[rpd] IPv4 Inter-RIR Resource Transfers (Comprehensive Scope) - AFPUB-2019-IPv4-002-DRAFT07

Fri Nov 12 15:54:29 UTC 2021

Dear all,

This policy “IPv4 Inter-RIR Resource Transfers (Comprehensive Scope)
Draft-7” although has been in debate for the past few years and PPM’s.
Amongst the summary of the problems being addressed by this proposal is the
“new businesses can’t be established in the region, due to lack of
addresses” and hopes on addressing the problem from this current modified
version of the proposal by “enabling bidirectional, compatible and
reciprocal transfers with all the other RIRs”

Won’t this result in the greater loss of IPv4 in the African market which
is already in it shortage as to encouraging the development and creation of
businesses.

On Fri, Nov 12, 2021 at 17:44 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD <rpd at afrinic.net>
wrote:

> Hi Owen, all,
>
>
>
> As you know, most of us aren’t native English speakers, so it is easy that
> we can make mistakes. However, those mistakes can be corrected, as we did
> in previous proposals, at the PPM, or even during the last-call if they
> reach consensus. So, if we all agree on your suggestions regarding 5.7, I
> will’ve no problem on that. Could the staff, before the PPM, tell us if
> this alternative wording still has for them the same interpretation, and
> consequently it is a clear editorial change?
>
>
>
> Regarding 5.7.1, in our previous discussion (
> https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2021/013837.html), we already
> agreed that this paragraph is not needed, but it was requested by the staff
> to make it clearer. In other RIRs there is nothing like that text. It
> doesn’t harm to have it. Today, M&A is an internal procedure. If tomorrow
> the community decides that it must be a policy, then we just need to
> include in that policy proposal the removal of that text. In fact, once we
> resolve the transfers, I plan to resubmit my proposal for M&A.
>
>
>
> Regarding 5.7.2.2/3, the 16 months are considered using an existing
> timing in the CPM section 5.4.5, times 2. I think it is a very simple way
> to agree on that, otherwise, each community member will have a different
> view and we will not be able to reach consensus. I don’t think it is so
> important and if the community believes that it need to be amended, we
> could make it after the proposal reach consensus, considering that the
> implementation of such policy will typically take 1 year and the timing is
> not critical for the implementation time (is just a parameter in the
> scripts).
>
>
>
> Regarding 5.7.4, most of the text on this section is more an example that
> anything else, because the other 4 RIRs already have a cooperation system
> to exchange this information and make it public, so as said in the policy
> text “This doesn’t exclude the publication of the same or other information
> as a result of the operating agreement among the RIRs.”.
>
>
>
> Regarding 5.7.5, the text has been amended as we discussed in the previous
> round and with the inputs from the staff. I’m not going to discuss with you
> “personal views” (which I also have my owns and not necessarily in favor of
> recent Board actions) vs this proposal text. If we believe that things are
> broken, we shall address that in other places, not in every single
> proposal, because **anything** in the PCM can be used as weapon against
> the members and community, if the staff/board decides so, and this is
> consequently not a problem for any specific policy text, it is a wider
> organization issue. If you remove 5.7.5, following the RSA, the staff still
> can do **exactly the same** and even more, and can **deny** the transfers
> and reclaim the resources because the justification of the need is no
> longer there. As such, this will be even more against the members and the
> community than keeping 5.7.5.
>
>
>
> Regarding 5.7.6, I agree with you, but the staff is suggesting that it
> adds clarity as I just explained in my previous email. I don’t think it
> harms so I will say let’s keep it.
>
>
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Jordi
>
> @jordipalet
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> El 10/11/21 18:51, "Owen DeLong via RPD" <rpd at afrinic.net> escribió:
>
>
>
> This version has the following problems;
>
>
>
> Proposal:
>
> 5.7 This policy applies to any entity with a justified need for IPv4
> resources (recipients) and entities with IPv4 resources which no longer
> need (sources).
>
> The resources to be transferred must be from an existing Resource Holder
> (including Legacy Resource Holders) in the AFRINIC service region/other
> RIRs.
>
>
>
> Correction:
>
> 5.7 This policy applies to any entity with a justified need for IPv4
> resources (recipient) and any entity with IPv4 resources which are no
> longer needed (source).
>
>
>
> The resources to be transferred must be from an existing Resource Holder
> (including Legacy Resource Holders). At least one of the parties (source or
> recipient) must be an AFRINIC resource holder or be eligible to become an
> AFRINIC resource holder as a result of the transfer (per 5.7.3.1, et. al.).
>
>
>
> Reasoning:
>
> First, the syntax of the first sentence was awkward and had an invalid mix
> of singular and plural. Grammatical and syntax correction, but original
> meaning preserved.
>
>
>
> Second, the sentence was awkwardly worded and did not achieve what I
> believe to be the author’s true intent.
>
>
>
> Proposal 5.7.1 …M&A not covered…
>
>
>
> Correction:
>
> instead of simply stating that M&A transactions are not covered by the
> policy, reference should be made to the policy under which they are
> covered. If there is no such policy, then the exception should be removed
> from this policy.
>
>
>
> Reasoning:
>
> M&A transactions occur, both inter and intra-RIR. That is simply the
> current reality. Prohibiting them from being recognized puts policy out of
> step with reality and guarantees inaccurate registration information.
>
>
>
> Proposal 5.7.2.2 …Not less than 16 months…
>
>
>
> 16 months seems a very arbitrary period of time (1 1/3 years). Suggest
> that this should be modified to 12, 18, or 24 months. Suggest a similar
> change to 5.7.2.3 as well.
>
> Personally, I would favor 24 months, with 18 as my second choice.
>
>
>
> Proposal 5.7.4: Suggest adding the following to the required information
> list:
>
>                 Source ORG-ID
>
>                 Recipient ORG-ID
>
>
>
> I continue to object to 5.7.5. In the situation with an ethical RIR, I
> agree this provision would not be a problem. However, with the current crew
> of shake down artists in control of the AFRINIC management and board where
> we have seen made up interpretations of the bylaws and the CPM used in an
> effort to extort money from members, this provision is perfectly positioned
> to be weaponized in order to deny legitimate resource holders the ability
> to protect their rights.
>
>
>
> Proposal Section 5.7.6 is non-operative and has no effect. Therefore, it
> should be stricken IMHO.
>
>
>
> Owen
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________ 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20211113/aeb42e1f/attachment-0001.html>