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

[Ernest Byaruhanga]

Sylvain,


>>> • 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 compliance with adopted policies” is what matters most in your comment above.

>> We only pointed out the issue (2.1b) in our assessment as a possible avenue for abuse. The community may decide to consider or not to consider this depending on whether they find it a concern or not.

> 

> ...what you say here could have a huge consequence, to my understanding :-/

> I mean that, is it the CPM which supersides the RSA ?



The RSA is contractual/legally binding between the member and AFRINIC. 
The CPM is an output of a community driven bottom up PDP process. 
The two documents therefore serve different purposes, yet are interdependent; (see RSA 4(c)) - https://www.afrinic.net/ast/pdf/services/afrinic-rsa-en-201801.pdf


> ...or, on which of the two you (Staff) accord the greatest priority ?


If the matter is contractual in nature, it’s the RSA. If policy related, it's the CPM. 
However, breach or non-compliance to policy leads to RSA breach due to the same RSA 4(c).



>>> • 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... :-/

>> True, but the CPM can be rearranged as appropriate if need be. 

> 

> :-) ...so, please could you plan to do it for the other similar cases we

> have in this CPM ?



Of course.

Ernest.