[rpd] Transfer Policy Proposal v.3.docx

[Fernando Frediani]

Hello

There is no much I can do other than state my *opposition to this 
proposal* to advance and reach any consensus mainly because 5.7.4.3 has 
been inverted from what was originally in the proposal and only changed 
at last minute due to some comments in the PPM going straight to last 
call which didn't give opportunity to the community re-evaluate this 
major change and if it's suitable to the region or not.

Co-Chairs cannot advance this proposal to rough consensus the way it is 
and I urge and ask them again to bring it back to discussion to find out 
a resolution to these opened issues. Multiple people raised substantial 
concerns about it already. There is no way it can be considered 'rough 
consensus'.

I also understand there may be a hurry to get a Inter-RIR transfer 
policy as soon as possible, but we must care about what is most 
important than that which is get policies to reflect what is really good 
for the region and not just to a few actors, even if it takes a bit 
longer. I support Jordi's suggestion to have another PPM in a few months 
so perhaps this proposal can advance from that point in time. LACNIC 
remained about 2 years without a Inter-RIR transfer policy after it run 
out of addresses for new organizations and survived. AfriNic will 
survive if it has to wait a few more months in order to get things 
really right.

Now going to the merit of the proposal specially the main point I oppose 
(5.7.4.3):
There is no sense at all to keep considering transferred legacy 
resources as legacy. This doesn't work that way and has a proper reason 
to be like that which is fix a historical internet problem and reduce 
legacy resources with time as they get transferred to 'normal' 
organizations who purchased them in the market for example.
In this way organizations receiving these resources are bind to the same 
rules everybody else making it much fair to everybody and making no 
distinction between members.
Allowing resources to remain considered legacy only contributed to 
abuses and unfairness allowing those who can pay more do whatever they 
like which is bad for the rest of the Internet community which are 
subject to the same rules  that apply equally to them.
If transferred legacy resources are not considered legacy anymore more 
and more they will apply equally for everybody as they become as a 
normal resource within any RIR. There has been a strong reason for this 
be like that until now and to continue like that.

Regards
Fernando

On 23/09/2020 09:49, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD wrote:

> Hi Taiwo, all,

>

> I've looked into the doc.

>

> Let me say something before going into a more detailed analysis: I *fully support* this proposal, and I will be happy to withdraw it once:

> 1) The staff confirms that all the points on the staff analysis have been cleared and thus, the policy could be implemented and will be functional in the intended purpose.

> 2) The board ratifies the policy (which means also it passes the last call).

>

> Why? If anything in the process fails, I still believe my proposal is clearer and never mind is my proposal or this one I'm happy to work with the authors to make sure to resolve the issues that may happen as indicated in 1 and 2 above (hopefully there are no issues).

>

> I've now a more detailed analysis, please really, needs to be taken seriously with the staff or we may ruin the policy and not allow to be functional.

>

> There is something which doesn't make sense: The text in point 5.7. The CPM should be read always as "actual" so "soon will exhaust ..." is not logic, neither needed for the purpose of this policy. In addition, there are typos there ...

>

> This is an editorial change that according to the PDP should be possible as part of the last call. I will suggest to keep it simple:

> 5.7 IPv4 Resources transfer

> This policy applies to an organization with a justified need for IPv4 resources (recipients) and organizations with IPv4 resources which no longer need (sources).

>

> I see that the "disputes" issue has been resolved! Tks! Anyway, I think there is another editorial problem there.

> Actual text:

> 5.7.3.1 The source must be the current rightful holder of the IPv4 address resources registered with any RIR, and shall be in compliance with the policies of the receiving RIR, and shall not be involved in any dispute as to the status of those resources.

>

> I suggest:

> 5.7.3.1 The source must be the current rightful holder of the IPv4 address resources registered with any RIR, in compliance with the relevant policies, and shall not be involved in any dispute as to the status of those resources.

>

> Keeping the "policies of the receiving RIR" is contradictory ... changing it with "relevant policies" allows both RIRs to ensure that everything is correct.

>

> Grammar maybe, I'm not English native speaker:

> "for 12 months period" or "for a 12 months period"

>

> I think 5.7.3.3. doesn't add any value, it could be removed and doesn't change anything: if there is no limite, no need to mention it. If there is not agreement, clearly the transfer will not happen because the parties don't authorize it, and then the RIR(s) don't authorize it!

>

> Similarly 5.7.4.2. could be removed as well. We already said that the recipient should comply with policies (5.7.3.1), so what is this adding? Just superfluous text.

>

> Note also my imputs in the previous email, regarding the hold period and the legacy status. I think 5.7.4.3, should be "IPv4 legacy resources "Transferred incoming or within AFRINIC IPv4 legacy resources will no longer be regarded as legacy resources".

>

> 5.7.5.1 is already indicated by the staff as something problematic with the actual wording. The transferring party (the source) may not have any relation (not a member) with the receiving RIR. With this text we are enforcing *all the RIRs* to offer a standard template and process on our mandate. WE CAN'T DO THAT. Our policies only have a mandate in AFRINIC, not in the other RIRs.

>

> If we just remove section 5.7.5, and leave it to the staff as part of the operational procedure, the the problem is resolved because the existing process among the all other 4 RIRs for transfers will be "joined" by AFRINIC. It is just a matter of interconection among systems and processes!

>

> I think all this should be carefully studied among the authors and the staff and the chairs should make sure that the verstion coming to last call has corrected all those issues.

>

> I hope all this is useful.

>   

> Regards,

> Jordi

> @jordipalet

>   

>   

>

> El 23/9/20 9:38, "Taiwo Oyewande" <taiwo.oyewande88 at gmail.com> escribió:

>

>      Hello PDWG,

>

>      Attached is the updated version of the Resource Transfer Policy proposal. As recommended, changes have been effected on sub-section  5.7.3.2, and 5.7.4.3 according to the co-chair summary.

>

>

>      _______________________________________________

>      RPD mailing list

>      RPD at afrinic.net

>      https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd

>

>

>

> **********************************************

> IPv4 is over

> Are you ready for the new Internet ?

> http://www.theipv6company.com

> The IPv6 Company

>

> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

>

>

>

>

> _______________________________________________

> 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/20200923/074926fc/attachment.html>