<table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" border="0" ><tr><td valign="top" style="font: inherit;">Tamon,<br><br>good work. quite detailed copy and true reflection of the activities. hpe we have a place online where you have uploaded the same.<br><br>walu.<br><br>--- On <b>Wed, 6/22/11, Mukom Akong T <i><tamon@afrinic.net></i></b> wrote:<br><blockquote style="border-left: 2px solid rgb(16, 16, 255); margin-left: 5px; padding-left: 5px;"><br>From: Mukom Akong T <tamon@afrinic.net><br>Subject: [AfriNIC-rpd] Minutes of Policy Discussions during AfriNIC-14 in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania<br>To: "AfriNIC Resource Policy" <rpd@afrinic.net><br>Date: Wednesday, June 22, 2011, 4:40 PM<br><br><div class="plainMail">Minutes of AfriNIC-14 Public Policy Meeting<br><br>Meeting: AfriNIC-14, 8th and 9th June 2011<br>Location: Kudunchi Beach Hotel, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania<br>Chairs:<br> Alan
Barrett <apb at cequrux.com><br> S. Moonesamy <sm+afrinic at elandsys.com><br>Minutes : Mukom Akong T. <tamon at afrinic.net><br><br><br>[1] Agenda<br><br>(a) PDWG co-chair Elections<br><br>(b) Introduction - Policy Development Process, and Report on Recently<br>Approved Policies<br><br>(c) Global Policy for Post Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation Mechanisms by the<br>IANA - Philip Smith<br><br>(d) Global Policy for IPv4 Allocations by the IANA Post Exhaustion<br><br>(e) Limited Out of Region Allocation of IPv4 Resources - Andrew Alston<br><br>(f) Addition of Real Contact Email into ASN Whois Bulk Data<br><br>(g) IPv4 Soft Landing Policy - Frank Habich (for Douglas Onyango)<br><br>(h) Transfer of IPv4 Addresses to Any Entity - Jackson Muthili<br><br>(i) Reclamation of Allocated but Un-routed IPv4
Addresses<br><br><br>[2] Deliberations<br><br>(a) PDWG co-chair Elections<br><br>Started at 12:20, Gift Shava the chair of the 2011 Nomcom introduced the<br>election process beginning with the open positions PDWG co-chairs<br>positions and the terms. He declared that only two nominations were<br>received for the PDWG co-chair seats and these are:<br><br>*Timothy McGinnis<br>*Dr Paulos Nyirenda<br><br>Thereafter, one of the nominee’s (Timothy McGinnis’) recorded<br>presentation was projected to the audience. In his video presentation,<br>Timothy McGinnis expressed his hope that Paulos Nyirenda be chosen for<br>the two year seat.<br><br>In the absence of Dr Paulos Nyirenda, the nomcom chair proceeded to<br>announce the results of the election, with Dr Nyirenda for 2 year term<br>and Timothy McGinnis serving the 1 year term.<br><br>Alan Barrett objected to the process and stated that elections must be<br>held, even if it were just a show of
hands. This sentiment was supported<br>by Sunday Folayan, Andrew Alston and S. Moonesamy who recalled that<br>even during AfriNIC-12 in Kigali, an election was held even though there<br>were only two nominees for two open seats. In response, the Nomcom chair<br>clarified the Nomcom’s thinking thus: since there are only two valid<br>positions and two nominees who have expressed preference, then it was an<br>election by default. Ashok Radhakisson, AfriNIC’s legal counsel stated<br>that given the circumstances on ground and the candidates stated<br>preferences, there is no choice and as such there can’t be an election.<br>This position was countered by Sunday Folayan who countered by saying<br>that the community did have a choice ... the choice of rejecting<br>candidates. This position was also supported by Andrew Alston. Mark<br>Elkins stated that the community could not reject the candidates at this<br>point given that their nominations
