Session co-chairs:
- Sami Salih
- Adewole Ajao
|
AGENDA |
|
|
09:00 – 09:15 |
Ernest Byaruhanga, Dewole Ajao |
|
09:15 – 09:45 |
Dewole Ajao |
|
09:45 – 10:15 |
Ernest Byaruhanga |
|
10:15 – 10:30 |
Ernest Byaruhanga |
|
BREAK |
|
|
11:00 – 11:45 |
Amreesh Phokeer, Daniel Shaw |
|
11:45 – 12:30 |
Alain Aina, Omo Oaiya |
|
LUNCH |
|
|
14:00 – 14:45 |
Arnaud Amelina, Marcus Adomey, Jean-Baptiste Millogo |
|
14:45 – 15:30 |
Ernest Byaruhanga (for David Hilario) |
|
BREAK |
|
|
16:00 – 16:45 |
Komi Abel Elitcha, Alain Aina |
|
16:45 – 17:30 |
Dewole Ajao, Sami Salih
Madhvi Gokool |
1. Welcome, Introduction & Agenda Overview
The meeting was called to order at 0930 local time in Lagos. Ernest Byaruhanga (AFRINIC) introduced Sami Salih (Sudan) and Adewole Ajao (Nigeria) - the Policy Development Working Group (PDWG) co-Chairs and invited them to guide all discussions for the day. Community members present were urged to participate actively in the face to face discussions such that decisions on proposals mostly reflect the thoughts of everyone present. The agenda was shared with delegates with no amendments. Participants were reminded to adhere to the ‘code of conduct’ while participating, which demands that discussions be cultured, respectful and be in the best interests of the AFRINIC community at all times.
2. The AFRINIC PDP
The AFRINIC region Policy Development Process was explained to participants, as follows:
- A policy proposal or idea is posted by anyone from anywhere regardless of location, race and other biases, to the This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. mailing list. The author does not have to be an AFRINIC member; all it takes is some interest to be part of the number resource management space.
- All discussions are open, and take place on the This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. mailing list and at face to face meetings. All archives are also available publicly. A proposal must be discussed on the mailing list for at least 4 weeks.
- A proposal is presented at a face-to-face public policy meeting. If there’s consensus, a last call period of at least 2 weeks is initiated. If no consensus at a face-to-face meeting, the proposal goes back to the 4-week minimum discussion period on the list till the next face to face meeting.
- After last call, the proposal is recommended to the Board for ratification. AFRINIC will implement after Board ratification.
Participants were encouraged to subscribe to the This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. mailing list where all discussions take place.
3. Updates from other RIRs
Policy proposals (relevant to our region) that are under discussion at the other RIRs were presented as follows:
- APNIC: “prop-118” removes the requirement for a transfer recipient to demonstrate the need for IPv4 resources to be received.
- RIPE: Policy proposal RIPE-563 (Abuse Contact Management in the RIPE Database) introduces new contact attributes in IPv4, IPv6 and ASN resource objects stored in the RIPE database.
- ARIN: Two proposals were picked from the ARIN list of proposals under discussion: Policy proposal 2017-3 which addresses the problem of inaccurate and out-of-date Point of Contact information for objects stored in the ARIN database – where contact information will be validated annually by ARIN, and any unresponsive point of contact shall be marked as invalid, and Policy Proposal 2017-4 that restricts ARIN to only effect transfers to RIRs that allow bi-directional transfers.
- LACNIC: The interesting proposal from LACNIC is similar to one that was discussed a while back at AFRINIC but was later on withdrawn – which allows for one-way transfers of IPv4 resources from all other RIRs to LACNIC, but not from LACNIC to those RIRs.
The following reactions were noted after the above presentations:
- The two proposals for validating Point-Of-Contact information in the whois database, as well as the abuse contact information for whois data (under discussion at ARIN and RIPE respectively) are important to us too, and an effort should be put in place to have this discussed in our region and perhaps all the other RIRs as a global policy. It was noted that a global policy needs to have a similar problem statement (and policy text) across all regions, and the community is free to coordinate such an effort.
- APNIC’s “no need” policy on inter RIR transfers is dangerous and should not be passed by APNIC.
4. Policy Implementation Update: IPv4 Resource Transfers within the AFRINIC service region.
An update was given about the progress on implementing the policy proposal “IPv4 Resource Transfers within the AFRINIC service region” that was ratified on 26 April 2017. Although it was meant to be implemented by August 2017, the Board issued a waiver to delay implementation to November 2017 on request by AFRINIC staff. It was noted that the proposal will be implemented very soon, pending the Board’s approval of the draft Transfer Agreement as well as the draft Registration Services Agreement.
