Search RPD Archives
[rpd] Decisions and summary on policy proposals discussed during the online Policy meetin
lucilla fornaro
lucillafornarosawamoto at gmail.com
Sat Sep 26 00:50:43 UTC 2020
Dear Anthony,
I also support the idea of (if needed) working on a different proposal to
discuss and solve problems related to the legacy status.
I see no benefit for Afrinic to force legacy space holders to lose their
status and become a member, it is a simplistic and not efficient way to
manage a more articulate problem. In my opinion, Afrinic should work on
engaging with them, rather than fight them.
Regards,
Lucilla
Il giorno sab 26 set 2020 alle ore 07:18 Anthony Ubah <
ubah.tonyiyke at gmail.com> ha scritto:
> Hello Fenando,
>
>
> Are we throwing out the bathing water together with the baby? Does Legacy
> status impact on today's immediate problem?
> Suggestion please.
>
> Like I said, the Legacy status of resources if not concluded here can be
> discussed in a separate proposal. Opinions will always be divided on
> certain issues.
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Anthony Ubah
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 25, 2020, 10:20 PM <rpd-request at afrinic.net> wrote:
>
>> Send RPD mailing list submissions to
>> rpd at afrinic.net
>>
>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>> rpd-request at afrinic.net
>>
>> You can reach the person managing the list at
>> rpd-owner at afrinic.net
>>
>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>> than "Re: Contents of RPD digest..."
>>
>>
>> Today's Topics:
>>
>> 1. Re: Decisions and summary on policy proposals discussed
>> during the online Policy meetin (Fernando Frediani)
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 1
>> Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2020 18:19:55 -0300
>> From: Fernando Frediani <fhfrediani at gmail.com>
>> To: rpd at afrinic.net
>> Subject: Re: [rpd] Decisions and summary on policy proposals discussed
>> during the online Policy meetin
>> Message-ID: <388bba0e-3230-f34a-5273-49595ef4a0fe at gmail.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
>>
>> On 25/09/2020 18:07, Anthony Ubah wrote:
>> > <clip>
>> >
>> >
>> > With respect to my policy proposal on Number resource Transfer, a
>> > questions was asked about legacy resources. This is relatively trivial
>> > to the idea of the policy in general. This can be subject to a new
>> > Legacy policy in its own right. However this proposal was done with
>> > the grand intention of gaining reciprocity with the key donor of IPv4s
>> > which is ARIN. The issues raised shouldn't halt this policy. Jordi
>> > made some valid recommendations which can be considered.
>>
>> It is definitively not. Letting them remain considered legacy is a
>> *major issue* that only benefit a few actors who gain financially with
>> it, plus incentives the continuation of a historic internet issue that
>> must end and bring all resources under common rules that any other
>> organization is bounded to on the top of helping ending possible abuses
>> from those who are still not subject to the rules of any RIR.
>>
>> On the top of that this has never been mentioned in *any* message for
>> months of discussion and has never been raised as an issue. Suddenly
>> someone goes to the PPM, mentions that, it becomes a mandatory change in
>> order for the proposal to reach rough consensus and the rest of the
>> people who discussed it in details have no chance oppose and properly
>> put up their points ? It doesn't make sense !
>> If the logic is that then people that have financial means to attend a
>> future event may be in advantage of others that participate only in the
>> RPD list if willing to change something substantial in the proposal at
>> the very last minute.
>>
>> FYI the Inter-RIR transfer policy in LACNIC states any legacy resources
>> transferred loses its status and it is still reciprocal to any other RIR
>> that have an Inter-RIR policy.
>>
>> Fernando
>>
>> >
>> > Lastly a comments was made about our problem statement. I think it is
>> > clearly stated. The use of the term "Business" has raised a few
>> > eyebrows and instigated ominous thoughts. I urge everyone to read
>> > again with an open mind. Internet is a global enterprise, and Number
>> > resources, internet, IT infrastructure and business are an integral
>> > part of our world today. It is impractical to separate the use of
>> > number resources from business.
>> >
>> >
>> > These are my 10Cents.
>> >
>> >
>> > Kind regards,
>> >
>> > Anthony Ubah
>> >
>> >
>> > On Fri, Sep 25, 2020, 5:03 PM <rpd-request at afrinic.net
>> > <mailto:rpd-request at afrinic.net>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Send RPD mailing list submissions to
>> > rpd at afrinic.net <mailto:rpd at afrinic.net>
>> >
>> > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>> > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
>> > <https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd>
>> > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>> > rpd-request at afrinic.net <mailto:rpd-request at afrinic.net>
>> >
>> > You can reach the person managing the list at
>> > rpd-owner at afrinic.net <mailto:rpd-owner at afrinic.net>
>> >
>> > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>> > than "Re: Contents of RPD digest..."
