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

[Policy Liaison Team]

Dear All

We have noted the discussion regarding reciprocity.

Please note that reciprocity with the other RIRs were re-verified @April 
2026 and published here - 
https://afrinic.net/policy/proposals/2020-gen-006-d3#implementation


Kind Regards

Madhvi

for Policy Liaison Team

On 01/06/2026 17:35, Paul Hjul wrote:
> 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.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd

-- 
AFRINIC Policy Liaison.
t: +230 403 51 00 | f: +230 466 6758 | tt: @afrinic | w:www.afrinic.net
facebook.com/afrinic | flickr.com/afrinic | youtube.com/afrinicmedia
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20260601/7e2014ce/attachment-0001.html>