisation including Finance, Human Resources and Administration. He > worked on and implemented several projects relating to Billing and set > up of the financial processes and procedures. > > Prior to working at AFRINIC, his previous work experience extends over > 30 years at a large international conglomerate in Malawi (one of the > largest private Companies in the country) in accounting, occupying > several senior managerial positions, including Head Office Accountant > and Treasury Manager. He is Exposed to international management > practices and standards in a multicultural environment. He is a Fellow > member of an International Accounting body. > > Until his appointment, Patrisse was the Finance and Accounts Director > of AFRINIC. In his new role, He will lead the AFRINIC team, pending > the appointment and resumption of the substantive Chief Executive. > > The process of the recruiting the Chief Executive Officer Board has > entered the candidates evaluation phase. The Board is pleased with the > progress made so far. > > Congratulations Patrisse. > > Best Regards ... > > Sunday Folayan > Chair, AFRINIC Board > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) > > iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUo4ZPAAoJEH6UvSz6fA25VgUIAKapMvZJEEy8MJMALWKE5olV > IZ0iX4iLpCkJufNCdEmuCsbj7L1x5/PoL6kHRZ5depM1yYzNDPTJ5broa04S22az > EpKe8nCxmN2QPIx2J5GxN9L4LoHEZCNjoCYRfkp1Wvz+w+xbz5wkCANVuRs0CFJV > Zq+8q98nVvFr4c+gJoLB7bvxGV7+O5QoTQ63OPGB/5tzrXGh0XACFHO2zGM850n4 > xkl20dQDDhZIT9/ypp1PuI56W+h6y6KPrhd3JZcNAgzAyqJAsAF6qC2OfW6EDF1p > k3oaP5aID6MeGSwaMo15fcSUyzqzmYQ1GBrft3+6zzsWJ2bMSknZZ8uIPm72dgc= > =bFCh > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20141231/c7d063e4/attachment.htm > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > > End of rpd Digest, Vol 99, Issue 21 > *********************************** > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dawda.jatta at utg.edu.gm Wed Dec 31 12:51:03 2014 From: dawda.jatta at utg.edu.gm (Dawda Jatta) Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2014 13:51:03 +0100 Subject: [rpd] Re: [AfrICANN-discuss] Appointment of an Interim CEO for AFRINIC In-Reply-To: References: <54A23591.4030800@gmail.com> <54A3864F.3010406@gmail.com> Message-ID: Thank you Mr Folayan for the update. Mr Deesse, all the best in your new assignment. Happy New year everyone! On Dec 31, 2014 12:52 PM, "Ol?vi? Kouami" wrote: > Thank you so much Sundy for this update. > Congratultions to Patrisse. > and HAPPY NEW TO ALL OF US. > Cheers ! > -Olevie- > > > > 2014-12-31 5:14 GMT+00:00 Sunday Folayan : > >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> Dear Members and Friends, >> >> As part of the ongoing process to find a successor to our founding >> CEO, I am pleased to announce the appointment of Mr Patrisse Deesse at >> the Interim Chief Executive Officer of AFRINIC. >> >> Patrisse joined AFRINIC in September 2007 as Finance and >> Administration Manager. He has been involved in all aspects of the >> organisation including Finance, Human Resources and Administration. He >> worked on and implemented several projects relating to Billing and set >> up of the financial processes and procedures. >> >> Prior to working at AFRINIC, his previous work experience extends over >> 30 years at a large international conglomerate in Malawi (one of the >> largest private Companies in the country) in accounting, occupying >> several senior managerial positions, including Head Office Accountant >> and Treasury Manager. He is Exposed to international management >> practices and standards in a multicultural environment. He is a Fellow >> member of an International Accounting body. >> >> Until his appointment, Patrisse was the Finance and Accounts Director >> of AFRINIC. In his new role, He will lead the AFRINIC team, pending >> the appointment and resumption of the substantive Chief Executive. >> >> The process of the recruiting the Chief Executive Officer Board has >> entered the candidates evaluation phase. The Board is pleased with the >> progress made so far. >> >> Congratulations Patrisse. >> >> Best Regards ... >> >> Sunday Folayan >> Chair, AFRINIC Board >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >> Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) >> >> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUo4ZPAAoJEH6UvSz6fA25VgUIAKapMvZJEEy8MJMALWKE5olV >> IZ0iX4iLpCkJufNCdEmuCsbj7L1x5/PoL6kHRZ5depM1yYzNDPTJ5broa04S22az >> EpKe8nCxmN2QPIx2J5GxN9L4LoHEZCNjoCYRfkp1Wvz+w+xbz5wkCANVuRs0CFJV >> Zq+8q98nVvFr4c+gJoLB7bvxGV7+O5QoTQ63OPGB/5tzrXGh0XACFHO2zGM850n4 >> xkl20dQDDhZIT9/ypp1PuI56W+h6y6KPrhd3JZcNAgzAyqJAsAF6qC2OfW6EDF1p >> k3oaP5aID6MeGSwaMo15fcSUyzqzmYQ1GBrft3+6zzsWJ2bMSknZZ8uIPm72dgc= >> =bFCh >> -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >> _______________________________________________ >> AfrICANN mailing list >> AfrICANN at afrinic.net >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/africann >> > > > > -- > Ol?vi? Ayaovi Agbenyo KOUAMI > Responsable du Projet CERGI Education > Directeur-Adjoint de KT Technologies Informatiques sarl > SG de ESTETIC - Association Togolaise des professionnels des TIC ( > http://www.estetic.tg) > ICANN-NPOC Communications Committee Chair (http://www.icann.org/ et > http://www.npoc.org/) > Membre du FOSSFA (www.fossfa.net) et Membre de de Internet Society ( > www.isoc.org) > BP : 851 - T?l.: (228) 90 98 86 50 / (228) 98 43 27 72 > Skype : olevie1 FB : @olivier.kouami.3 Twitter : #oleviek Lom? ? Togo > > > _______________________________________________ > AfrICANN mailing list > AfrICANN at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/africann > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From akeem at futa.edu.ng Wed Dec 31 15:21:45 2014 From: akeem at futa.edu.ng (Akeem MUFUTAU) Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2014 15:21:45 +0000 Subject: [rpd] RE: rpd Digest, Vol 99, Issue 21 In-Reply-To: References: <201412310647.sBV6lA2E002095@mail.afrinic.net> , Message-ID: Hi Kofi, I agree with your submission. We are waiting and watching. I believe this issue must have been considered by the Board of Directors. Thanks Akeem Mufutau Sent from my Windows Phone ________________________________ From: Kofi ANSA AKUFO Sent: 31-Dec-14 12:16 PM To: Akeem MUFUTAU Cc: rpd at afrinic.net; AfriNIC Discuss; afnog; africann at afrinic.net Subject: Re: [rpd] RE: rpd Digest, Vol 99, Issue 21 Well Akeem lets wait for the response from the Chairman to the questions asked in my earlier post. As it stands there is no distinction in bylaws regarding interim, acting or substantive CEO appointment with respect to article 17.3 of the By-laws. Appointment of a national of the country hosting AFRINIC headquarters as CEO be it interim or acting is outrightly against the By-Laws. There is a reason why article 17.3 There situation even gets further murky when the legal council to AFRINIC which advises on the interpretation and of the By-Laws is also a national of the country hosting AFRINIC which exposes a conflict of interest. If the appointed interim CEO is in contradiction of the By-Laws the board of directors should proceed to do the necessary correction. cheers K. On 31 December 2014 at 14:44, Akeem MUFUTAU > wrote: Mr. Chairman Congratulations Mr. Patrisse. I also congratulate the Board for the steps taken so far for appointing an interim CEO for AfriNIC. I want to believe alot of criteria must have considered before choosing Mr. Patrisse. However, the issues of Nationality and protocols for the appointment