[rpd] Transfer Policy Proposal v.3.docx

[Mike Burns]

Hi Noah,

 

Thanks for your thoughtful response.

What I can say from experience is that very few buyers care about legacy status because of these facts:

 

1.	It is only possible to retain legacy status through RIPE registration, which may not be desirable.
2.	You can’t use RPKI and that’s going to become a dealbreaker.
3.	You still have to demonstrate a need for the addresses, and that rules out speculators.
4.	In RIPE, LIRs do not pay more for more resources, so any LIR receiving legacy space won’t be saving money.

 

The issue of provision of services to legacy holders is a long and fraught issue. Trying to solve that issue in the context of a last-call inter-regional transfer proposal is out of scope.  There are other headaches for legacy holders regarding rDNS delegation and provision by the registry, and the ability to sub-allocate freely.

 

The general legacy issue was not solved at other registries in the context of their inter-regional policies, so why must AFRINIC table this important policy until it is solved?

 

Nobody has demonstrated the danger of retaining the language in the proposal, beyond the potential that AFRINIC may end up providing services to legacy holders to the detriment of dues-paying members. Thanks in advance for providing the data on that, but even knowing that number hasn’t solved the problem in any other registry that retains legacy status, so I’m not really sure what value it would provide.

 

My guess is that the reductions in fees to the AFRINIC organization would be few, but the discussion would once again be led astray into a dues and fees discussion.

 

Regards,
Mike

 

 

 

 

 

From: Noah <noah at neo.co.tz> 
Sent: Friday, October 09, 2020 12:03 PM
To: Mike Burns <mike at iptrading.com>
Cc: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet at consulintel.es>; rpd List <rpd at afrinic.net>
Subject: Re: [rpd] Transfer Policy Proposal v.3.docx

 

 

On Fri, Oct 9, 2020 at 6:32 PM Mike Burns <mike at iptrading.com <mailto:mike at iptrading.com> > wrote:

Hi Noah,

 

Hi Mike, 

 

Can you provide an estimated total of the fees that we are talking about  here and how they compare to AFRINIC’s revenue overall?

 

Allow me to do the due-diligence and revert. 

 

After all, it is your side which is seeking to stop this policy from proceeding, apparently partially based on the fee argument.

 

Wrong, the policy development process is not being followed and some of us the working group members are saying that is NOT the way to do it. This is not about only fees but other pending issues as already stated by countless other members and even staff members.

 

  I understand the value of bringing addresses under an RSA, 

 

And that is to the benefit of AFRINIC which is then to the benefit of the region because the AFRINIC role goes beyond just being a registry and is involved in all other strategic activities that benefit the region from capacity building, research, internet governance to name but a few.

 

 

This is not the place or time for those arguments, however.

 

No Mike, this is exactly the place for those arguments. 

 

Noah

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20201009/0e1d9701/attachment.html>