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

[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-0001.html>


More information about the RPD mailing list