[rpd] Summary of Proposal AFRINIC Number Resources Transfer Policy AFPUB-2020-GEN-006-DRAFT02

Tue Jan 11 09:13:40 UTC 2022

Hi Arnaud,

I only speak for myself, but I work with RIR communities in the 5 regions, so I have got some feeling about what are the possible reactions.

The proposal is unidirectional for some type of addresses, this is a fact from the text: “Only Legacy resources and resources transferred in from other regions will be transferable out of the AFRINIC service region.”

When I proposed “only legacy”, the community didn’t liked it. Fine. I withdraw the proposal. The community then told me that we should set measures to prevent a possible “massive escape” of the AFRINIC resources, and even if that’s not needed because in all the RIR (including AFRINIC) the Board has the capability of pausing or cancelling a policy, I made it explicit in the policy text. That’s not being unfair with any other RIR, on the other way around it is being *open and transparent* by making explicit something that *ANY* RIR is free to do at any time.

Trying to hide or distort reality as you try to do, is ugly. Making things clear is honest, even if we don’t like it.

Regards,

Jordi

@jordipalet

El 11/1/22 9:21, "Arnaud AMELINA" <amelnaud at gmail.com> escribió:

English :

===

Hi Jordi !

Are you now speaking for RIRs? Please stop fear mongering and spreading falsehood, given that proposal is not ‘basically unidirectional’ as you say. You are the one who is proposing war as the proposal is compatible and reciprocal.

You did not see risks of  RIRs war when you proposed to add a threshold on outgoing transfers to allow board to revoke the policy.

Be a fair player and accept a better proposal which matches the current state and desiderata of this community.

French 

===

Salut Jordi !

 Parlez-tu maintenant au nom des RIR ?  S'il te plaît, arrêtes de faire peur et de répandre des mensonges, étant donné que cette proposition n'est pas « fondamentalement unidirectionnelle » comme tu le pretends.  C'est toi qui propose la guerre car la proposition est belle et bien compatible et réciproque.

 Tu n'as pas vu de risques de guerre des RIR lorsque tu as proposé d'ajouter un seuil sur les transferts sortants pour permettre au conseil d'administration de révoquer la politique.

 Sois bon joueur et acceptes une meilleure proposition qui correspond à l'état actuel et aux desiderata de cette communauté.

--

Arnaud 

Le lun. 10 janv. 2022 à 09:59, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD <rpd at afrinic.net> a écrit :

No, the bulk of sister RIR confirmed reciprocity, but that doesn’t mean that they will be happy with a system that is basically unidirectional towards AFRINIC with most of the addresses.

They can, at any point, decide to change their policy and simply add a reciprocity clause as ARIN. This is what I call creating a “war”, you can use other words, but the point is the same. With this policy we create a distortion of the present “status quo”. It is just an objective observation, nothing else than facts.

I don’t mean IPv4 doesn’t has value, I mean that the value is going to be residual, specially if you do your job and deploy IPv6.

Regards,

Jordi

@jordipalet

El 6/1/22 15:59, "Murungi Daniel" <dmurungi at wia.co.tz> escribió:

Dear Jodi,

As others have pointed out, the bulk of sister RIRs are okay with the proposal in it’s current state. 

There is full transparency and no distortion. Kindly provide proof. Otherwise, you have no foundation to stand on and your arguments are simply fear mongering.

Forget IPv4 you say, then why do you and others fight hard to exert control over the IPv4 resources under AFRINIC’s stewardship? The answer is very simple - IPv4 is still valuable and will continue to be for the foreseeable future. 

You do not throw away a $50 bill just because you get a $100 bill!

Regards,

Daniel

On Jan 6, 2022, at 5:35 PM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD <rpd at afrinic.net> wrote:

Hi Daniel,

I never said that the starting point was fair or not, however you also must consider that the initial distributions of IP addresses among the different reasons was not done under the RIR system. Afterwards, when the RIR system started, in all the regions it was done under justified need (including AFRINIC before his existence as it was covered by other RIR, same that happened in other regions that were developing slower).

If AFRINIC Internet development had the same need as other regions, the distribution would have been fair. So, from that perspective, we like it or not, it was fair according to the need.

In any case the transfers come to resolve that, just as an intermediary step for what we must do: deploy IPv6 and forget about IPv4.

What is unfair, wrong and bad, is to distort the transfers that have been working for several years in most of the other RIRs.

Regards,

Jordi

@jordipalet

El 6/1/22 15:24, "Murungi Daniel" <dmurungi at wia.co.tz> escribió:

Dear Jodi,

Your objection would carry weight if the allocation of number resources was in similar quantities across all the RIRs. 

You use the word ‘fair’, is it fair that the AFRINIC region has only 3% of the global number resources?

True, the Internet is global. This would not be the case if the other regions lacked number resources to grow the Internet as we now know it (Obviously other reasons such as massive infrastructure investment have contributed as well).

Regards,

Daniel

On Jan 6, 2022, at 4:40 PM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD <rpd at afrinic.net> wrote:

That’s my point: When in other RIRs their realize that resources can go only RIR->AFRINIC direction and not reversed, do you think they will not change the policies to avoid that?

