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

[rpd] Last Call for "AFPUB-2016-GEN-001-DRAFT-04 - Internet Number Resources Review by AFRINIC"

Mike Burns mike at
Wed Jul 12 16:08:08 UTC 2017

Hi Noah,


Section 12 of the ARIN NRPM does not allow for revocation of resources for lack of utilization for original purpose.

Nor does the ARIN RSA enable ARIN to revoke and recover addresses for lack of utilization.

As somebody who has brokered close to 500 transfers around the world, I can speak with some experience.

ARIN, APNIC, and RIPE recognized the jeopardy any seller would be in should they be forced to come to the RIR to initiate a transfer while at the same time that same RIR held a contract enabling it to revoke unused addresses.


This is not the situation in LACNIC, which both allows transfers, and also contains revocation language in its RSA.

Is it any wonder the rate of transfers in LACNIC is not even 1% the rate of the other registries?


Lu Heng was correct to point out the discord between allowing members to sell unused addresses while at the same time providing AFRINIC with the right to revoke unused address space.


I am against this policy for the many reasons provided by others in this thread, and I will point out that the very same debate raged in each other trading registry, with each making the same decision to utilize markets rather than revocations to provide addresses to those in need. 



Mike Burns





From: Noah [mailto:noah at] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2017 11:48 AM
To: David Hilario <d.hilario at>
Cc: rpd List <rpd at>
Subject: Re: [rpd] Last Call for "AFPUB-2016-GEN-001-DRAFT-04 - Internet Number Resources Review by AFRINIC"




On 12 Jul 2017 5:41 p.m., "David Hilario" <d.hilario at <mailto:d.hilario at> > wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 1:04 PM, David Hilario
> <d.hilario at <mailto:d.hilario at> > wrote:

Those reviews are not aimed at de-registration of resources, they
simply do not go down that path.
Listen to the very comments from the respective registration managers
that were in Mauritius and commented on that very topic.
I am glad you were in the room, listen back to their comments again as
you are only remembering half of what they said.




Speculations and fear mongering aside. 


Now referencing your "de-registration point", looking at  the example from ARIN NRPM  section 12 again and I will share the link again.



below is the content of ARIN NRP section 12 subsection 4.(1) and (2).

12. Resource Review

1.	- removed
2.	- removed
3.	- removed
4.	Organizations found by ARIN to be materially out of compliance with current ARIN policy shall be requested or required to return resources as needed to bring them into (or reasonably close to) compliance.

1.	The degree to which an organization may remain out of compliance shall be based on the reasonable judgment of the ARIN staff and shall balance all facts known, including the organization's utilization rate, available address pool, and other factors as appropriate so as to avoid forcing returns which will result in near-term additional requests or unnecessary route de-aggregation.
2.	To the extent possible, entire blocks should be returned. Partial address blocks shall be returned in such a way that the portion retained will comprise a single aggregate block.


What does the above statement regarding compliance mean and the eventual and possible return of resources. Please carefully read and I request another member to also help me here otherwise we will continue to go in cycles.


ARIN members on the list, can you help explain the above to me and David Hilario please :-)





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the RPD mailing list