AFRINIC · RIR Watchdog
AFRINIC Whois Database Update Process
Start here for the proposal-by-proposal record: what changed, why it mattered, who argued for what, how positions evolved, what was decided, and where the evidence still has gaps.
Source facts
- Policy ID
- AFPUB-2014-GEN-001
- RIR
- AFRINIC
- Official status
- Withdrawn
- Normalized status
- Withdrawn
- Introduced
- May 15, 2014
- Last source update
- Oct 12, 2026
- Coverage
- Partial
Who actually shaped the debate?
Policy evolution
source_comparison_limit · Both captures identify draft-01. The earlier capture is only an archive placeholder, while the original RPD announcement supplies the proposal text. This is recovery of missing evidence, not evidence of a policy amendment; no substantive policy change can be inferred by comparing the empty wrapper with the recovered draft.
Source facts −
📦 Archived Content — This page was originally hosted at 1133-afrinic-whois-database-update-process-afpub-2014-gen-001-draft-01 and has been preserved locally. This page references content from the AFRINIC archive.Source facts ↗
Source facts +
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 HountomeySource facts ↗
annual_validation_and_holder_duties · The draft strengthens annual validation from staff 'should' language to a mandatory check. It also directly requires object owners to check and update at least annually and organizations to update records when requesting resources or services. These are proposed obligations; the withdrawn draft does not itself establish current enforceability.
Source facts −
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.Source facts ↗
Source facts +
Furthermore, at least once a year or at the renewal of resources, AFRINIC staff must conduct a whois database information validation. 3) 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.Source facts ↗
response_and_reminder_deadlines · Draft-01 allows one month for an email response. Draft-02 specifies 30 days and adds a reminder on day 15 warning that a further 15 days without response leads to a grace period.
Source facts −
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.Source facts ↗
Source facts +
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.Source facts ↗
bounced_contact_followup · Draft-01 waits one month before alternative contact attempts, including for bounced mail. Draft-02 requires immediate attempts through alternative means when an email is returned as undeliverable.
Source facts −
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.Source facts ↗
Source facts +
For contacts whose email has bounced back for "Non Delivery", AFRINIC Staff will immediately begin attempting to reach organizations via alternative means of communication.Source facts ↗
grace_period_timing · Draft-01 refers to another month before marking an unresponsive record invalid. Draft-02 defines a grace period starting 31 days after first contact and lasting 30 days, during which staff continue trying to reach members through available communication tools.
Source facts −
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.Source facts ↗
Source facts +
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 points of contact for member organizations who have not confirmed the accuracy of their records.Source facts ↗
invalidation_and_publication · Invalidation is tied to the end of the grace period, 61 days after initial contact. Publication changes from a discretionary report about resources with invalid contacts to a required list of non-responsive contacts and associated objects, published within 24 hours.
Source facts −
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.Source facts ↗
Source facts +
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.Source facts ↗
rectification_before_expiry · Draft-02 adds a procedure to remove a non-expired invalid resource record from the public website after its owner confirms the update in writing. AFRINIC must acknowledge within 72 hours; withdrawal should follow within 72 hours of that acknowledgement. Draft-01's publication-and-reclamation sequence contains no corresponding removal timetable.
Source facts −
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.Source facts ↗
Source facts +
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.Source facts ↗
expiry_and_reclamation · At the one-year endpoint, Draft-01 permits reclamation if inaccurate data and non-response persist. Draft-02 requires marking the resource expired and reclaiming its associated number resources into AFRINIC's pool.
Source facts −
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.Source facts ↗
Source facts +
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 associated number resources back. The resource will go back to AFRINIC's pool.Source facts ↗
reapplication_after_expiry · Draft-02 adds a new application and associated fees when an organization returns after expiry, without a guarantee of receiving the same resources. Reclaimed resources are removed from the public list. Draft-01's reclamation clause does not specify these consequences.
Source facts −
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.Source facts ↗
Source facts +
If the Organization contacts AFRINIC after the expiration, a new application with associated fees will be required with no guarantee that the Organization will keep the same resource. Once the resource is reclaimed, it will be removed from the publicly available website.Source facts ↗
refunds_after_reclamation · Draft-02 adds an explicit no-refund provision when an expired record's resources return to AFRINIC's pool. The old one-year reclamation provision does not specify this financial consequence.
Source facts −
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.Source facts ↗
Source facts +
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.Source facts ↗
time_counting · Draft-02 defines literal calendar time rather than working days, daily start and expiry times, and the time zone of AFRINIC's registered address. This replaces the earlier draft's unqualified month-based timing with an explicit counting convention.
