[rpd] Revised Proposal | Resource Transfer Policy (Draft-2)

[Fernando Frediani]

Releasing organizations from 12 months period doesn't make any sense and 
goes in the opposite way of good sense. So someone who gave up their 
just assigned resources transferring to someone else. What is the sense 
of it ?

Smaller organizations can receive resources from AfricNic directly in 
Phase 2, so why would they need to make such transfers ? Also I don't 
think anyone is against allowing transfers Intra and Inter-RIR at the 
current stage. That's not the problem.

I cannot understand what type of "issue" it can cause in terms of 
workload to the RIR and the time required for each request ? What does 
one thing have to do with the other ? If a request fulfill the minimal 
requirements there are no delays or extra workload do process the request.

Regarding the "enrichment of its own financial pocket by Allocation 
Fees" this is still possible for any organizations who requests blocks 
according to Phase 2 so that statement is not correct either.

There is a better well written proposal to allow Inter-RIR transfers 
under discussion which is and I invite others to support it instead 
which is "IPv4 Inter-RIR Resource Transfers (Comprehensive Scope) 
Draft-4 ". This one fulfill completely the need of Inter-RIR transfers 
for the region.

Regards
Fernando

On 10/09/2020 11:31, lucilla fornaro wrote:

> Hello everyone,

>

> My name is Lucilla, I graduated in Law and I am currently attending a 

> Master Degree in International Business. I would like to give my 

> contribution to the discussion.

>

> For 5.7.3.2: The barrier of 12 months represents an issue for many 

> entities that need to face unexpected problems. AFRINIC needs to allow 

> a smoother and faster resource transfer to support both smaller 

> organizations’ growth, as well as enrich its own financial pocket by 

> the Allocation Fees that need to be covered by entities that are not 

> member yet.

>

> And for what concerns other RIR like LACNIC, its policy is proving to 

> create some issue. They, as well as the other RIRs, are facing a heavy 

> workload because of the dilatation of time required for each request, 

> that once approved need to be included into another waiting list due 

> to quarantine reasons. These complications cannot be smoothly managed 

> by AFRINIC due its shortage of workforce. The section 5.7.3.2 would 

> make the overall working system more efficient. Furthermore, LACNIC 

> entered phase 3 (back in 2017) of the IPv4 Exhaustion, meanwhile 

> AFRINIC is facing a different situation.

>

> I strongly support Section 5.7.3.3: it is positive not to have an 

> upper limit regarding the amount of transfer because this will 

> facilitate the flow of addresses. IPv4 addresses within the region 

> will soon be depleted, transfer policy for IPv4 resources within and 

> outside the region is strongly needed.

>

> Lucilla

>

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

> *Da:* Fernando Frediani <fhfrediani at gmail.com>

> *Inviato:* Thursday, September 10, 2020 1:49:44 PM

> *A:* rpd at afrinic.net <rpd at afrinic.net>

> *Oggetto:* Re: [rpd] Revised Proposal | Resource Transfer Policy 

> (Draft-2)

>

> I see that point 5.7.3.2 goes in the opposite way of the obvious.

> If an organization gave up of its IP address space because it doesn't 

> have usage for it anymore, why would it be allowed to receive more 

> resources from AfriNic in short term ?

> Organizations receive IP space upon justification expected to be used 

> to serve their customers in a certain time frame ahead. If sudden it 

> realizes these addresses are not necessary anymore and transfer them 

> to some other organization who really need them why would the source 

> entity be allowed to receive even further space ?

> It is not correct to say it drags Afrinic service region backwards in 

> comparison to other RIRs. LACNIC and ARIN for example have similar 

> policies in regards this topic.

>

> 5.7.3.3. doesn't make sense either to be changed. The current text is 

> correct and has a proper reason to be like this, otherwise it opens 

> doors to fraud and to organizations to receive IP space form Afrinic 

> and immediately to transfer to someone else who cannot receive them 

> anymore under the current exhaustion rules.

>

> Therefore I oppose this proposal.

>

> Fernando

>

> On 09/09/2020 11:40, Ibeanusi Elvis wrote:

>> Hello Everyone,

>>

>> My Name is Ibeanusi Elvis. I am a Masters student of Global Law, 

>> Politics and Peace and Conflict Studies at the Tokyo University of 

>> Foreign Studies. Highly Interested in Internet Governance and Policy 

>> Making specifically within the AFRINIC service region.

>>

>> In regards to this proposal, I support the Proposed Section 5.7.3.2 

>> as source entities are eligible to receive further IPv4 allocations 

>> or assignments from AFRINIC as long as it complies with current 

>> policy because a 12 month non-eligibility delay period after transfer 

>> approval diminishes, hinders and is detrimental to the operational, 

>> developmental and growth of businesses within the AFRINIC region. 

>> Hence, dragging the African continent and AFRINIC service region 

>> backwards in comparison with other RIRs.

>>

>> Additionally, Section 5.7.3.2 and Section 5.7.5.3 ensures a swift 

>> communication between the transferring and receiving RIRs to enhance 

>> a smooth transfer and receive of allocations and assignments.

>>

>> Best regards,

>> Ibeanusi Elvis .C.

>>

>> _______________________________________________

>> RPD mailing list

>> RPD at afrinic.net  <mailto: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/20200910/3b2fe9c2/attachment.html>