[AfriNIC-rpd] Re: Proposal: Reclamation of allocated but unrouted IPv4 addresses.

[Hannigan, Martin]

On 2/10/11 10:31 AM, "Jackson Muthili" <jacksonmuthi at gmail.com> wrote:

> Martin,
> 
> On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 6:02 PM, Hannigan, Martin <marty at akamai.com> wrote:
>> 
>> On 2/10/11 2:43 AM, "Jackson Muthili" <jacksonmuthi at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 

[ snip ]


>>> 
>>> If the community decides to extend policy to apply to legacy members,
>>> this would not be a problem anymore. They can be made to sign an
>>> afrinic contract by a certain date, beyond which - their addresses can
>>> be revoked. Unfortunately, this sounds stern but with the situation we
>>> are soon facing, IPv4 will be on great great demand especially when
>>> afrinic pool is depleted.
>> 
>> Jack,
>> 
>> You think that Level(3), GE, Ford and Halliburton et. Al. are going to sign
>> an Afrinic membership agreement and put their resources under agreement or
>> allow their resources to be revoked by Afrinic, who had nothing to do with
>> their initial assignment? Can you give me some basis for this belief?
> 
> When community has decided by way of policy, what will Level3, GE,
> Ford et al do? sue? who?
> 

Hi Jack,

What would Afrinic do? I'm simply saying that energies are probably more
efficiently spent for _this_ region by protecting the current inventory from
fraud, not pursuing legacy holders where a) Afrinic has little to no stake
in the game and b) is likely to be expensive both financially and
reputation-wise.

What problem does tangling with legacy holders solve for the Afrinic region?
I can't think of one.

Best,

-M<