[rpd] [Last Call] Draft Policy Proposal - Soft Landing, Recovered Space and Priority (AFPUB-2026-IPv4-001-DRAFT02)

[Noah]

Salama Jordi,

Let me try to put things into perspective Kaka..

Basically, the question afrinic staff put to us the PDWG was whether
recovered IPv4 space falls under Phase 2 or needs a new policy, plus
tidying up the conflicts between Soft-Landing and other CPM sections.

The parts of the proposal that actually answer that are fine by me and can
go ahead putting recovered space into the available pool under Phase 2
after a 12-month quarantine, since some sections already cover that. No
issue with any of that.

Kwaio, (shida yangu) as in my problem is with three things that came along
for the ride and don't really belong to that question.

First, the change from twelve months to eight, tightens the utilisation and
SAW obligations on every assignee and every LIR making sub-allocations. My
brother...whatever the merits, it has nothing to do with recovered space
and it is not mentioned anywhere in your problem statement. A change to
member obligations of that kind should stand on its own bro and be
discussed by the PDWG as such, not slipped in alongside the recovered-space
fixing hahahaha..... you get it? If you dont get it, forget about it... :-)

Another thing bro the "final and irreversible" wording. I would point out
that the proposal's own reasoning says it "doesn't prevent a better choice
over the time." Both cannot be true at once. If the intention is simply to
give us a predictable default for today and I would support that then the
irreversibility language is doing more than the purpose needs, and more
than afrinix staff's question asked for.

Laskly, some of clauses and the /12 release-and-refill in 5.4.7.1 go beyond
the specific conflicts you set out for the PDWG to resolve. A broad
priority over other allocation criteria, together with releasing the
reserved /12 and refilling it with space still in quarantine, is a bigger
structural change and deserves its own conversation.....

The reason I think this is worth raising now is coz the policy can always
be changed later, In fact any of us can put our some but the IP addresses
cannot. Once recovered IP space is mixed into the general pool/inventory
and handed out, it is embedded in resource members networks and no future
policy can pull it back into a separately managed pool.

Kwaio, keeping that option open costs the PDWG almost nothing because the
recovered space can sit under Phase 2 yesterday and today and still be
tracked and reported as its own inventory pool. The interim purpose you
describe does not require closing any doors, so I would rather we didn't as
the PDWG.

So I am not asking you to throw the proposal out. There are some issues
here Kaka and for the future I would support what has been said earlier in
the thread about the PDWG agreeing on the problem statement first when
staff raise something, and only then asking for drafts. If we had done that
here, most of this would not be surfacing at Last Call.


Ahsante sana.....
*.**/noah*


On Fri, 31 Jul 2026, 11:15 pm jordi.palet--- via RPD, <rpd at afrinic.net>
wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I think the arguments are being repeated, as it happened with a previous
> proposal, and repeating myself will not add anything new.
>
> If the chair believe that I’ve not responded to anything key to complete
> the evaluation of the LC, I will be happy to further elaborate.
>
> Tks!
>
> Regards,
> Jordi
>
> @jordipalet
>
> El 31 jul 2026, a las 18:26, NP Petronella <
> NPertuniaPetronella at outlook.com> escribió:
>
> Dear Co-chairs and colleagues,
>
> Thank you to Gregoire and Alain for their thoughtful interventions. Read
> together, their comments expose an important issue that should be resolved
> before DRAFT02 advances.
>
> Alain is correct to point out that section 5.4.3 of the current CPM
> already applies the Exhaustion Phase rules to all IPv4 space allocated,
> assigned, or otherwise managed by AFRINIC, regardless of whether that space
> originated from the Final /8.
>
> On that reading, recovered IPv4 space is not sitting in a policy vacuum.
> The existing CPM already supplies a default rule.
> This changes the nature of the discussion. DRAFT02 cannot simultaneously
> be presented as urgently “filling a gap” and as merely confirming what the
> CPM already requires.
> If the proposal simply restates section 5.4.3, then it is unnecessary. If
> it does more than restate the existing rule, then those additional
> provisions must be justified as substantive policy changes.
>
> DRAFT02 does substantially more. It:
> declares Soft Landing phases final and irreversible;
> requires all returned or recovered resources, regardless of their original
> pool, to enter the available-space framework;
> gives AFRINIC discretion to shorten the quarantine period for broadly
> described operational reasons;
> permits the existing /12 reserve to be released and replaced with
> recovered space, including space still under quarantine;
> gives the Soft Landing section priority over other CPM allocation
> criteria; and
> removes or changes several provisions that go beyond the narrow question
> of recovered-space treatment.
>
> These are not merely clarifications of section 5.4.3. They alter the
> policy architecture governing a finite and economically significant body of
> IPv4 resources.
> Gregoire’s reference to the Dynamic IPv4 Pools Exhaustion Management
> Framework is therefore directly relevant. The Working Group is not choosing
> between “DRAFT02” and “no rule.” The current CPM already provides an
> interim rule.
>
> The real choice is whether recovered space should remain subject to the
> existing default or be governed through a more specific framework with
> separate pools, clearer controls, and defined anti-abuse safeguards.
>
> There is also no necessary reason why applying existing Phase 2 allocation
> criteria must erase the provenance or separate accounting of recovered
> resources. AFRINIC could continue recording recovered prefixes as a
> distinct inventory class while the community evaluates the long-term
> framework.
>
> That would preserve policy optionality.
> Once recovered prefixes are fully commingled with the ordinary Phase 2
> pool and allocated, the community cannot later reconstruct a dedicated
> recovered-space pool without affecting operationally embedded allocations.
> A future policy may remain procedurally possible, but the resources already
> distributed will no longer be available to it.
>
> This is the distinction between changing policy later and preserving the
> ability to make a meaningful choice later.
> Before DRAFT02 proceeds, I suggest that the co-chairs request:
> a clause-by-clause explanation of what DRAFT02 changes beyond existing
> section 5.4.3;
> a comparative assessment of DRAFT02 and the Dynamic Framework, including
> depletion, concentration, reserve integrity, anti-abuse controls, and
> operational complexity;
> separate and auditable reporting of recovered-space inventory and
> allocations; and
> clarification of which provisions are genuinely necessary to answer the
> recovered-space question and which should be considered through separate
> proposals.
>
> A policy should not duplicate an existing rule and then use that
> duplication to introduce irreversibility, supremacy, and additional
> administrative discretion around it.
>
> The safer approach is to preserve the existing default while the community
> compares the available models using actual inventory and allocation data.
> That protects the remaining IPv4 resources without prematurely locking them
> into one institutional framework.
>
> For these reasons, I support the concerns raised by both Gregoire and
> Alain, and I object to AFPUB-2026-IPv4-001-DRAFT02 advancing in its current
> form.
>
> Regards,
> Nonhlanhla
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20260801/10ffc9fb/attachment-0001.html>