were accepted and confirmed as part<br>of an open process. This was also confirmed by Ashok Radhakisson who<br>pointed to the root cause of the problem as being not the process, but<br>as that of getting candidates to stand for open positions.<br><br>Badru Ntege called for a review of the entire process and for the<br>elections to be postponed to the next day. Alan Barrett proposed an<br>election by show of hands to confirm Paulos Nyirenda for the two (2)<br>year term and Timothy McGinnis for the 1 year term. Adiel Akplogan<br>stated that the main issue was that the Nomcom showed the results before<br>asking the community its views and that delaying the process will not<br>change anything.<br><br>Mark Elkins asked whether the community had any objections to the two<br>candidates and there was no objection (i.e. no show of hands). Gift<br>Shava called for a show of hands to support Paulos Nyirenda for two (2)<br>years and Timothy McGinnis for one (1)
year. There was no opposition to<br>this motion. As such Gift declared the final outcome as follows:<br><br>Dr Paulos Nyirenda --- 2 years<br>Timothy McGinnis --- 1 year<br><br>S. Moonesammy later objected to the show of hands and result but his<br>objection was dismissed by the Nomcom chair on the grounds that he did<br>not object when the motion was open to the floor.<br><br>The session stopped for lunch at 13:06 pm.<br><br><br>(b) Introduction - Policy Development Process, and Report on Recently<br>Approved Policies<br><br>Alan Barrett opened the session after lunch and gave a brief<br>introduction to the policy development process as well as the status of<br>proposals under discussion. He declared that since AF-13, four proposals<br>were discussed :<br><br>**Abuse Contact Information: Reached consensus at the meeting and during<br>last call on mailing list. Currently waiting for Board
ratification.<br><br>**Real Contact Information : There was no consensus at AF-13 and there<br>has been no mailing list discussion. While it is formally still open for<br>discussion, the author has informally indicated that he would like to<br>withdraw the proposal.<br><br>**IPv4 Soft Landing: Reached consensus with a few changes at AF-13 but<br>failed to reach consensus during the Last Call on the mailing lists.<br><br>**Global Policy for Allocation of IPv4 Space by IANA Post-Exhaustion:<br>Did not reach consensus at the AF-13 meeting. In the absence of any of<br>the authors, Alan Barrett presented this proposal based on the<br>presentation for this proposal that was done at AF-13.<br><br><br>(c) Global Policy for Post Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation Mechanisms by the<br>IANA (AFPUB-2011-v4-004-draft-01)<br><br>Presented by Philip Smith who is one of the authors, he stated that the<br>proposal addresses the lack of a policy to guide IANA on what to do
with<br>any blocks of addresses that may come under its possession after IPv4<br>exhaustion. He said this proposal is an improvement over the “Global<br>Policy for IPv4 Allocations by the IANA Post Exhaustion” proposal<br><<a href="http://www.afrinic.net/docs/policies/AFPUB-2010-v4-003-draft-02.htm" target="_blank">http://www.afrinic.net/docs/policies/AFPUB-2010-v4-003-draft-02.htm</a>><br>because it does NOT mandate any returns of IPv4 space to IANA, and does<br>not deal with any issues of transfer. He also reported that it has been<br>endorsed at APNIC, had completed Last Call at RIPE, is in Last Call at<br>LACNIC, and is under discussion at ARIN.<br><br><br>Andrew Alston wanted to know if any space gotten through this proposal<br>would fall under respective Soft Landing policies where they exist. In<br>response, Ingrid Wijte replied that at RIPE, such space will fall under<br>equivalent Soft Landing proposal. Arturo Servin
reported that LACNIC<br>doesn’t have a Soft Landing in place now. Leslie Nobile at ARIN said<br>this wouldn’t be the case as there is no Soft Landing policy. Sanjaya<br>from APNIC reported that their situation is similar to RIPE’s. Alan<br>Barrett clarified that for AfriNIC, a Soft Landing policy is under<br>discussion and if adopted, all such space would be subject to it.<br><br>Dr. Nii Quaynor wanted to know the rational behind the equal sharing of<br>any such space as proposed by the policy. Philip Smith responded that<br>the rational was because it is simple and has been done before<br>(Distribution of the last blocks of /8s by IANA to the RIRs in February<br>2011).<br><br>John Walubengo asked why anyone would want to give resources back to<br>IANA instead of the local RIR and if the later happened, the<br>reclamation pool mentioned in the proposal may never become reality. In<br>response Philip Smith said the proposal cannot address