Source facts −
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.Source facts ↗
Source facts +
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.Source facts ↗
Debate timeline
Entities
- Discussion messages1First activityDec 5, 2014Last activityDec 5, 2014First explicit stanceUnknownLatest explicit stanceUnknownStance changes0Viewpoint consistencyInsufficient evidence to assess consistencyOther policies13Freshness: Stale
Last research attempt: Sep 25, 2026
Identity verified: Sep 25, 2026
Federal University Oye-Ekiti · Historical Job Principal Network Engineer Organisation Federal University Oye-Ekiti
meeting.afrinic.netVerified public profiles
- Discussion messages
- 1
- First activity
- Dec 5, 2014
- Last activity
- Dec 5, 2014
- First explicit stance
- Unknown
- Latest explicit stance
- Unknown
- Stance changes
- 0
- Viewpoint consistency
- Insufficient evidence to assess consistency
- Other policies
- 13
First explicit stance: Unknown → Latest explicit stance: Unknown · Stance changes: 0
Viewpoint consistency: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency
Seun Ojedeji's available statements mainly document policy-development procedure rather than personal positions on the merits of proposals. His two February 2015 explanations consistently distinguish ordinary IPv4 allocation requirements from an anycast purpose. His questions about out-of-region use do not establish a settled position, and the co-chairs' differing consensus reports concern different proposals and stages. The record therefore supports a narrow finding of consistent operational interpretation, but not a general verdict on his substantive views across these policies.
Assessment: Consistent · The two February 2015 explanations are compatible: an ordinary IPv4 application must meet the usual utilization requirements, and anycast may then be its intended use within the policy and bylaws. The later agreement clarifies the earlier distinction rather than reversing it.
Conditions: This finding concerns the interpretation of ordinary allocation requirements, not support for a particular policy amendment. · Only the two supplied February 2015 statements establish this continuity.
Correct but at that point, it's a normal v4 application with all the utilization requirements.
Agree; so long as the normal v4 allocation requirements are meet which includes utilization requirements, the purpose can then be anycast or anything within the limitation of the policy/bylaw ;)
Assessment: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency · The July 2013 reminder keeps No Reverse Unless Assigned in last call and sets out how comments will be assessed. It gives no personal position on the proposal's merits and no second substantive statement with which to assess continuity.
Conditions: The announced future assessment and communication date are plans, not evidence of a decision already made.
All comments that were received from the Public policy meeting (AFRINIC18, Lusaka) and up until 31st July 2013 will be evaluated by the co-chairs to determine the final state of this policy proposal, which will be communicated to the PDWG on 2013-08-08 by the co-chairs.
Anycast resource assignments in the AFRINIC region
Assessment: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency · The sequence reports meeting consensus and last call, then an unopposed minor change and a forthcoming recommendation, and finally a draft awaiting Board ratification. These are compatible stages of a process. They do not establish a sustained personal stance on the anycast proposal's substantive terms.
Conditions: A report of meeting consensus or an intended recommendation is not proof of Board ratification. · The suggestion to propose an update through the normal PDP is procedural advice, not endorsement of that update.
The co-chairs will soon formally recommend ratification of this policy proposal to the AFRINIC Board.
There is a related policy awaiting board ratification which you may want to look at and then propose an update through following the normal PDP (policy development process)
Resource Reservations for Internet Exchange Points
Assessment: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency · The December 2014 report of no consensus and the later AFRINIC-22 agenda both place IXP resource reservations in continuing discussion. Neither states Ojedeji's personal position, so they cannot establish consistency or inconsistency on the proposed reservation rules.
Conditions: No consensus at one meeting is not permanent rejection; scheduling further discussion is not endorsement.
Resource Reservation for Internet Exchange Points (AFPUB-2014-GEN-004-DRAFT-01)
Number Resources Transfer Policy (AFPUB-2015-GEN-001-DRAFT-01)
Assessment: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency · The two January 2016 messages report the same AFRINIC23 outcome for the transfer proposal; the second explicitly repairs formatting. They are not two independent personal opinions and provide no basis for a verdict on Ojedeji's substantive transfer-policy stance.
Conditions: The reported outcome is no consensus and a return to the mailing list, not personal opposition or the policy's later status.
Number Resources Transfer Policy (AFPUB-2015-GEN-001-DRAFT-01) No Consensus ? back to *rpd *list
Initial attempt got out of format. trying again.
