Search RPD Archives
[rpd] Transfer Policy Proposal v.3.docx
Jaco Kroon
jaco at uls.co.za
Sat Oct 10 10:07:20 UTC 2020
Hi,
Based on your statement, then the change that has been introduced should
be removed and handled in a separate policy change.
But a change is required for reciprocity with other RIRs. What we're
saying and asking is to please maintain the status quo for intra-RIR
(within region) and inbound transfers from other RIRs, and ONLY relax
the requirement that legacy space loses legacy status on OUTBOUND from
the region transfers.
This is the MINIMUM change required for reciprocity, and thus why we're
requesting you to please amend the change to exactly this. If you want
to change the existing policy to allow legacy transfers in-region to
maintain legacy status, then, as per your own statement below, that
should be a whole different discussion and therefore a completely
separate policy.
Kind Regards,
Jaco
On 2020/10/10 10:43, Ekaterina Kalugina wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> I am fully with Mike and Elvis on this one. The legacy issue of
> compatibility has already been addressed by the authors of the policy.
> In addition, the issue of legacy should be a subject of a whole
> different discussion and therefore a completely separate policy.
>
> Also, Fernando, I think Mark is right - you are coming across as ad
> hominem. In addition, there have been multiple instances that I've
> seen in this list as well as experienced personally, when you make
> personal attacks on the speaker instead of their argument. This is not
> a way to go in a civilized discussion and I would kindly ask you to
> abstain from such behavior in the future.
>
> Best,
>
> Ekaterina
>
> On Sat, 10 Oct 2020, 07:28 Ibeanusi Elvis <ibeanusielvis at gmail.com
> <mailto:ibeanusielvis at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Dear community,
>
> I concur with the ideology that the issue of legacy space has
> been addressed by the recently version of the proposal being
> submitted by Taiwo and Anthony. Which was conducted during the
> last call period whereby editorial changes are allowed in
> accordance with the CPM. Additionally, just as Mike stated, since
> ARIN allows the same policy with RIPE, it won’t be a problem for
> AFRINIC and also, Madhvi never stated that AFRINIC had an issue of
> reciprocity with ARIN.
>
> Let’s try and move forward, by doing justice to this needed
> two-way Inter-RIR Resource Transfer Policy for the greater good of
> the African region. +Mike.
>
> Elvis.
>
> On Sat, 10 Oct 2020 at 04:41, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD
> <rpd at afrinic.net <mailto:rpd at afrinic.net>> wrote:
>
> Hi Mike,
>
>
>
> LACNIC also has the same: Legacy is lost after incoming
> transfers and it is a good protection measure for the region.
> This is why both LACNIC and AFRINIC communities (and I was not
> involved in that, so not just my personal view), had it
> already when they only had intra-RIR.
>
>
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Jordi
>
> @jordipalet
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> El 9/10/20 19:39, "Mike Burns" <mike at iptrading.com
> <mailto:mike at iptrading.com>> escribió:
>
>
>
> Hi Jordi,
>
>
>
> I don’t think we are saying the same thing, except we are
> saying the issue of legacy holders and fees is a long and
> DIFFERENT discussion.
>
>
>
> It’s possible that I did miss the text, but the most recent
> post from AFRINIC regarding reciprocity didn’t mention any
> ARIN problem with what we are discussing here, namely the
> retention of legacy status after an inter-regional transfer.
> Other issues regarding legacy space seem to have been
> adequately addressed by the most recent version of the proposal.
>
>
>
> Since ARIN allows this with RIPE, I doubt they have a problem
> with AFRINIC.
>
>
>
> Why can’t AFRINIC have the same policy as RIPE in this regard?
>
> Can you re-state your objection to the retention of legacy
> status after a receipt of legacy addresses into AFRINIC from
> another region?
>
>
>
> I understand your objection to legacy space overall, but if
> you could phrase your objection without reference to that
> larger issue, it may help.
>
> Because settling that larger issue is outside the scope of
> this proposal.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Mike
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD <rpd at afrinic.net
> <mailto:rpd at afrinic.net>>
> *Sent:* Friday, October 09, 2020 12:26 PM
> *To:* 'rpd List' <rpd at afrinic.net <mailto:rpd at afrinic.net>>
> *Subject:* Re: [rpd] Transfer Policy Proposal v.3.docx
>
>
>
> We are saying the same, see 2 above.
>
>
>
> However, that’s wrong, because if both parties are legacy
> holders, they aren’t bound to policies, so they should be
> allowed to change the registration data.
>
>
>
> After all, legacy holders, in my opinion, should not exist.
