Search RPD Archives
[rpd] Policy Proposal: in-region vs out-of-region use of resources, and restrictions thereon
Erick Joshua Lagon
erickj.lagon at gmail.com
Thu Jul 29 08:23:37 UTC 2021
It is moot that African resources are for the African region. Yes, I will
give that to all of you as we are entitled to our own opinions here. But
what we are talking about here are internet resources in which no region,
nor entity can exercise authority over it. Internet resources are universal
resources that should be used and benefited by all. RIRs, as we all know,
are mere managers of these resources. They should not claim any authority
over it, nor dictate who gets what, where, and when. As an NGO, they have
limited power over these resources. I hope that we expand our horizons on
the benefits of inter-RIR transfers rather than limiting our views.
On Thu, Jul 29, 2021 at 9:17 AM Owen DeLong via RPD <rpd at afrinic.net> wrote:
> On Jul 28, 2021, at 05:41 , Jaco Kroon <jaco at uls.co.za> wrote:
> Hi All,
> 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 (https://afrinic.net/bylaws#b20-3) 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:
> It’s equally clear that section 3.4 is a broad-brush set of goals for how
> the organization should conduct itself, not a binding limitation on the
> members of the organization.
> *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).
> Yes. Cloud innovation is domiciled in the Seychelles and has operations in
> other parts of Africa as well as in countries outside of Africa.
> It is also implied here that the resources are for use within the African
> Implied how?
> The statement is that the member must provide services in the region. It
> says nothing about what percentage of services provided by the member must
> be in region.
> 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).
> If you believe that, then there should be policy to that effect placed in
> the CPM through the PDP.
> 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).
> The only way to achieve that is to create a proposal, fill out a proposal
> template, submit it and convince the community to come to consensus around
> the proposal.
> Anything else is an end run on the community driven bottom up consensus
> process which must be followed for policy to remain valid.
> 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
> Percentages are dangerous here. The 50% mark has precedent in LACNIC, but
> frankly, it has also stymied international development of organizations in
> the LACNIC region.
> Doesn’t this also become further moot if the Resource Transfer Policy
> which achieved consensus is (as some claim is mandatory) becomes ratified
> by the board?
> Even in my opinion, while the Board Prerogative proposed policy has valid
> grounds for rejection by the board (it is a bylaw matter and out of scope
> for the PDP as it seeks to control the powers of the board), the Resource
> Transfer Policy is 100% in scope and the PDP was followed in its reaching
> consensus. As such, it is hard to imagine the board having any valid basis
> to refuse to ratify it.
> 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
> 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".
> Currently the only restriction in the CPM regarding resource usage relates
> to IPv4 during soft-landing (
> https://afrinic.net/policy/manual#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.
> You’re also going to need to find a way to carefully define “use in
> region”. If an ISP in the region is terminating a circuit between said ISP
> and a customer out of region, is the utilization of the IP Addresses by
> that customer considered in-region usage or out-of-region usage?
> What if the ISP in region is terminating a circuit with a customer out of
> region, but that customer has a backbone that includes sites in-region?
> The vast number of corner cases and the difficulty of addressing them is
> the reason that this kind of policy utterly fell flat the last time it was
> proposed many years ago. Suggest you review that record.
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the RPD