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

[rpd] Public Policy Meeting Draft Agenda for AfriNIC 31

Owen DeLong owen at
Mon Jun 10 15:41:28 UTC 2019

> On Jun 8, 2019, at 00:07 , JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet at> wrote:
> Hi all,
> I will like to take the oportunity to ask eveyone to read the proposals. Time is short, so it will not be possible to do a complete "text" presentation of every proposal if we want to have discussion time.
> More below, in-line.
> El 8/6/19 1:51, "Owen DeLong" <owen at <mailto:owen at>> escribió:
>    Thanks, Dewole, for putting this together.
>> ___________________________________________________________________________
>> 09:00 – 09:10        Welcome, Introduction & Agenda Overview
>> 09:10 – 09:20        The AFRINIC PDP
>> 09:20 – 10:45        Policy Development Update from other RIRs
>> 09:45 – 10:00        Policy Implementation Experience Report
>> 10:00  - 10:30        Multihoming not required for ASN
>    Support as written. Hopefully this one will not bring up significant controversy. A similar policy is already in place in at least 3 other RIRs. (Not sure about LACNIC).
> -> Same for LACNIC.
>    Not sure why this policy gets a 1/2 hour slot while more controversial policies below get 15 minutes each.
> -> I agree it can be shorter, but as Dewole said, order can be changed, so I guess if we finish before with this one, we can move on to the next one or another that can fit in the available time. Also note that the two policies that get 15 minutes, will be presented in a single 30 minutes slot. Single presentation, single discussion. I guess it was showed in the agenda that way to avoid confusing people, instead of:
> 		11:00 – 11:30        IPv4 Inter-RIR Resource Transfers (both proposals)

Changing the order and schedule on the fly can be problematic and disenfranchising for remote participants. Especially those from other timezones who plan to attend only specific discussions due to awkward timing. While I understand the operational necessity to do this on occasion, it should not be considered a general solution.

>> 10:30 – 11:00        BREAK
>> 11:00 – 11:15        IPv4 Inter-RIR Legacy Resource Transfers
>> 11:15 – 11:30        IPv4 Inter-RIR Resource Transfers (Comprehensive Scope)
>    I don’t see any reason to treat transfers of legacy resources separate from non-legacy. In fact, IMHO, any resource which is transferred should require that the new owner receive it as non-legacy status. Legacy status is an accident of history, not a privilege to be retained by subsequent registrants.
> -> Fully agree and I will explain this in my presentation. It was also explained in the email when the proposals were introduced in the list.

While I left the two policy proposals grouped together, my comment was more aimed at the first of the two than the second. Sorry if that wasn’t clear.

>> 11:30 - 12:00        SL-Update
>    Still oppose. Grounds previously stated.
>> 12:00 - 12:30        IPv6 PI Clarification
>    Mostly neutral. Not opposed, slight support, but consider it mostly unnecessary.
> -> I believe your maybe confused here with something else ? You're also a co-author! There is a major problem with the actual policy: The text states that the space must be announced or returned. This is a non-sense for cases such as IXPs. The other point is clarifying end-user vs end-site.

You are right… I conflated this with a proposal of the same or similar title in a different region. Yes, I support this proposal. I apologize for the confusion.


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

More information about the RPD mailing list