AFRINIC · RIR Watchdog
AFPUB-2018-GEN-001-DRAFT07
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-2018-GEN-001-DRAFT07
- RIR
- AFRINIC
- Official status
- Ratified
- Normalized status
- Accepted
- Introduced
- May 17, 2021
- Last source update
- Oct 10, 2026
- Coverage
- Partial
Who actually shaped the debate?
Policy evolution
source representation · The retained source changes from a title-only Draft 1 capture to the full Draft 1 proposal and staff assessment. The comparison establishes added source detail, not a policy amendment between two policy texts.
Source facts −
AFPUB-2018-GEN-001-DRAFT01: Abuse Contact Policy Update (Draft 1) ArchivedSource facts ↗
source representation · The retained source changes from a title-only Draft 2 capture to a full proposal page containing the draft text, revision history and staff assessment. The newly available detail should be treated as source enrichment rather than an inferred policy change.
Source facts −
AFPUB-2018-GEN-001-DRAFT02: Abuse Contact Policy Update (Draft 2) ArchivedSource facts ↗
Coverage of directly assigned resources · Draft 3 explicitly applies the mandatory abuse-c contact to resources allocated or assigned by AFRINIC; Draft 2's operative wording referred to allocated resources. This clarifies the text's coverage of direct assignments rather than establishing that the proposal had already been implemented.
Source facts −
All resources allocated by AFRINIC must include a mandatory "abuse-c" contact attribute (abuse contact) in their corresponding WHOIS entry, with at least one valid, monitored and actively managed email inbox (abuse-mailbox) intended for receiving manual or automatic reports regarding abusive behavior, security issues, and the like.Source facts ↗
Source facts +
Resources allocated/assigned by AfriNIC must include a mandatory "abuse-c" contact attribute (abuse contact) in their corresponding WHOIS entry, with at least one valid, monitored and actively managed email inbox (abuse-mailbox) intended for receiving manual or automatic reports regarding abusive behavior, security issues, and the like.Source facts ↗
Response to failed abuse-contact validation · Draft 2 prescribed initial account blocking, except for contact updates, and release of the block after revalidation. Draft 3 replaces that fixed sequence with further follow-up, warnings and blocking of certain services at AFRINIC's discretion under the relevant policies and procedures. The new wording does not identify which services must be blocked.
Source facts −
Lack of compliance will initially lead to the blocking of that account’s access to its resources, except for updating the abuse-c/abuse-mailbox. The account blocking will be released upon re-validation of the abuse-c/abuse-mailbox. AFRINIC will do a more exhaustive follow-up, in accordance with the relevant AFRINIC policies/procedures, especially those related to revocation of resources.Source facts ↗
Source facts +
Lack of compliance will lead to a more exhaustive follow-up, warnings and blocking of certain services, at AFRINIC discretion, in accordance with the relevant policies/procedures.Source facts ↗
Escalation mechanism in section 8.6 · Draft 3 retains escalation for fraudulent validation or inadequate abuse responses, but states the operative requirement as a method enabling revalidation. Draft 2 placed an example mailbox and possible AFRINIC intermediation or resource-revocation procedures in section 8.6 itself; Draft 3 moves implementation examples and those further actions to the additional-information procedure. This is a change in how the requirement is specified, not evidence that escalation ceased to exist.
Source facts −
an escalation method should be provided (for example, a mailbox such as " This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. "), thus allowing for a re-validation (according to section 8.5 above) and even the intermediation by AFRINIC and, where appropriate, the application of the relevant policies/procedures, especially those related to revocation of resources. 3.2 Additional InformationSource facts ↗
Source facts +
8.6 Escalation to AFRINIC In order to allow escalation of fraudulent behavior (for example, an "abuse-mailbox" that only replies to AFRINIC's emails, or to messages with a specific subject or content), or failure to comply with the remaining aspects of this policy (incorrect or lack of response to cases of abuse), an escalation method should be provided, thus allowing for a re-validation (according to section 8.5 above). 3.2 Additional information:Source facts ↗
Time limits in the illustrative validation procedure · The worked example in Draft 3 extends validation-code validity from two working days to 15 working days and the subsequent correction period from three business days to 15 business days. These changes belong to the example procedure; the section 8.4 objectives already specified initial and escalation periods of no more than 15 days in both drafts.
