[rpd] Transfer Policy Proposal v.3.docx

[Mike Burns]

Hi Fernando,

 

Just stick with the arguments and leave the speaker’s motivations out.

It’s a simple global rule of policy mailing lists, in place everywhere for reasons obvious to most.

 

Regards,

Mike

 

 

 

 

 

From: Fernando Frediani <fhfrediani at gmail.com> 
Sent: Friday, October 09, 2020 1:51 PM
To: rpd >> AfriNIC Resource Policy <rpd at afrinic.net>
Subject: Re: [rpd] Transfer Policy Proposal v.3.docx

 

Mike, I mentioned on my point that this situation only benefits brokers in my view (which ia true). 

That fact that you are a broker will not change my mind and my right to put my opinion as it is for the other's consideration.

 

Get used to it, I will mention as many times I find suitable situations that I see as benefitial only to brokers and not to the whole community, regardless if you are involved in the discussion or not.

I didn't even insinuated anything related to youself specifically or regarding your personal motivations, so you are making up the 'ad hominem' stuff.

It was a pretry much generic comment.

 

You have no right to censor myself and any possible issues caused by brokers is of the high interest of this forum to discuss.

 

Save your time next time.

 

Fernando

 

 

 

On Fri, 9 Oct 2020, 14:38 Mike Burns, <mike at iptrading.com <mailto:mike at iptrading.com> > wrote:

Hi Fernando,

 

Legacy blocks make up the bulk of supply for the IPv4 market.

The community has received tens of millions of addresses from legacy holders, and that’s to the community’s benefit.

 

This particular proposal will change nothing important, as I have repeatedly pointed out, the situation is the same at RIPE.

Inter-regional transfers happen, a few retain legacy status, and buyers get the addresses they need.

 

This proposal should not provide entry point for a long and ultimately un-solvable issue of legacy space in general, as much as that might seem desirable to some. The retention of legacy space is an immaterial matter in the scope of the need for this policy.

 

Once again I must warn you against ad hominem arguments;  investigating the motives of list-participants is not relevant.  Please leave out references to brokers and your perception of their motivations from future discussions.

 

Regards,

Mike

 

 

 

From: Fernando Frediani <fhfrediani at gmail.com <mailto:fhfrediani at gmail.com> > 
Sent: Friday, October 09, 2020 11:56 AM
To: rpd at afrinic.net <mailto:rpd at afrinic.net> 
Subject: Re: [rpd] Transfer Policy Proposal v.3.docx

 

On 09/10/2020 12:32, Mike Burns wrote:

Hi Noah,

 

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

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

 

I am a legacy holder as well as non-legacy holder and I am well aware of the arguments about provision of legacy services to members with legacy resources. I understand the value of bringing addresses under an RSA, and I understand the value of keeping legacy holders participating. They are at tension.

Probably the value of legacy holders participating are only to the Brokers who manage the deal and get commission on it. I don't see the community getting much out of it and still having to pay the bill (regardless if the cost is high or low) which causes a double unfairness: 1) Some pay, some not 2) Some has rules to follow, some not.

 

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

If a proposal may change this dramatically that is certainly the right place to discuss this matter.

Fernando

 

Regards,
Mike

 

 

 

 

 

From: Noah  <mailto:noah at neo.co.tz> <noah at neo.co.tz> 
Sent: Friday, October 09, 2020 11:17 AM
To: Mike Burns  <mailto:mike at iptrading.com> <mike at iptrading.com>
Cc: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ  <mailto:jordi.palet at consulintel.es> <jordi.palet at consulintel.es>; rpd List  <mailto:rpd at afrinic.net> <rpd at afrinic.net>
Subject: Re: [rpd] Transfer Policy Proposal v.3.docx

 

 

 

On Fri, Oct 9, 2020 at 5:54 PM Mike Burns <mike at iptrading.com <mailto:mike at iptrading.com> > wrote:

  

Fees avoided by legacy status are a very small issue here, 

 

Mike I am not surprised by your subjective opinion above. As such, be reminded that legacy space holders are benefitting from various services which are made possible from fees paid by AFRINIC resource members. So this is not a small issue if others have to bleed money for legacy space holders to enjoy freely. 

 

not something that should delay this important policy.

 

What is the rush. Shall we not follow the policy development process just because you think this particular proposal is so important because it's open ended which is what you would like to see.

 

What is important is that the PDP process must be followed to the letter and all pending issues with this proposal and the other inter-rir transfer policy proposal must be addressed and that includes the impact on AFRINIC Ltd which I am sure you careless about.

 

Cheers,

Noah

 

 

 

_______________________________________________
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/20201009/d16a003b/attachment.html>