> But that's a very long and different discussion.
>
>
>
> Regarding to the reciprocity from other RIRs, I guess you
> missed reading all the text … it talks about that. Is not a
> problem for APNIC, but it is for ARIN. Anyway, it looks like
> it is partial feedback, I think we should wait for a final
> assessment.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Jordi
>
> @jordipalet
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> El 9/10/20 18:12, "Mike Burns" <mike at iptrading.com
> <mailto:mike at iptrading.com>> escribió:
>
>
>
> Hi Jordi,
>
>
>
> Your position is simply wrong, and it’s not limited to ARIN.
>
> Legacy holders cannot transfer addresses in any RIR but RIPE
> without adhering to RIR policy.
>
>
>
> I am defining a transfer as a change in registration.
>
> Of course there are off-the-books transfers, this policy has
> nothing to say about them, nor are they recognized by any RIR.
>
>
>
> Now that your understanding about legacy transfers has been
> corrected, does it change your objection at all?
>
> The recent reports from other RIRs don’t mention the legacy
> issue in terms of reviewing AFRNIC’s inter-regional proposal,
> I will note.
>
>
>
> Regards,
> Mike
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD <rpd at afrinic.net
> <mailto:rpd at afrinic.net>>
> *Sent:* Friday, October 09, 2020 11:52 AM
> *To:* rpd at afrinic.net <mailto:rpd at afrinic.net>
> *Subject:* Re: [rpd] Transfer Policy Proposal v.3.docx
>
>
>
> Hi Mike,
>
>
>
> The ARIN case, is a bit different, I know, it is a very long
> history …
>
>
>
> I stand on my position: Legacy holders don’t need any policy
> to transfer resources if both of them haven’t signed any RIR
> RSA (or equivalent). The problem is:
>
> 1) Often the receiver of the transfer has signed in a
> RIR, so they “can’t receive the legacy resources because they
> will be against the policies”.
>
> 2) The RIR may not agree to change the registration data
> (if the transfer is among 2 legacy holders).
>
>
>
> 1 above is acceptable, but 2 is not.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Jordi
>
> @jordipalet
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> El 9/10/20 16:45, "Mike Burns" <mike at iptrading.com
> <mailto:mike at iptrading.com>> escribió:
>
>
>
> * *
>
> *Hi Jordi,*
>
>
>
> [Jordi] I think the staff got it wrong. In my opinion, unless
> I’m missing right now other special documents in any RIR,
> none, of the RIRs can avoid legacy resources to be
> transferred, because they aren’t not part of the RIR system,
> we like it or not. Unless any of the parties (source or
> destination) has signed the RSA or an equivalent document
> binding them to the relevant region policies. I guess that if
> the transfer is among “2 legacy holders” even if in different
> RIRs, the RIRs must allow the update of the whois, etc. This
> is one of the issues. The RIRs need to do all kind of services
> for the legacy holders, **for free** and the cost is covered
> by the membership. Not fair.
>
>
>
>
>
> Jordi, you are not correct here. Believe me, I was attempting
> to transfer legacy resources at ARIN before there was any
> transfer policy and it was absolutely prohibited. Likewise
> after the ARIN transfer policy was implemented, I attempted a
> legacy transfer without a needs test and was refused. The
> world’s first official transfer was all legacy space from
> Nortel to Microsoft and ARIN would not allow it unless it
> followed policy. RIPE has had a legacy transfer ability all
> along, as far as I know. In APNIC you could not transfer
> legacy space, nor at LACNIC. In fact, only at RIPE was this
> allowed. Your feelings of unfairness are just your feelings,
> they are not facts. Legacy holders could claim to be
> progenitors of an Internet that has benefitted humanity
> greatly, and any grandfathered services are a small and fair
> repayment of their early activity. Point is, it’s an opinion
> and not a fact that should be dealt with in a transfer policy.
>
>
>
> You are holding up a policy based on fairness to prior
> transferrers yet you can’t identify any party who has
> suffered this unfairness?
>
>
>
> Fees avoided by legacy status are a very small issue here, not
> something that should delay this important policy.
>
>
>
> I have brokered many inter-regional ARIN legacy transfers to
> RIPE, retaining legacy status. So why do you think the AFRINIC
> policy would somehow not be compliant with other RIRs?
>
>
>
> You don’t seem to understand ARIN’s legacy policy at least.