of an interim CEO should be address now for the future. What does AFRINIC Bylaws say about this? Thank you Akeem O. MUFUTAU Federal University of Technology, Akure, Nigeria Sent from my Windows Phone ________________________________ From: rpd-request at afrinic.net Sent: 31-Dec-14 7:50 AM To: rpd at afrinic.net Subject: rpd Digest, Vol 99, Issue 21 Send rpd mailing list submissions to rpd at afrinic.net To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to rpd-request at afrinic.net You can reach the person managing the list at rpd-owner at afrinic.net When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of rpd digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Appointment of an Interim CEO for AFRINIC (Sunday Folayan) 2. Re: Appointment of an Interim CEO for AFRINIC (honlue at gmail.com) 3. Re: Appointment of an Interim CEO for AFRINIC (Kofi Ansa Akufo) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2014 06:14:55 +0100 From: Sunday Folayan > Subject: [rpd] Appointment of an Interim CEO for AFRINIC To: "members-disc >> AfriNIC Discuss" > Cc: AfrICANN list >, AfriNIC Resource Policy > Message-ID: <54A3864F.3010406 at gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Dear Members and Friends, As part of the ongoing process to find a successor to our founding CEO, I am pleased to announce the appointment of Mr Patrisse Deesse at the Interim Chief Executive Officer of AFRINIC. Patrisse joined AFRINIC in September 2007 as Finance and Administration Manager. He has been involved in all aspects of the organisation including Finance, Human Resources and Administration. He worked on and implemented several projects relating to Billing and set up of the financial processes and procedures. Prior to working at AFRINIC, his previous work experience extends over 30 years at a large international conglomerate in Malawi (one of the largest private Companies in the country) in accounting, occupying several senior managerial positions, including Head Office Accountant and Treasury Manager. He is Exposed to international management practices and standards in a multicultural environment. He is a Fellow member of an International Accounting body. Until his appointment, Patrisse was the Finance and Accounts Director of AFRINIC. In his new role, He will lead the AFRINIC team, pending the appointment and resumption of the substantive Chief Executive. The process of the recruiting the Chief Executive Officer Board has entered the candidates evaluation phase. The Board is pleased with the progress made so far. Congratulations Patrisse. Best Regards ... Sunday Folayan Chair, AFRINIC Board -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUo4ZPAAoJEH6UvSz6fA25VgUIAKapMvZJEEy8MJMALWKE5olV IZ0iX4iLpCkJufNCdEmuCsbj7L1x5/PoL6kHRZ5depM1yYzNDPTJ5broa04S22az EpKe8nCxmN2QPIx2J5GxN9L4LoHEZCNjoCYRfkp1Wvz+w+xbz5wkCANVuRs0CFJV Zq+8q98nVvFr4c+gJoLB7bvxGV7+O5QoTQ63OPGB/5tzrXGh0XACFHO2zGM850n4 xkl20dQDDhZIT9/ypp1PuI56W+h6y6KPrhd3JZcNAgzAyqJAsAF6qC2OfW6EDF1p k3oaP5aID6MeGSwaMo15fcSUyzqzmYQ1GBrft3+6zzsWJ2bMSknZZ8uIPm72dgc= =bFCh -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2014 05:37:05 +0000 From: "honlue at gmail.com" > Subject: Re: [rpd] Appointment of an Interim CEO for AFRINIC To: Sunday Folayan >, "members-disc >> AfriNIC Discuss" > Cc: AfrICANN list >, AfriNIC Resource Policy > Message-ID: <1420004225.55898.YahooMailAndroidMobile at web172604.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Congrats Pasteese for this important role in at the head of our organisation we wish you the best in all you do. Stay blessed. Stephen. Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20141231/3a1838b1/attachment-0001.htm ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2014 06:19:13 +0000 (GMT) From: Kofi Ansa Akufo > Subject: Re: [rpd] Appointment of an Interim CEO for AFRINIC To: Sunday Folayan > Cc: "members-disc >> AfriNIC Discuss" >, AfrICANN list >, rpd > Message-ID: <78151752.1743.1420006753158.JavaMail.zimbra at inet.com.gh> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Dear Mr. Chairman Thank you for the update and congratulations to Patrisse for assuming the interim CEO role. What is the nationality of Mr. Patrisse Deesse? Is he a national of Malawi? I would however like clarification of article 17.3 of the AFRINIC Bylaws which states; "The nationals of the country hosting the headquarters of AFRINIC shall be ineligible for appointment to the office of Chief Executive Officer" The current by-laws does not currently define clearly the protocols of appointing an interim CEO so what framework is currently used to appoint interim CEO? Could persons appointed to interim CEO include nationals of the country hosting the headquarters of AFRINIC? Thank you Kofi Ansa Akufo Technical Consultant iNET Communications Ltd. E-mail: kofi.ansa at inet.com.gh ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sunday Folayan" > To: "members-disc >> AfriNIC Discuss" > Cc: "AfrICANN list" >, "rpd" > Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2014 9:14:55 AM Subject: [rpd] Appointment of an Interim CEO for AFRINIC -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Dear Members and Friends, As part of the ongoing process to find a successor to our founding CEO, I am pleased to announce the appointment of Mr Patrisse Deesse at the Interim Chief Executive Officer of AFRINIC. Patrisse joined AFRINIC in September 2007 as Finance and Administration Manager. He has been involved in all aspects of the organisation including Finance, Human Resources and Administration. He worked on and implemented several projects relating to Billing and set up of the financial processes and procedures. Prior to working at AFRINIC, his previous work experience extends over 30 years at a large international conglomerate in Malawi (one of the largest private Companies in the country) in accounting, occupying several senior managerial positions, including Head Office Accountant and Treasury Manager. He is Exposed to international management practices and standards in a multicultural environment. He is a Fellow member of an International Accounting body. Until his appointment, Patrisse was the Finance and Accounts Director of AFRINIC. In his new role, He will lead the AFRINIC team, pending the appointment and resumption of the substantive Chief Executive. The process of the recruiting the Chief Executive Officer Board has entered the candidates evaluation phase. The Board is pleased with the progress made so far. Congratulations Patrisse. Best Regards ... Sunday Folayan Chair, AFRINIC Board -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUo4ZPAAoJEH6UvSz6fA25VgUIAKapMvZJEEy8MJMALWKE5olV IZ0iX4iLpCkJufNCdEmuCsbj7L1x5/PoL6kHRZ5depM1yYzNDPTJ5broa04S22az EpKe8nCxmN2QPIx2J5GxN9L4LoHEZCNjoCYRfkp1Wvz+w+xbz5wkCANVuRs0CFJV Zq+8q98nVvFr4c+gJoLB7bvxGV7+O5QoTQ63OPGB/5tzrXGh0XACFHO2zGM850n4 xkl20dQDDhZIT9/ypp1PuI56W+h6y6KPrhd3JZcNAgzAyqJAsAF6qC2OfW6EDF1p k3oaP5aID6MeGSwaMo15fcSUyzqzmYQ1GBrft3+6zzsWJ2bMSknZZ8uIPm72dgc= =bFCh -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ rpd mailing list rpd at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd From: "Sunday Folayan" > To: "members-disc >> AfriNIC Discuss" > Cc: "AfrICANN list" >, "rpd" > Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2014 9:14:55 AM Subject: [rpd] Appointment of an Interim CEO for AFRINIC -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Dear Members and Friends, As part of the ongoing process to find a successor to our founding CEO, I am pleased to announce the