[rpd] Summary of proposal: Inbound transfer policy

[Christopher Mwangi]

Response inline:-

>>The ARIN section 8.4 calls for a "compatible needs based policy". I know that there was significant opposition in the ARIN region to considering such a proposal "compatible" when it was being discussed in LACNIC. The proposal did not gain consensus in LACNIC region, so the matter remains unsettled in the ARIN region. I do not speak for or on behalf of the ARIN AC, but my vote (which is only one in 15) would be no. I don't think I would be the only "no" vote, but I can't say for sure.

  > The RIPE community has an Inter-RIR transfer policy that does require the other RIR's policy to be two-way and this could be a good start in potentially having other RIRs adopt policies that do not necessarily have to be symmetrically compatible , but informed my other factors as well .


>>I do favor a bi-directional policy. I think that the reality is this is just a formality as there is likely much less space available for transfer out of Africa than in, but that is up to the community.

  >I supposed you meant IPV4 resources , the proposed inbound transfer policy  encompasses all IP resources including 16bit and 32bit ASN, IPv4 space and IPv6 space. For example, it will then be possible to consolidate all resources (IPs and ASNs) into an African holding company when merging and acquiring companies that have these resources allocated from off the Afrinic region .


>>Wait long enough to pass a policy acceptable to the other RIRs and it won't matter because there won't be any available space to transfer. We're already seeing the price per address starting to rise as orders are getting harder to fill.
  > Refer to answer above.

Chris

On Nov 14, 2016, at 20:02 , Christopher Mwangi <christopher.mwangi at liquidtelecom.com<mailto:christopher.mwangi at liquidtelecom.com>> wrote:

Hi Owen,

"Transfers between RIRs should be among peers on equal footing with mutual respect to the policies in both regions"

Equal footing can  be quite subjective depending on what is being considered . Is Africa on an equal footing with the other 4 RIRs in regards to the resource allocated?  Probably not in some . This is  merely an invitation to other RIRs ,the communities in those regions can either accept  it or reject it, which would then fulfil the last two concerns  - mutual respect and policies.

If the AfriNIC community wants to open the door for one-way transfers from any other region, then that is totally fine as far as any other community's policies are concerned.

Chris .

-----Original Message-----
From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com]
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2016 10:33 PM
To: Dewole Ajao
Cc: AfriNIC RPD MList.
Subject: Re: [rpd] Summary of proposal: Inbound transfer policy

I remain opposed to any unidirectional inter-RIR transfer proposal.

Transfers between RIRs should be among peers on equal footing with mutual respect to the policies in both regions.

Unidirectional proposals do not reflect this.

Owen

> On Nov 13, 2016, at 19:25 , Dewole Ajao <dewole at forum.org.ng<mailto:dewole at forum.org.ng>> wrote:
>
> Good day,
>
> Please take some time to view and comment on https://goo.gl/Lu3deS with a view toward fine-tuning and producing an improved plan for managing transfer of IP resources into the AFRINIC region.
>
> Thank you.
>
> Dewole Ajao
> PDWG Co-Chair
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net<mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd


_______________________________________________
RPD mailing list
RPD at afrinic.net<mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20161115/d8c6e506/attachment-0001.html>