Search RPD Archives
Limit search to: Subject & Body Subject Author
Sort by:

[AFRINIC-rpd] policy amendment proposal

McTim dogwallah at
Mon Nov 26 21:18:52 UTC 2012

Hi Owen,

On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 2:48 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at> wrote:
> As I stated on previous drafts, my concern is that this opens the policy to all new ICANN sanctioned TLDs which is a great way to dispose of all IPv4 freepool in the AfriNIC region in relatively short order given the incredible rate at which ICANN plans to start handing out vanity TLDs very soon now.

Am agnostic on the newgTLDs.  On the one hand you are right, it will
"move the needle" in terms of v4 depletion, On the other hand, it will
increase the number of AfrINIC LIRs and only use a limited number of
/24's, since the new gTLDs are ~1000, and not all of them will take
advantage of this policy.  In other words, I doubt this will use more
than one (or maybe 2 /16's).

I am in support of the general intent of this proposal, and leave it
to the pdwg to say if they want to include new gTLDs or only root-ops
and ccTLDs.


"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel

> While I think getting rid of IPv4 and moving on to IPv6 is to be encouraged, I think that doing so in such an abrupt manner in the AfriNIC region would, in fact, be harmful and that this policy could be particularly detrimental to better critical infrastructure usage such as exchange points. It would also take IPv4 space away from uses such as IPv6 transition technologies.
> Basing an organization in-region is not all that hard to do and once the space is obtained, it can be used for anycast services around the world. As IPv4 scarcity becomes more of an issue world wide (already APNIC and RIPE are out, ARIN will likely be out within 9 months), the cost of setting up an operation based in Africa with a couple of DNS servers hosted in region in order to get space for world wide operations of a TLD is relatively low compared to the cost of obtaining IPv4 resources elsewhere.
> I would support the policy if it were limited to ICANN sanctioned root services and ccTLD services, but given the coming onslaught of make-icann-money-fast gTLDs, I cannot support it as currently crafted.
> Owen
> On Nov 26, 2012, at 06:41 , Alan Barrett <apb at> wrote:
>> On Mon, 26 Nov 2012, Alan Barrett wrote:
>>> This version is different from the draft-02 that you posted ot the RPD mailing list.  I think that it should be called draft-03.
>> Sorry, I misread it.  This version is identical to the draft-02 that was posted last week.
>>> I am converned that each draft has included a completely different set of DNS operators in the definition, and the latest version removed the root zone.
>> This is the part that I misread.  Teh root zone is effectively included in the second half of the definition of core DNS service provider.
>> --apb (Alan Barrett)
>> _______________________________________________
>> rpd mailing list
>> rpd at
> _______________________________________________
> rpd mailing list
> rpd at

More information about the RPD mailing list