Search RPD Archives
[rpd] Implementation of transfer policy AFPUB-2016-V4-003
noah at neo.co.tz
Thu Aug 31 20:18:04 UTC 2017
On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 12:39 PM, Alan Barrett <alan.barrett at afrinic.net>
> > On 25 Aug 2017, at 16:02, Noah <noah at neo.co.tz> wrote:
> > We should get the Legal Counsel to also look at the matter and advise.
> Too sensitive.
> The legal adviser has provided advice to me on many occasions. When I try
> to summarise his advice, I may make mistakes in minor details, but I am not
> making a mistake about the main point: The current RSA prohibits transfers
> (except for mergers and acquisitions), and removing that prohibition will
> require changing the RSA.
Remove the prohibitions to transfers to allow only specific transfers which
are "IPv4 Resources transfer *within* the AFRINIC Region".
> > RSA is the contractual agreement which introduce and enforce policies
> and has clearly solved cases of conflict between itself and policies.
> > What I am trying to say is that we have to be mindful of the fact that
> the policies supersede the RSA which depends on them and as much as we
> members are subjected to the RSA, policies reign supreme.
> The policies express the will of the community. The RSA is a legal
> agreement. If the will of the community conflicts with the RSA, then the
> community will expext the RSA to be changed. That’s what’s about to happen.
The changes have to be specific to the will of the community in this case
"IPv4 Resources transfer within the AFRINIC Region" and not generic
transfer or any other transfers.
> >> The RSA also has a clause that says "except in the event of The
> Applicant becoming the subject of merger and/or acquisition proceedings,
> the transfer of number resources is strictly prohibited”. Even if there’s
> a policy that allows transfers, the RSA prohibits transfers, and the member
> has agreed to follow the RSA, so the member may not make a transfer.
> > This is not valid if the RSA is subject to policies. If policies say
> member can transfer, then policy overrides any provisions of the RSA with
> regards to this aspect.
> “This agreement is subject to policies” means “policies can add additional
> restrictions”; it does not mean that policies can remove restrictions.
I am not sure I understood your statement above and disclaimer: 'as much as
am not a lawyer', and others in the community could advice but "*subject
to*" means... conditional and being dependent upon something... see  
Therefore IMHO, RSA is subject to policies and that would mean in this
case, subject to specifically the ratified policies only, and for this
case the AFPUB-2016-V4-003 "IPv4 Resources transfer within the AFRINIC
So the modification and wording of the updated RSA, ref: transfers , should
be specific to this policy to avoid creating loopholes using the word
"transfer" as the only tranfers allowed per policy will be
Intra/within/inside Afrinic service region and nothing else.
> > In fact, how is this different from the current situation?
> > 1. RSA set default rules ( prohibits transfers) and bind members to
> > 2. Members sign RSA
> > 3. RSA states Policies supremacy
> > 4. Policy allows certain transfer (intra region only) and states rules
> and conditions
> But your point 3 does not apply. Perhaps it might be useful to say
> something like that in a future version of the RSA, but it’s not in the
> current RSA.
Why future versions of RSA. If current is being updated to reflect other
changes, then add that there.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the RPD