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

Sun Jun 30 21:15:18 UTC 2019

Hi Noah,

El 30/6/19 23:07, "Noah" <noah at neo.co.tz> escribió:

Hi Ronald,

Thanks for jumping into this discussion and now its even getting more interesting :-)

While, I have am yet to respond to some of the clarifications sought from me based on my opposition of this policy, I am keen on hearing some clear answers from the author of the proposed policy regarding some of the issues Ronald has raised.

Meanwhile, the below came though by means of IANA and not through IPv$ broker-based transfer policies. 
41/8     Apr 2005     
197/8     Oct 2008
105 / 8     Nov 2010     
102 / 8     Feb 2011     

Wouldn't it be much wiser for AfriNIC to lobby on behalf of its members for more space into the continent rather than through a broker based mechanism. 

I will agree, but, how we do that? Do you have a magic formula understanding that on February 2011, the IANA pool was exhausted?

Actually, that’s why, thanks to a global policy, Afrinic got the 102/8, which was not justified as “needed” by the region at that time.

I mean, who do the brokers benefit if not themselves? In Rabat in Morocco in 2008, I stood on the floor during the PPM meeting and expressed my distaste for IPv$ because I clearly understood the impact that a single IPv4 address can have socioeconomically. Therefore if there is knowledge/whispers within the African Internet community about some resource members who somehow managed to forge their application for membership and ended up getting resources which are being monetized instead of being used to build Internet Infrastructure in the continent, then this policy proposal becomes even more riskier for Africa to say the least. 

./noah

neo - network engineering and operations

On Sun, Jun 30, 2019 at 11:38 PM Ronald F. Guilmette <rfg at tristatelogic.com> wrote:

In message <539D1303-4A80-4ACB-A70A-9CBD8E4C3B73 at consulintel.es>, Jordi wrote:

>As said, this is something that the legal counsel should clarify.

I can only say that I hope that -someone- will provide a definitive
answer.

I should perhaps clarify that my interest in knowing the
current operative meaning of Section 6.1 of the Afrinic Bylaws
is a consequence of my belief that more than one party that is
located outside of the Afrinic region and that is providing -no-
services whatsoever within the Afrinic region are already enjoying
the benefits arising from the exclusive use of Afrinic-assigned
IPv4 number resources.

In a couple of cases, in particular, this is troubling to me for
various specific reasons.   Now I just want to know if the relevant
specific assignments even comport with the Afrinic Bylaws, as
written and as currently construed.  Do they or don't they?  I am
still seeking a definitive answer.

Regards,
rfg

_______________________________________________
RPD mailing list
RPD at afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd

**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
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.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20190630/69175671/attachment.html>