WHOIS SEARCH LOGIN TO MYAFRINIC

AFRINIC-24 | PDWG Meeting Minutes

Policy Development Process (PDP)

PDWG Minutes AFRINIC24 Gaborone, Botswana

07 June 2016

Agenda

  1. Welcome & Agenda Presentation
  2. PDP Overview
  3. Policy Update from other RIRs
  4. PDWG Co-Chair Election
  5. Soft Landing - BIS (AFPUB-2016-V4-001-DRAFT-02)
  6. Soft Landing Overhaul (AFPUB-2016-V4-002-DRAFT01)
  7. Number Resources Transfer Policy (AFPUB-2015-GEN-001-DRAFT-01)
  8. Internet Number Resources Audit by AFRINIC (AFPUB-2016-GEN-001-DRAFT01)
  9. IPv4 Resource Transfers within the AFRINIC region (AFPUB-2016-v4-003-DRAFT-01)
  10. Open Policy Microphone
  11. Closing

1.0 Welcome and agenda presentation

Co-Chair welcomed community members present at the face to face policy session as well as those following remotely and stated that this meeting is mandatory within the policy development process as already provided for within the PDP as a policy document.

The draft agenda was shared with the community. Chair stated that two of the proposals to be discussed (agenda items 8 and 9) will not have consensus calls, and that discussions are meant to solicit feedback from the meeting which authors that can use to improve on the policy proposals towards presentation to the community at the next meeting.

2.0 PDP Overview

The AFRINIC Policy Development Process was presented to the community. The following highlights were mentioned during the session:

  • The process is based on three principles of openness, transparency and a bottom-up approach.
  • Anyone from anywhere can author a proposal and participate in its discussion.
  • An author posts a proposal to the policy discussion mailing list, and it’s presented at the face to face meeting after it has been discussed for a minimum of 30 days on the mailing list.
  • If there is consensus on a proposal at a face to face meeting, it goes through a 2-week last call period for any last minute matters that may have come up during the face to face discussions.
  • If no issues to return the proposal to the mailing list, it’s ratified by the board, and consequently implemented by AFRINIC.

3.0 Policy Update from other RIRs

The following highlights were shared by each of the representatives from the respective RIRs:

ARIN: Kevin Blumberg – Vice Chair, ARIN AC:

  • Policies in ARIN region are around the September 2015 IPv4 run-out at ARIN.
  • IPv4 text cleanup: The ARIN policy manual needed to be cleaned of policies that no longer apply post IPv4 run-out.
  • Adjustments to the IPv4 transfer policies to align them with the run-out and related matters by reviewing the needs-based analysis and discussion on transfers within the reserve pool.
  • Provisions for out-of-region use of ARIN resources to allow legitimate in-region organizations to use their resources out of region.

LACNIC: Oscar Robles – Executive Director:

  • Intra RIR transfers are now allowed at LACNIC.
  • Some requirements for acquiring IPv6 space needed to be deprecated from the policy.
  • The initial IPv6 allocation size was changed from /32 to something bigger when justified.
  • There were initiatives to encourage the community to propose policy by sharing ideas on the list and introducing the concept of policy shepherds (composed of former co-chairs) who can help authors in drafting proposals.

RIPE: Marco Schmidt – Policy Development Officer:

  • Soft Landing for IPv4 was activated in 2012, and each RIPE NCC member could only get one /22, but can of course get more through transfers and mergers and acquisitions. 

There was a change to the policy requiring that an allocation from the soft-landing process must be kept for at least 24 months, and cannot be transferred - in order to mitigate some loopholes in the policy.

  • Changes to the transfer policy to allow both IPv4 and ASNs to be transferred.
  • There was discussion to introduce a mandatory abuse contact for all legacy resources.

APNIC: There were no policies under discussion at APNIC.

4.0 PDWG Co-Chair Election

The NOMCOM 2016 chair presented the process for nomination of the PDWG co-chair and the several milestones in the process. He noted that there was only one self-nominee (Sami Salih from Sudan, who is also one of the current co-chairs). Sami was invited to convince the community on why he should be re-elected. In a show of hands, the community unanimously voted Sami for another two years as PDWG co-chair.