Number Resources Transfer Policy (AFPUB-2015-GEN-001-DRAFT-01) No Consensus ? back to *rpd *list
AFRINIC Whois Database Update Process
Assessment: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency · The only supplied statement reports that the author withdrew the Whois Database Update Process proposal. Reporting another person's withdrawal does not disclose Ojedeji's own view of the proposal or a change in that view.
Conditions: This is a co-chairs' meeting-status announcement, not the sender withdrawing his own support.
Out-Of-Region Use of AFRINIC Internet Number Resources
Assessment: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency · The October 2014 messages question how the proposal would affect expansion in Africa and the resource needs of offshore offices and points of presence. Later messages announce discussion, a revised draft and no-consensus outcomes. The questions do not settle a personal position, and the procedural announcements cannot supply one or demonstrate its reversal.
Conditions: The no-consensus reports describe their respective meetings and must not be treated as the policy's current status. · The May 2015 update notice contains an inconsistent policy identifier; its title, author and out-of-region-use link identify its subject without resolving that documentary error.
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?
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]
Draft Policy name: Out-Of-Region Use of AFRINIC Internet Number Resources Unique identifier: AFPUB-2014-GEN-001-DRAFT-03
Out-Of-Region Use of AFRINIC Internet Number Resources (AFPUB-2014-GEN-002-DRAFT-03) No Consensus ? back to *rpd *list
Assessment: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency · Reporting no consensus for Service Guidelines and later placing it on the meeting agenda are compatible procedural acts. Neither provides a substantive personal position to compare over time.
Conditions: Continuing the discussion does not imply support, and the earlier no-consensus report does not imply permanent rejection.
AFRINIC Service Guidelines (AFPUB-2014-GEN-005-DRAFT-01)
AFRINIC Board statement on resource allocation — 25 November 2014
Assessment: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency · The December 2014 reply invites the other participant to turn a suggested protection into a written policy proposal. That single invitation establishes a preference for using the policy process, but not endorsement of a particular allocation threshold or enough evidence to assess change over time.
Conditions: Do not infer support for a specific /18 threshold from the invitation to draft a policy.
I have spotted a possible policy item ;) could you consider writing a policy that achieve what you've mentioned above?
Anycast resource assignments in the AFRINIC region · Out-Of-Region Use of AFRINIC Internet Number Resources
Assessment: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency · The same co-chairs' announcement reports consensus and last call for anycast while returning out-of-region use to the list without consensus. Different outcomes for different proposals do not demonstrate contradictory personal positions: the announcement records the meeting's conclusions, not Ojedeji's votes or a common substantive rule applied inconsistently.
Conditions: Assess personal consistency only from attributable substantive positions, preserving the distinction between a chair's procedural reporting and individual advocacy.
- Dec 5, 2014 · Procedural or neutral
[rpd] Policy Proposals and Minutes of the PDP Meeting in Mauritius - Status
Validated evidence is unavailable.
Source facts ↗
Per-policy stance timelines:AFPUB-2012-DNS-001 · Unknown · Insufficient evidence to assess consistencyAFPUB-2012-GEN-001 · Unknown · No explicit position statedAFPUB-2012-V4-001 · Unknown · ConsistentAFPUB-2013-GEN-001 · Unknown · No explicit position statedAFPUB-2013-V4-001 · Unknown · No explicit position statedAFPUB-2013-V4-002 · Unknown · No explicit position statedAFPUB-2013-V6-001 · Unknown · No explicit position statedAFPUB-2014-GEN-001 · Unknown · Insufficient evidence to assess consistencyafpub-2014-gen-002 · Unknown · Insufficient evidence to assess consistencyAFPUB-2014-GEN-003 · Unknown · Insufficient evidence to assess consistencyafpub-2014-gen-004 · Unknown · Insufficient evidence to assess consistencyAFPUB-2014-GEN-005 · Unknown · Insufficient evidence to assess consistencyAFPUB-2015-GEN-001 · Unknown · Insufficient evidence to assess consistencyAFRINIC Board statement on resource allocation — 25 November 2014 · Unknown · Insufficient evidence to assess consistencyTotal policy messages: 91
- Adam Nelson · Identity unresolvedDiscussion messages1First activityNov 7, 2014Last activityNov 7, 2014First explicit stanceUnknownLatest explicit stanceUnknownStance changes0Viewpoint consistencyNo explicit position statedOther policies4
- Jean-Robert Hountomey · Identity unresolvedDiscussion messages0First activityUnknownLast activityUnknownFirst explicit stanceUnknownLatest explicit stanceUnknownStance changes0Viewpoint consistencyNo explicit position statedOther policies1
Sources and coverage
Official policy sources
Public discussion archives
- afrinic-rpd
- Earliest captured
- Aug 4, 2004
- Latest captured
- Aug 25, 2026
- Last refresh
- Oct 13, 2026
- Coverage
- Source coverage is incomplete.