Source facts −
The alphanumeric code will only be valid for a maximum of two working days. If the code is not entered within that time, the system will mark the "abuse-c" as "temporarily invalid” and will alert AFRINIC staff so that they can initiate a personalized follow-up with the LIR. If no reply is received confirming that the situation has been corrected, after an additional period of three business days, the "abuse-c" will be permanently marked as "invalid". The validation processSource facts ↗
Source facts +
The alphanumeric code will only be valid for a maximum of 15 working days. If the code is not entered within that time, the system will mark the "abuse-c" as "temporarily invalid” and will alert AFRINIC staff so that they can initiate a personalized follow-up with the resource-holder. If no reply is received confirming that the situation has been corrected, after an additional period of 15 business days, the "abuse-c" will be permanently marked as "invalid". AFRINIC must ensureSource facts ↗
Automation and human validation · Draft 3 changes the validation objective from avoiding automated processing to avoiding exclusively automated processing. The distinction allows automation alongside the retained requirement for a person to understand the procedure and monitor the abuse mailbox.
Source facts −
2) Avoid automated processing. 3) Confirm that the person performing the validation understands the procedure and the policy, that they regularly monitor the "abuse-mailbox", that measures are taken, and that the abuse report receives a response. 4) Validation periodSource facts ↗
Source facts +
1. Avoid exclusively automated processing. 1. Confirm that the person performing the validation understands the procedure and the policy, that they regularly monitor the "abuse-mailbox", that measures are taken, and that the abuse report receives a response. 1. Validation periodSource facts ↗
IRT and abuse-c publication wording · Draft 3 describes the IRT publication relationship explicitly as an alias to abuse-c, where Draft 2 said the IRT would also be published as abuse-c. Both retain the aim of finding the same contact information through either name and preserving the remaining IRT information; neither passage demonstrates that the migration had occurred.
Source facts −
3.2 Additional Information After this proposal is implemented, AFRINIC will publish the IRT also as abuse-c, in order to facilitate the search in whois for the same information, regardless if looking for abuse-c or IRT. The rest of the actual information in the IRT, can be kept as per the actual guidelines (which will need to be updated by AFRINIC). This is done in order to assimilate the IRT to the majority of the RIRs where it is abuse-c. Example of the validation procedure.Source facts ↗
Source facts +
3.2 Additional information: Since this proposal is implemented, AFRINIC will publish the IRT as an alias to the abuse-c, in order to facilitate the search in whois for the same information, regardless if looking for abuse-c or IRT. The rest of the actual information in the IRT, can be kept as per the actual guidelines (which will need to be updated AFRINIC). This is done in order to assimilate the IRT to the majority of the RIRs where it is abuse-c. Example of the validation procedure.Source facts ↗
Ticket continuity in abuse correspondence · Draft 3 adds that a generated ticket number should be retained, typically in the subject, through successive communications. Draft 2 already described automatic reporting and optional initial ticket assignment but did not include this explicit continuity instruction in the corresponding passage.
Source facts −
This allows automatic reporting, for example, via fail2ban, SpamCop or others, keeping costs at a minimum for both parties involved. 8.4 ObjectivesSource facts ↗
Source facts +
This allows automatic reporting, for example, via fail2ban, SpamCop or others, keeping costs at a minimum for both parties involved. Commonly, if a ticket number has been generated, it should be kept (typically as part of the subject) through successive communications. 8.4 ObjectivesSource facts ↗
Warnings in the illustrative follow-up procedure · Draft 3 adds explicit multi-channel warnings to the resource holder, including other mailboxes and alert pop-ups, with the policy text and consequences of continued non-compliance. It also says that blocking access to certain services should be considered in the example procedure. Draft 2 proceeded from its short correction window to repeated validation without this warning paragraph.
