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

[rpd] Summary of Policy Proposal IPv4 Inter-RIR Resource Transfers Comprehensive Scope AFPUB-2019-IPv4-002-DRAFT07

Owen DeLong owen at
Sat Dec 11 05:13:56 UTC 2021

> On Dec 8, 2021, at 11:51 , Jaco Kroon <jaco at> wrote:
> Hi,
> On 2021/12/08 17:21, PDWG Chair wrote:
>>  Dear PDWG,
>> The  summary of the elements that led to the PDWG Chairs decision for the proposal IPv4 Inter-RIR Resource Transfers l Comprehensive Scope AFPUB-2019-IPv4-002-DRAFT07 that was discussed during the AFRINIC-34 Public Policy Meeting is as follows:-
>> Pending concern.  Suggest the period of time to be modified in the sections and from 16 months to 18 or 24 months
>> I do not favor coming to  consensus on a policy with a silly clock with a plan to amend the clock later. I think we should come to a consensus on a complete policy including timing. I propose 24 months, but I would find 12 or 18 months acceptable.... If the community can’t come to consensus on the timing, then you don’t have consensus on the policy since the timing is part of the policy proposal.
>> Pending concern. … I object to the policy so long as it contains the provision in the section 5.7.5, unless it is modified as follow:
>> The section 5.7.5 to be:
>> AFRINIC may deny a registrant as the source of a transfer only if one or more of the following applies:
> AFRINIC should or must, may implies it's optional which means none of these really matters.

You are misinterpreting the statement… It says that these are the ONLY reasons AFRINIC may reject a registrant as a source of a transfer.

In other words, it is not attempting to force them to do so, it is attempting to prevent them from using other reasons.

>>  Clear evidence that the resources were fraudulently obtained.
>> Registrants are not current on their AFRINIC fees.
>> There is some question or dispute as to whether the registrant is the resource holder of record.
>> There is an unresolved third-party claim to the registration.
>> If one of the above does not apply, then AFRINIC must approve the registrant as source of the transfer and proceed unless there is a problem with the recipient.
> I believe the intent here was "If none of the aboveapplies, then ..."

That works too… Yes… It’s another way of phrasing the exact same intent.

>> Pending concern. ...If the African market is already in shortage, then why is there still a free pool? If there is a shortage, then bad policy is protecting the free pool from being issued to legitimate needs.
> Surely this policy is about transfer, not about issuing of new resources, so please help us to understand how this relates?

This was expressed in the thread, but I (as the author of the statement) agree that it is NOT a concern or objection to this policy. It was intended only to rebut someone else’s claims regarding shortage and the free pool.


>> Pending concern. ... Honestly this seems like a lot of steps just to transfer resources from one RIR to another. Since the region currently does not have one, you'd think this would solve problems but instead, this allows for greater AFRINIC interference in a supposedly interference-free transfer. This is still not addressed. Additionally, the staff themselves has pointed out glaring vague and open-ended definitions that should also be addressed. I would definitely support a policy that has less "interference" with RIR than the current one.
>> Pending concern.Issues with the problem statement such as the mention of IPv4 market in the region
>> Pending concern. In 5.7.2 there is no limit or requirement for source and this is negative for AFRINIC and we will kill AFRINIC with these transfers
>> Pending concern. We have a small portion of the limited resources compared to other regions and we cannot accept such policy since the resources are already limited. I would Agree to bring more resources in the region via Legacy resources transfers into the region. I reject such policies to make resources leave the region.
>> The decision of PDWG Co-chairs is that no rough consensus has been reached due to the number of valid concerns not yet addressed during the online session and from the mailing list. The draft policy proposal, therefore, goes back to the RPD mailing list for further discussion.
>> Regards,
>> Vincent Ngundi & Darwin Da Costa
>> _______________________________________________
>> RPD mailing list
>> RPD at <mailto:RPD at>
>> <>
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at

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

More information about the RPD mailing list