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

[rpd] Policy Proposal: in-region vs out-of-region use of resources, and restrictions thereon

Sami Ait Ali Oulahcen sami at
Wed Jul 28 14:33:16 UTC 2021

On 7/28/21 1:41 PM, Jaco Kroon wrote:

> Hi All,

Hi Jaco,


> I believe that it's plain that AFRINIC was established for the benefit

> of the African continent, this is even enshrined in the by-laws, as

> detailed in section 3.4.  I believe sub-point (i) summarises it quite well:


> /(i)to provide the service of allocating and registering Internet

> resources for the purposes of enabling communications via open system

> network protocols and to assist in the development and growth of the

> Internet in the //*African*//region; [emphasis added]/



> I won't quote the rest of it here, but the rest of the section is

> equally relevant ( and makes it plain

> that everything AFRINIC does should be for the benefit of the African

> continent (region).  Even the *membership* is based on this regional

> affinity:


> /MEMBERSHIP - 6.1//

> //Membership shall be open to://

> //(i) any Person [including non-natural persons eg companies] who is

> *geographically based within*, and *providing services in the African

> region*, and who is engaged in the use of, or business of providing,

> open system protocol network services;/


> That is - the member is based in the AFRINIC region.  This applies to

> all three classes of members (Registered, Resource and Associate).


> It is also implied here that the resources are for use within the

> African continent.


> Over the last while it's become apparent that many people are extremely

> unhappy about the fact that Afrinic resources are being used

> off-continent.  Based on the above I think it's a fair

> assumption/expectation (as well as appropriate) that at least the

> majority of issued resources should be used in-region (In particular

> IPv4 resources).


> I believe it to be appropriate at this time to state this as policy in

> the CPM, and thereby to make the general sentiment I've seen plain as

> day.  This should then apply to all issued resources retrospectively as

> well.  Not only newly issued resources (which is currently already dealt

> with from the soft landing policy).


Nice initiative !

> I request from the community opinions on the following:


> 1.  If you had to assign a percentage to out-of-region use, what

> percentage of resources allocated from AFRINIC would be considered "fair

> usage" for out of region use (I'm thinking "At least 50% of issued

> resources should be used in-region", or then "less than 50% of resources

> may be used out-of-region"); and


I'd say 80%/20% for anything above a /16, 20% out-of-region is plenty to
support connectivity back to Africa.

> 2.  Assuming that a policy gets passed to enforce some form of in-region

> use - what would be an acceptable amount of time to provide members to

> comply (I'm thinking either 6 or 12 months, definitely no longer than 18

> unless someone can justify that sensibly) with respect to existing

> resources?

I think it could take more, but that's just me.


> You're welcome to differentiate between different types of resources

> (for example, I don't think it makes sense to have to get a separate AS

> number just because a company is multi-continent, so here as long as the

> AS is also used in-region).  Space on v6 is of such a nature that I'm

> inclined to say "who cares".

Agreed on both.


> Currently the only restriction in the CPM regarding resource usage

> relates to IPv4 during soft-landing

> ( relating specifically to

> the last /8.  The fact that this can just be used in-region and then

> move other existing resources out-of-region is of concern to me and this

> is part of the "problem" I'd like to address in a policy update.


Good luck.

Cheers !

> Kind Regards,

> Jaco Kroon



> _______________________________________________

> RPD mailing list

> RPD at



More information about the RPD mailing list