> ARIN does not regard legacy holders as outside of policy
> compliance. In point of fact, ARIN has declared shared rights
> to Whois registration between ARIN and legacy holders, and
> ARIN will has never allowed a legacy transfer outside of
> policy. ARIN controls the registry according to its policies,
> and legacy holders must comply, although ARIN does continue to
> provide various legacy services for free. However, ARIN will
> not provide some services like RPKI unless legacy holders sign
> an RSA.
>
>
>
> Regards,
> Mike
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Since then we have learned about malfeasance of AFRINIC staff
> that may have played a part in these old things.
>
>
>
> So exactly how many of these transfers happened where legacy
> space lost its status at AFRINIC, the fairness of which
> concerns you so?
>
>
>
> [Jordi] Doesn’t matter in my opinion. In terms of being fair,
> even if it was just one case, if we remove that from the CPM,
> the policy should provide a way to resolve that, may be giving
> them the chance to recover the fees and even return the status
> to legacy.
>
>
>
> Legacy holders have the same underlying relationship at each
> RIR, and as I pointed out there is no single manner in which
> legacy addresses are treated after a transfer at other RIRs,
> so what consistency are you trying to achieve regarding
> inter-regional transfer policy reciprocity?
>
>
>
> [Jordi] They aren’t bound to the CPM, they don’t pay any fees.
>
>
>
> Your declaration that legacy holders aren’t bound to the CPM
> and that is “not good” is a value judgement that shouldn’t be
> expressed in policy regarding transfers. If you want to change
> the status of the legacy relationship with AFRINIC, it should
> be external to the needed transfer policy.
>
>
>
> [Jordi] There are 2 different things. 1) Removing in the
> transfers a special case for legacy that has been there
> already, 2) Resolving, if we can get an agreement on that, how
> they pay for the cost of the services and even better if they
> need to sing the RSA and be bound to policies to keep getting
> the services. 1, is there already, we should not remove that.
> 2 is a new thing, we should agree on the way forward for that
> – not an easy task I guess.
>
>
>
>
>
> I agree that AFRINIC should only have the ability to retain
> legacy status for addresses received into AFRINIC and not
> those sent out of AFRINIC to other RIRs, whose policy should
> apply to addresses received there.
>
>
>
> Regards,
> Mike
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD <rpd at afrinic.net
> <mailto:rpd at afrinic.net>>
> *Sent:* Friday, October 09, 2020 4:22 AM
> *To:* rpd at afrinic.net <mailto:rpd at afrinic.net>
> *Subject:* Re: [rpd] Transfer Policy Proposal v.3.docx
>
>
>
> Hi Mike,
>
>
>
> Below, in-line.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> El 7/10/20 17:22, "Mike Burns" <mike at iptrading.com
> <mailto:mike at iptrading.com>> escribió:
>
>
>
> Hi Jordi,
>
>
>
> My distilled points remain:
>
>
>
> 1. The inter-regional transfer policy is way more
> important than the 12 month wait, because the pool will be
> drained soon with barely any refill likely.
>
>
>
> [Jordi] Remember that the pool may drain, but there may be
> resources recovered or returned, either directly at AFRINIC or
> from IANA, so there must be caution about possible
> “replenishments”.
>
>
>
> 2. The 12 month wait for addresses received directly
> from AFRINIC makes sense and I support that.
>
> 3. The legacy issue is immaterial.
>
>
>
> [Jordi] The problem is that legacy holders aren’t bound to CPM
> which is not good. And because we have that now in the
> existing policy, removing it creates a very unfair situation
> with the previous transfers. So, if we want to remove that, we
> should, somehow, compensate to them as part of the policy, and
> that’s much more complex that keeping the non-legacy status
> for Intra-RIR and incoming Inter-RIR. This way we keep the
> reciprocity as well with other RIRs, because we only impose
> the “non-legacy after a transfer” if it happens in the region.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Mike
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD <rpd at afrinic.net
> <mailto:rpd at afrinic.net>>
> *Sent:* Friday, October 02, 2020 4:16 AM
> *To:* rpd at afrinic.net <mailto:rpd at afrinic.net>
> *Subject:* Re: [rpd] Transfer Policy Proposal v.3.docx
>
>
>
> Hi Mike,
>
>
>
> Sorry the late response … a bit “too much” busy the last few
> weeks.
>
>
>
> Even if the possible pillaging is small, we shall remember that:
>
> 1) Even just /22-/24 are needed for new operators or
> businesses to come into the Internet and be able to support
> IPv6-only networks with IPv4aaS. They need a small pool of
> IPv4 addresses. I’m not so much worried about existing ISPs,
> that have already much more space than that, because they
> could turn some of their existing IPv4 addresses from
> customers CPEs, into IPv6-only and keep growing or even go to
> the market and transfer addresses – they have resources (a new
> business usually don’t have so much financial resources and
> anything they can save matters).