that and even the<br>authors don’t know. S. Moonesamy (speaking as a co-author) said there<br>are currently some bits and pieces of address space at IANA but there is<br>no policy to guide IANA in deal with it. Sanjaya reported that APNIC is<br>considering returning some of the returned legacy space to IANA (about<br>1/3 of a /8) while Arturo Servin of LACNIC reported that if LACNIC got<br>any legacy space back, it would be returned to IANA.<br><br>Support for the proposal was voiced by Mark Elkins, Frank Habicht,<br>Andrew Alston, Sunday Folayan, Ishmael Settenda, Ni Quaynor (who<br>supports it but would prefer any such space be given to AfriNIC) and<br>Eddy Kayihura.<br><br>S. Moonesamy recused himself from the consensus evaluation for this<br>proposal (on the grounds that he is a co-author) and it was up to Alan<br>Barrett alone who evaluated and declared consensus. The next step was<br>for it go to to Last Call.<br><br><br><br>(d)
Limited Out of Region Allocation of IPv4 Resources<br>(AFPUB-2011-v4-003-draft-02)<br><br>Presented by Andrew Alston who called everyone to speak up for or<br>against the proposal as he sensed too much apathy in the community. The<br>proposal essentially wants out of region parties to get address from one<br>/8 of AfriNIC space and that these members be charged a premium for it.<br>The author said doesn’t believe that we can stop foreign entities<br>plundering African resources but we might as well benefit from it. He<br>said that foreign entities currently can already acquire AfriNIC space<br>through holding companies in Africa and use them anywhere as they see<br>fit anywhere. This proposal simply introduces a penalty fee for what is<br>currently the status-quo. The author believes that any funds thus<br>acquired can be used to fund development of IPv6. The author clarified<br>he was not proposing AfriNIC sell space, it continues
to be a penalty<br>membership fees and such allocations will continue to be managed like<br>other resources.<br><br>After Andrew’s presentation Ernest Byaruhanga (AfriNIC’s Registration<br>Services Manager) gave a brief analysis of the proposal stated that it<br>would require change of internal systems to cater for foreign<br>memberships, which wouldn’t take long to achieve. The other issue was<br>that by the time the proposal is ratified by the board, there won’t be<br>an entire /8 left and called for the author to specify if he meant an<br>equivalent of /8 or an entire block of /8. As written, the policy if<br>ratified will be implemented between 6 and 12 months. S. Moonesamy<br>questioned why the potential issue with the /8 was not raised in the<br>Analyses report that was sent to the mailing list.<br><br>The author clarified that /8 is the maximum size, not a reserved space.<br>If there is no such space, then the policy falls
away.<br><br>Alan Barren (speaking as himself) wanted to know if the intent was for<br>all foreign entities to get out of the same /8 and the author replied<br>that that would be ideal but he had not thought of it.<br><br>Alan Barrett asked AfriNIC staff to comment on the feasibility of<br>implementing a possible 100% fee surcharge for foreign members. Ernest<br>Byaruhanga stated that any matters of fee would be the prerogative of<br>the board.<br><br>Elise Gerich of ICANN raised a concern that the RIRs and IANA have often<br>spoken of addresses being held in trust and cautioned the author’s use<br>of the word “ownership” which might turn these into assets. The author<br>acknowledge that addresses are not sell-able assets and it shouldn’t be<br>in anyone’s mandate to sell them.<br><br>Bill Woodcock suggested that such a policy should be very general and<br>not specific because specificity makes opens loopholes that can be<br>exploited.