appointment of Mr Patrisse Deesse at the Interim Chief Executive Officer of AFRINIC. Patrisse joined AFRINIC in September 2007 as Finance and Administration Manager. He has been involved in all aspects of the organisation including Finance, Human Resources and Administration. He worked on and implemented several projects relating to Billing and set up of the financial processes and procedures. Prior to working at AFRINIC, his previous work experience extends over 30 years at a large international conglomerate in Malawi (one of the largest private Companies in the country) in accounting, occupying several senior managerial positions, including Head Office Accountant and Treasury Manager. He is Exposed to international management practices and standards in a multicultural environment. He is a Fellow member of an International Accounting body. Until his appointment, Patrisse was the Finance and Accounts Director of AFRINIC. In his new role, He will lead the AFRINIC team, pending the appointment and resumption of the substantive Chief Executive. The process of the recruiting the Chief Executive Officer Board has entered the candidates evaluation phase. The Board is pleased with the progress made so far. Congratulations Patrisse. Best Regards ... Sunday Folayan Chair, AFRINIC Board -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUo4ZPAAoJEH6UvSz6fA25VgUIAKapMvZJEEy8MJMALWKE5olV IZ0iX4iLpCkJufNCdEmuCsbj7L1x5/PoL6kHRZ5depM1yYzNDPTJ5broa04S22az EpKe8nCxmN2QPIx2J5GxN9L4LoHEZCNjoCYRfkp1Wvz+w+xbz5wkCANVuRs0CFJV Zq+8q98nVvFr4c+gJoLB7bvxGV7+O5QoTQ63OPGB/5tzrXGh0XACFHO2zGM850n4 xkl20dQDDhZIT9/ypp1PuI56W+h6y6KPrhd3JZcNAgzAyqJAsAF6qC2OfW6EDF1p k3oaP5aID6MeGSwaMo15fcSUyzqzmYQ1GBrft3+6zzsWJ2bMSknZZ8uIPm72dgc= =bFCh -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ rpd mailing list rpd at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20141231/c7d063e4/attachment.htm ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ rpd mailing list rpd at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd End of rpd Digest, Vol 99, Issue 21 *********************************** _______________________________________________ rpd mailing list rpd at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sfolayan at gmail.com Wed Dec 31 16:37:43 2014 From: sfolayan at gmail.com (Sunday Folayan) Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2014 17:37:43 +0100 Subject: [rpd] Re: Appointment of an Interim CEO for AFRINIC In-Reply-To: <78151752.1743.1420006753158.JavaMail.zimbra@inet.com.gh> References: <54A23591.4030800@gmail.com> <54A3864F.3010406@gmail.com> <78151752.1743.1420006753158.JavaMail.zimbra@inet.com.gh> Message-ID: <54A42657.10803@gmail.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Dear Colleagues, Further to my earlier email, Mr Patrisse Dissee is from Mauritius. The Search Committee, before presenting the final slate of Interim CEO candidates to the Board, did seek the advise of the AFRINIC Legal Counsel regarding the Interim CEO eligibility around nationality, specifically Article 17.3. The response of the counsel is: Appointment of the Interim CEO As a matter of good practice, where the Board is confronted with an issue which sounds and/or looks confusing, the bylaws in the first place has to be examined to look for a clarification. Where the obscurity still prevails after this first step, the Company?s Act will have to be perused to try and work out a solution. It is according to me important that the board be agreed on the meaning of an ?interim appointment?. The ordinary meaning of ?interim? in the Cassell?s English Dictionary is temporary or provisional. It is now apposite to consider Art 17 of the bylaws generally in the first place and as a second step Art 17.3 specifically. What one can gather from a cursory reading of Art 17 are inter alia the following:- The CEO (1) is appointed by the Board by a majority vote. (2) May be removed by ?.. an affirmative vote of two- thirds of all other directors? (3) Cannot be appointed from the nationals of the country hosting the company?s seat. The ?Art 17.3? prohibition This prohibition was the result of an amendment brought to the bylaws following community approval. [ I have drawn attention to the fact that this prohibition may be struck down on grounds of unconstitutionality by the Supreme Court if ever any Mauritian national challenges same. It does look illogical for a Mauritian not to be able to be employed by a Mauritian Company in whatever capacity. This may also open the door to an enquiry by the Equal Opportunities Commission in the event that a report to that effect is made there.] Be that as it may, it is my considered opinion that the prohibition does not apply to an interim appointment. Why do I say that? (i) The position of ? interim CEO? is not found in the Company?s bylaws. (ii) There is no express provision for the qualifications required of an interim CEO. As such it is for the Board to prescribe such qualifications. (iii) The Board, without infringing the provisions of Art 17.3, may appoint, [without creating any precedence] any one it deemed fit, Mauritian, in house or otherwise, to fill in the interim position. The letter of appointment for that interim recruitment must be rigorously drawn up. Moreover it will not be out of place to make this appointment the subject matter of a formal board resolution[ May be this is already the case] (iv) It is the board which felt the need to have an interim appointment to ensure both a proper handing over and enough time to go through the recruitment process. This context has to be borne in mind. Is there any gender issue? Art 17 of the by laws read together with the Section 5 of the Interpretation and General Clauses Act of 1982 do not create a gender bar. This section reads as follows ? (5) ? General rules of Interpretation- (1)-Words imputing the masculine shall include the feminine and the neuter. The appointment of the CEO as Director. Do note that the Board approves the appointment of the CEO as an employee of the company. But the CEO becomes a member of the Board in an ex-officio capacity by reason of the said appointment. The ambit of Art 13.14. This article deals with the filling of vacancies at Board level where a casual vacancy has occurred. One should not read more than this in this article. It definitely has nothing to do with the appointment of the CEO-interim or other wise. I remain at your disposal for any further clarification you may require". The Board was guided by a deep sense of fairness and of course, its fiduciary responsibility. Thank you very much for your continued care and support for AFRINIC. The Board remains at members disposal for any clarification on its actions. Sincerely, Sunday Folayan Board Chair On 31/12/2014 07:19, Kofi Ansa Akufo wrote: > Dear Mr. Chairman > > Thank you for the update and congratulations to Patrisse for > assuming the interim CEO role. > > What is the nationality of Mr. Patrisse Deesse? Is he a national of > Malawi? > > I would however like clarification of article 17.3 of the AFRINIC > Bylaws which states; > > "The nationals of the country hosting the headquarters of AFRINIC > shall be ineligible for appointment to the office of Chief > Executive Officer" > > The current by-laws does not currently define clearly the protocols > of appointing an interim CEO so what framework is currently used to > appoint interim CEO? > > Could persons appointed to interim CEO include nationals of the > country hosting the headquarters of AFRINIC? > > Thank you > > Kofi