Source facts −
If no reply is received confirming that the situation has been corrected, after an additional period of three business days, the "abuse-c" will be permanently marked as "invalid". The validation process will be repeated automaticallySource facts ↗
Source facts +
AFRINIC must ensure that all possible means of “warning” the resource-holder are put in place, such as periodic emails to other email boxes, alert pop-ups, etc. All those must contain the policy text and reminders about consequences in case of continued policy violation. Means of blocking access to certain services should be also considered. The validation process will be repeated automaticallySource facts ↗
Contact data model · Draft 5 clarifies that abuse-c is a mandatory attribute pointing to a person or role, with at least one monitored abuse mailbox. Draft 4 described a mandatory object and a contact in the corresponding WHOIS entry. This makes the reference structure more explicit; it does not create evidence of a completed WHOIS migration.
Source facts −
Resources allocated/assigned by AfriNIC must include a mandatory "abuse-c" contact attribute (abuse contact) in their corresponding WHOIS entry, with at least one valid, monitored and actively managed email inbox (abuse-mailbox)Source facts ↗
Source facts +
Resources allocated/assigned by AFRINIC must include a mandatory "abuse-c" contact attribute (abuse contact), pointing to a person or role, with at least one valid, monitored and actively managed email inbox (abuse-mailbox)Source facts ↗
Contacts used when validation fails · The escalation recipient changes from other LIR contacts to other member contacts, and the surrounding implementation discussion similarly refers to members. The new wording is less tied to the LIR class. Both versions keep the second validation period at no more than 15 days; the text does not establish how many members were affected in practice.
Source facts −
If validation fails, escalate to other LIR contacts and set a new validation period not to exceed 15 days.Source facts ↗
Source facts +
If validation fails, escalate to other member contacts and set a new validation period not to exceed 15 days.Source facts ↗
Express enforcement sentence · The draft-4 sentence prescribing follow-up, warnings and discretionary service blocking after non-compliance is absent from draft 5's proposed section 8.5. The validation frequency and escalation-to-AFRINIC mechanism remain. The newer rationale expressly invokes database-accuracy obligations under the RSA, so this omission must not be treated as a waiver of separate RSA enforcement or proof that sanctions were abolished.
Source facts −
Lack of compliance will lead to a more exhaustive follow-up, warnings and blocking of certain services, at AFRINIC discretion, in accordance with the relevant policies/procedures.Source facts ↗
Source facts +
This is also contradictory with RSA, that states that information in databases must be accurate. This policy ensures that this can be automatically and periodically verified by AFRINIC, without entering in the operational details of how to do it.Source facts ↗
IRT transition and operational discretion · The earlier additional information promised an IRT alias or pointer to abuse-c. The newer draft says that, if consensus is reached, mnt-IRT must be renamed to abuse-c; AFRINIC chooses whether and how long to retain an alias and the IRT data, and how to update the guidelines. This replaces a specific transitional arrangement with more operational discretion, conditional on the proposal's approval.
Source facts −
Since this proposal is implemented, AFRINIC will publish the IRT as an alias (or pointer) to the abuse-c, in order to facilitate the search in whois for the same information, regardless if looking for abuse-c or IRT.Source facts ↗
Source facts +
If this proposal reaches consensus, to comply with it, AFRINIC must rename mnt-IRT to abuse-c. It is an operational AFRINIC decision if an alias (pointer, duplicated attibute, or any other alternative) to mnt-IRT is kept and for how much time (transition period)Source facts ↗
Validation wording and escalation contacts · Draft 6 changes confirmation that the resource holder understands the policy into confirmation that the holder has read it, with separate monitoring, action and response bullets. It also changes other member contacts back to other LIR contacts. Although its history calls the revision editorial improvements, those are observable wording differences; the latter should not be silently treated as identical coverage of all member categories.
Source facts −
Confirm that the resource holder understands the procedure and the policy, that they regularly monitor the abuse-mailbox, that measures are taken, and that abuse reports receive a response.Source facts ↗
Source facts +
Confirms that the resource holder: * has read the procedure and the policy * regularly monitor the abuse-mailbox * measures are taken * abuse reports receive a response.Source facts ↗
New staff assessment and implementation constraints · The new page adds a dated staff assessment describing WHOIS, MyAFRINIC and registration-process changes, the initial compliance workload and potential staffing needs. It says the proposal's 90-day expectation cannot be met, estimates six months for systems work and twelve months for member compliance, and requests clarification about legacy resources. These are staff estimates and unresolved scope questions, not evidence of implementation or an amendment that automatically imposes those timelines.