>> >
>> >
>> > Today's Topics:
>> >
>> > ? ?1. Re: Decisions and summary on policy proposals discussed
>> > ? ? ? during the online Policy meeting (AFRINIC 32) (Blaise Fyama)
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >
>> > Message: 1
>> > Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2020 18:02:20 +0200
>> > From: Blaise Fyama <bfyama at gmail.com <mailto:bfyama at gmail.com>>
>> > To: ABDULKARIM OLOYEDE <oloyede.aa at unilorin.edu.ng
>> > <mailto:oloyede.aa at unilorin.edu.ng>>
>> > Cc: rpd List <rpd at afrinic.net <mailto:rpd at afrinic.net>>
>> > Subject: Re: [rpd] Decisions and summary on policy proposals
>> discussed
>> > ? ? ? ? during the online Policy meeting (AFRINIC 32)
>> > Message-ID:
>> > ? ? ? ?
>> > <CAPehF5dv=5yc_bHR6OEJwtr7V28qNhTk-tK-sf1C_eAxWGLmVQ at mail.gmail.com
>> > <mailto:5yc_bHR6OEJwtr7V28qNhTk-tK-sf1C_eAxWGLmVQ at mail.gmail.com>>
>> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>> >
>> > Chers co-chairs,
>> > Sans ?tre virulents ? votre ?gard j'ai juste deux remarques ?
>> > faire d'abord:
>> >
>> > 1. L'aspect multilinguiste devrait ?tre respect? dans la prise en
>> > compte de
>> > vos d?cisions, et je n'en ai pas le sentiment, ce qui implique que
>> > pour
>> > accompagner solidement vos conclusions et vos inf?rences, un tableau
>> > transparent regroupant sommairement les r?actions de chaque membre
>> > politique apr?s politique serait le bienvenu car il permettrait ?
>> > tout le
>> > monde d'avoir une vue claire et optimale de vos d?cisions.
>> > ?tant un acad?mique de carri?re, je constate que sur 10 politiques
>> > seulement 2 sont adopt?es ou en voie de l'?tre ce qui laisse
>> > sous-entendre
>> > que les 8 autres politiques, qui pourtant r?sultent de grands
>> efforts,
>> > donnent un sentiment d'?chec ? leurs auteurs. Pourriez-vous
>> > ?couter un peu
>> > plus leurs auteurs?
>> > Je reconnais par exemple que Jordi a longuement interagis et
>> > ?chang? avec
>> > plusieurs d'entre nous sa proposition m?riterait d'?voluer.
>> >
>> > 2. Lorsqu'une remarque techniquement et valablement soutenue vous
>> est
>> > adress?e pourriez-vous aussi donner des explications
>> > proportionnellement longues? Vos r?ponses courtes et laconiques
>> > laissent un
>> > sentiment de manque de consid?ration de ce qui vous est adress?
>> > par les
>> > membres. Sinon vous risquez d'inspirer ? leur tour les membres du
>> > PDWG que
>> > nous sommes ? concevoir des politiques qui limitent votre propre
>> r?le.
>> >
>> > La note positive dans tout ?a est que les 2 politiques ? savoir
>> > les "Les
>> > pr?rogatives du conseil" et "Politique de transfert des
>> > ressources" au vu
>> > des longues discussions pendant des mois ont quand m?me fait du
>> > chemin. Je
>> > note seulement que nous devons rester alerte pour? "Les
>> > pr?rogatives du
>> > conseil"? afin de ne pas affaiblir non plus le conseil qui devrait
>> > demeurer
>> > un organe de prise des d?cisions, pour plus d'efficience et
>> > d'efficacit?
>> > dans le fonctionnement de la communaut?.
>> > J'en f?licite les auteurs, surtout Taiwo avec qui j'ai eu
>> > l'opportunit?
>> > d'?changer lors de l'avant-dernier sommet en Angola.
>> >
>> > Pour finir chers co-chairs efforcez-vous d'?tre multilingues pour
>> nous
>> > ?crire en Fran?ais comme nous aussi on vous ?crit parfois en
>> Anglais.
>> >
>> > Cordialement,
>> > Blaise.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?Blaise FYAMA
>> > Msc, PhD.
>> > Professeur Associ?