5. Lame Delegations in the AFRINIC Reverse DNS
The policy proposal “Lame Delegations in the AFRINIC Reverse DNS” was (remotely) presented by its co-authors Daniel Shaw and Amreesh Phookeer. The version discussed is 2.0, submitted on 22nd November 2017. Authors shared the following highlights:
- Version 2.0 is a complete re-write of the proposal text (from version 1.0) for simplicity and clarity – using a simple problem statement and solution, but the intent and problem statement as well as justification for the proposal has not changed.
- rDNS delegations are generated from “domain” whois db objects, but majority are lame and not working, causing broken and unresponsive queries.
- Although some may think that the problem is an operational matter that AFRINIC staff can address without going through the PDP, the staff have no authority to delete or modify members’ whois data, unless expressly permitted by such a policy framework, which is the main purpose of this policy proposal. Implementation details though are left to staff.
It was noted that the proposal allows staff to use reasonable means to contact owners of the problem objects before such objects can be tampered with, but staff could also share an implementation plan as appropriate after ratification.
The proposal received mostly support from participants present.
Co-Chairs’ Decision: Consensus. The proposal will go to “last call”.
6. IPv4 Soft Landing – BIS
Version 6.0 of the Policy Proposal “IPv4 Soft Landing bis” received on 22nd September 2017 was presented by co-authors Alain Aina and Omo Oaiya. Highlights from the discussions:
- The proposal has evolved through 6 versions since its initial introduction in February 2016
- The current soft-landing policy allows up to a /13 for phase 1, makes no special provisions for new (late) entrants and makes no specific imposition to IPv6 deployment.
- This proposal changes the maximum and minimum allocation values for both phases and reserves space to be dedicated for facilitating IPv6 deployment. The maximum allocation size changes to /18 from /13 in phase 1 (while remaining at /22 in phase 2), with the minimum being /24 for both phases.
- The currently reserved /12 for “unforeseen circumstances” is cancelled, and is replaced by a new /12 reserve for “facilitating IPv6 deployment”. Anyone requesting space from this /12 must demonstrate need for that space.
- The /18 was an average reasonable compromise derived from current stats showing distribution of IPv4 space in the AFRINIC region by prefix size.
The proposal received mostly statements of support, with the following reactions:
- For clarity, AFRINIC staff recommended (in the staff assessment) to add the text “..including IDN ccTLDs” to clause 5.4.7.5.3. Authors agreed to the change.
- Authors were advised to remove the reference to XLAT as there can be many transition and translation mechanisms even outside of the IETF.
- The author of the current Soft-Landing policy (as well as the previously withdrawn Soft Landing SD proposal) expressed support for the proposal urging that there was not much time, and that the proposal needs to move fast.
- It was noted that current IPv4 requests in AFRINIC staff queue should be handled retrospectively - such that those received before the policy is active can be evaluated using the new policy.
Authors agreed to the following proposed modifications:
- Incorporate staff suggestion to reword clause 5.4.7.5.3 to "Exceptionally for this IPv6 reserve, Core DNS Service providers as defined in 5.6.4.4.2 will also include ICANN sanctioned African ccTLDs (including IDN ccTLDs) operating in the AFRINIC service region.”
- Remove reference to "464XLAT translators” by rewording the last sentence in 5.4.7.1 to "IPv4 addresses for Core DNS service providers’ dual stack DNS servers and any other translation mechanisms”.
- In 5.4, add a clause stating that the policy will take effect "immediately & will apply retrospectively”.
Co-Chairs’ Decision: Consensus. The proposal will go to “last call”.
7. Internet Number Resources review by AFRINIC
The proposal “Internet Number Resources Review by AFRINIC” was presented by authors Marcus Adomey, Jean Baptiste Millogo and Arnaud Amelina, in its 5th version submitted on 21st October 2017. Highlights from the presentation were:
- Some of the original authors have since recused themselves (Wafa Dahmani, now serves as the Chair of the AFRINIC Governance Committee, and Serge Illunga serves on the AFRINIC Board)
- In order to assure efficient usage of issued resources, Art 4 of the Registration Services Agreement provides a framework for AFRINIC to audit or investigate usage of issued number resources, directs members to co-operate with the investigations and lists measures AFRINIC can take in case of non-compliance.
- This proposal further affirms and strengthens this RSA requirement to introduce a framework through policy for AFRINIC to conduct regular reviews of issued resources and recover any resources where usage is not in compliance with the policy and/or RSA. Recovered policies can be reallocated to other members.