5.0 Soft Landing - BIS (AFPUB-2016-V4-001-DRAFT-02)

The authors (Alain Aina and Omo Oaiya) shared the following highlights from this proposal:

  • The suffix “BIS” indicates that this is an update to the current Soft Landing Policy.
  • Allows for equitable distribution of space from the last /8
  • There will be no minimum allocation value set by policy.
  • Sets a pre-condition that requires IPv6 space to be issued prior to requesting IPv4 space from the last /8, as a motivator for IPv6 adoption.
  • During Exhaustion phase 1, the maximum allocation size will be /15 (down from /10 in the current soft landing policy).
  • The current allocation and assignment period (or planning window) will change from 12 months to 8 months.
  • During exhaustion phase 2, a /16 will be reserved for Internet Exchange Points.
  • A /13 will be reserved for yet unforeseen circumstances and situations.

The following feedback was received from the community after the presentation:

  • There’s a need to set the minimum to /24 since anything smaller will be un-routable or filtered when routed.
  • Some felt that the IPv6 requirement should be removed, while others argued for this to remain.
  • The feeling that this proposal discourages IPv6 uptake were shared, since it unnecessarily prolongs the lifetime of IPv4 when other regions have probably adopted IPv6.
  • It was noted by some that the current Soft Landing policy be maintained.
  • There were several statements for and against the proposal.

The co-chairs determined that there was no consensus to push the proposal to last call, and decided to send it back to the mailing list for further discussions.

6.0 Soft Landing Overhaul (AFPUB-2016-V4-002-DRAFT01)

The authors shared the following highlights from the Soft Landing Overhaul proposal:

  • Proposal is an alternative to the Soft Landing Policy (it repeals the current one).
  • Seeks to not extend the IPv4 space lifetime but encourages the current IPv4 pool to be depleted quicker.
  • Reserves space for new entrants, who have been carefully defined in the proposal. New entrants can get a /22 only once.
  • Since the rest of the world has run out of v4 space and Africa is the only place with v4, it puts Africa at a disadvantage as a dumping ground for old and legacy v4 equipment.

Feedback from the community was received as follows:

  • There were statements of opposition by branding the proposal as a “crash landing” proposal, as clearly there is a need to properly manage any scarce resource towards its depletion.
  • It was noted that the policy does not encourage equitable distribution of space given its approach.
  • In line with the objective of developing the internet in Africa, the proposal appears against this objective as it does not cushion the many small African companies that are still growing and would benefit from the slow consumption allowed by the current soft landing policy.
  • Maintaining IPv4 longer when IPv6 is being adopted elsewhere may actually slow down development of the internet on the continent.
  • There were some statements of support and several statements opposing the proposal.

The co-chairs determined that there was no consensus to push the proposal to last call, and decided to send it back to the mailing list for further discussions.

7.0 Number Resources Transfer Policy (AFPUB-2015-GEN-001-DRAFT-01)

Highlights from the author’s presentation:

  • Meant to allow transfer of IPv4 resources from one RIR to AFRINIC and likewise.
  • Allows organizations that cannot get IPv4 space from one RIR to acquire the space from AFRINIC.
  • Aligns AFRINIC policies with other RIRs which allow transfers yet AFRINIC does not.
  • Minimum transfer size of /24
  • A company receiving a transfer cannot transfer the received space within 12 months.

Feedback from the floor was received as follows:

  • Proposal in addition to the soft landing overhaul attempts to take the little resources on the continent out of the continent, and is bad for the community.
  • This proposal does not benefit the growing internet industry in the region.
  • There is a business intent behind this proposal to deplete resources from the continent and sell them outside the continent. The proposal is about monetizing these numbers.
  • Policy is good for the continent as it frees up IPv4 so as to accelerate IPv6 uptake.
  • There should be a proposal to receive IPv4 space from outside, and not to take space out of the continent.
  • The community rejected the proposal in Pointe Noire, and since it has not been updated, it’s a waste of community’s time and should never have been presented.
  • The proposal aims at selling Africa’s IPv4 space on the black market.
  • Author said this proposal also aims at bringing into the continent IP space from other regions when we are out of space.
  • The proposal received many statements against and a few for it.