>> > Secr?taire G?n?ral Acad?mique Honoraire/UL
>> > Doyen de la Facult? des Sciences Informatiques/UPL
>> > Doyen a.i de la Facult? Polytechnique/UPL
>> > Chef de D?partement G?nie Electrique/ESI-UNILU
>> > Chef de Service Informatique/Polytech-UNILU
>> > Consultant Informatique BIT/PAEJK
>> > Membre de International Research Conference IRC/WASET
>> > Tel: +243995579515
>> > Num?ro O.N.I.CIV: 00460
>> >
>> > MSc, PhD.
>> >
>> > Associate Professor
>> >
>> > Honorary Academic Secretary General / UL
>> >
>> > Dean of the Faculty of Computer Science / UPL
>> >
>> > Dean a.i of the Polytechnic Faculty / UPL
>> >
>> > Head of Department of Electrical Engineering / ESI-UNILU
>> >
>> > IT Service Manager / Polytech-UNILU
>> >
>> > IT Consultant BIT / PAEJK
>> >
>> > Member of International Research Conference IRC/WASET
>> >
>> > Phone: +243995579515
>> >
>> > O.N.I.CIV number: 00460
>> >
>> >
>> > Le lun. 21 sept. 2020 ? 02:06, ABDULKARIM OLOYEDE <
>> > oloyede.aa at unilorin.edu.ng <mailto:oloyede.aa at unilorin.edu.ng>> a
>> > ?crit :
>> >
>> > >
>> > > Dear PDWG Members,
>> > >
>> > >? Please find below a summary for each of the proposal discussed
>> > during the
>> > > just concluded online policy meeting of AFRINIC 32
>> > >
>> > > 1.? ? ? ?Simple PDP Update
>> > >
>> > > This policy defines consensus. It also proposes that a policy
>> > discussed at
>> > > the PPM does not need to come back for another PPM for the
>> > Co-chairs to
>> > > arrive at a decision. This can help in streamlining the work
>> > during the PPM
>> > > and encourages people to use the mailing list.
>> > >
>> > > There were lots of irrelevant objections on the mailing list such
>> as
>> > > someone registering many emails. We believe that this does not
>> > matter
>> > > because rough consensus is not about numbers but quality
>> objections.
>> > >
>> > > However, there is strong opposition to this policy based on the
>> > following:
>> > >
>> > > a.? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?Oppose the policy because of the way the
>> > consensus
>> > > is reached. This proposal proposes that the consensus be reached
>> > through a
>> > > balance of the mailing list/forum and not at the PPM. This
>> > endangers fair
>> > > consensus and hijacks the policymaking process. Based on
>> > experience, it is
>> > > during the PPM that most community members focus on policies.
>> > >
>> > > b.? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Issues around how the chairs should drop
>> > proposals.
>> > >
>> > > c.? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?Trust in the mailing list: Some strongly
>> > believe
>> > > that anonymous contribution should be allowed while some
>> > believes it should
>> > > not.
>> > >
>> > > d.? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Issues around having more than 1 PPM per
>> > year and
>> > > Online PPM because of volunteer burnout. We are all volunteers
>> > and it?s a
>> > > night job for us. More PPMs mean more time to volunteer and more
>> > chances
>> > > for burnouts
>> > >
>> > > e.? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Some members of the Community thinks only
>> > burning or
>> > > polarizing issues should be brought to the PPM.
>> > >
>> > > Chairs Decision:? ?No Consensus
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > 2.? ? ? ?PDP Working Group
>> > >
>> > > This proposal aims at allowing most of the decisions including
>> chair
>> > > elections to be determined via consensus.? This can be
>> > reasonable when the
>> > > community has the same goal. However, there were a number of
>> > objections to
>> > > it. These are:
>> > >
>> > > a.? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?Entrusting the WG to make their decisions by
>> > > consensus and the appointment of their co-chairs by consensus do
>> > not make
>> > > sense and is only utopic.
>> > >
>> > > b.? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? People are not policy proposals, and thus
>> > choosing by
>> > > consensus is splitting hairs with the election process we
>> > already have.
>> > > Save the consensus for the proposals, and the election for people.
>> > >
>> > > c.? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?Consensus may even take months, and this
>> > can?t fly
>> > > when we want to put people in the vacant roles.
>> > >
>> > > d.? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Co-chairs should not have a hand in the
>> > consensus,
>> > > but only sit back and let the community decide for themselves.
>> > > Additionally, the consensus process is not feasible with a
>> deadline.
