[rpd] Ratified Policy Proposal - AFPUB-2020-GEN-006-DRAFT03, AFRINIC Number Resource Policy Transfer

[Paul Hjul]

Hi Jordi

I don’t recall now all the details of the discussion, which it seems you
> reviewed in detail and I agree with your summary.
> What I’m sure is that I always discussed the lack of complete reprocity
> with other RIRs, which impacts on the volume of transfers that can come in
> to AFRINIC, and also discussed that changes in a policy proposal can’t be
> done after consensus has been reached.


Thanks, yes the reciprocity consideration is the main backdrop and until
looking at this again I had assumed that this policy as ratified, while
dead on arrival because of a lack of complete reciprocity as raised in your
concerns, would still be net improvement. [I have a cynical streak ;) ].
Giving it a little bit of thought though, there are actually two aspects to
the need for a sensible inter-RIR policy that resolves reciprocity and my
thinking has only been on the one (I cop it to "occupational hazard") and I
haven't grappled fully. A couple of more interesting problems can creep up
from the woodwork.

To solve this problem, in LACNIC I submitted a proposal to modify the PDP
> in several aspects including this one, it reached consensus and was
> ratified in mid-2023, and was implemented in June 2024 with this text: "To
> publish a four-week last call for comments period for any proposal that
> reaches consensus. In the case of editorial changes, a new version of the
> proposal must be published and the last call for comments period must be
> restarted." This way, the chairs have the chance to re-evaluate that the
> editorial changes aren’t altering the view of the PDWG.
>

That seems like a very sensible thing to come into play. Digging in the
archives also revealed a rather dense PDP policy discussion and things get
wild. A new RDP proposal was put forward recently (from the same authors of
this particular proposal and which I suspect is little more than an attempt
to drag AFRINIC down another disastrous path) and I think the suggestion
from Andrew needs to be taken forward. I anticipate that there will be some
robust discussions in Nairobi followed by some kicking and screaming and
name calling.



Regarding the policy compliance dashboard, it was not ratified by the
> board: https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2026/014703.html As a
> consequence, the authors had a call with the staff and then submitted
> several weeks ago a new version. We are waiting for possible inputs from
> the staff before publication. The major problem we are having is what I
> asked the staff to confirm very urgently in this email:
> https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2026/014777.html


This bothers me quite a bit - again though I don't think we can fault
the Board. While I think we may disagree as to the scope of authority that
a policy from the community can have once it touches on contractual
relationships, there is likely common ground amongst everybody who actually
is engaging in good faith that the role of Afrinic as an organization is to
implement policy and mechanisms that have consensus from the community. The
role of staff is not to create an Afrinic fiefdom or to gatekeep the global
community.

What is quite clear is that certain members of Afrinic staff oppose this
policy on the basis that they see it as restaining their ability to act
arbitrarily and capriciously. In doing so they wish to advance the
contention that the RSA permits them to act in an arbitrary and capricious
manner.

I see you (together with other authors) have proposed a revised version of
the policy. I am a little concerned that in trying to mute the staff
objection the new policy proposal might miss the mark but I'll look more
closely and comment specifically on that policy.

[So I am quoting a different email from you]

> In the case of AFRINIC, they perceive it as encroaching the staff, and
> then the board doesn’t ratify it. May be because Mauritius law and that
> means that we must change AFRINIC to another jurisdiction? What is clear is
> that the community is the responsible of how the resources are handled by
> means of policies (not the staff, not the Board, not AFRINIC as an
> organisation), and this ALSO means that if they are misused against the
> policies, the community also is the responsible and has the RIGHT to decide
> how and even when the resources must be recovered. AFRINIC just execute the
> orders of the community in regard to policies. This is the same in all the
> RIRs.
>

There is a serious problem with the culture amongst some of the staff but I
actually do think the vast majority of employees actually do try to do the
right thing and that some careful leadership from the top will solve things
reasonably quickly.
AFRINIC as an organization has a long standing problem of certain insiders
wishing to use the organization to advance some bizarre ideological bent
and to use the cantankerous fights which flow as a smokescreen to engage in
general larceny.

When anybody gets caught with their trousers down poor Mauritius as a
jurisdiction gets blamed.

The problem isn't Mauritius as a jurisdiction. With the way AFRINIC has
misdirected itself the litigation space would be infinitely more hazardous
in South Africa (for example). We would probably have had a 15 year running
saga over whether and how PAJA applies and while there is a certain
intellectual curiosity for many reasons the questions at hand are best left
as academic. If AFRINIC fell in one of the United Kingdom jurisdictions I
can assure you that the barristers who've been engaged to take injunctions
out on AFRINIC would have the same level of success (if not greater) as
they've had in Mauritius (there would be significantly fewer matters but
the overall situation would be similar). My knowledge of Kenya is quite
limited but I have little doubt that the Keynan judiciary would largely
align with the Mauritius and English courts - although the judges and even
counsel will be more likely to wear wigs. Namibia, Lesotho and Botswana are
distinct jurisdictions to South Africa and you might be able to avoid some
of the delay that would arise in South Africa but you'd get much the same
endpoint as in South Africa. If AFRINIC were seated in eSwatini we'd be
able to argue for a more Roman-Dutch contract law than anywhere else but I
am not sure anybody will actually be happy with the outcome. Rwanda is
showing promise on some fronts but I don't think we can really escape the
extent to which stability of rule of law is still to be entrenched.

Now there are one or two aspects and peculiarities of Mauritius and there
is a certain parochial feel to that annoys me [although we should probably
blame the French], but the problem is not - and has never been - about the
choice of jurisdiction.
More importantly there is a massive difference between allocation policies
and policies aiming to control the utilization of allocated resources.
Grandfathering is a longstanding way of avoiding problems but emphatically
avoiding retrospective rule making doesn't serve the interests of staff.
This actually presents itself quite strongly the moment "legacy" space
comes up.

If RIPE NCC were to behave as badly as AFRINIC has I can assure that the
authorities in the Netherlands would have operated in a vary similar manner
to Mauritius. I really don't know if LACNIC has ever tried to pick the
wrong fight on spurious grounds but I don't think the courts of
Uruguay will afford it some unique tolerance.
The less that is said about the United States the better. [If you take a
gander down the ARIN mailing lists you'll discover some spine chilling
stupidity as to the organizations understanding of resource holding.]

So while I agree with the principle that the community must develop the
policies and in developing the policies provide for the mechanisms of
implementation and enforcement I'd stop very short of suggesting that the
"community" (however you try to define it) has any right to assert some
sort of authority to override applicable law. I'd be particularly concerned
when there is some sort of suggestion that RIRs should enjoy some special
dispensation because of some magical power asserted by the "community".
A lot of mess would evaporate if there wasn't so many naked attempts to use
the PDP as a means of control.

Therefore as a general rule it is better to ensure that the assignment of
resources is done in a manner that promotes the objectives for which
consensus has been reached.
Some years ago the intelligent voices in the community warned that the
policy mechanisms were defective and they were shouted down. The community
got the policy

I've taken a look at the proposal of req


So I'll poke in on your proposed amendment to require ... My question is -
and has been for more than 10 years is why AFRINIC does not require IPv6
deployment undertakings
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20260601/d306e3c8/attachment.html>