Ansa Akufo Technical Consultant iNET Communications Ltd. > E-mail: kofi.ansa at inet.com.gh > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sunday Folayan" > To: "members-disc >> AfriNIC Discuss" > Cc: "AfrICANN list" > , "rpd" Sent: Wednesday, > December 31, 2014 9:14:55 AM Subject: [rpd] Appointment of an > Interim CEO for AFRINIC > > Dear Members and Friends, > > As part of the ongoing process to find a successor to our founding > CEO, I am pleased to announce the appointment of Mr Patrisse > Deesse at the Interim Chief Executive Officer of AFRINIC. > > Patrisse joined AFRINIC in September 2007 as Finance and > Administration Manager. He has been involved in all aspects of the > organisation including Finance, Human Resources and > Administration. He worked on and implemented several projects > relating to Billing and set up of the financial processes and > procedures. > > Prior to working at AFRINIC, his previous work experience extends > over 30 years at a large international conglomerate in Malawi (one > of the largest private Companies in the country) in accounting, > occupying several senior managerial positions, including Head > Office Accountant and Treasury Manager. He is Exposed to > international management practices and standards in a multicultural > environment. He is a Fellow member of an International Accounting > body. > > Until his appointment, Patrisse was the Finance and Accounts > Director of AFRINIC. In his new role, He will lead the AFRINIC > team, pending the appointment and resumption of the substantive > Chief Executive. > > The process of the recruiting the Chief Executive Officer Board > has entered the candidates evaluation phase. The Board is pleased > with the progress made so far. > > Congratulations Patrisse. > > Best Regards ... > > Sunday Folayan Chair, AFRINIC Board > _______________________________________________ rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > > > > > > From: "Sunday Folayan" To: "members-disc >> > AfriNIC Discuss" Cc: "AfrICANN list" > , "rpd" Sent: Wednesday, > December 31, 2014 9:14:55 AM Subject: [rpd] Appointment of an > Interim CEO for AFRINIC > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > > Dear Members and Friends, > > As part of the ongoing process to find a successor to our founding > CEO, I am pleased to announce the appointment of Mr Patrisse > Deesse at the Interim Chief Executive Officer of AFRINIC. > > Patrisse joined AFRINIC in September 2007 as Finance and > Administration Manager. He has been involved in all aspects of the > organisation including Finance, Human Resources and > Administration. He worked on and implemented several projects > relating to Billing and set up of the financial processes and > procedures. > > Prior to working at AFRINIC, his previous work experience extends > over 30 years at a large international conglomerate in Malawi (one > of the largest private Companies in the country) in accounting, > occupying several senior managerial positions, including Head > Office Accountant and Treasury Manager. He is Exposed to > international management practices and standards in a multicultural > environment. He is a Fellow member of an International Accounting > body. > > Until his appointment, Patrisse was the Finance and Accounts > Director of AFRINIC. In his new role, He will lead the AFRINIC > team, pending the appointment and resumption of the substantive > Chief Executive. > > The process of the recruiting the Chief Executive Officer Board has > entered the candidates evaluation phase. The Board is pleased with > the progress made so far. > > Congratulations Patrisse. > > Best Regards ... > > Sunday Folayan Chair, AFRINIC Board -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUpCZXAAoJEH6UvSz6fA25OocH/2F4yfMB7+RLq3shqArxxIM2 dq+GvKSvAtrcdn5RgLg7JM5CF4wEmiL3P9PzyMm3akdh2vrSxBmXzAVehnoIkXde R6EL0JKo25Ou6xDtKnHZTaS0zObcyEpRzFqJUT3d5Q1xiTi42wKPqGsI5ek4FPdr rnJEVE26dzVpUMCabHfbpqOp7KqF4U2usz+9OcZGCpQpkhQhRrEwtwnPTnkiJvq+ fGJAqJgb48mOfWv2STPruUieB05tfd8fsVcDsrfKoDwM8cDWpg4Lo/pnriuDgkE5 DauA3vYKg5hbqbzZaVlKGfyiOTrlL9WvJ7a44XxVSNNArUcHq9GXTcdbZ5cgJPo= =dS4C -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From ademola at ng.lopworks.com Wed Dec 31 17:06:58 2014 From: ademola at ng.lopworks.com (ademola at ng.lopworks.com) Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2014 18:06:58 +0100 Subject: [rpd] Re: Appointment of an Interim CEO for AFRINIC In-Reply-To: <54A42657.10803@gmail.com> References: <54A23591.4030800@gmail.com> <54A3864F.3010406@gmail.com> <78151752.1743.1420006753158.JavaMail.zimbra@inet.com.gh> <54A42657.10803@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20141231170658.5718163.16858.16976@ng.lopworks.com> Dear Sunday,? I have to applaud your fairness in dealing with issues. Keep it up.? Your response is very detailed. Regards, Ademola Osindero CEO/Consulting Director, Lopworks Limited www.lopworks.com ? Original Message ? From: Sunday Folayan Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2014 5:45 PM To: disc >> AfriNIC Discuss Cc: AfrICANN list; rpd >> AfriNIC Resource Policy Subject: [rpd] Re: Appointment of an Interim CEO for AFRINIC -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Dear Colleagues, Further to my earlier email, Mr Patrisse Dissee is from Mauritius. The Search Committee, before presenting the final slate of Interim CEO candidates to the Board, did seek the advise of the AFRINIC Legal Counsel regarding the Interim CEO eligibility around nationality, specifically Article 17.3. The response of the counsel is: Appointment of the Interim CEO As a matter of good practice, where the Board is confronted with an issue which sounds and/or looks confusing, the bylaws in the first place has to be examined to look for a clarification. Where the obscurity still prevails after this first step, the Company?s Act will have to be perused to try and work out a solution. It is according to me important that the board be agreed on the meaning of an ?interim appointment?. The ordinary meaning of ?interim? in the Cassell?s English Dictionary is temporary or provisional. It is now apposite to consider Art 17 of the bylaws generally in the first place and as a second step Art 17.3 specifically. What one can gather from a cursory reading of Art 17 are inter alia the following:- The CEO (1) is appointed by the Board by a majority vote. (2) May be removed by ?.. an affirmative vote of two- thirds of all other directors? (3) Cannot be appointed from the nationals of the country hosting the company?s seat. The ?Art 17.3? prohibition This prohibition was the result of an amendment brought to the bylaws following community approval. [ I have drawn attention to the fact that this prohibition may be struck down on grounds of unconstitutionality by the Supreme Court if ever any Mauritian national challenges same. It does look illogical for a Mauritian not to be able to be employed by a Mauritian Company in whatever capacity. This may also open the door to an enquiry by the Equal Opportunities Commission in the event that a report to that effect is made there.] Be that as it may, it is my considered opinion that the prohibition does not apply to an interim appointment. Why do I say that? (i) The position of ? interim CEO? is not found in the Company?s bylaws. (ii) There is no express provision for the qualifications required of an interim CEO. As such it is for the Board to prescribe such qualifications. (iii) The Board, without infringing the provisions of Art 17.3, may