It is simply not fair to have most of the resources going into a single direction. Internet is global.

Regards,

Jordi

@jordipalet

El 6/1/22 13:02, "Murungi Daniel" <dmurungi at wia.co.tz> escribió:

Dear Jodi,

Only ARIN had reservations, other RIRs are okay with the proposal. 

Keep in mind that as late comers, AFRINIC was allocated the least share of number resources and other RIRs recognize this as well. 

So I see no issue whatsoever with the AFRINIC region being conservative with the little they were allocated. 

That’s why the working group is happy with this proposal.

Regards,

Daniel

On Jan 6, 2022, at 1:02 PM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD <rpd at afrinic.net> wrote:

I must agree with some of the points raised by AK.

It has been said many times: we can’t have a non-reciprocal policy.

We are only creating the path for a war with the other RIRs.

In this region we always complained about other RIRs rules trying to interfere with our own rules, and we are now doing exactly the same?

How come can we expect that other RIRs will not change their policies to protect their resources, and ensure that their own transfer policies don’t work anymore with AFRINIC, unless AFRINIC turns into a reciprocal system?

Clearly it is a very wrong decision and will turn against AFRINIC.

Regards,

Jordi

@jordipalet

El 5/1/22 21:53, "ABDULKARIM OLOYEDE" <oloyede.aa at unilorin.edu.ng> escribió:

Dear PDWG,

 There are a number of issues with this policy that have been raised and I am surprised that only a few were mentioned in this summary.

I am also surprised that those who were saying reciprocity was an issue with a similar policy are now saying it's no more an issue. I would have gone into the archive but I have better things to do. 

Those who drafted this summary are now assuming the role of authors. If you agree that this policy is not reciprocal but it should be implemented with RIRs that it is reciprocal with then can you tell me why other similar policies are not reaching consensus on this same basis?. This is a very dangerous precedence. now policies can be implemented with a group. what a good laugh we are having here.

Please what are we doing differently this time? So editorial changes are now allowed by the same set of people who said no changes is allowed a month before the PPM according to the CPM.   Funny enough the same person raising this same issue is one of those who now drafted this so-called summary. 

Which version is the version that you are now claiming is reaching a consensus here. Is it the current version before the PPM  or the version that the authors have agreed to make editorial changes too.  What are these editorial changes?  Can you explain them? I hope I get a response to this.

I see nothing different happing now from what we did. Our template is clearly being used by the same set of people who were shouting then. The only difference is that their will is now being implemented.  I knew this was a script all along am not in any way surprised. some people now don't understand what an RIR is. and suddenly we having RIR lessons.

Let us be clear on this, this policy didn't reach a consensus for the simple fact that it is not reciprocal among other reasons. 

I know that all opposition to this policy would be ignored became all these are just a formality so I won't waste my time too much on this. The decisions were made a long time ago and this is just a drama.  Same with the appeals it is now the same circle of people typical way of doing things, therefore, I can clearly predict the future. Unfortunately, the chair of appeals is someone I respect and like so much hence I would never comment on anything she has a hand in no matter the temptation I would never directly or indirectly disrespect her.

Congratulation to Noah and friends, I was thinking you wait and pass this policy at the next ppm but it seems time is running out of time and it has to be done now.  Fortunately, I only decided to send this mail because  I am not expecting those crazy blackmailing responses from my good friend. He now has a court case to answer too and am sure he would finally get to learn some lessons or maybe I should also consult on how I can press a similar charge.  let me quote from ...."the truth is definitely stronger. Always stay on the path of truth :-) "

Let me stop here before I get the puppet card. 

AK

On Wed, 8 Dec 2021, 16:32 PDWG Chair, <vincent at ngundi.me.ke> wrote:

Dear PDWG, 

The  summary of the elements that led to the PDWG Chairs decision for the policy  proposal AFRINIC Number Resources Transfer Policy - Policy Proposal AFPUB-2020-GEN-006-DRAFT02 that was discussed during the AFRINIC-34 Public Policy Meeting is as follows:-

Lack of reciprocity with ARIN was raised and addressed by the authors and members of the PDWG, who mentioned that while the proposal is conservative and aims at protecting the resource pool of AFRINIC, AFRINIC can start with the implementation of resource transfers with those RIRs that have confirmed or do not require reciprocity. The authors also clarified that incoming transfers of legacy resources will be covered by the AFRINIC RSA as the recipient will have to become a member.

After deliberation, the PDWG Co-chairs announced that having considered the current version of the policy proposal, the deliberations during the  current PPM and the editorial changes that the authors have committed to, they have determined that rough consensus has been reached. The updated version of the policy proposal, with ID AFPUB-2020-GEN-006-DRAFT03, was submitted on 22 Nov 2021 and is available at https://afrinic.net/policy/proposals/2020-gen-006-d3 . This version of the proposal   will now move to Last Call and the community can further engage in that period. 

The Last Call starts on 8 December 2021 and will end at 23h59 UTC on 5 January 2022.

Regards,

Vincent Ngundi & Darwin Da Costa

AFRINIC PDWG CO-CHAIRS

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

Website, Weekly Bulletin UGPortal PGPortal HelpDesk

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