<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 14px; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;">
<div>
<div>
<div>Comments inline:</div>
</div>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<span id="OLK_SRC_BODY_SECTION">
<div>
<div>
<div dir="ltr">> When I first read this proposal, my first reaction was does AFRINIC really need this proposal because surely an organisation of its stature should already have every mechanism in place to enforce compliance to its own
</div>
</div>
</div>
</span>
<div>> RSA and Allocation/Assignment Policies. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>And THAT is the entire point – I do not believe the community should be trying to micro manage the work of AfriNIC staff and that is what this proposal attempts to do. AfriNIC has an MSA that states the rules and its members bind itself to the rules,
and submit detailed allocation documents which are reviewed by staff. Now, either we trust the staff to do the job or we don’t. Mandating the staff to do audits though I believe is starting to smell like micro management and is also completely and totally
impractical in so many ways. (especially since the policy proposal contains NO details of how this is meant to be accomplished)</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>> What is quite worrying to me is that the opposition is coming from a not an ordinary member but rather a Board member who is suppose to protect the interest of this community.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Quite frankly – how many times have we been over this? I do not write as a board member, I write as a community member, as a resource member and as myself. It has been stated many MANY times that board members still form part of this community and on
the RPD unless specifically stated we are writing as ourselves with our own opinions. This is the last I will say on this particular issue and any further comments on this one will be ignored.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<span id="OLK_SRC_BODY_SECTION">
<div>
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>> If this is truly the case Andrew, why don't you preach this message to those that are advocating for a secondary IPv4 market and trying to get our dead IPv4. They should leave us alone to have our<span style="mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"" lang="EN-US">
antiquated IPv4 to building our </span></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</span>
<div>> infrastructure and networks.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<span id="OLK_SRC_BODY_SECTION">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div><span lang="EN-US"></span></div>
<div>These are very different issues. I am one of those who advocates for a transfer policy, because I believe no matter HOW much we audit our space and HOW much is returned, a market will exist, if we legitimise it or not. Rather have a transfer policy and
exert a measure of control on the secondary market that adequately tracks it and sets some rules than have the wild west, but believe me, the market is coming and we will not be able to prevent it. </div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</span>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Andrew</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</body>
</html>