>> > >
>> > > e.? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Focus on polishing the current electoral
>> process
>> > > instead of complicating other untested forms of ?election?.
>> > >
>> > > f.? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? The current status quo?s election should
>> > be the
>> > > only option in choosing for the roles, and not through less
>> > transparent
>> > > means.
>> > >
>> > > g.? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?Board would be interfering too much on
>> > issues that
>> > > deal with PDP
>> > >
>> > > Chairs Decision:? ? No Consensus
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > 3.? ? ? ?Chairs Election Process
>> > >
>> > > This proposal aims at introducing an online voting system for the
>> > > Co-Chairs election. The following are the opposition to this
>> > proposal.
>> > >
>> > > a.? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?This policy reduces participation. Equal
>> > > representation is violated because the board has unprecedented
>> > power.
>> > >
>> > > b.? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? There is also not enough information on the
>> > logistics
>> > > of the vote (e-voting).
>> > >
>> > > c.? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?There is a contradiction on when the term
>> ends
>> > > during the meeting. ?The term ends during the first PPM
>> > corresponding to
>> > > the end of the term for which they were appointed? is not clear
>> > enough, and
>> > > ?A term may begin or end no sooner than the first day of the PPM
>> > and no
>> > > later than the last day of the PPM as determined by mutual
>> > agreement of the
>> > > current Chair and the new Chair? contradicts each other.
>> > >
>> > > d.? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Gender restriction on 3.3.1.3 , some community
>> > > members argue it is impractical and maybe even unfair if we
>> > force both
>> > > chairs to have different genders.
>> > >
>> > > e.? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Issues around which voter's register should be
>> > > adopted
>> > >
>> > > Chairs Decision: No Consensus
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > 4.? ? ? ?Board Prerogatives
>> > >
>> > > This proposal aims at clarifying how the board and the PDWG?
>> works.
>> > > However, there were a few oppositions to this proposal except for
>> a
>> > > specific section.
>> > >
>> > > a.? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?It seems like a piecemeal approach to
>> > dealing with
>> > > issues.
>> > >
>> > > b.? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Opposition to the section below
>> > >
>> > > *?As an exception of the preceding paragraph, in the absence of
>> > elections
>> > > processes for aspects related to the PDP (co-chairs, appeal
>> > committee),
>> > > those aspects will be still handled by the board in consultation
>> > with the
>> > > community. However, this is also a temporary measure and also
>> > specific
>> > > draft policy proposals should be introduced for that*?. The
>> authors
>> > > agreed to remove the above section hence
>> > >
>> > > Chairs Decision: Consensus provided the above section is removed
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > 5.? ? ? ?Policy Compliance Dashboard
>> > >
>> > > The policy proposal seeks to provide a framework or a policy
>> > compliance
>> > > dashboard be developed by AFRINIC and incorporated in myAFRINIC
>> > (and future
>> > > member?s communication platforms).? It will allow a periodic
>> > review of the
>> > > policy compliance status of each member. It will also enable
>> > members to
>> > > receive automated notifications for any issue. Staff will
>> > receive repeated
>> > > warnings of lack of compliance or severe violations enshrined in
>> > the CPM.
>> > > However, there are several oppositions to this proposal, such as:
>> > >
>> > > a.? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?This policy seems to be redundant of the
>> > status quo
>> > > as violations are already checked and processed by the human
>> staff.
>> > >
>> > > b.? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? There is already an existing system of
>> > guidelines on
>> > > keeping track of the violations of members.
>> > >
>> > > c.? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?The policy is not binding and does not
>> enforce
>> > > members actually to follow the rules and not violate policies.
>> > >
>> > > d.? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Ignorance could be a convenient excuse for
>> > violations
>> > > because one could claim that they never got notified about their
>> > violations.
>> > >
>> > > e.? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? There is no comprehensive system on how the
>> > board
>> > > should take proper actions once members violate policies, nor
>> > does it give
>> > > guidelines based on the severity of the violations.
>> > >
>> > > f.? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? This policy takes away resources that
>> > could be used
>> > > for more beneficial pursuits to AFRINIC for something existing
>> > in the
>> > > system.