>
> 2) Even if the AFRINIC pool is emptied, new addresses are
> coming from recovery, either via IANA or AFRINIC itself.
>
>
>
> So, as much as we try to avoid bad practices, as much we lower
> costs for AFRINIC and the membership. Costs is not just about
> money and human rerouces, but also about time that the
> addresses can be reused instead of being reclaimed and
> quaranteened afterwards.
>
>
>
> I was not alone in LACNIC, in fact, I was not participating in
> that too much compared with IPv6 proposals at that time. In
> fact, you should also recognize that when I introduced the
> Inter-RIR proposals (I presented 2 of them: legacy-only and
> comprehensive), in the first version, the community reached
> consensus and recognized that a) it was the right time, b) my
> recommendation for a comprehensive proposal (versus a legacy
> only) reciprocal with all RIRs, what the right one.
>
>
>
> Note the timing: LACNIC finally exhaused the pool last August.
> One month before the Inter-RIR proposal (which reached
> consensus one year before) was implemented (as said, it takes
> 1 year to implement such policy). I didn’t had the crystal
> ball, however, clearly we did in the right timing. I insist in
> “we”. I was just the author, the “community instrument”, but
> all this is always a community thing.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Jordi
>
> @jordipalet
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> El 28/9/20 20:04, "Mike Burns" <mike at iptrading.com
> <mailto:mike at iptrading.com>> escribió:
>
>
>
> Hello list,
>
>
>
> I would like to provide some input from experience.
>
> I brokered the world’s first inter-regional transfer back in 2012.
>
> Since then we’ve brokered many hundreds of inter-regional
> transfers.
>
> I also wrote the ARIN transfer policy which allowed for it to
> happen.
>
>
>
> A significant policy change I made was the addition of a 12
> month waiting period before any address-seller could access
> the remaining ARIN free pool.
>
>
>
> Because at that point in time, although an inter-regional
> transfer policy was passed and ready to be implemented at
> ARIN, it was being blocked due to a particular concern. Which
> was that somebody in APNIC would demonstrate a need for
> addresses, which would be met by a willing ARIN seller. The
> APNIC buyer could immediately resell those addresses to
> somebody else in APNIC, and restore the buyer’s justified
> need. The ARIN seller, having sold his addresses, is now in
> need and could access the ARIN free pool to replenish. This
> action could be repeated by a pair of willing participants in
> APNIC and ARIN to effectively drain the remaining ARIN free
> pool. Yes it’s “fraud” but it was within policies at both RIRs.
>
>
>
> This was the purpose of the 12 month waiting period on
> sellers—to prevent them from pillaging the remaining free
> pool. The situation is not exactly the same here at AFRINIC,
> but I think if the intent of the waiting period is to prevent
> sellers from acquiring addresses from AFRINIC in order to sell
> them, I support that. The limit should be on addresses
> acquired directly from AFRINIC, though, and not those
> purchased on the market, which I believe should be re-sellable
> without limitations in order to meet the varying business
> needs of market participants.
>
>
>
> I doubt there will be anything left to pillage by the time
> this policy is implemented, but we should all be against the
> idea of a company acquiring addresses from AFRINIC by
> demonstrating need for them, only to turn around and sell them
> on the market.
>
>
>
> Legacy addresses still provide the bulk of transfer sources.
> We don’t find them to be more attractive for most buyers
> because the benefits attached to legacy addresses are few, and
> the problems growing. The benefits are no RIR fees and no
> resale limits for RIPE legacy addresses. The problems are
> difficulties implementing RPKI on legacy space. The legacy
> issue is a side-issue, but I believe retaining legacy status
> after an inter-regional transfer INTO AFRINIC will incentivize
> some transfers. We know that buyers who prefer legacy space
> register that space in RIPE, and possibly those buyers would
> also look into AFRINIC registration should it be possible to
> retain legacy status.
>
>
>
> I support the policy as written.
>
> I would also support it with a 12-month wait because this will
> soon be moot.
>
> I would also support it without the legacy status retention
> because this is a mild benefit at best.
>
>
>
> Just get it done. The delays at LACNIC stretched on for years,
> with Inter-regional policy proposals being shot down over and
> over, more than once with the help of Jordi! But Jordi has
> seen the value of inter-regional transfers and the importance
> of a global market, and it should be clear to everybody that
> AFRINIC is now the only region placed outside that market.