He for example suggested that instead of doubling membership<br>fees, the ratio of space used on and off continent should be calculated<br>and the fees based off of that. The author replied that he didn’t put<br>that in the proposal because it would require policing what was being<br>used in and out of Africa and this he considered impractical.<br><br><br>Marc Crandall asked how “foreign entity” was defined and if AfriNIC had<br>the resources to adequately research what a “foreign entity” was so as<br>to obviate any potential for fraud. The author defined “foreign company”<br>as registered off-continent or a resident of the region in the case of<br>PI space. These definitions he said were not currently in the proposal<br>but he was prepared to add them. Ernest Byaruhanga added that any entity<br>legally incorporated outside the service region would be classified as a<br>foreign.<br><br>Marc Crandall asked that If foreign entities are going
to come and get<br>the resources anyway as claimed by the author, was this proposal not<br>just giving more address space to those entities? Andrew acknowledged<br>that there were still going to be violators but his proposal gives those<br>companies who would want a legitimate way to have an option.<br><br>S. Moonesamy asked whether AfriNIC would have any issues about<br>implementing the proposal as written. In response Ernest stated that it<br>would be up to the board to make that decision. The AfriNIC team he said<br>will also work with the author to clarify any issues that come up<br>towards facilitating a smooth implementation. Commenting for the Board,<br>Dr Viv Padayatchi stated that AfriNIC operates on a cost-recovery<br>principle and any such premium on foreign entities would have to take<br>that into consideration. He further specified that the 100% on price<br>would have to be removed. He stated that it was however still
premature<br>since the proposal was still under discussion.<br><br><br>Dr Nii Quaynor questioned the wisdom of opening up the resources to<br>plunders simply because we can’t police them. This position was also<br>supported by Timothy McGinnis (through the chat room). Andrew stated<br>that if the illegitimate way prevailed, it will leave us with an<br>inaccurate whois database, space may be hijacked, become uncontrollable<br>and Africa will not gain anything from it. Since we can’t stop them, we<br>should at least be compensated for the space.<br><br>Sunday Folayan stated that he doesn’t see the problem that is being<br>fixed, and that rather the proposal was going to create problems where<br>they don’t exist (a position echoed and supported by two other people).<br>As to the definition of foreign entities, he said that we might not know<br>those who are foreign, but we do now those who are not foreign. With<br>respect to the policy’s
intent of preventing AfriNIC from sitting on a<br>worthless block of IPv4, he stated that AfriNIC was not broke and that<br>such blocks have sentimental value to the community.<br><br>Andrew stated that, by having a slower burn rate, Africa is<br>disadvantaged technologically as vendors can dump their non-v6 capable<br>equipment on the the continent. Burning through our current v4 will<br>shorten the transition period to IPv6 and let Africa go over the cliff<br>with the rest of the world.<br><br>Alan Barrett (speaking for himself) questioned the premise behind this<br>proposal, especially the fact that we need to burn IPv4 as a motivation<br>to move to IPv6. Irrespective of how much IPv4 space we’ve got, the need<br>to allow connectivity to IPv6 only users is another motivation. He<br>expressed opposition to the proposal. He also pointed out that by<br>registering a local company within the AfriNIC service region, any<br>foreign entity can totally
by-pass the this proposal. This position was<br>also supported by Timothy McGinnis (through the chat room). Andrew<br>responded that the problem with being left with IPv4 space is that it<br>will create complacency in moving to IPv6.<br><br>Mark Elkins expressed support for the idea of foreign definition being<br>use of space outside the continent rather than just an entity registered<br>off the continent. As a director of AfriNIC, he also expressed support<br>for getting more money for AfriNIC to spend on IPv6 development. He<br>generally supported the proposal.<br><br><br>Mark Tinka disagreed with the proposition that burning IPv4 will push us<br>towards IPv6 because if we run out of IPv4 (and are thus motivated to go<br>to v6), we’ll still need to talk to IPv4 content providers (who have the<br>IPv4 and choose to use it rather than IPv6 because it is cheaper) and so<br>vendors will sell us lots of equipment to do NAT64 and thus money flows<br>out
