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

Tue Jun 2 11:29:12 UTC 2026

Hello Jordi,

Did you see policy liaisons reference or comment earlier and the link
below:
https://afrinic.net/policy/proposals/2020-gen-006-d3#implementation

Whether it is fully or partially reciprocal the main question is whether it
is compatible with other RIR and since other RIR confirmed. I think this
matter can then be put to rest. Others can decide to improve upon the
policy in future.

Regards

----
Sent from my mobile
kindly excuse typos

On Tue, 2 Jun 2026, 3:15 am jordi.palet--- via RPD, <rpd at afrinic.net> wrote:

> 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> 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 listRPD at afrinic.nethttps://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
>
> --
> AFRINIC Policy Liaison.
> t: +230 403 51 00 | f: +230 466 6758 | tt: @afrinic | w:www.afrinic.netfacebook.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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20260602/573dad3b/attachment-0003.html>