appoint, [without creating any precedence] any one it deemed fit, Mauritian, in house or otherwise, to fill in the interim position. The letter of appointment for that interim recruitment must be rigorously drawn up. Moreover it will not be out of place to make this appointment the subject matter of a formal board resolution[ May be this is already the case] (iv) It is the board which felt the need to have an interim appointment to ensure both a proper handing over and enough time to go through the recruitment process. This context has to be borne in mind. Is there any gender issue? Art 17 of the by laws read together with the Section 5 of the Interpretation and General Clauses Act of 1982 do not create a gender bar. This section reads as follows ? (5) ? General rules of Interpretation- (1)-Words imputing the masculine shall include the feminine and the neuter. The appointment of the CEO as Director. Do note that the Board approves the appointment of the CEO as an employee of the company. But the CEO becomes a member of the Board in an ex-officio capacity by reason of the said appointment. The ambit of Art 13.14. This article deals with the filling of vacancies at Board level where a casual vacancy has occurred. One should not read more than this in this article. It definitely has nothing to do with the appointment of the CEO-interim or other wise. I remain at your disposal for any further clarification you may require". The Board was guided by a deep sense of fairness and of course, its fiduciary responsibility. Thank you very much for your continued care and support for AFRINIC. The Board remains at members disposal for any clarification on its actions. Sincerely, Sunday Folayan Board Chair On 31/12/2014 07:19, Kofi Ansa Akufo wrote: > Dear Mr. Chairman > > Thank you for the update and congratulations to Patrisse for > assuming the interim CEO role. > > What is the nationality of Mr. Patrisse Deesse? Is he a national of > Malawi? > > I would however like clarification of article 17.3 of the AFRINIC > Bylaws which states; > > "The nationals of the country hosting the headquarters of AFRINIC > shall be ineligible for appointment to the office of Chief > Executive Officer" > > The current by-laws does not currently define clearly the protocols > of appointing an interim CEO so what framework is currently used to > appoint interim CEO? > > Could persons appointed to interim CEO include nationals of the > country hosting the headquarters of AFRINIC? > > Thank you > > Kofi Ansa Akufo Technical Consultant iNET Communications Ltd. > E-mail: kofi.ansa at inet.com.gh > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sunday Folayan" > To: "members-disc >> AfriNIC Discuss" > Cc: "AfrICANN list" > , "rpd" Sent: Wednesday, > December 31, 2014 9:14:55 AM Subject: [rpd] Appointment of an > Interim CEO for AFRINIC > > Dear Members and Friends, > > As part of the ongoing process to find a successor to our founding > CEO, I am pleased to announce the appointment of Mr Patrisse > Deesse at the Interim Chief Executive Officer of AFRINIC. > > Patrisse joined AFRINIC in September 2007 as Finance and > Administration Manager. He has been involved in all aspects of the > organisation including Finance, Human Resources and > Administration. He worked on and implemented several projects > relating to Billing and set up of the financial processes and > procedures. > > Prior to working at AFRINIC, his previous work experience extends > over 30 years at a large international conglomerate in Malawi (one > of the largest private Companies in the country) in accounting, > occupying several senior managerial positions, including Head > Office Accountant and Treasury Manager. He is Exposed to > international management practices and standards in a multicultural > environment. He is a Fellow member of an International Accounting > body. > > Until his appointment, Patrisse was the Finance and Accounts > Director of AFRINIC. In his new role, He will lead the AFRINIC > team, pending the appointment and resumption of the substantive > Chief Executive. > > The process of the recruiting the Chief Executive Officer Board > has entered the candidates evaluation phase. The Board is pleased > with the progress made so far. > > Congratulations Patrisse. > > Best Regards ... > > Sunday Folayan Chair, AFRINIC Board > _______________________________________________ rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > > > > > > From: "Sunday Folayan" To: "members-disc >> > AfriNIC Discuss" Cc: "AfrICANN list" > , "rpd" Sent: Wednesday, > December 31, 2014 9:14:55 AM Subject: [rpd] Appointment of an > Interim CEO for AFRINIC > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > > Dear Members and Friends, > > As part of the ongoing process to find a successor to our founding > CEO, I am pleased to announce the appointment of Mr Patrisse > Deesse at the Interim Chief Executive Officer of AFRINIC. > > Patrisse joined AFRINIC in September 2007 as Finance and > Administration Manager. He has been involved in all aspects of the > organisation including Finance, Human Resources and > Administration. He worked on and implemented several projects > relating to Billing and set up of the financial processes and > procedures. > > Prior to working at AFRINIC, his previous work experience extends > over 30 years at a large international conglomerate in Malawi (one > of the largest private Companies in the country) in accounting, > occupying several senior managerial positions, including Head > Office Accountant and Treasury Manager. He is Exposed to > international management practices and standards in a multicultural > environment. He is a Fellow member of an International Accounting > body. > > Until his appointment, Patrisse was the Finance and Accounts > Director of AFRINIC. In his new role, He will lead the AFRINIC > team, pending the appointment and resumption of the substantive > Chief Executive. > > The process of the recruiting the Chief Executive Officer Board has > entered the candidates evaluation phase. The Board is pleased with > the progress made so far. > > Congratulations Patrisse. > > Best Regards ... > > Sunday Folayan Chair, AFRINIC Board -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUpCZXAAoJEH6UvSz6fA25OocH/2F4yfMB7+RLq3shqArxxIM2 dq+GvKSvAtrcdn5RgLg7JM5CF4wEmiL3P9PzyMm3akdh2vrSxBmXzAVehnoIkXde R6EL0JKo25Ou6xDtKnHZTaS0zObcyEpRzFqJUT3d5Q1xiTi42wKPqGsI5ek4FPdr rnJEVE26dzVpUMCabHfbpqOp7KqF4U2usz+9OcZGCpQpkhQhRrEwtwnPTnkiJvq+ fGJAqJgb48mOfWv2STPruUieB05tfd8fsVcDsrfKoDwM8cDWpg4Lo/pnriuDgkE5 DauA3vYKg5hbqbzZaVlKGfyiOTrlL9WvJ7a44XxVSNNArUcHq9GXTcdbZ5cgJPo= =dS4C -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ rpd mailing list rpd at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd From kofi.ansa at gmail.com Wed Dec 31 17:15:09 2014 From: kofi.ansa at gmail.com (Kofi ANSA AKUFO) Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2014 21:15:09 +0400 Subject: [rpd] Re: Appointment of an Interim CEO for AFRINIC In-Reply-To: <54A42657.10803@gmail.com> References: <54A23591.4030800@gmail.com> <54A3864F.3010406@gmail.com> <78151752.1743.1420006753158.JavaMail.zimbra@inet.com.gh> <54A42657.10803@gmail.com> Message-ID: Dear Mr. Chairman and Board of Directors Thank you for the timely response. First of all I understand the legal counsel is a national of the country of the headquarters of AFRINIC which in itself exposes a conflict of interest regarding interpretation of the by-laws. This requires the said legal advisor to be RECUSED ( e.g. excuse