of the continent. On the other hand, if we have IPv4 and they run<br>out, then they will have to move to IPv6. Andrew responded that having<br>spare IPv4 could be used as an excuse by vendors to sell us old<br>hardware, then sell us new hardware for IPv6 which will not be good for us.<br><br>Trevor Mwangwi (through the chat room) asked how this proposal keeps<br>AfriNIC within its mandate of only allocating in the African region. He<br>also asked AfriNIC ltd to specify whether there was anything in<br>AfriNIC’s charter or codes of operation that restricts allocations off<br>-region. Ernest Byaruhanga stated that RIRs only serve their regions of<br>service.<br><br>John Walubengo questioned the assertion that AfriNIC will get money out<br>of this especially since only a /8 is to be used. What if only a single<br>foreign entity gets the entire allocation? Andrew responded by saying<br>that there was a brief discussion on the mailing list about this
but he<br>had not yet updated the proposal to reflect this.<br><br>The co-chairs evaluated consensus and Alan Barrett announced was no<br>consensus and said the author could either withdraw the proposal or<br>modify it and send it back to the mailing list for discussion.<br><br>In a closing statement, Andrew remarked that this proposal succeeded in<br>motivating Africans to stand up and speak passionately about African<br>resources, as opposed to about four (4) African comments on the mailing<br>list. He said that one foreigner currently accounts for 17% of posts to<br>rpd mailing list and that is not good. He would like the community to<br>transfer the passion shown here to the mailing lists so that foreign<br>entities do not steal our policy process because of lack of<br>participation. While acknowledging that the proposal was controversial,<br>he said it has succeeded in stirring Africans up and hoped that the<br>folks who commented here should also
post on the mailing list. He<br>officially withdrew the proposal and challenged the community to think<br>about what the controversy achieved.<br><br><br>(e) Addition of Real Contact Email into ASN Whois Bulk Data<br> <<a href="http://www.afrinic.net/docs/policies/AFPUB-2010-GEN-007.htm" target="_blank">http://www.afrinic.net/docs/policies/AFPUB-2010-GEN-007.htm</a>><br><br>Alan Barrett reported that the author of the proposal wants to withdraw<br>the proposal and then opened the microphone for anyone who had read the<br>proposal and wants to discuss it.<br><br>As no one made any comments, S. Moonesamy asked if any one supported or<br>objected to the proposal as written. At this point Mukom Akong (the<br>policy liaison) read the proposal and gave a bit of background. He said<br>that there was debate on the mailing list about whether this was a<br>policy proposal or not. He reported that the author had not made
any<br>attempt to support the proposal and in recent communications, the author<br>stated he wished to withdraw the proposal.<br><br>Marc Crandall stated that proposal is not strong enough in how it is<br>written and so he does not think that it can be implemented. He offered<br>to contact the author to rewrite it.<br><br>In the absence of any comments from the community, the co-chairs<br>declared that there was no consensus.<br><br><br>(f) IPv4 Soft Landing Policy (AFPUB-2010-v4-005-draft-04)<br><br><br>Frank Habicht presented the proposal on behalf of the author (Douglas<br>Onyango) who was unable to make it to Dar es Salaam. This proposal calls<br>for a change in the assignment and allocation criteria used when AfriNIC<br>starts making allocations from the Final /8 as follows:<br><br># Exhaustion Phase 1 during which allocation/assignment will continue as<br>in the Current phase (/24 for a EU and /22 for a LIR) but the maximum<br>will
