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

[rpd] inputs on IPv4 Inter-RIR policy proposals - AFRINIC needs this policy now!

Fri Jun 28 22:24:53 UTC 2019

Hi Ronald,

I think the misconception here is to believe that we are "actually" talking about the addresses as a "transferable" object.

By definition, the addresses aren't from the ISP that gets them.

What we are transferring is the right to get the addresses registered for the exclusive use of the resource-holder, so that organization can use those addresses (for its own network or customers).

In fact, we could say that the RIRs are also NOT the owners of the addresses, just the responsible of the registration services and distribution of the "rights to use them" for the community.

I think that may clarify your points?

And by the way, if you were right, then I'm sure we will have a problem in *every* RIR with all the transfer policies, and I guess sufficient lawyers have already looked into that!


El 29/6/19 0:15, "Ronald F. Guilmette" <rfg at> escribió:

    Ladies and gentlemen,
    I must begin by saying that I have two apologies to make to you all.
    The first, which I will need to post at a later time, is for my prior bad
    behavior and unfairly imflamitory and prejuducial comments made on this
    list some several years ago now.  I was utterly wrong in my comments
    and assumptions on that occasion, and have been meaning to come here and
    post a lengthy apology every since... a task that, for one reason or
    another, has gotten put in the back burner all this time.
    I don't even have time to go into my past mistakes or the reasons for them
    just now, so that will have to wait, and I will post a more elaborate and
    detailed apology for my past rude comments, hopefully in the very near
    future.  (Perhaps nobody even remembers or cares anymore what I bad
    things I said here long ago, especially given what seems to have been
    some dramatically woser behavior here recently.  But it is a matter of
    honor and I need to set the record straight and apologize properly,
    but with an explanation.)
    My second apology is for coming in late to this discussion about the
    pending Inter-RIR policy proposal(s).  I am only now becoming aware of
    this and I confess that I haven't had time to study or even think about
    either the proposal or its implications or the stated postions of various
    members on the proposal(s).  Nontheless, I feel compelled to interject
    myself just for the purpose of asking a few very naive questions...
    My starting point is Mr. Noah's recent posting on this topic...
    In message <CAEqgTWYPEMDHoVonhaNTTY5p6+ShVsOymaVVrz4ShKf8oju+vQ at>
    Noah <noah at> wrote:
    >So Jordi,
    >I still oppose this policy with strongest terms possible. I still believe
    >IPv4 space will leave our region so fast when holders of Idle space who are
    >yet to put them to good use as was allocated/assigned will trade them for
    >some dollars rather than return them to AfriNIC. What we need is a policy
    >that would discourage IPv4 from being transferred out of the region because
    >of attractive prices of IPv$ but rather encourage more space coming into
    >the region.
    For whatever it is worth, I personally am totally torn on this issue.  On
    the one hand, I would like to support my friend Jordi, and I do, certainly,
    with respect to his anti-hijacking proposal, but perhaps not in the
    case of Inter-RIR transfers.  Also, as a longtime fighter against spam
    on the Internet, it is an has been my belief that if all IPv4 space were
    transfered, tomorrow, to whomever was the highest bidder, without any
    regard for any other consideration (e.g. geography) then this alone would
    put a major and perhaps crippling dent in the practice of so-called
    "snowshoe" spamming... a practice that requires a LOT of very cheap IPv4
    address space.
    That all having been said, I am also quite sympathetic to the postion
    elaborated by Mr. Noah, and I could even be easily induced to begin
    chanting "Afrinic for Africans!"  (And I say this even though I myself
    am not an African, either by residence or birth.)
    At the formation, Afrinic was endowed with a great deal of IPv4 address
    space, and I believe that it was everyone's understanding, at that time,
    that all these resources would be used for the good of Africans.  Much
    has transpired since that time, the Internet itself has changed dramatically,
    and an open market for IPv4 address space has now evolved.  But despite
    all that, it can be, and perhaps should be argued that the fundamental
    principal should still survive, and that Afrinic space should be used to
    the benefit of Africans, and not just as an object of trade, i.e. to derive
    a one-time cash transfer to current or historical holders of these resources.
    But I didn't come here to make speeches.
    I said above that I would have a few naive questions, and I do.  Now I
    finally come to those.  Mostly my questions derive from the fundamental
    charter of Afrinic, which is to say its bylaws:
    Here are my two questions:
       *) Section 3.2 of the Bylaws reads as follows:
           3.2 The income and the capital of the Company shall be applied
           solely towards the promotion of the objects of the Company; and
           no part of the income or capital shall be paid or transferred,
           directly or indirectly, to the members, whether by way of dividend,
           capital distribution or bonus or otherwise.
       I wonder if anyone has considered, or reconsidered the implications,
       legal and otherwise, of this (historical?) section of the bylaws,
       particularly now that IPv4 address blocks may be, and quite certainly
       are being treated, by major accounting firms, as part of the capital
       assets of the various companies, worldwide, i.e. all those that
       currently buy, sell, trade, and "own" them.
       That's my question.  Does Section 3.2 of the Bylaws prohibit Afrinic
       from "transferring" IP address blocks to any party AT ALL?  (Remember,
       I did warn you all above that my questions would be naive!)
       *) Section 6.1 of the Bylaws reds as follows:
           6.1 Membership shall be open to:
          (i) any Person who is geographically based within, and providing
          services in the African region, and who is engaged in the use of,
          or business of providing, open system protocol network services; or
          (ii) any other Person who is approved by the Board or the members.
       I must and do apologize for my abundant ignorance, but I really am at
       a loss to understand the implications, if any, of the above quoted
       section of the Bylaws, particularly with respect to IP address
       If anyone would be so kind as to clarify for me whether or not Section
       6.1 of the Bylaws have any specific implications with respect to IP
       address resources, I sure would appreciate it.
    Those are the only two questions I have for now.  I look forward to being
    enlightened regarding the above two points.
    RPD mailing list
    RPD at

IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

More information about the RPD mailing list