Source facts −
The proposal is expected to be implemented in 90 days, to be confirmed by AfriNIC, a reasonable time frame to allow both the staff to develop the tool and the members to update their abuse-c contacts.Source facts ↗
Source facts +
Due to the significant amount of systems impacted and coding required to onboard the AFRINIC members into adopting the abuse-c contact, 90 days for implementation cannot be met. The AFRINIC team can implement the policy within the 6 months from the Last Call as mandated by the CPM on its systems and 12 months to get the members to comply with the policy.Source facts ↗
Historical references and date uncertainty · The references now describe LACNIC as having accepted an equivalent proposal that was under implementation, and describe discussion in RIPE. These are the source's historical comparisons, not verified present-day implementation status. Draft 5's own history dates it to 22 November 2019, while draft 6's retrospective history says 21 November; that disagreement remains visible. Draft 6's dated assessment and later typo correction are separate from its 5 August 2020 draft date.
Source facts −
An equivalent proposal has been accepted in APNIC (already implemented) and is under discussion in the ARIN, LACNIC and RIPE regions.Source facts ↗
Source facts +
An equivalent proposal has been accepted in APNIC (already implemented) and LACNIC (under implementation) and is under discussion in the RIPE.Source facts ↗
New operative slow-start provision · Draft 7 adds proposed section 8.7, expressly allowing yearly adjustment of initial and escalation periods and validation frequency in light of staffing, procedures and actual data, with reasons communicated to the community. Draft 6 discussed adjustable periods in Additional information but lacked this separate operative section. The change gives the gradual rollout an explicit policy basis; it is not proof that any particular extension was exercised.
Source facts −
As a matter of clarification, the “initial” and “escalation” validation periods may be modified by AFRINIC, if deemed appropriate, provided it informs the community of its motivation for doing so.Source facts ↗
Source facts +
8.7 Slow-start and progress follow-up The initial/escalation periods and the validation periodicity set by this policy can be amended yearly by AFRINIC, considering internal procedures, staffing needs and actual data, considering both, a slow-start and follow-up of the accuracy of the data. The reasons for the amendments shall be properly communicated to the community.Source facts ↗
Legacy resources, abuse definitions and enforcement boundaries · The new explanatory text says the proposal sets no different conditions for legacy holders, leaves non-compliance consequences to the RSA and leaves the definition of abuse and escalation beyond contact validation to participants and their local rules. It also asserts no additional GDPR impact. The earlier staff assessment expressly requested guidance on legacy applicability; the newer assessment lists no clarification requests. These statements clarify the author's intended scope and the assessment's position, but are not an independent legal determination or proof that every legacy resource was brought into compliance.
Source facts −
AFRINIC is assuming that the abuse-c will not be mandatory for inetnum and aut-num that hold legacy status. Clear guidance from the author is required on this matter.Source facts ↗
Source facts +
As in all the other policies, this one doesn’t set specific different conditions for legacy holders. This is a generic AFRINIC issue that should be tackled in a uniform way for all the policy manual. Similarly, the policy doesn’t state the consequences of lack of compliance, as this is generically stated in the RSA.Source facts ↗
Rollout timing and financial assessment · The newer additional information illustrates an initial pass lasting 12–24 months and explicitly leaves implementation timing to AFRINIC's operations, priorities and staffing. Its revised staff assessment records no financial impact and a phased rollout, replacing the earlier assessment's extra-staff requirement and six-month systems/twelve-month compliance estimates. These remain proposal explanations and staff planning statements; they do not establish actual completion dates or a measured absence of cost.
Source facts −
6.0 Finance Recruitment of additional support staff to cater for the increase in tickets that the implementation of the policy will generate.Source facts ↗
Publication and adoption context · The newer retained page identifies DRAFT07, gives 17 May 2021 and labels the proposal Ratified, whereas the earlier retained page is an archived draft-6 page with a conflicting DRAFT01 header. The comparison follows the source-specific draft sequence. The Ratified label is evidence of the later page's stated status; it does not itself date a Board decision to the submission date or prove technical implementation.