change from /10 to /13.<br><br># Exhaustion Phase 2 starts when no more than a /11 of non-reserved<br>space is available in the Final /8, and during this phase a minimum<br>allocation/assignment size will be /24, and the maximum will be /22 per<br>allocation/assignment.<br><br># For each allocation or assignment made during the Exhaustion Phase, no<br>more than 10% of these resources may be used outside of the AfriNIC<br>region, and any use outside the AfriNIC region shall be solely in<br>support of connectivity back to the AfriNIC region. This still remains<br>the main thorny issue which was responsible for the proposal not<br>succeeding in Last Call on the mailing list.<br><br><br>Alain Aina wanted more explanation as to when the exhaustion modes will<br>start and this was clarified by Alan Barrett as above.<br><br>Andrew Alston stated that he will support the proposal without the 10%<br>clause as it was un-enforceable, disadvantages African companies
that<br>expand abroad and needed IPv4 space to do so.<br><br>Ashok Radhakisson (AfriNIC general counsel) stated that the 10%<br>allocation contravenes paragraph 3.4 and 6.2.1 of AfriNIC constitution<br>which reflect the fact that Internet resources are for the African<br>geographical use. In a response, Dr. Viv Padayatchy, the current chair<br>of the Board clarified that bylaws may be changed by the community by<br>way of resolutions passed during a public meeting.<br><br>Nii Quaynor wanted to know why a 10% limit and not 1% which could be<br>guided by developing best practices as to the kind of out of region uses<br>that are realistic which would then be included in the Registration<br>Services Agreement (RSA). Mark Elkins responding that 1% of a /22 (the<br>typical allocation during exhaustion phase 2) will be inadequate for<br>most purposes.<br><br>Frank Habicht suggested that a middle ground to specifying percentage<br>was to change the clause
to state that more than half of all the space<br>of the requesting entity (including legacy space) has to be used within<br>the AfriNIC service region.<br><br><br>Alan Barrett clarified that the the 10% mentioned in the proposal<br>applies to all allocations, not just those gotten in the exhaustion<br>phase. He called on Ashok to clarify what the issue with is<br>constitutionally with the 10% clause. Ashok responded that as resources<br>from IANA to AfriNIC is for the sole use of the interest of Africa, the<br>requirement can be stretched to entities outside the region just to<br>maintain connectivity back to the continent.<br><br>S. Moonesamy asked the AfriNIC Ltd to provide guidance on whether the<br>10% statement contravenes some part of the by-laws of the company.<br><br>Dr Nii expressed support for the proposal if the 10% was exclusively to<br>allow connectivity back to the continent.<br><br>Mark Tinka opposed the proposal because it
tries to tell an operator how<br>to run their network which was going beyond its purview. This position<br>was also supported by Sunday Folayan.<br><br>Mark Elkins expressed belief in the need for this proposal and stated<br>that the 10% clause was purely to stop theft and if the bylaws preclude<br>theft, then he is supports the proposal without the 10% clause. Andrew<br>Alston also stated that so long as out-of-continent use of resources was<br>to support connectivity back to the continent, then we don’t need the<br>10% restriction and he would support it. This position was also<br>supported by Nii Quaynor.<br><br>Alan Barrett (speaking for himself) proposed that replace second<br>paragraph of 3.8 with the following:<br><br><br>“AfriNIC resource are for the AfriNIC region, however, organisations<br>based in frica may have equipment outside of Africa and there is a need<br>for address space to support the equipment. In order to meet these<br>goals,
the following requirement is made:<br><br>Any organisation that receives IPv4 during exhaustion space must use<br>more than half of their IPv4 space in the AfriNIC region. In determining<br>what fraction of v4 space is in use in the region, all relevant address<br>space shall be taken in account, including legacy space, space received<br>from AfriNIC or other RIRs before or after the beginning of the<br>exhaustion phase. All such use of address space outside the region must<br>be in support of connectivity back to the region.”<br><br>This text proposal was supported by Trevor Mwangi (through the chat room).<br><br>S. Moonesamy asked whether AfriNIC Ltd had any comments about the<br>proposed text. In response, Alain Aina (Acting CEO) said AfriNIC could<br>not comment on any proposed text and declined to make any pronouncements<br>on the spot about legal or other implications.<br><br>Beida suggested that the second paragraph of 3.8 be changed to
