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

Matogoro Jabera jaberamatogoro at
Fri Jul 30 06:50:02 UTC 2021

I am sending my congratulations to TISPA for showing the way. This has been
our spirit since then, we will always be there for any initiative designed
to impact African Independence and to be specific in the support of AFRINIC.

"The role of Tanzania in fostering African Liberation movements

The emergence of organised popular liberation movements throughout Africa
following the end of the Second World War was a crucial factor in achieving
independence for many African countries. Tanzania played an important role
in assisting these movements and acted as a consistent opponent of colonial
rule in Africa. In particular, Julius Nyerere – the architect of Tanzania’s
independence and the country’s first President – was a key figure in the
struggle against foreign domination, and helped to popularise the concept
of Pan-African unity."

Africa should remember, there are still many Julius Nyerere in Tanzania. We
stand with Afrinic and we will be against anyone supporting any movement to
negatively impact the operation of AFRINIC. Read, The African Network
Information Centre (AFRINIC) is a Regional Internet Registry (RIR) for
Africa and the Indian Ocean region, AFRINIC is responsible for the
distribution and management of Internet number resources.
Assistant Lecturer and Coordinator for Research & Publication
Department of Computer Science and Engineering
College of Informatics and Virtual Education
The University of Dodoma

On Wed, Jul 28, 2021 at 3:42 PM Jaco Kroon <jaco at> 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 ( 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).


> 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


> 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?


> 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 (

> 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.


> Kind Regards,

> Jaco Kroon

> _______________________________________________

> RPD mailing list

> RPD at



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the RPD mailing list