Source facts −
AFPUB-2018-GEN-001-DRAFT01: Abuse Contact Policy Update (Draft 6) ArchivedSource facts ↗
Source facts +
ID AFPUB-2018-GEN-001-DRAFT07 Date Submitted 17 May 2021 Author(s) Jordi Palet Martínez Version 7 Obsoletes Abuse Contact Policy (Section 8.0 of the CPM) Status RatifiedSource facts ↗
Renewal of proposal validity · Draft 8's revision history explicitly describes a version update without policy changes to extend validity for Board ratification, with reference information updated. The retained operative provisions, including the yearly-adjustable slow-start rule, remain substantively the same as draft 7; punctuation and explanatory wording differ. This is evidence of the stated purpose of the renewal, not proof that the Board ratified the proposal or that deployment occurred on 15 May 2022.
Source facts −
8.7 Slow-start and progress follow-up The initial/escalation periods and the validation periodicity set by this policy can be amended yearly by AFRINIC, considering internal procedures, staffing needs and actual data, considering both, a slow-start and follow-up of the accuracy of the data. The reasons for the amendments shall be properly communicated to the community.Source facts ↗
Source facts +
15 May 2022 Version 8: AFPUB-2018-GEN-001-DRAFT08 * Version update without changes to extend the policy proposal validity to allow the Board ratification. However, the info in the references section has been updated so as to be consistent with the actual status in other RIRs.Source facts ↗
Availability of the staff assessment · The draft-7 page carries a full staff assessment, including operational effects and phased implementation. The retained draft-8 page ends with Staff Assessment (In Progress). That changes the evidence available on this page; it does not prove that the prior assessment was repudiated or that previously described systems obligations were removed. The earlier assessment remains retained separately.
Source facts −
In this regard, should this policy gain consensus, AFRINIC will adopt a phased implementation while keeping the community informed.Source facts ↗
Conflicting migrated metadata and status labels · The newer page title says Draft 8 and its history dates that version to 15 May 2022, yet its header reuses DRAFT01 and a 5 August 2020 submission date and labels the page Archived. The older draft-7 page says Ratified. These are conflicting retained page metadata and capture contexts, not evidence that ratification was reversed. The derived sequence uses the explicit draft-8 title and history while preserving both source snapshots and their status differences.
Source facts −
ID AFPUB-2018-GEN-001-DRAFT07 Date Submitted 17 May 2021 Author(s) Jordi Palet Martínez Version 7 Obsoletes Abuse Contact Policy (Section 8.0 of the CPM) Status RatifiedSource facts ↗
Source facts +
Proposal Name Abuse Contact Policy Update (Draft 8) Archived ID AFPUB-2018-GEN-001-DRAFT01 Date Submitted 2020-08-05 Author(s) Refer to Proposal Tab Status ArchivedSource facts ↗
Debate timeline
Entities
- Discussion messages0First activityUnknownLast activityUnknownFirst explicit stanceUnknownLatest explicit stanceUnknownStance changes0Viewpoint consistencyNo explicit position statedOther policies7
Sources and coverage
Official policy sources
Public discussion archives
- afrinic-rpd
- Earliest captured
- Aug 4, 2004
- Latest captured
- Aug 25, 2026
- Last refresh
- Oct 10, 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 10, 2026
- Coverage
- Source coverage is incomplete.
- Loading
- 2,524
- Known gaps
- 0
- afrinic-afripv6-discuss
- Earliest captured
- Aug 17, 2015
- Latest captured
- Sep 18, 2026
- Last refresh
- Oct 10, 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 10, 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 10, 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 10, 2026
- Coverage
- Source coverage is incomplete.
- Loading
- 873
- Known gaps
- 0
- afrinic-dnssec-ops
- Earliest captured
- Aug 18, 2015
- Latest captured
- Dec 1, 2016
- Last refresh
- Oct 10, 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 10, 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 10, 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 10, 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 10, 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 10, 2026
- Coverage
- Source coverage is incomplete.
- Loading
- 154
- Known gaps
- 0
Coverage
Partial
Earliest captured: Aug 4, 2004
Latest captured: Oct 10, 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.