“AfriNIC<br>resources are used for the AfriNIC region and any other use outside the<br>region shall be solely to support connectivity back to the region.”<br><br>Andrew Alston voiced support for both proposals (with preference for the<br>second) and also asked whether the community could modify the proposal<br>(in the absence of the author) to get consensus or if we’ll have to wait<br>till the author makes the revisions. In response, Alain Aina (as AfriNIC<br>Acting CEO) stated that submitted policy proposals are community<br>documents and as such the community can modify it. This was also<br>supported by S. Moonesamy. Alan Barrett also stated that he had no<br>objections to the second proposal text even though he preferred his version.<br><br><br>Ashok observed that the according to the RSA, legacy space has never<br>been the concern of AfriNIC and so Badru Ntege proposed that all<br>references to legacy space be eliminated in order not to
complicate the<br>issue further. Andrew Alston (declaring that he works for an<br>organisation that has legacy space) said that explicitly mentioning<br>legacy space was dangerous even though the inclusion of legacy space in<br>the calculation is the only way organisations with legacy space would<br>qualify for further allocations under the Soft Landing policy.<br><br><br>In the absence of further comments, S. Moonesamy adjourned the session<br>for the next day - 9th June 2011.<br><br><br>The proposal discussions resumed on 9th June at 14:38 local time and<br>Alan Barrett put the following options to the community:<br><br>a. if we could agree on 3.8, then there is nothing wrong with finding<br>consensus on the policy. The general response (show of hands) was<br>affirmative<br><br>b. For first half of 3.8, when you apply for more space, you must have<br>used 90% space. Should this space include legacy space? Three people<br>from the audience said
that legacy space should be excluded. Alan<br>announced there was no consensus for including legacy space and there<br>was consensus for keeping the wording as it was in the published text.<br><br>c. For second part of 3.8 (the 10% limit on out-of-region use), Alan<br>presented the options as follows:<br><br>Option a: Keep existing text<br><br>Option b: No more than 1%<br><br>Option c: No more than 50% outside of Africa (including legacy space)<br><br>Option d: No number, just a statement “AfriNIC resources are for the<br>AfriNIC geographical region and any use outside should be solely in<br>support for connectivity back to the region.”<br><br>Option e: Internet resources allocated by AfriNIC may be used solely<br>within the AfriNIC region or to support connectivity back to the region.<br><br>Alan called for a show of hands (both for and against) each of these<br>options and based upon that, the co-chairs declared that options (d) and<br>(e)
had consensus but the others did not. He further called for a show<br>of hands to to choose between these two options. There was more support<br>(show of hands) for option (d) but with “geographic region” changed into<br>“service region” as proposed by S. Moonesamy.<br><br><br><br>(g) Transfer of IPv4 Addresses to Any Entity (AFPUB-2011-v4-001-draft-01)<br><br>In the absence of the author, Mukom Akong from AfriNIC presented the<br>proposal whose objective is to provide a legitimate way for ISPs to<br>acquire IPv4 addresses from existing AfriNIC members (legacy or not) who<br>wish to give away some addresses (with some consideration or otherwise).<br>The proposal has generally been rejected on the mailing list based on<br>the fact that (i) the current IPv4 Allocations policy REQUIRES<br>transferred space to be registered, (ii) the proposal violates principle<br>of needs-based allocation and (iii) it provides ability for v4 space