- Loading
- 13,116
- Known gaps
- 0
- www.afrinic.net
- afrinic-africann
- Earliest captured
- Aug 3, 2026
- Latest captured
- Oct 2, 2026
- Last refresh
- Oct 13, 2026
- Coverage
- Source coverage is incomplete.
- Loading
- 2,581
- Known gaps
- 0
- afrinic-afripv6-discuss
- Earliest captured
- Aug 17, 2015
- Latest captured
- Sep 18, 2026
- Last refresh
- Oct 13, 2026
- Coverage
- Source coverage is incomplete.
- Loading
- 2,538
- Known gaps
- 0
- afrinic-announce
- Earliest captured
- Aug 18, 2015
- Latest captured
- Sep 18, 2026
- Last refresh
- Oct 13, 2026
- Coverage
- Source coverage is incomplete.
- Loading
- 2,497
- Known gaps
- 0
- afrinic-community-discuss
- Earliest captured
- Sep 11, 2015
- Latest captured
- Dec 29, 2019
- Last refresh
- Oct 13, 2026
- Coverage
- Source coverage is incomplete.
- Loading
- 3,127
- Known gaps
- 0
- afrinic-dbwg
- Earliest captured
- Aug 4, 2026
- Latest captured
- Oct 6, 2026
- Last refresh
- Oct 13, 2026
- Coverage
- Source coverage is incomplete.
- Loading
- 925
- Known gaps
- 0
- afrinic-dnssec-ops
- Earliest captured
- Aug 18, 2015
- Latest captured
- Dec 1, 2016
- Last refresh
- Oct 13, 2026
- Coverage
- Source coverage is incomplete.
- Loading
- 307
- Known gaps
- 0
- afrinic-icp2-review
- Earliest captured
- Apr 10, 2025
- Latest captured
- Nov 10, 2025
- Last refresh
- Oct 13, 2026
- Coverage
- Source coverage is incomplete.
- Loading
- 0
- Known gaps
- 0
- afrinic-measurement-wg
- Earliest captured
- Feb 1, 2018
- Latest captured
- Nov 22, 2024
- Last refresh
- Oct 13, 2026
- Coverage
- Source coverage is incomplete.
- Loading
- 138
- Known gaps
- 0
- afrinic-mira
- Earliest captured
- Nov 17, 2020
- Latest captured
- Nov 22, 2024
- Last refresh
- Oct 13, 2026
- Coverage
- Source coverage is incomplete.
- Loading
- 0
- Known gaps
- 0
- afrinic-ois-wg
- Earliest captured
- Sep 9, 2021
- Latest captured
- Nov 22, 2024
- Last refresh
- Oct 13, 2026
- Coverage
- Source coverage is incomplete.
- Loading
- 0
- Known gaps
- 0
- afrinic-rpki-discuss
- Earliest captured
- Jan 15, 2016
- Latest captured
- Apr 23, 2026
- Last refresh
- Oct 13, 2026
- Coverage
- Source coverage is incomplete.
- Loading
- 154
- Known gaps
- 0
Coverage
Partial
Earliest captured: Aug 4, 2004
Latest captured: Oct 13, 2026
Freshness
Known gaps
- www.afrinic.net: Source coverage is incomplete. · The source boundary has not yet been reached.
- www.afrinic.net: Source coverage is incomplete. · The source boundary has not yet been reached.
- afrinic-rpd: Source coverage is incomplete. · The source boundary has not yet been reached.
- www.afrinic.net: Source coverage is incomplete. · The source boundary has not yet been reached.
- afrinic-africann: Source coverage is incomplete. · The source boundary has not yet been reached.
- afrinic-afripv6-discuss: Source coverage is incomplete. · The source boundary has not yet been reached.
- afrinic-announce: Source coverage is incomplete. · The source boundary has not yet been reached.
- afrinic-community-discuss: Source coverage is incomplete. · The source boundary has not yet been reached.
- afrinic-dbwg: Source coverage is incomplete. · The source boundary has not yet been reached.
- afrinic-dnssec-ops: Source coverage is incomplete. · The source boundary has not yet been reached.
- afrinic-measurement-wg: Source coverage is incomplete. · The source boundary has not yet been reached.
- afrinic-rpki-discuss: Source coverage is incomplete. · The source boundary has not yet been reached.