>> > >
>> > > g.? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?It an administrative? process, and this
>> > should be
>> > > left to staff
>> > >
>> > > Chairs Decision:? NO rough Consensus
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > 6.? ? ? ?Abuse Contact Update
>> > >
>> > > The proposal makes it mandatory for AFRINIC to include in each
>> > resource
>> > > registration, a contact where network abuse from users of those
>> > resources
>> > > will be reported.? The proposal whois DB attribute (abuse-c) to
>> > be used to
>> > > publish abuse public contact information. There?s also a process
>> > to ensure
>> > > that the recipient must receive abuse report and that contacts are
>> > > validated by AFRINIC regularly. However, there some opposition
>> > to the
>> > > proposal there are:
>> > >
>> > > a.? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?Staff analysis on how it affects legacy
>> > holder not
>> > > conclusive? (not sure why this should affect legacy holders)
>> > >
>> > > b.? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? The proposal doesn?t state what will be the
>> > > consequences of one member fails to comply. Why are we creating
>> > the abuse
>> > > contact when there is no consequence for not providing the abuse
>> > contact
>> > >
>> > > c.? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?Abuse contact email and issues with GDPR
>> > concerning
>> > > the whois database
>> > >
>> > > d.? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? No proper definition of the term Abuse
>> > >
>> > > e.? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? To force members to reply to their abuse
>> > email is not
>> > > in the scope of AFRINIC.
>> > >
>> > > Chairs Decision: No rough consensus
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > 7.? ? ? ?RPKI ROAs for Unallocated and Unassigned AFRINIC
>> > Address Space
>> > >
>> > > The proposal instructs AFRINIC to create ROAs for all
>> > unallocated and
>> > > unassigned address space under its control. This will enable
>> > networks
>> > > performing RPKI-based BGP Origin Validation to easily reject all
>> > the bogon
>> > > announcements covering resources managed by AFRINIC. However,
>> > there are
>> > > many oppositions such as:
>> > >
>> > > a.? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?Allowing resource holders to create AS0/
>> > ROA will
>> > > lead to an increase of even more invalid prefixes in the routing
>> > table.
>> > >
>> > > b.? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Revocation time of AS0 state, and the time
>> > for new
>> > > allocation doesn?t match.
>> > >
>> > > c.? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?Other RIRs don?t have a similar the policy
>> > > therefore, it can not be effective
>> > >
>> > > d.? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? This will become a uniform policy if it is not
>> > > globally implemented, which causes additional stress.
>> > >
>> > > e.? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Validity period:? ?if members decide to
>> > implement it,
>> > > is it not better to recover the space if it is kept unused for
>> > too long?
>> > >
>> > > f.? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? How do we revoke the ROA? How long does it
>> > take to
>> > > revoke it (chain/ refreshing )?
>> > >
>> > > g.? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?What happens if AFRINIC accidentally issues
>> > a ROA
>> > > for an address in error?
>> > >
>> > > h.? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? It also might affect the neighbours and
>> involves
>> > > monitoring of unallocated spaces.
>> > >
>> > > i.? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?Possibility of it being used against a
>> > member who
>> > > is yet to pay dues.
>> > >
>> > > Suggestions were made to improve the policy such as
>> > >
>> > > a)? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? The automatic creation of AS0 ROAs should be
>> > limited
>> > > to space that has never been allocated by an RIR or part of a
>> legacy
>> > > allocation.
>> > >
>> > > b)? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? AFRINIC should require the explicit consent
>> > of the
>> > > previous holder to issue AS0 ROAs in respect of re-claimed,
>> > returned, etc,
>> > > space.
>> > >
>> > > c)? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?Any ROAs issued under this policy should be
>> > issued
>> > > and published in a way that makes it operationally easy for a
>> > relying party
>> > > to ignore them (probably by issuing under a separate TA).
>> > >
>> > > d)? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? The proposal should include the clause ?as
>> > used in
>> > > APNIC as to dues not paid on time.?
>> > >
>> > > Chairs Decision: No consensus
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > 8.? ? ? ?IPv4 Inter-RIR Resource Transfers (Comprehensive Scope)
>> > >
>> > > The proposal puts in place a mechanism to transfer IPv4 and
>> > (some ASN)
>> > > resources between AFRINIC and other RIRs and between AFRINIC
>> > > members/entities. Some conditions are attached to the source and
>> > recipient
>> > > based on need and disclosure made. The inter-RIR transfers will be
>> > > suspended if the number of outgoing IPv4 addresses exceeds the
>> > incoming
>> > > ones for six consecutive months. However, there are oppositions
>> > to it
>> > >
>> > > a.? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?ASN Transfer is not necessary
>> > >
>> > > b.? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Issue of board inferring: no board in all of
>> > the five
>> > > RIRs have ever been involved in deciding a transfer or allocating
>> IP
>> > > address. It is not the board's responsibility.