to<br>be stripped from Africa for short-term monetary gains.<br><br>Arturo Servin from LACNIC clarified that Transfer policy at LACNIC was<br>different from this one as the LACNIC one was needs-based, the transfer<br>must be approved by LACNIC and an agreement must be signed with LACNIC.<br> All other commenters opposed the proposal and there was no support for<br>it when S. Moonesamy (as co-chair) explicitly asked for a show of hands<br>for those who support it.<br><br>The chairs declared that there was no consensus<br><br><br>(h) Reclamation of Allocated but Un-routed IPv4 Addresses<br>(AFPUB-2011-v4-002-draft-01)<br><br>In the absence of the author, Mukom Akong from AfriNIC presented the<br>proposal whose objective is to reclaim free allocated but un-routed IPv4<br>space so that it can be issued to ISPs that have a real use for it.<br><br>The proposal was generally opposed on the mailing lists for the<br>following reasons viz, there are valid
reasons for prefixes not<br>appearing in routing table, and visibility in routing table doesn’t mean<br>it is being used.<br><br>All comments from the floor expressed their opposition to the proposal.<br><br>Alan Barrett declared that there was no consensus.<br><br><br>[3] AoB/Open Mic<br><br>Andrew Alston asked what the process was to change the PDP to allow for<br>outright rejection of a proposal. Alan Barrett replied that the PDP<br>would be used to propose a new PDP. Andrew said he would be making a<br>proposal soon to that effect.<br><br>The policy discussions were declared closed by Alan Barrett.<br><br><br>[4] References<br><br>(a) The Policy Development Process<br> <<a href="http://www.afrinic.net/docs/policies/AFPUB-2010-GEN-005.htm" target="_blank">http://www.afrinic.net/docs/policies/AFPUB-2010-GEN-005.htm</a>><br><br>(b) Global Policy for Post Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation Mechanisms by
the<br>IANA<br> <<a href="http://www.afrinic.net/docs/policies/AFPUB-2011-v4-004-draft-01.htm" target="_blank">http://www.afrinic.net/docs/policies/AFPUB-2011-v4-004-draft-01.htm</a>><br><br>(c) Global Policy for IPv4 Allocations by the IANA Post Exhaustion<br> <<a href="http://www.afrinic.net/docs/policies/AFPUB-2010-v4-003-draft-02.htm" target="_blank">http://www.afrinic.net/docs/policies/AFPUB-2010-v4-003-draft-02.htm</a>><br><br>(d) Limited Out of Region Allocation of IPv4 Resources<br> <<a href="http://www.afrinic.net/docs/policies/AFPUB-2011-v4-003-draft-02.htm" target="_blank">http://www.afrinic.net/docs/policies/AFPUB-2011-v4-003-draft-02.htm</a>><br><br>(e) Addition of Real Contact Email into ASN Whois Bulk Data<br> <<a href="http://www.afrinic.net/docs/policies/AFPUB-2010-GEN-007.htm"
target="_blank">http://www.afrinic.net/docs/policies/AFPUB-2010-GEN-007.htm</a>><br><br>(f) IPv4 Soft Landing Policy<br> <<a href="http://www.afrinic.net/docs/policies/AFPUB-2010-v4-005-draft-04.htm" target="_blank">http://www.afrinic.net/docs/policies/AFPUB-2010-v4-005-draft-04.htm</a>><br><br>(g) Transfer of IPv4 Addresses to Any Entity<br> <<a href="http://www.afrinic.net/docs/policies/AFPUB-2011-v4-001-draft-01.htm" target="_blank">http://www.afrinic.net/docs/policies/AFPUB-2011-v4-001-draft-01.htm</a>><br><br>(h) Reclamation of Allocated but Un-routed IPv4 Addresses<br> <<a href="http://www.afrinic.net/docs/policies/AFPUB-2011-v4-002-draft-01.htm" target="_blank">http://www.afrinic.net/docs/policies/AFPUB-2011-v4-002-draft-01.htm</a>><br><br>(i) AfriNIC-14 Meeting Agenda<br><br><<a
href="http://meeting.afrinic.net/afrinic-14/index.php/the-meeting/agenda/1238" target="_blank">http://meeting.afrinic.net/afrinic-14/index.php/the-meeting/agenda/1238</a>><br><br>(j) Post Meeting Policy Report by interim PDWG co-chairs<br> <<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2011/001759.html" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2011/001759.html</a> ><br><br><br><br>-- <br>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>Mukom Akong T.<br>Training Manager & Policy Liaison<br>www.afrinic.net | p: +230 403 5100 | f: +230 466 6758<br>Skype/Twitter: perfexcellent | LinkedIn: mu.linkedin.com/in/perfexcellent<br><br>“When you work you are a flute through whose heart the whispering of the<br>hours turns to music.“<br><br>
- Kahlil Gibran<br>_______________________________________________<br>rpd mailing list<br><a ymailto="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net" href="/mc/compose?to=rpd@afrinic.net">rpd@afrinic.net</a><br><a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd</a><br></div></blockquote></td></tr></table>