[rpd] possible update to AFPUB-2026-IPv4-002-DRAFT01 "Amendment of Utilisation in Soft Landing"

Mon Jun 15 06:57:03 UTC 2026

Hi Sami,

See below in line.

Also it will be good if the staff can confirm if my responses below are correct or I’m missing something.

Regards,
Jordi

@jordipalet

> El 14 jun 2026, a las 21:55, Sami Salih <sami.salih at outlook.com> escribió:
> 
> Hi Jordi,
> Based on my previous comments and the new simplified update you provided, I would support this proposal if the following amendment is incorporated:
> "The evaluation of requests submitted under this exception shall be conducted by AFRINIC staff based on the information and supporting documentation provided by the applicant. AFRINIC reserves the sole discretion to determine whether the demonstrated technical requirements satisfy the conditions of this provision.

This  is already true for *any* justification provided for any request of number resources. In fact it is defined in section 3 of the RSA.

If you provide information that is not sufficient to justify the request, AFRINIC will tell you “we need more info, we need to clarify this, etc.”.

Same for the 2nd sentence. In AFRINIC there is no escalation procedure in the CPM for a denial of any resources request.

> The decision of AFRINIC regarding such requests shall be final for the purposes of resource evaluation under this policy. AFRINIC may, at its discretion, provide feedback regarding the basis for a denial, but shall not be obligated to provide detailed technical assessments or recommendations."

This will contradict the RSA, with defines in section 13 the “right of appeal”. The CPM can’t contradict that, because it will mean the board can’t ratify the proposal (if it reaches consensus).
> I believe this amendment is important for several reasons.
> First, the proposed exception introduces a degree of subjective technical assessment that cannot be fully codified within the policy text. As a result, AFRINIC staff must retain the necessary discretion to evaluate whether a request genuinely satisfies the stated technical requirements.
In general, there is always some degree of subjectivity in many requests to a RIR. It depends a lot on the documentation that you provide, so is the requester the one responsible to make a clear documentation.
> Second, the amendment provides clarity regarding roles and responsibilities by making it explicit that the evaluation is an operational function carried out by AFRINIC staff, rather than a matter for policy interpretation or community debate on a case-by-case basis.
This is always the case, we need to trust the RIR staff, otherwise, we will enter into a never-ending micromanagement cycle. If the staff discover that something is not going well, they can 1) warn the community when reviewing the proposal thru the impact analysis, 2) if the proposal was already implemented, explain the issues via the PIER as they already do.

Also the community can discover issues in any implemented policy, and they have the right to query the staff and submit proposals to resolve the issues.
> Third, requiring AFRINIC to provide detailed technical justifications or recommendations for every rejected request could create unnecessary administrative burden, encourage repeated challenges to operational decisions, and potentially divert resources from the efficient processing of resource requests.
Again, this is true for any existing policies. With any new implemented policy, this may happen, and the staff is able to create a procedures, templates, or whatever, to guide the members in how to correctly send the request.

> Finally, the amendment helps ensure consistency, predictability, and operational efficiency in the implementation of the policy while preserving AFRINIC's ability to provide feedback where it considers it useful and appropriate.
> With this amendment included, I believe the proposal would achieve its intended objective while reducing ambiguity in its implementation and strengthening the overall governance of the evaluation process.
> With regards,
> Sami Salih.
> From: jordi.palet--- via RPD <rpd at afrinic.net <mailto:rpd at afrinic.net>>
> Sent: Sunday, June 14, 2026 2:23 PM
> To: RPD <rpd at afrinic.net <mailto:rpd at afrinic.net>>
> Subject: [rpd] possible update to AFPUB-2026-IPv4-002-DRAFT01 "Amendment of Utilisation in Soft Landing"
>  
> Hi all,
> 
> Pending from the impact analysis, if it comes in time before the 16th, i’ve worked in a possible v2 of this policy proposal, considering the previous discussion in the list.
> 
> I’m sending this before official submission in order to seek further inputs, if they come in time before the deadline.
> 
> The text I’m proposing is:
> 
> The above requirement is waived for network operators requesting new IPv4 addresses for demonstrated key technical requirements, which can be illustrated to not be practically serviceable from existing assigned/allocated IPv4 resources – such as redundancy and high-availability sites, IPv6 transition technologies, or expansion to new sites which pose a technical constraint on their current resource pool – and in these cases, the request is treated as a first allocation or request. The request justification should be sufficiently documented, in such way that AFRINIC can verify the compliance with the provided justification.
> 
> I believe the last sentence provides a valid way to avoid abusing the policy.
> 
> I’m attaching (not sure if it will pass thru the list) a PDF of how it looks like in a comprehensive view.
> 
> Regards,
> Jordi
> 
> @jordipalet
> 
> 
> 
> **********************************************
> IPv4 is over
> Are you ready for the new Internet ?
> http://www.theipv6company.com <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 <mailto: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/20260615/1ef5171d/attachment.html>