>
>
>
> Regards,
> Mike Burns
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD <rpd at afrinic.net
> <mailto:rpd at afrinic.net>>
> *Sent:* Monday, September 28, 2020 4:38 AM
> *To:* rpd at afrinic.net <mailto:rpd at afrinic.net>
> *Subject:* Re: [rpd] Transfer Policy Proposal v.3.docx
>
>
>
> Responding to several emails at once …
>
>
>
> I don’t agree with Fernando in the rush, I think is urgent to
> do something, but if we fail in the last call, it is just fine
> **if** the board agree to either make their own policy
> (according to the bylaws), or even better, make sure to have a
> focussed meeting on December (if this fails they still can do
> a policy). Obviously it is clear that I prefer that the
> community resolve it, but we can’t just wait anymore.
>
>
>
> The economies are different, but basically they are different
> in the matter of the delay in what it happens, so yes, somehow
> LACNIC survived, and in part this was due to transfers under
> the table, which is a terrible thing to happen.
>
>
>
> The Intra-RIR transfers will not resolve the problem, why,
> because operators and business in AFRICA are growing, and very
> few are moving to IPv6-only with IPv4aaS, so it is objectibely
> impossible that exisitng operators don’t need anymore IPv4
> addresses and transfer them to new ones!
>
>
>
> Now, regarding the point on “we can get this policy working”
> and then resolve the issues with another proposal … I will
> love to believe in that, but I’m every day more and more
> convinced that this will not happen. If we don’t get it right
> (or almost right on the first shot), we will not agree in 1
> year to resolve it. I will love to be wrong!
>
>
>
> The problem I see with this proposal is that there are key
> points that make it impossible to really work. We can’t
> enforce a non-existing and new template to other RIRs, we
> can’t enforce the source to call to the destination RIR and
> follow those policies, we can enforce a procedure that is
> telling AFRINIC how to do the things BUT we can’t enforcie the
> other RIRs to do the same. There are already 4 other RIRs
> which have agreed on how to do this, they have adjusted their
> systems one after the other to follow the first one (because
> it was a good procedure and was working). Is all about
> internal coordination systems among RIRs, which the policy
> doesn’t need to stated. I will agree that this is needed in a
> policy if we want to ask AFRINIC do to some specific steps
> which are only binding AFRINIC, but not other RIRs (I’m
> speaking here in general, not just for this policy).
>
>
>
> Let’s say in another way. In any policy, if we let a RIR to
> decide about operational details and they fail, or it can be
> improved and they don’t do, then we, as a community, have the
> right to tell them “do this way”. Otherwise, is better that
> operational details are handled by the RIR.
>
>
>
> Please, read my points in:
>
> https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2020/011429.html
>
> https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2020/011430.html
>
>
>
> Those points aren’t issues that I think are wrong in terms of
> my “subjective view” on what should be an Inter-RIR policy
> (such as the hold-time and legacy when incoming). Those are
> objective aspects of the proposal that will avoid it to fly.
> It will require the other 4 RIRs to have **new** policies to
> comply with that. Do you really think this will happen, and in
> how much time? I don’t think adjusting those points change the
> authors and community intend, they are just required
> clarifications. The staff impact analysis already mention many
> of those.
>
>
>
> Will love if the authors confirm if they will agree with those
> points, or otherwise, state one by one, why not.
>
>
>
> And one more time, I think we all understand the problem
> statement. We should not base our debate on that. The 3
> proposals are looking at the same and in that context, because
> the problem statement doesn’t go to the CPM is somehow irrelevant.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Jordi
>
> @jordipalet
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> El 28/9/20 4:15, "lucilla fornaro"
> <lucillafornarosawamoto at gmail.com
> <mailto:lucillafornarosawamoto at gmail.com>> escribió:
>
>
>
> dear all,
>
>
>
>
>
> Without being catastrophic, I believe that the activities for
> which the African economy requires resources are mostly
> different from Latin America, and differently should be managed.
>
>
>
> We cannot predict when it will happen, and this should be the
> main reason to solve the problem now that we have time to
> manage it properly.
>
> The resource transfer policy proposed by Anthony and Taiwo
> aims to build a stable and effective resources management
> system for the Afrinic service region. If we start working for
> the resource problem now, no matter of issues that will
> potentially come up (like with any other policy), there will
> be space to improve them in the future.
>
>
>
> regards,
>
>
>
> Lucilla
>
>
>
> Il giorno lun 28 set 2020 alle ore 10:02 Fernando Frediani
> <fhfrediani at gmail.com <mailto:fhfrediani at gmail.com>> ha scritto:
>
> There is no "information" between quotes. If you don't
> believe in it check on LACNIC website on your own.
