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"

Andrew Alston Andrew.Alston at
Wed Jul 12 16:36:21 UTC 2017

Since this discussion is now moving in this direction, at this point, I now need to ask some very pointed questions – and these questions are posed not just to the individuals on this list – but also to the board, the legal advisor, and any others who choose to answer them, since I am genuinely curious about the answers.

To ask these questions – I am going to put them in point form as statements – I am not speaking to the accuracy of these statements – I am requesting that each statement be refuted with legal basis or confirmed – I will take either.  I also point out that I had requested opinions on this matter from other sources – some of which have responded – and others which have not – and it is now time to actually go public because of the risks created by this policy.

  1.  It is fact that the prices per annum paid to AfriNIC by larger members are multiple times higher than what they are in certain other registries (there is a price differential of in excess of 20 times between AFRINIC and another registry in certain categories)
  2.  The lack of a bi-directional cross-regional transfer policy puts AfriNIC at direct risk of being in potential violation of the competitions act of 2007 – since AFRINIC is in effect forcing its members to remain using it – and paying the prices which they insist on and which the members have no control over
  3.  The fact that other RIR’s DO permit members from other regions to inbound transfer space means that there is choice – and the members of AFRINIC are being held to ransom through the lack of a transfer policy
  4.  The argument that the PDP has not granted a transfer policy does not grant the company, or the board, immunity from acting within the bounds of the law in the area in which it is domiciled.
  5.  The board – as the effective “owners” of the company – have the power implement a transfer policy – because irrespective of what the bylaws say – as the sole members of the legal entity that is AFRINIC and as directors – the power DOES reside with them.
  6.  The implementation of any policy that could result in the revocation of resources while AFRINIC is continuing to act as a de-facto monopoly that is already possibly in direct violation of the competitions act would be shear insanity, since it FORCE entities into a position where they either spend a TON of money complying with audits which may or may not be justified – or lose those resources – with no ability to transfer the hell out.

Basically – what I am saying is – while the competitions aspects have never been tested in a court – and actually in Mauritius – never need to be tested in a manner that costs anything or involves lawyers -  because of the way their competitions tribunal works that aspect, when combined with this policy, create a perfect storm that I honestly believe would destroy afrinic.

I do believe – strongly – that the need for a bi-directional transfer policy is there – and it is a necessity – but I also believe – in the context of this discussion – that the implementation of this policy would compound the risk created by what I have stated above – immensely.

To add to this discussion – I point everyone on this list to the statement on ARIN Policy 2009-01 – which was implemented directly by the board outside of the processes – and specifically cites legal and fiduciary duty as a reason for implementation.  What EXACTLY those legal and fiduciary duties that are referred to in that statement were – I am still not 100% sure of – though I would love to hear a member of the ARIN board directly comment on this matter.

Yours Sincerely


From: Mike Burns [mailto:mike at]
Sent: 12 July 2017 19:08
To: 'Noah' <noah at>; '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"

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<mailto:d.hilario at>>
Cc: rpd List <rpd at<mailto: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.

     *   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.
     *   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