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

[Lee Howard]

On 6/30/19 5:06 PM, Noah wrote:
>
>
> 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.

Who would they lobby?


>
> I mean, who do the brokers benefit if not themselves?

Some brokers are fairer than others.

When you go to the market, do you expect that the person selling you 
everything you buy made it themselves? No, you expect a broker to find 
someone who has a thing to sell and someone who wants to buy the thing 
and bring them together. A broker can also help make sure that the 
agreed price is paid and that the thing is delivered.

Do you need a broker? No, if you know someone who has addresses and is 
willing to give them to you, then you are welcome to do that.


> 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.

Are there such members? You say that if there is fraud, then this policy 
is risky.

I wonder if people who committed fraud to obtain addresses would be 
honest enough to keep those addresses inside Africa, because of current 
policy.

Lee

>
> *./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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20190701/16d7285f/attachment.html>