oneself from a case because of a possible conflict of interest or lack of impartiality) Secondly regardles of the adjective qualifying the CEO appointment, be it INTERIM, ACTING, SUBSTANTIVE etc there is no distinction with respect to the duties and responsibilities of functions of the CEO role. In other word it is inappropriate for the board of directors to resort to semantics to diferentiate titles to the same role function. At this juncture I will advise the board of directors to reconsider their appointment following the by-laws. This is a critical and sensitive decision which must be addressed IMMEDIATELY to prevent vote of no confidence in the AFRINIC board of directors which may lead to dissolution of the board. Let me use this opportunity to also wish the community Happy, Prosperous, Productive and Accountable New Year - 2015 !!!!!. cheers Kofi Ansa Akufo On 31 December 2014 at 20:37, Sunday Folayan wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Dear Colleagues, > > Further to my earlier email, Mr Patrisse Dissee is from Mauritius. > > The Search Committee, before presenting the final slate of Interim CEO > candidates to the Board, did seek the advise of the AFRINIC Legal > Counsel regarding the Interim CEO eligibility around nationality, > specifically Article 17.3. > > The response of the counsel is: > > > Appointment of the Interim CEO > As a matter of good practice, where the Board is confronted with an > issue which sounds and/or looks confusing, the bylaws in the first > place has to be examined to look for a clarification. Where the > obscurity still prevails after this first step, the Company?s Act will > have to be perused to try and work out a solution. > > It is according to me important that the board be agreed on the > meaning of an ?interim appointment?. > > The ordinary meaning of ?interim? in the Cassell?s English Dictionary > is temporary or provisional. > > It is now apposite to consider Art 17 of the bylaws generally in the > first place and as a second step Art 17.3 specifically. > > What one can gather from a cursory reading of Art 17 are inter alia > the following:- > > The CEO > (1) is appointed by the Board by a majority vote. > (2) May be removed by ?.. an affirmative vote of two- thirds of all > other directors? > (3) Cannot be appointed from the nationals of the country hosting the > company?s seat. > > The ?Art 17.3? prohibition > This prohibition was the result of an amendment brought to the bylaws > following community approval. > > [ I have drawn attention to the fact that this prohibition may be > struck down on grounds of unconstitutionality by the Supreme Court if > ever any Mauritian national challenges same. It does look illogical > for a Mauritian not to be able to be employed by a Mauritian Company > in whatever capacity. This may also open the door to an enquiry by the > Equal Opportunities Commission in the event that a report to that > effect is made there.] > > Be that as it may, it is my considered opinion that the prohibition > does not apply to an interim appointment. Why do I say that? > (i) The position of ? interim CEO? is not found in the Company?s bylaws. > (ii) There is no express provision for the qualifications required of > an interim CEO. As such it is for the Board to prescribe such > qualifications. > (iii) The Board, without infringing the provisions of Art 17.3, may > appoint, [without creating any precedence] any one it deemed fit, > Mauritian, in house or otherwise, to fill in the interim position. The > letter of appointment for that interim recruitment must be rigorously > drawn up. Moreover it will not be out of place to make this > appointment the subject matter of a formal board resolution[ May be > this is already the case] > > (iv) It is the board which felt the need to have an interim > appointment to ensure both a proper handing over and enough time to go > through the recruitment process. This context has to be borne in mind. > > Is there any gender issue? > Art 17 of the by laws read together with the Section 5 of the > Interpretation and General Clauses Act of 1982 do not create a gender bar. > > This section reads as follows ? > (5) ? General rules of Interpretation- > (1)-Words imputing the masculine shall include the feminine and the > neuter. > > The appointment of the CEO as Director. > Do note that the Board approves the appointment of the CEO as an > employee of the company. But the CEO becomes a member of the Board in > an ex-officio capacity by reason of the said appointment. > > The ambit of Art 13.14. > This article deals with the filling of vacancies at Board level where > a casual vacancy has occurred. One should not read more than this in > this article. It definitely has nothing to do with the appointment of > the CEO-interim or other wise. > > I remain at your disposal for any further clarification you may require". > > > The Board was guided by a deep sense of fairness and of course, its > fiduciary responsibility. > > Thank you very much for your continued care and support for AFRINIC. > The Board remains at members disposal for any clarification on its > actions. > > Sincerely, > > Sunday Folayan > Board Chair > > On 31/12/2014 07:19, Kofi Ansa Akufo wrote: > > Dear Mr. Chairman > > > > Thank you for the update and congratulations to Patrisse for > > assuming the interim CEO role. > > > > What is the nationality of Mr. Patrisse Deesse? Is he a national of > > Malawi? > > > > I would however like clarification of article 17.3 of the AFRINIC > > Bylaws which states; > > > > "The nationals of the country hosting the headquarters of AFRINIC > > shall be ineligible for appointment to the office of Chief > > Executive Officer" > > > > The current by-laws does not currently define clearly the protocols > > of appointing an interim CEO so what framework is currently used to > > appoint interim CEO? > > > > Could persons appointed to interim CEO include nationals of the > > country hosting the headquarters of AFRINIC? > > > > Thank you > > > > Kofi Ansa Akufo Technical Consultant iNET Communications Ltd. > > E-mail: kofi.ansa at inet.com.gh > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sunday Folayan" > > To: "members-disc >> AfriNIC Discuss" > > Cc: "AfrICANN list" > > , "rpd" Sent: Wednesday, > > December 31, 2014 9:14:55 AM Subject: [rpd] Appointment of an > > Interim CEO for AFRINIC > > > > Dear Members and Friends, > > > > As part of the ongoing process to find a successor to our founding > > CEO, I am pleased to announce the appointment of Mr Patrisse > > Deesse at the Interim Chief Executive Officer of AFRINIC. > > > > Patrisse joined AFRINIC in September 2007 as Finance and > > Administration Manager. He has been involved in all aspects of the > > organisation including Finance, Human Resources and > > Administration. He worked on and implemented several projects > > relating to Billing and set up of the financial processes and > > procedures. > > > > Prior to working at AFRINIC, his previous work experience extends > > over 30 years at a large international conglomerate in Malawi (one > > of the largest private Companies in the country) in accounting, > > occupying several senior managerial positions, including Head > > Office Accountant and Treasury Manager. He is Exposed to > > international management practices and standards in a multicultural > > environment. He is a Fellow member of an International Accounting > > body. > > > > Until his appointment, Patrisse was the Finance and Accounts > > Director