Search RPD Archives
[AfriNIC-rpd] IPv4 trading needs global policy, says Mueller - issue for AfriNIC PDP ??
jwalu at yahoo.com
Fri Apr 13 13:16:35 UTC 2012
--- On Fri, 4/13/12, Dr Paulos Nyirenda <paulos at sdnp.org.mw> wrote:
>I think it is important that AFRINIC keeps this issue high on its radar as a >policy issue. It will grow as an increasingly "sore thumb" as the v4 space >diminishes and AfriNIC is seen as having proportionally bigger reserves >than anyone else.
Paulos, Whereas I do agree with you, Nii also has a point. This list is for discussing *formally* submitted policy. And as long as none is availed, we find ourselves technically restricted in as far as discussing the issue outside a formal policy is concerned.
Which made me think, should we amend our PDP document to allow for informal discussions on topical issue even in the absence of a formal submitted policy? Perhaps as a prelude to submitting a position/policy proposal. I moderate some online and informal "brainstorming" forum that has subsequently informed/inspired numerous and previously hidden policy opportunities...and so I think this would be good to have.
From: Dr Paulos Nyirenda <paulos at sdnp.org.mw>
Subject: Re: [AfriNIC-rpd] IPv4 trading needs global policy, says Mueller - issue for AfriNIC PDP ??
To: "Walubengo J" <jwalu at yahoo.com>, rpd at afrinic.net
Date: Friday, April 13, 2012, 3:23 PM
On 12 Apr 2012 at 9:53, Walubengo J wrote:
> This "fiercegovernment..." url is returning errors. I would have loved to read Muller's
> thoughts before contributing.
The line wrapped just because the URL is too long to fit on one line, just copy the whole
of it to the browser address window
OR just search Google for " IPv4 trading needs global policy, says Mueller"
> I recall this topic did come up in Dar, during the AfriNIC-14? It proposed by some
> participant from TENET, SA and it did generate quite some debate then. My take is that
> this is a topic that is likely to get increasingly contentious going forward and members
> need to really start ventilating on the situation.
That is why I brought it up here ... again.
> Do we as a community want to:
> a) NOT trade our v4 space, even as the v4 black market prospers?
> b) can we technically stop members from trading in v4 space?
> c) should we "legalize" or sanitize the v4 black market by providing a formal policy on
> the same?
> d) etc.
> I dont have the answers on this but I would like to hear views from the floor.
I think it is important that AFRINIC keeps this issue high on its radar as a policy
issue. It will grow as an increasingly "sore thumb" as the v4 space diminishes and
AfriNIC is seen as having proportionally bigger reserves than anyone else.
Dr Paulos B Nyirenda
NIC.MW & .mw ccTLD
> --- On Thu, 4/12/12, Dr Paulos Nyirenda <paulos at sdnp.org.mw> wrote:
> From: Dr Paulos Nyirenda <paulos at sdnp.org.mw>
> Subject: [AfriNIC-rpd] IPv4 trading needs global policy, says Mueller - issue for
> AfriNIC PDP ??
> To: rpd at afrinic.net
> Date: Thursday, April 12, 2012, 2:47 PM
> > IPv4 trading needs global policy, says Mueller
> > http://www.fiercegovernmentit.com/story/ipv4-trading-needs-global-policy-says-
> > mueller/2012-04-11
> Is this an issue that is current for the AfriNIC PDP?
> Does AfriNIC need to develop an IPv4 Trading Policy?
> See the story, Mueller papers and the RIPE Policy Proposal
> Dr Paulos B Nyirenda
> NIC.MW & .mw ccTLD
> Co-chair AfriNIC PDWG
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
> rpd mailing list
> rpd at afrinic.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the RPD