[rpd] Staff Analysis of IPv4 Resource transfer within the AFRINIC Region

[Nishal Goburdhan]

On 26 Nov 2016, at 14:56, Dewole Ajao wrote:

> Dear PDWG members,
>
> Please be informed that AFRINIC staff have shared their analysis of 
> the IPv4 Resource transfer within the AFRINIC Region Proposal.
>
> The analysis can be found at the bottom of the proposal at 
> http://afrinic.net/en/library/policies/archive/1813-ipv4-resources-transfer-within-the-afrinic-region
>
> You are encouraged to provide further input to staff and authors via 
> this thread for a more productive meeting on Tuesday November, 29. 
> Links for remote participation will be available at 
> https://meeting.afrinic.net/afrinic-25/participate-remotely


hi there,

i had to go back to read the archives, to read this.  it’s possible, 
that i missed context;  i searched for “2016-V4-003” and “IPv4 
Resources transfer“ in the archives, and saw just one thread of 16 
messages, discussing this, and, then the update from the pdp co-chair 
last week.  if i’m asking questions that were answered already, i 
apologise in advance;  please feel free to point me to the discussion.

i read the very useful summary provided by the co-chairs now (thanks for 
that!).
personally, the lack of discussion around this (one thread?) which 
doesn’t quite lead me to believe that there’s support, more than 
just “no discussion”.  perhaps, that’s still a good thing :-)

either way, i read:  
http://afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposals/1813-ipv4-resources-transfer-within-the-afrinic-region, 
which incorporates the staff comments, and which i assume has the most 
recent version of this policy.  i have the following to add:

if the premise of the policy is:
“3.2) Both the source entity and recipient must be AFRINIC members. 
“
.. then, at least, the seller, should have resources from afrinic.  as 
such, those resources would have been allocated on a “needs basis”, 
and, are bound under the existing RSA.  if such an organisation is 
“squatting” on resources that they obtained under the current 
system, (which we all agree is bad), then, i see this policy as allowing 
those squatters to transfer those unspent resources.  (and let’s not 
kid ourselves;  that transfer is presumably for cash!).

my question is:  if there is an afrinic member with resources that are 
“unused” and available for transfer;  why are those not being 
returned to the afrinic general pool, instead of attempting a 
“transfer”?  never mind doing The Right Thing, surely, a return is a 
cleaner approach, and what is expected as part of the RSA?

so i went to the RSA, and found under section 4.c.(iv):
“(iv) Hereby binds itself to:
(1) notify AFRINIC whenever its circumstances so change that it is no 
longer in need of the Internet number resources supplied or being 
supplied to it under a Registration Service Agreement;

(2) surrender to AFRINIC within 15 days of the service of the notice at 
(iv)(1) above the Internet number resources supplied or being supplied 
to it under a Registration Service Agreement; …”

IANAL, but that implies to me, that if you’re an afrinic member, with 
afrinic assigned (or allocated) space, and you’re trying to transfer 
this to another member, you’re in breach of the RSA, since you were 
meant to tell afrinic you didn’t need these, and should have returned 
the resources.  (mergers & acquisitions aside, of course!)


the exception might be legacy holders, who have signed an RSA (but i 
don’t believe we have many of those!).  so, is the intent of this 
policy to create an avenue to allow for the transfer of legacy resources 
within the region?  if so, could this be written somewhere?  (which, 
btw, i would be fine with)

i’m also struggling to understand how this would work if the 
audit/review policy, as it is being called, would pass?  i can see 
potential for abuse from unaudited entities, but i’ll address that in 
the appropriate thread.

to the authors:  i’m not against your policy per se (note: that 
doesn’t mean it support it yet! :-));  but aside from the legacy space 
holders, whose resources don’t fall under afrinic’s terms and 
conditions, i’d like to understand why you want to open an avenue to 
reward fraudulent use (ie. hoarding with a view to later resell) of 
afrinic space.

unfortunately, i won’t be at the meeting in person, but i will try to 
listen in;  either way, i hope an answer is still posted to the mailing 
list.

best,
—n.