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

[rpd] New Policy Proposal Received - "IPv4 Inter-RIR Legacy Resource Transfers (Comprehensive Scope) AFPUB-2019-v4-002-DRAFT01"

Sylvain BAYA abscoco at
Fri Aug 30 09:58:26 UTC 2019

Hi all,

Please see my comments below (inline)...

Le 8/29/2019 à 4:56 PM, Ernest Byaruhanga a écrit :

> Jordi,


>> On Mon, 19 Aug 2019 at 08:49, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD

>> <rpd at> wrote:

>>> In short. I'm waiting for the staff impact analysis (Ernest any news ?). Once we got that, in addition to resolving any issues discovered by the staff, I will add a "security belt" to the existing text, in the line of:


>>> 1.Each time a transfer is completed, the relevant, non-confidential information will be automatically published in a specific web page, including at least: Date of the transfer, transferred addresses, source organization and RIR, destination organization and RIR.


> Staff assessment reports for the two transfer policy proposals are available at:


> IPv4 Inter-RIR Legacy Resource Transfers



> IPv4 Inter-RIR Resource Transfers (Comprehensive Scope)


Dear Ernest,
After reading your, too much awaited, Impact Analysis report (IAr) i
have some questions : 

• I don't understand why you added the word “currently” in 1.0 a). It
seems to render the 
statement false. {/i'm not an English native language though. So excuse
my ignorance, where /
• The RSA (Registration Service Agrement) section 6. (d) (iv), (v),
(vi), (vii) states that “/[...]the transfer /
/of number resources is strictly prohibited, from except in the event of
the Applicant becoming the /
/subject of merger and/or acquisition proceedings or where such transfer
is effected in compliance /
/with adopted policies;[...]/” ; some of what you wish to prevent, in
2.1 b., seems to be allowed by 
the RSA...then how to deal with that ?
• In 2.1 a. you seem to suggest that the author also treat the case of
ASN transfers, is it not better 
to encourage any other volunteer to propose such a draft policy proposal
? Don't forget that, 
these draft policy proposals are just amending the CPM section 5.7.
Then, if you add other 
resources than IPv4, it might sound problematic... :-/
• I'm not getting the point in 2.2 a. What i mean is that, CPM section
3.4.5 states that after the end 
of *the last call* on a draft policy proposal has been declared, the
Staff has *less than six months* 
to implement it. Then it automatically starts to serve. Please can you
explain why there should be 
a *special need to specify some conditions on the beginning of this
draft policy proposal, if ratified ? 



> Regards,

> Ernest.



> _______________________________________________

> RPD mailing list

> RPD at



Sylvain B.
Website : <>
Wiki : <>
Surveys : <>
Subscribe to Mailing List : <>
Mailing List's Archives : <>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 0x0387408365AC8594.asc
Type: application/pgp-keys
Size: 4826 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <>

More information about the RPD mailing list