- Authors have worked with AFRINIC legal counsel to ensure that the latest version (5.0) does not contain any clauses that can legally expose AFRINIC.
It was suggested that the removed names of co-authors’ should be reinstated since they have been on the original document despite the evolution of versions and responsibilities. The proposal also needs to ensure that any type and size of member irrespective of resource size (selected at random) can be audited/investigated.
Co-Chairs’ Decision: No Consensus. The proposal returns to the mailing list.
8. Route Aggregation Policy
This proposal was presented by Ernest Byaruhanga in the absence of its original author, David Hilario. The same version submitted on 21 April 2017 was again up for discussion as provided for in the PDP, until it is withdrawn by the author, or expires after not being updated for 12 months.
- Under the current policy text, it is explicitly stated that an LIR has no limits on the amount of additional allocations they can take, if issued individually, it will result in a significant increase of entries in the routing table.
- Proposal allows AFRINIC to issue IPv4 prefixes as contiguous bit boundary ranges, limiting the number of broken prefixes being announced.
- Replaces CPM 5.4.4 with “5.4.4 For any LIR or End User requesting IPv4 address space during the Exhaustion: There is no explicit limit on the number of times an organization may request additional IPv4 address space during the Exhaustion Period. For the sake of routing table conservation, prefixes will be issued as aggregates when an LIR requests multiple additional allocations.”
The staff indicated (in their assessment report of the proposal) that the author’s problem statement is not applicable, as the text proposed is already similar to the text in Clause 5.5.1.4.3 of the CPM.
Co-Chairs’ Decision: No Consensus. The proposal returns to the mailing list.
9. AFRINIC Policy Development Process BIS
The second version of the policy proposal “AFRINIC Policy Development Process bis” received on 09 November 2017 was presented by co-authors Alain Aina, Arnaud Amelina and Komi Abel Elitcha. The original proposal (v1) was posted on 28 April 2017 (but there were already very active discussions held on the rpd list since 2016 about improving the current PDP). The following highlights and points of discussion were noted:
- Approach to consensus and decisions is based on best practices from IETF standards and the PDPs of other RIRs.
- Proposal introduces a major revision to the appeals procedure.
- The Chair + Vice Chair method is now replaced again by 2 chairs.
- New provisions on how the Board adopts policies.
- The document has been split into two, after concerns (at AIS 2017 - Nairobi) that it was too long. Authors will work with staff to merge the content of these documents in order to ensure consistency with the CPM.
- Staff noted that the implementation date should be linked to the date of ratification, not the date of last call.
- Staff also noted that any references to Art 11 of the by-laws (or any other article from a foreign document) should be removed, so that any changes in external documents do not necessitate changing the CPM.
Other comments raised were as follows:
- Authors need to clarify if the appeals committee in this proposal will nullify the existing one should the policy go through. The Board Chair clarified that in their knowledge, such a committee would not need to be reconstituted.
- The PDP needs to explore and provide for co-chairs to attend and chair meetings remotely.
Co-Chairs’ Decision: No Consensus. The proposal returns to the mailing list.
10. Open Policy Microphone
The following issues were discussed during the Open Policy Microphone:
- Policy Implementation Experience Report: This was presented by Madhvi Gokool, and contains feedback to members on certain observations from the RS department while evaluating resource requests – and mostly touches issues that could be addressed through policy to guide RS better in handling resource requests. Unclear interpretations around the allocation requirements for IPv4 and ASN resources were shared, and the community was urged to guide AFRINIC better by improving on current policies.
- It was noted that for future meetings, discussions should start with the Policy Experience Implementation Report, so that all needs to modify the policy can be discussed first.
- It was suggested that Co-Chairs should, moving forward, enumerate open issues on all proposals sent back to the list so that there is no need to discuss already closed matters.
- There is a need to interest more technical people on participating to the PDP.
- Authors of the PDP-bis proposal were advised to include a provision that drops proposals where authors are not present either remotely or on-site to defend their proposals, as it shows a general lack of interest in the proposal by its authors.
11. Discussion Summary
|
Policy Proposal |
Decision |
|
Lame Delegations in the AFRINIC reverse DNS AFPUB-2017-DNS-001-DRAFT02 |
Last Call |
|
IPv4 Soft Landing BIS AFPUB-2016-V4-001-DRAFT07 |
Last Call |
|
Internet Number Resources Review by AFRINIC AFPUB-2016-GEN-001-DRAFT-05 |
Back to List |
|
Route Aggregation Policy AFPUB-2017-V4-002-DRAFT01 |
Back to List |
|
AFRINIC Policy Development Process BIS AFPUB-2017-GEN-002-DRAFT02 |
Back to List |