of AFRINIC. In his new role, He will lead the AFRINIC > > team, pending the appointment and resumption of the substantive > > Chief Executive. > > > > The process of the recruiting the Chief Executive Officer Board > > has entered the candidates evaluation phase. The Board is pleased > > with the progress made so far. > > > > Congratulations Patrisse. > > > > Best Regards ... > > > > Sunday Folayan Chair, AFRINIC Board > > _______________________________________________ rpd mailing list > > rpd at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: "Sunday Folayan" To: "members-disc >> > > AfriNIC Discuss" Cc: "AfrICANN list" > > , "rpd" Sent: Wednesday, > > December 31, 2014 9:14:55 AM Subject: [rpd] Appointment of an > > Interim CEO for AFRINIC > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > > > > Dear Members and Friends, > > > > As part of the ongoing process to find a successor to our founding > > CEO, I am pleased to announce the appointment of Mr Patrisse > > Deesse at the Interim Chief Executive Officer of AFRINIC. > > > > Patrisse joined AFRINIC in September 2007 as Finance and > > Administration Manager. He has been involved in all aspects of the > > organisation including Finance, Human Resources and > > Administration. He worked on and implemented several projects > > relating to Billing and set up of the financial processes and > > procedures. > > > > Prior to working at AFRINIC, his previous work experience extends > > over 30 years at a large international conglomerate in Malawi (one > > of the largest private Companies in the country) in accounting, > > occupying several senior managerial positions, including Head > > Office Accountant and Treasury Manager. He is Exposed to > > international management practices and standards in a multicultural > > environment. He is a Fellow member of an International Accounting > > body. > > > > Until his appointment, Patrisse was the Finance and Accounts > > Director of AFRINIC. In his new role, He will lead the AFRINIC > > team, pending the appointment and resumption of the substantive > > Chief Executive. > > > > The process of the recruiting the Chief Executive Officer Board has > > entered the candidates evaluation phase. The Board is pleased with > > the progress made so far. > > > > Congratulations Patrisse. > > > > Best Regards ... > > > > Sunday Folayan > Chair, AFRINIC Board > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) > > iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUpCZXAAoJEH6UvSz6fA25OocH/2F4yfMB7+RLq3shqArxxIM2 > dq+GvKSvAtrcdn5RgLg7JM5CF4wEmiL3P9PzyMm3akdh2vrSxBmXzAVehnoIkXde > R6EL0JKo25Ou6xDtKnHZTaS0zObcyEpRzFqJUT3d5Q1xiTi42wKPqGsI5ek4FPdr > rnJEVE26dzVpUMCabHfbpqOp7KqF4U2usz+9OcZGCpQpkhQhRrEwtwnPTnkiJvq+ > fGJAqJgb48mOfWv2STPruUieB05tfd8fsVcDsrfKoDwM8cDWpg4Lo/pnriuDgkE5 > DauA3vYKg5hbqbzZaVlKGfyiOTrlL9WvJ7a44XxVSNNArUcHq9GXTcdbZ5cgJPo= > =dS4C > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kofi.ansa at gmail.com Wed Dec 31 19:35:39 2014 From: kofi.ansa at gmail.com (Kofi ANSA AKUFO) Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2014 23:35:39 +0400 Subject: [rpd] Re: Appointment of an Interim CEO for AFRINIC In-Reply-To: <54A42657.10803@gmail.com> References: <54A23591.4030800@gmail.com> <54A3864F.3010406@gmail.com> <78151752.1743.1420006753158.JavaMail.zimbra@inet.com.gh> <54A42657.10803@gmail.com> Message-ID: Dear Mr. Chairman and Board of Directors Thank you for the timely response. First of all I understand the legal counsel is a national of the country of the headquarters of AFRINIC which in itself exposes a conflict of interest regarding interpretation of the by-laws. This requires the said legal advisor to be RECUSED ( e.g. excuse oneself from a case because of a possible conflict of interest or lack of impartiality) Secondly regardles of the adjective qualifying the CEO appointment, be it INTERIM, ACTING, SUBSTANTIVE etc there is no distinction with respect to the duties and responsibilities of functions of the CEO role. In other words it is inappropriate for the board of directors to resort to semantics to diferentiate titles to the same role function. Thirdly quoting your reply "This may also open the door to an enquiry by the Equal Opportunities Commission in the event that a report to that effect is made there" - To be fair there are certain positions in organisations situated in a country that are never open to foreigners. Will that not be considered discriminatory? That is not to discourage the importance of recruiting the best candidtate for a position but some laws or decisions are necessary to maintain checks and balance. Again notice I have did NOT use the word Mauritian but rather "the country housing the headquaters of AFRINIC" as defined in clause 17.3 of the By-Laws which can be any of the member countries if headquaters is moved in the future. Until clause 17.3 is challenged and officialy revoked it must not be ASSUMED to be discriminatory nor OVERRIDDEN. At this juncture I will advise the board of directors to reconsider their appointment following the by-laws. This is a critical and sensitive decision which must be addressed IMMEDIATELY to prevent vote of no confidence in the AFRINIC board of directors which may lead to dissolution of the board. Let me use this opportunity to also wish the community Happy, Prosperous, Productive and Accountable New Year - 2015 !!!!!. cheers Kofi Ansa Akufo On 31 December 2014 at 20:37, Sunday Folayan wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Dear Colleagues, > > Further to my earlier email, Mr Patrisse Dissee is from Mauritius. > > The Search Committee, before presenting the final slate of Interim CEO > candidates to the Board, did seek the advise of the AFRINIC Legal > Counsel regarding the Interim CEO eligibility around nationality, > specifically Article 17.3. > > The response of the counsel is: > > > Appointment of the Interim CEO > As a matter of good practice, where the Board is confronted with an > issue which sounds and/or looks confusing, the bylaws in the first > place has to be examined to look for a clarification. Where the > obscurity still prevails after this first step, the Company?s Act will > have to be perused to try and work out a solution. > > It is according to me important that the board be agreed on the > meaning of an ?interim appointment?. > > The ordinary meaning of ?interim? in the Cassell?s English Dictionary > is temporary or provisional. > > It is now apposite to consider Art 17 of the bylaws generally in the > first place and as a second step Art 17.3 specifically. > > What one can gather from a cursory reading of Art 17 are inter alia > the following:- > > The CEO > (1) is appointed by the Board by a majority vote. > (2) May be removed by ?.. an affirmative vote of two- thirds of all > other directors? > (3) Cannot be appointed from the nationals of the country hosting the > company?s seat. > > The ?Art 17.3? prohibition > This prohibition was the result of an amendment brought to the bylaws > following community approval. > > [ I have drawn attention to the fact that this prohibition may be > struck down on grounds of unconstitutionality by the Supreme Court if > ever any Mauritian national challenges same. It does look illogical > for a Mauritian not to be able to be employed by a Mauritian Company > in whatever capacity. This may also open the door to an enquiry by the > Equal Opportunities Commission in the event that a report to that > effect is made there.] > > Be that as it may, it is my considered