>> > >
>> > > c.? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?Suspending clause with no reinstalling
>> > clause. This
>> > > mainly makes the policy potentially invalid.
>> > >
>> > > Chairs Decision: No consensus.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > 9.? ? ? ?AFRINIC Number Resource Transfer
>> > >
>> > > a.? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?Not realistic for one-way inter RIR resource
>> > > transfer as it has to be reciprocal. One way would never happen
>> > as only
>> > > global resources can come in and go out
>> > >
>> > > b.? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? It would be difficult for the recipient to
>> > follow the
>> > > rules of AFRINIC if they are not in the African region.
>> > >
>> > > c.? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?No need for ASN transfer. If one is moving
>> > regions
>> > > and doesn't have an ASN in the new region, it can request and
>> > receive from
>> > > the local RIRs
>> > >
>> > > d.? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Additional attributes create none-operational
>> > > complexity in the whois database.
>> > >
>> > > Chairs Decision: No consensus.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > 10.? ?Resource Transfer Policy
>> > >
>> > > This proposal aims to introduce Inter RIR transfer. However, it
>> > has the
>> > > following opposition
>> > >
>> > > a.? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?Issues with Legacy holder transfer is
>> > potentially
>> > > considered none-reciprocal by ARIN
>> > >
>> > > b.? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Potential abuse of AFRINIC free pool without
>> > the time
>> > > limit of receiving an allocation from AFRINIC.
>> > >
>> > > Chairs Decision: The proposal is the least contested of all the 3
>> > > competing proposals. However because of the community?s desire
>> > and clear
>> > > expression for the? need for an Inter RIR transfer, we, the
>> > Co-chairs,
>> > > believe that in the interest of the community we should focus on
>> > a proposal
>> > > rather than several similar ones. This desire was clearly
>> > expressed at the
>> > > AFRINIC 31 meeting in Angola. Therefore, We suggest that the
>> > authors of
>> > > this proposal make the following amendments:
>> > >
>> > > ?? ? ? ? ?5.7.3.2? Source entities are not eligible to receive
>> > further
>> > > IPv4 allocations or assignments from AFRINIC for 12 months
>> > period after the
>> > > transfer.
>> > >
>> > > ?? ? ? ? ?5.7.4.3. Transferred legacy resources will still be
>> > regarded as
>> > > legacy resources.
>> > >
>> > > Chairs Decision: Provided that the above are amended, the
>> > decisions is
>> > > Rough Consensus is achieved
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Based on the above, The updated version of the follow proposal
>> which
>> > > achieved rough consensus would be posted on the PDWG website
>> > >
>> > > *1.? ? ? ?**Board Prerogatives *
>> > >
>> > > *2.? ? ? ?**Resource Transfer Policy*
>> > >
>> > > Therefore, these two policies are now on last call.
>> > >
>> > > Co-Chair
>> > > PDWG
>> > >
>> > > Website <http://www.unilorin.edu.ng
>> > <http://www.unilorin.edu.ng>>, Weekly Bulletin
>> > > <http://www.unilorin.edu.ng/index.php/bulletin
>> > <http://www.unilorin.edu.ng/index.php/bulletin>> UGPortal
>> > > <http://uilugportal.unilorin.edu.ng/
>> > <http://uilugportal.unilorin.edu.ng/>> PGPortal
>> > > <https://uilpgportal.unilorin.edu.ng/
>> > <https://uilpgportal.unilorin.edu.ng/>>
>> > >
>> > > _______________________________________________
>> > > RPD mailing list
>> > > RPD at afrinic.net <mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>
>> > > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
>> > <https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd>
>> > >
>> > -------------- next part --------------
>> > An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>> > URL:
>> > <
>> https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20200925/a8a5d980/attachment.html
>> > <
>> https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20200925/a8a5d980/attachment.html
>> >>
>> >
>> > ------------------------------
>> >
>> > Subject: Digest Footer
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > RPD mailing list
>> > RPD at afrinic.net <mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>
>> > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
>> > <https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd>
>> >
>> >
>> > ------------------------------
>> >
>> > End of RPD Digest, Vol 168, Issue 213
>> > *************************************
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > 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/20200925/1e6effea/attachment.html
>> >
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Subject: Digest Footer
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> RPD mailing list
>> RPD at afrinic.net
>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> End of RPD Digest, Vol 168, Issue 219
>> *************************************
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20200926/a66a3601/attachment.html>
More information about the RPD
mailing list