>
> What a terrible scenario is painted here where it could be
> "terrible" not having a Inter-RIR transfer policy as soon
> as possible.
> There is still IP space at a lower pace and there are
> internal transfers. Clearly a Inter-RIR transfer can wait
> a few more months in order to get it right rather than
> rush and get a bad policy. Co-Chairs deciding "the region
> needs a transfer policy" shows there is some rush in it
> that can be delayed if they re-think and bring it back to
> discussion to try to really find a rough consensus which
> is far form existing right now.
>
> It is not correct this proposal "works very well". There
> are serious doubts, lacks confirmation from staff and
> other RIRs and there has been a very serious change in the
> very last minute not giving anyone else chance to discuss.
> So clearly this proposal is far from ready to reach consensus.
>
> Fernando
>
> On 26/09/2020 01:53, Ibeanusi Elvis wrote:
>
> @Fernando,
>
>
>
> If you are said you never mentioned not to do
> anything, what then are you implying by saying that
> “It took LACNIC 3years and 6months before they ran out
> completely”. So we should wait for ours to almost run
> out and drag the process along before we do something
> about it? This scenario is not as terrible? Rethink
> and review the scenario again, judging by the
> “information” you gave to us using LACNIC, it might
> not have been bad or terrible for them, but it might
> be for us. They might have survived but we might not.
> Put that into consideration as well.
>
>
>
> Also, the Resource Transfer Policy proposed by Anthony
> and Taiwo works very well and there is no rush into
> anything.
>
>
>
> The outcome might not be the same for everyone.
>
>
>
> Elvis
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
>
> On Sep 26, 2020, at 13:03, Fernando Frediani
> <fhfrediani at gmail.com>
> <mailto:fhfrediani at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> I never mentioned "not do to anything", just to
> get the things right rather than rush,even if it
> takes a couple of more months.
> It is much worst to get a bad policy than have
> none. The examples I put was to show that this
> scenario is not as terrible as some people are
> putting as almost if the internet was going to
> stop work if this policy doesn't advance.
>
> Even if it takes a couple more of months to get
> that things right and out of this mess it will not
> be a big deal at all for the region.
> It's not true this proposal works. It still lacks
> confirmations specially from other RIRs.
> "Many more years" is of course an exaggeration on
> your side and we are talking about months rather
> than years which surely will not hurt.
>
> The legacy stuff is currently like this: it loses
> its status, it is like this in other places as
> well which shows this is the obvious thing to
> keep. This was never mentioned in the discussion
> of this proposal for months and changed at the
> very last minute which gives no chance to others
> to equally oppose. If there is something to be
> discussed in another proposal is if the current
> status should change or not, not what is being
> trying to be done at rush.
>
> There is no "forcing them to lose their legacy
> status". Whoever sell them don't care other than
> the money they receive. Whoever receives is only
> interested in the usage of the resources. What is
> being said about this is not correct how things
> really are in practical.
>
> Fernando
>
> On 26/09/2020 00:47, Ibeanusi Elvis wrote:
>
> Dear Fernando,
>
>
>
> "When LACNIC transitioned from Phase 2 to
> Phase 3 of the exhaustion phases which is very
> similar to what just happened to AfriNic Phase
> 2, it took exactly *3 years and 6 months* for
> it to be completely empty”.
>
>
>
> According to what you are insinuating, it is
> preferable not to do anything about the
> resources which are still going to exhaust.
> Thats makes no sense, it will be better if
> preparations are made prior to the entire
> exhaustion of the resources. LACNIC might have
> lasted 3 years and 6months before it
> completely emptied that does not mean we
> should take the same route as them, you learn
> from others not entirely copy their system or
> mode of handling things.
>
>
>
> Additionally, “good or not organisation
> survived, found their way to work with this
> new scenario now there is a proper and well
> discussed proposal that works well for
> everybody and allow in and out transfer from
> ALL other RIRs”
>
>
>
> The fact that the organisation survived does
> not 100% imply that if the same system of
> waiting till everything ends entirely is
> applied, AFRINIC will survive. It is best to
> take early necessary precautions and not wait
> till when we are in a desperate and maybe
> unsurvivable state before we do something.
> Also, this proposal is well detailed and
> works. Waiting for many more years and years
> of discussion is just compounding the staffs
> of the AFRINIC organisation and the community
> with excessive work as well.
>
>
>
> Regarding the legacy resource holders, it is
> better to have a dedicated legacy proposal for
> them and work with them not forcing them to
> lose their legacy status.