opinion that the prohibition > does not apply to an interim appointment. Why do I say that? > (i) The position of ? interim CEO? is not found in the Company?s bylaws. > (ii) There is no express provision for the qualifications required of > an interim CEO. As such it is for the Board to prescribe such > qualifications. > (iii) The Board, without infringing the provisions of Art 17.3, may > appoint, [without creating any precedence] any one it deemed fit, > Mauritian, in house or otherwise, to fill in the interim position. The > letter of appointment for that interim recruitment must be rigorously > drawn up. Moreover it will not be out of place to make this > appointment the subject matter of a formal board resolution[ May be > this is already the case] > > (iv) It is the board which felt the need to have an interim > appointment to ensure both a proper handing over and enough time to go > through the recruitment process. This context has to be borne in mind. > > Is there any gender issue? > Art 17 of the by laws read together with the Section 5 of the > Interpretation and General Clauses Act of 1982 do not create a gender bar. > > This section reads as follows ? > (5) ? General rules of Interpretation- > (1)-Words imputing the masculine shall include the feminine and the > neuter. > > The appointment of the CEO as Director. > Do note that the Board approves the appointment of the CEO as an > employee of the company. But the CEO becomes a member of the Board in > an ex-officio capacity by reason of the said appointment. > > The ambit of Art 13.14. > This article deals with the filling of vacancies at Board level where > a casual vacancy has occurred. One should not read more than this in > this article. It definitely has nothing to do with the appointment of > the CEO-interim or other wise. > > I remain at your disposal for any further clarification you may require". > > > The Board was guided by a deep sense of fairness and of course, its > fiduciary responsibility. > > Thank you very much for your continued care and support for AFRINIC. > The Board remains at members disposal for any clarification on its > actions. > > Sincerely, > > Sunday Folayan > Board Chair > > On 31/12/2014 07:19, Kofi Ansa Akufo wrote: > > Dear Mr. Chairman > > > > Thank you for the update and congratulations to Patrisse for > > assuming the interim CEO role. > > > > What is the nationality of Mr. Patrisse Deesse? Is he a national of > > Malawi? > > > > I would however like clarification of article 17.3 of the AFRINIC > > Bylaws which states; > > > > "The nationals of the country hosting the headquarters of AFRINIC > > shall be ineligible for appointment to the office of Chief > > Executive Officer" > > > > The current by-laws does not currently define clearly the protocols > > of appointing an interim CEO so what framework is currently used to > > appoint interim CEO? > > > > Could persons appointed to interim CEO include nationals of the > > country hosting the headquarters of AFRINIC? > > > > Thank you > > > > Kofi Ansa Akufo Technical Consultant iNET Communications Ltd. > > E-mail: kofi.ansa at inet.com.gh > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sunday Folayan" > > To: "members-disc >> AfriNIC Discuss" > > Cc: "AfrICANN list" > > , "rpd" Sent: Wednesday, > > December 31, 2014 9:14:55 AM Subject: [rpd] Appointment of an > > Interim CEO for AFRINIC > > > > Dear Members and Friends, > > > > As part of the ongoing process to find a successor to our founding > > CEO, I am pleased to announce the appointment of Mr Patrisse > > Deesse at the Interim Chief Executive Officer of AFRINIC. > > > > Patrisse joined AFRINIC in September 2007 as Finance and > > Administration Manager. He has been involved in all aspects of the > > organisation including Finance, Human Resources and > > Administration. He worked on and implemented several projects > > relating to Billing and set up of the financial processes and > > procedures. > > > > Prior to working at AFRINIC, his previous work experience extends > > over 30 years at a large international conglomerate in Malawi (one > > of the largest private Companies in the country) in accounting, > > occupying several senior managerial positions, including Head > > Office Accountant and Treasury Manager. He is Exposed to > > international management practices and standards in a multicultural > > environment. He is a Fellow member of an International Accounting > > body. > > > > Until his appointment, Patrisse was the Finance and Accounts > > Director of AFRINIC. In his new role, He will lead the AFRINIC > > team, pending the appointment and resumption of the substantive > > Chief Executive. > > > > The process of the recruiting the Chief Executive Officer Board > > has entered the candidates evaluation phase. The Board is pleased > > with the progress made so far. > > > > Congratulations Patrisse. > > > > Best Regards ... > > > > Sunday Folayan Chair, AFRINIC Board > > _______________________________________________ rpd mailing list > > rpd at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: "Sunday Folayan" To: "members-disc >> > > AfriNIC Discuss" Cc: "AfrICANN list" > > , "rpd" Sent: Wednesday, > > December 31, 2014 9:14:55 AM Subject: [rpd] Appointment of an > > Interim CEO for AFRINIC > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > > > > Dear Members and Friends, > > > > As part of the ongoing process to find a successor to our founding > > CEO, I am pleased to announce the appointment of Mr Patrisse > > Deesse at the Interim Chief Executive Officer of AFRINIC. > > > > Patrisse joined AFRINIC in September 2007 as Finance and > > Administration Manager. He has been involved in all aspects of the > > organisation including Finance, Human Resources and > > Administration. He worked on and implemented several projects > > relating to Billing and set up of the financial processes and > > procedures. > > > > Prior to working at AFRINIC, his previous work experience extends > > over 30 years at a large international conglomerate in Malawi (one > > of the largest private Companies in the country) in accounting, > > occupying several senior managerial positions, including Head > > Office Accountant and Treasury Manager. He is Exposed to > > international management practices and standards in a multicultural > > environment. He is a Fellow member of an International Accounting > > body. > > > > Until his appointment, Patrisse was the Finance and Accounts > > Director of AFRINIC. In his new role, He will lead the AFRINIC > > team, pending the appointment and resumption of the substantive > > Chief Executive. > > > > The process of the recruiting the Chief Executive Officer Board has > > entered the candidates evaluation phase. The Board is pleased with > > the progress made so far. > > > > Congratulations Patrisse. > > > > Best Regards ... > > > > Sunday Folayan > Chair, AFRINIC Board > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) > > iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUpCZXAAoJEH6UvSz6fA25OocH/2F4yfMB7+RLq3shqArxxIM2 > dq+GvKSvAtrcdn5RgLg7JM5CF4wEmiL3P9PzyMm3akdh2vrSxBmXzAVehnoIkXde > R6EL0JKo25Ou6xDtKnHZTaS0zObcyEpRzFqJUT3d5Q1xiTi42wKPqGsI5ek4FPdr > rnJEVE26dzVpUMCabHfbpqOp7KqF4U2usz+9OcZGCpQpkhQhRrEwtwnPTnkiJvq+ > fGJAqJgb48mOfWv2STPruUieB05tfd8fsVcDsrfKoDwM8cDWpg4Lo/pnriuDgkE5 > DauA3vYKg5hbqbzZaVlKGfyiOTrlL9WvJ7a44XxVSNNArUcHq9GXTcdbZ5cgJPo= > =dS4C > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > rpd at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: