[rpd] New version of policy Proposal - IPv4 Inter-RIR Resource Transfers.

Sat Oct 9 09:10:50 UTC 2021

Hi Owen,

Below in-line.

Regards,

Jordi

@jordipalet

El 8/10/21 22:51, "Owen DeLong" <owen at delong.com> escribió:

On Oct 8, 2021, at 1:07 PM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD <rpd at afrinic.net> wrote:

Hi Owen,

The modification of 5.7 was done to add clarity to the text. I don’t understand where you see the problem, if there was no problem about reciprocity in the previous versions.

This is the new text:

The resources to be transferred must be from an existing RIR member’s account or from a Legacy Resource Holder in the AFRINIC service region/other RIRs.

There are lots of resource holders in other RIRs (at least in ARIN) who are not RIR members.

The current wording precludes those resource holders from participating in said transfers.

It clearly says AFRINIC/other RIRs, so what I’m missing?

That not all RIRs require membership to have resources. IIRC, this is the case with sponsored PI in RIPE as well.

[Jordi] I should have noticed that, as I was the author of the IPv6 PI in RIPE, which resulted in the “sponsored PI”. So, we have two choices here:
Maybe this text is redundant. I don’t see an equivalent text in other RIRs, and trying to clarify was worse than not having it. Can the staff confirm if they really need this text or it has no impact to remove it, as it was in the previous versions? I don’t recall previous analysis impact requiring a clarification on that. In fact, these conditions are already somehow expressed with the text in 5.7.1.b) and 5.7.2.1. May be the only “excluded case” is if a legacy holder has no registration of the resources in none of the RIRs – is that happening or actually possible?
Use the text that you proposed. In principle I’m fine with that. I will like to see inputs from others, and specially from the staff. We need to make sure that they don’t have any misunderstanding/issue with that. I know they will check with the analysis impact, but it should be possible to have a preliminary view on that?

Regarding 5.7.1, the M&A today is not a policy, but an internal procedure (as it happens in RIPE, for example). I don’t agree this should be an internal procedure, but that’s what we have today. My plan is to, once we have fixed this, make a proposal for that, but I think it is better to go step by step, so adding a reference will be breaking it in the future (or requiring one more change in this part of the text). It is not needed. If you look at the existing text for intra-RIR that it is in the policy manual today, there is no such reference.

OK… Ugly, but ok.

[Jordi] I don’t think it is ugly, there are other similar situations in the CPM. We could also just remove that text, as it was in previous versions. I think it is fine keeping it, may be as a foot note and not “policy text” (such as “note Mergers and Acquisitions (inter or intra) are not covered by this policy”. The idea was to ensure that the analysis impact doesn’t “complain” about that. Will be that fine for the staff?

5.7.5 is to make explicit something that was already there. When you attempt an intra-RIR transfer, *all* the parties are verified. This is the same in other RIRs. However, I’m also adding a “protection” to the failed transfers, because today, if AFRINIC strictly follows the intra-RIR transfer and it fails because, for example, the destination doesn’t meet the policies, then the source will lose the resources, as he clearly demonstrated that doesn't need them and that’s the reason, he is willing to transfer.

What your text for 5.7.5 is proposing seems to be a restriction of some of the RSA and CPM text. I don’t think that’s right, otherwise, each proposal or part of the CPM can actually “change” what is already written in the RSA and/or CPM and create a mess.

I am proposing not allowing staff to block a transfer because they decide they don’t like a registrant.

I am not proposing limitations on other sections of the CPM, but limitations on the excuses staff can use to block a transfer to the criteria that can be measured objectively and without subjecting transfer participants (receive or supply) to arbitrary and capricious misinterpretations of the CPM by a staff which has shown a clear propensity to engage in same.

I’m happy to accept suggestions from anyone, as usual, but they should be reasonable and consistent.

I believe that my suggestions were both reasonable and consistent, with the exception of the 5.7.1 as noted.

[Jordi] I feel that you’re being too much suspicious about the staff and I understand the situation. However, we should not over-micro-manage. In my opinion the pre-check must be done based on the RSA mainly. If there is a problem with the RSA, let’s fix it there. Have you noticed that what you’re asking is already in 5.7.2? Do you think anything is missed there? Would you be ok if we just do something like:

Actual:

“All the transfers where the source is an AFRINIC resource member, will be required to pass a pre-check in order verify that the resources being transferred were allocated/assigned and used following the RSA/CPM provisions.”

Proposed:

“All the transfers where the source is an AFRINIC resource member, will be required to pass a pre-check in order verify that the resources being transferred were allocated/assigned and used following the RSA provisions and 5.7.2.1.”

If we want to change the CPM in other sections, let’s do it, but not make each part of the CPM modifying others or modifying the RSA.

I am not attempting to change the other CPM sections. I am attempting to limit staff authority to block transfers.

If we want to change the RSA, I guess this can be done, but probably via membership. The RPD is fine to suggest that, but not by means of a policy proposal, right?

I am not attempting to change the RSA. I am attempting to limit the staff authority to block transfers. My intent is for these

limits to apply strictly to transactions occurring under this proposed section.

Owen

Regards,

Jordi

@jordipalet

El 8/10/21 21:44, "Owen DeLong via RPD" <rpd at afrinic.net> escribió:

I oppose this version of the policy proposal.

Section 5.7 needs to be amended to allow the source of the transferred resources

to be a resource holder from any RIR, not just AFRINIC.

This may seem like a minor NIT, but as written, the policy would be outbound only

and not symmetrical (thus not reciprocal), so fixing this is important. Admittedly,

the text in 5.7 is inconsistent with the subsequent text in this regard, but

it is possible to interpret the limitations expressed in the proposed 5.7 as

overriding the expressed possibilities in the subsequent proposed sections.

I suspect that the 5.7 text is an accident on the part of the author and that

this limitation was not intended.

5.7.1 should point to the policy that does cover M&A transfers rather than simply

                state that this policy does not apply to them.

I oppose section 5.7.5 because AFRINIC has already demonstrated a propensity

to make arbitrary and capricious decisions about compliance based not on the

actual text of the contracts, bylaws, or CPM, but on their own creative

interpretations thereof.

The pre-check authorized by section 5.7.5 should be limited to deterministic

factors which can achieve a binary outcome strictly on provable facts and not

be subject to staff interpretation and judgment, as staff has already

proven on numerous occasions that it cannot be trusted to exercise good judgment

or achieve prudent or accurate determinations in such matters.

Proposed modified text:

5.7 IPv4 Transfers

This policy applies to organizations with a justified need for IPv4 resources (recipients) and organizations with IPv4 resources which no longer need (sources).

The resources to be transferred must be from an existing resource holder of a direct allocation or assignment from an IANA[1] accredited RIR or a legacy resource holder registered and recognized as the current registrant of the addresses to be transferred by the applicable IANA[1] accredited RIR.

5.7.1 — Mostly fine, just add the needed cross-reference to the M&A policy section.

5.7.5 Transfer pre-check

Where the source of a transfer is a resource member of AFRINIC, AFRINIC will perform a pre-check prior to authorizing the transfer which shall include validation of the following items:

                +             Resource member is a member in good standing

                +             Resource member is the current registrant of record for the resources being transferred

                +             Resource member’s registration of the resources is not credibly disputed by any third party

                +             Resource member’s fees are current with AFRINIC

[1] At the time of writing, this IANA function is performed by ICANN in accordance with ICP-2.

Author is, of course welcome to accept, decline, or modify these proposed edits as they see fit, but these edits, as

written, would allow me to support the proposal as written.

Owen

On Oct 4, 2021, at 10:33 AM, PDWG Chair <dacostadarwin at gmail.com> wrote:

Hello PDWG Members,

We have received a new version of policy Proposal - IPv4 Inter-RIR Resource Transfers (Comprehensive Scope) - AFPUB-2019-IPv4-002-DRAFT06 from author Jordi Palet Martinez. 

The proposal contents are published at: 

https://afrinic.net/policy/proposals/2019-ipv4-002-d6

Please take some time to go through the proposal contents and provide your

feedback.

Regards,

PDWG Co-Chair.

_______________________________________________
RPD mailing list
RPD at afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd

_______________________________________________ RPD mailing list RPD at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd

**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

_______________________________________________
RPD mailing list
RPD at afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd

**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20211009/bc5df645/attachment-0001.html>