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

[Paul Hjul]

Sorry hit send early. Complete message below.

On Mon, 1 Jun 2026 at 15:30, Paul Hjul <hjul.paul at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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. The proper way to ensure that resources
> are allocated in line with some sort of expected case is to have
> undertakings made by the recipient at the time of allocation.
>
> 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 requirements around pairing IPv6 to
> new IPv4 allocations that you've advanced. I think it provides a good
> starting point and will comment on it properly during the week.
> So I'll poke in on your policy proposal. My question is - and has been for
> more than 10 years is why AFRINIC does not require IPv6 deployment
> undertakings when allocations for IPv4 address space are made. The answer
> which nobody wants to admit to is that that would not have served a lot of
> peoples interests.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20260601/ed7be91f/attachment-0001.html>