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

[Ronald F. Guilmette]

In message <DBBPR03MB5415D2FBD825FD63DAD8886DEEFE0 at DBBPR03MB5415.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com>, 
Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com> wrote:

>What I stated was entirely correct - before the soft landing kicked in.
>
>The requirement was that the entity be domiciled in Africa - it did NOT sta=
>te that the resources had to be used by said entity in Africa.
>
>That changed with the soft landing phase 1 kicking in, and applies to any r=
>esources in soft landing phase 1.  The status quo remained however on space=
> issued pre soft landing phase 1.
>
>That is the nature of the IPv4 policy as written.


Thank you for the further clarification.

I do not believe that your clarification has any substantial effect
upon the general thust of what I said, which was that all those Afrinic
IPv4 blocks which had been allocated, prior to this "soft landing,
phase 1" (which I assme are the majority of all blocks ever allocated
by Afrinic) are not in any way geographically restricted with respect
to utilization.

(Jordi has asserted that each Afrinic Resource Member must do at least
*some* utilization in the region, but as you see, I have already asked
him to further clarify that, for the benefit of my education on this
topic.)


Regards,
rfg