>
>
>
> Elvis
>
>
>
>
>
> Consider that LACNIC has a much higher
> demand than AfriNic and during most of
> these 3 years it survived without a
> Inter-RIR policy that was discussed for
> quiet a while before it reached consensus,
> plus the time it took for it to be
> implemented by staff which happened just
> recently in middle of this year.On Sep 26,
> 2020, at 11:39, Fernando Frediani
> <fhfrediani at gmail.com
> <mailto:fhfrediani at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>
>
> A couple of information for those who are
> scary about "the pool be empty shortly".
>
> When LACNIC transitioned from Phase 2 to
> Phase 3 of the exhaustion phases which is
> very similar to what just happened to
> AfriNic Phase 2, it took exactly *3 years
> and 6 months* for it to be completely empty.
> Consider that LACNIC has a much higher
> demand than AfriNic and during most of
> these 3 years it survived without a
> Inter-RIR policy that was discussed for
> quiet a while before it reached consensus,
> plus the time it took for it to be
> implemented by staff which happened just
> recently in middle of this year.
>
> Good or not organizations survived, found
> their way to work with this new scenario e
> now there is a proper and well discussed
> proposal that work well for everybody and
> allow in and out transfer from ALL other
> RIRs. And by the way legacy resources lose
> its status like is expected.
> And by the way, there is absolutely no
> "fight" with legacy resource holders, not
> at all. They don't care what will happen
> when they sell their resources on sold.
> Whoever is buying are not really much
> interested in this status, but in
> acquiring them for their usage and that's it.
>
> AfriNic can take some more time, specially
> in the current uncertainty scenario to get
> a proper and better discussed proposal
> that will in fact be reciprocal to all
> other RIRs and benefit the region to keep
> going after the pool is completely empty
> which still takes some time.
>
> Fernando
>
> On 25/09/2020 22:08, lucilla fornaro wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
>
>
> Accepting this policy implies that
> AFRINIC will develop a way to get even
> more resources to satisfy and push the
> demand of the developing market.
>
> We often talked about smoother
> business (why the community is so
> scared about this word?) operations,
> the policy does not facilitate any
> fraud. All resources are allocated and
> transferred in the base of a proven
> need. It is an expensive process, and
> it is reasonable to think that no one
> would operate a fraud that causes loss
> instead of benefits.
>
>
>
> Yes, shortly the pool will be empty,
> but the policy proposes a way to fight
> it and promote access to further
> resources before it's too late.
>
>
>
> regards,
>
>
>
> Lucilla
>
>
>
> Il giorno sab 26 set 2020 alle ore
> 09:49 Ibeanusi Elvis
> <ibeanusielvis at gmail.com
> <mailto:ibeanusielvis at gmail.com>> ha
> scritto:
>
> Dear Marcus, Dear Community,
>
>
>
> I do not concur with your analogy
> and accusations on the proposal or
> policy written by Anthony
> Ikechukwu Ubah and Taiwo Oyewande
> called “Resource Transfer Policy”
> as being a hindrance to the smooth
> operation of business, is entirely
> false. The major intention of this
> policy is to support and boost
> businesses i Africa not to hinder
> the operation of business.
>
>
>
> Likewise, the policy is not based
> on a fake problem of the African
> region. This is baseless
> accusation and a wrong
> self-interpretation of what
> factual intentions of the Resource
> Transfer Policy, Anthony and Taiwo
> should be appreciated for pointing
> out this issue.
>
>
>
> On the other hand, "/Basically,
> the Resource Transfer Policy is
> intended to take Internet
> Resources on one region to the
> other. We all know that Africa is
> at its developing stage and needs
> more internet resources to support
> its developmental process.
> Accepting this policy means that
> the little resources left in our
> region will be taken away,
> especially when we don’t have the
> mechanism in place to enforce the
> auditing of the use of the
> allocated resources.”/
>
>
>
> /The purpose of this policy is to
> support a “TWO-WAY INTER-RIR
> POLICY” which implies that AFRINIC
> can receive and transfer
> resources. With the exhaustion of
> the IPv4, the adoption of this
> policy will do a greater good to
> the African continent as it
> supports the circulation of
> resources into and out of all the
> RIRs /
>
>
>
> /Best, /
>
> /Elvis/
>
>
>
> On Sep 26, 2020, at 02:24,
> Taiwo Oyewande
> <taiwo.oyewande88 at gmail.com
> <mailto:taiwo.oyewande88 at gmail.com>>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi all,
>
>
>
> Discussing a problem statement
> that will not be implemented
> in the CPM is not really
> taking us forward.
