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

Tue Jun 2 08:15:09 UTC 2026

Hi,

Let me clarify my view on this.

AFRINIC resource transfer policy has this limitation:
"Only Legacy resources and resources transferred in from other regions will be transferable out of the AFRINIC service region."

Consequently, I don’t think this is matching section 8.4 of the ARIN NRPM, which states:
"Inter-regional transfers of IPv4 addresses or ASNs may take place only via RIRs who agree to the transfer and share reciprocal, compatible needs-based policies."

If we take a “subset” of only legacy resources from AFRINIC, then it can be considered reciprocal, but I will not call it “fully reciprocal”, because clearly it disallows non-legacy AFRINIC resources to be transferred to ARIN or any other regions.

What I’m not sure, I don’t know if ARIN confirmed that, is if the ARIN interpretation of their own policy will then allow non-legacy resources from ARIN be transferred to AFRINIC. Has this been confirmed by ARIN?

I think there are no issues, at the time being with other RIRs, but when this proposal reached consensus, the major global “donor” was ARIN, and unless I got it wrong, this is still the case in the last NRO stats from April 2026.

Regards,
Jordi

@jordipalet

> El 1 jun 2026, a las 20:12, Policy Liaison Team via RPD <rpd at afrinic.net> escribió:
> 
> 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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd

**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20260602/c97a72cf/attachment-0001.html>