[rpd] Last Call for "AFPUB-2016-V4-003-DRAFT03"

[Nishal Goburdhan]

> On 29 Dec 2016, at 16:27, SamiSalih <sami at ntc.gov.sd> wrote:
> 
> 
> Sorry, 
> the correct link is
> 
> http://afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposals/1969-ipv4-resources-transfer-within-the-afrinic-region


hi sami,

i asked this on the mailing list earlier [1], but it seems to have been missed during the policy discussion.  

it’s still not clear to me under what circumstances a transfer can be permitted.
in reading the URL above (for what i guess is now the most up-to-date version of this policy), i see: 
"5.7.2 IPv4 resources to be transferred must be from an existing AFRINIC member’s account or from a Legacy Resource Holder in the AFRINIC service region.” 
"5.7.3.1 The source must be the current rightful holder of the IPv4 address resources recognized by AFRINIC,”

i understand the part about legacy resource holder.  so that doesn’t need to be explained to me.

i *don’t* understand how an existing member can transfer resources though, especially if this was obtained from afrinic, since the RSA is quite clear, that any afrinic member is meant to surrender their resources back to afrinic if they are not in use.  from my original message: 
"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!)” 

i haven’t read the meeting transcript, so i want to believe that this was discussed at the face-to-face meeting, even though nothing was posted about this policy to the mailing list.  either way, i think that this should be been mentioned during the assessment for the casual RPD reader.  oh well..
i don’t think you could, or want to be, in a situation where policy and the RSA conflict (and i don’t want to guess at what is more correct) so i’d strongly suggest clearing up any discrepancies and points of conflict between this policy and the RSA, before moving ahead.  to me, this policy still propagates the idea that this rewards fraudulent use of existing afrinic resources :-(

—n.

[1] https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2016/006224.html