>
>
>
> There is an obvious war
> against the co chairs for
> doing a job that the community
> mandated them to do by the
> status of their election. The
> co-chairs discussed each
> points raised with the various
> authors and tried to see if
> all the points were duly
> addressed before making their
> decisions.
>
>
>
> I saw a false and misleading
> statement about the cochairs
> trying to get the authors of 2
> of the 3 related policies
> against the authors of the 3rd
> policy. Is this what members
> of this working group has
> turned to?
>
> Trying to create a bad name
> for another member using
> scenarios that never occurred.
> I think that is the height of
> desperation and such
> defamation of character should
> not be encouraged on this list
>
>
>
> Taiwo
>
>
>
> On 25 Sep 2020, at 14:17,
> Marcus K. G. Adomey
> <madomey at hotmail.com
> <mailto:madomey at hotmail.com>>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> Dear all,
>
>
>
> The Policy “Resource
> Transfer Policy”
> (AFPUB-2019-V4-003-DRAFT01)
> proposed by Anthony
> Ikechukwu Ubah and Taiwo
> Oyewande is based on a
> fake problem for our region.
>
>
>
>
>
> (1) “The current policy
> fails to support a two-way
> Inter-RIR policy” – And so
> what? This was an
> intra-RIR transfer policy,
> not meant to be Inter-RIR
>
>
>
> (2) “there by hindering
> smooth business operation”
>
>
>
> Can the authors of the
> policy show how the
> current situation is
> “hindering smooth business
> operation?”
>
>
>
> Further, they should tell
> us what they mean by
> “smooth business operation”.
>
>
>
> (3) “development and
> growth in the region”
>
>
>
> Can the authors of the
> policy prove that the
> current status is
> hindering “development and
> growth in the region”?
>
>
>
> It is clear that the
> authors of the policy have
> used unsubstantiated
> claims to buttress the
> need for this policy.
>
>
>
> Basically, the Resource
> Transfer Policy is
> intended to take Internet
> Resources on one region to
> the other. We all know
> that Africa is at its
> developing stage and needs
> more internet resources to
> support its developmental
> process. Accepting this
> policy means that the
> little resources left in
> our region will be taken
> away, especially when we
> don’t have the mechanism
> in place to enforce the
> auditing of the use of the
> allocated resources.
>
>
>
> Moreover, any unmanaged
> inter-RIR transfer policy
> will weaken the
> development of the
> Internet in the region as
> we have no control over
> this global market which
> never played in our favor.
> It may also affect AFRINIC
> operations.
>
>
>
> Recent findings discussed
> on this list show how
> transferred resources are
> being used. The global
> community is yet to
> discuss the impact on
> transfer. I am more
> concerned for our region.
>
>
>
> Reconsider your decision
> and let us discuss the
> best approach to engage
> the Region into the global
> resources transfer world.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Marcus
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:* Murungi Daniel
> <dmurungi at wia.co.tz
> <mailto:dmurungi at wia.co.tz>>
> *Sent:* Wednesday,
> September 23, 2020 8:59 PM
> *To:* rpd >> AfriNIC
> Resource Policy
> <rpd at afrinic.net
> <mailto:rpd at afrinic.net>>
> *Subject:* Re: [rpd]
> Transfer Policy Proposal
> v.3.docx
>
>
>
> Hello,
>
>
>
> Can the authors of the
> resource transfer policy
> in the last call explain,
> which problem is being
> addressed?
>
> The problem statement
> is awkward to say the
> least. The issue with the
> problem statement was
> raised in Luanda and
> during the virtual AIS.
> How can we can adopt a
> proposal when the
> problem statement is out
> of scope of the PDP?
>
> ——-
> 1. Summary of the problem
> being addressed by this
> proposal
> The current policy fails
> to support a two-way
> Inter-RIR policy, thereby
> hindering smooth business
> operation, development,
> and growth in the region.
> This proposal aims to
> establish an efficient and
> business-friendly
> mechanism to allow
> a number of resources to
> be transferred from/to
> other regions. This
> proposal outlines a model
> in which AFRINIC can
> freely transfer number
> resources to/from other
> regions, i.e. RIPE NCC,
> APNIC, ARIN and LACNIC.
> This includes both
> IPv4 addresses and AS numbers.
> ——-
>
> Regards,
>
>
> Murungi Daniel
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sep 23, 2020, at
> 10:39 PM, Fernando
> Frediani
> <fhfrediani at gmail.com
> <mailto:fhfrediani at gmail.com>>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20201010/2b7c5826/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the RPD
mailing list