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

[Andrew Alston]

Mmmm Noah,

Did you invent a time machine that takes us back to before IANA ran out of space to give anyone?  If so – please let us know – I have some uses for such a device.

Thanks

Andrew


From: Noah <noah at neo.co.tz>
Sent: Monday, 1 July 2019 00:07
To: Ronald F. Guilmette <rfg at tristatelogic.com>
Cc: RPD <rpd at afrinic.net>
Subject: Re: [rpd] inputs on IPv4 Inter-RIR policy proposals - AFRINIC needs this policy now!

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 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<mailto:rfg at tristatelogic.com>> wrote:
In message <539D1303-4A80-4ACB-A70A-9CBD8E4C3B73 at consulintel.es<mailto: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<mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd<https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20190630/661a568e/attachment-0001.html>