The co-chairs determined that there was no consensus to push the proposal to last call, and decided to send it back to the mailing list for further discussions.

It was noted that the next two policy proposals will not have consensus calls on them because of the timing of their submission to the rpd mailing list.

8.0 Internet Number Resources Audit by AFRINIC (AFPUB-2016-GEN-001-DRAFT01)

The author made the following highlights:

  • The proposal allows AFRINIC to conduct audits on member’s resources in order to ensure efficient use of resources in compliance with the Registration Services Agreement and respective policies.
  • Audits cover all types of resources.
  • Audits could be random, based on an incompliance trigger or triggered by a whistle-blower.
  • In case of non-compliance, AFRINIC will revoke the contract with the member and can take back resources held by the member.
  • The audited member has the option to appeal the process if unsatisfied with it.
  • For transparency, the entire audit process shall be published on the AFRINIC website.

Comments received from the floor:

  • The audit process is not practical and will put tremendous constraint on AFRINIC staff.
  • The process of reporting should be transparent, otherwise, one entity could trigger audits of competitors at random, which will be a waste of time for AFRINIC and all parties involved.
  • Proposal looks more like an operational document to ensure compliance, and should not be a policy.
  • The proposal is OK and ensures compliance, and should not be an operating guideline. AFRINIC staff are competent enough to handle the process and should be given a chance to do it.
  • It was clarified that AFRINIC already does audits whenever members request subsequent allocations and that it’s not necessary to force AFRINIC to conduct additional audits.
  • The community can recommend guidance to AFRINIC for different circumstances under which resources can be recovered.
  • The RSA already provides for audits by default.

9.0 IPv4 Resource Transfers within the AFRINIC region (AFPUB-2016-v4-003-DRAFT-01)

Authors shared the following highlights from the proposal:

  • Proposal aims to meet needs of late resource requesters when we hit soft landing, or when resources have been exhausted, such that there is a possibility for one AFRINIC member to transfer resources to another AFRINIC member.
  • Policy will be effective from Phase 2 of Soft Landing.
  • Source entities should not have received a transfer within 12 months of requesting one.
  • The recipient must satisfy a needs assessment by AFRINIC, based on a 12-months need of the resources.
  • Authors hinted at changing 3.2.2 for more clarity.
  • Authors requested that all comments be sent to the mailing list as the proposal is still evolving.

Comments received from meeting:

  • The proposal complements the transfer proposal earlier presented and is relevant.
  • Transfers will happen whether we like it or not, it’s better that there be a policy that allows RIRs to record transfers, whichever the types of transfers are, and whichever the policy is.
  • There were several statements in support of the intent of the policy.

10.0 Open Policy Microphone

The following matters were discussed:

  • A consensus building document that guides co-chairs on the process through which consensus is determined was shared.
  • The election process for co-chair earlier in the morning had some procedural errors. NomCom should have presented the nominations process, and the elections committee should have conducted the election, instead of NomCom doing both as was the case.
  • There was a concern regarding what will happen if Seun (one of the co-chairs) who is running for board, is chosen in the board election tomorrow. There may be an open co-chair seat again.
  • Authors need to clearly articulate how the policy proposals benefit the community so that constructive discussions on the proposals can take place.
  • A question was asked on when a proposal can be withdrawn. It was clarified that when there’s no update on a proposal in 12 months, it expires and automatically is withdrawn from the PDP. An author can also withdraw it directly.
  • Seun indicated that as he is on the slate for Board election, he must step down to allow a new co-chair to lead the PDWG in case he gets elected the next day.
  • The elections committee conducted a call for nominations for the person that will complete Seun’s remaining one-year term. Christopher Njeru and Dewole Ajao were nominated for the seat. After a short speech from each of the candidates and voting by show of hands, Dewole Ajao was voted to complete the remainder of Seun’s term.

11.0 Closing

The meeting was adjourned at 1850 local time in Gaborone.