<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><br class=""><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Aug 19, 2019, at 13:42 , Fernando Frediani <<a href="mailto:fhfrediani@gmail.com" class="">fhfrediani@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class="">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" class="">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" class=""><p class="">Hello Owen<br class="">
Thanks for your comments.<br class="">
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 19/08/2019 16:03, Owen DeLong wrote:<br class="">
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:DD502D22-273A-4795-AF47-2176519D6E83@delong.com" class="">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" class="">
<br class="">
<div class=""><clip>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
Sanctioned how? By what power?</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">RIRs have no legal authority.</div>
</blockquote>
Oh they do, by different ways.<br class="">
When any organization becomes a RIR member and receives a block, it
is obliged to use it according to the current rules, policies and
behave according to the bylaws and the contract they signed and
agreed which by the way are completely valid in courts and which
give this rights to RIRs to take resources back if any term is
violated. There are cases where violations on the policy or how the
organization handle the IP space can get these resources revoked
from the organization. This works like that on any RIR, not just in
AfriNIC.
</div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div>Sure, but no legal authority stops them (or someone else) from deciding to use those same integers in a different way. They can exit their RIR contract at any time by allowing the RIR to invalidate that registration in the RIR system. If they can find enough ISPs willing to accept their use of the addresses in question and their continued advertisement of them without the RIR registering them as such, then the RIR becomes irrelevant in that process.</div><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" class=""><blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:DD502D22-273A-4795-AF47-2176519D6E83@delong.com" class="">
<div class="">Any group of networks that want to create their own registry
system and exchange packets on that basis are welcome to do so.</div>
</blockquote>
Yes they do, but are you probably know it is not a trivial thing ,
specially being recognized but ICANN/IANA and there are strict
principles to reach before that
(<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/new-rirs-criteria-2012-02-25-en">https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/new-rirs-criteria-2012-02-25-en</a>).
Even if that would ever happen any blocks recovered under the basis
mentioned above would never be given to this new registry, so the
practical effect of it seems something far from happening.<br class=""></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div>They don’t need to be recognized by ICANN/IANA. That’s my point. If the RIRs push too hard, then the entire system, ICANN/IANA, RIRs, all can get bypassed by the people who run routers.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>The new registry would have full control of 0.0.0.0/0 to it’s own determination. It would be entirely up to the new registry or registry system whether they wanted to honor any of the previous IANA/ICANN/RIR registrations or not.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>You’re continuing to fail to see that ALL OF THE CURRENT SYSTEM operates by consent. Consent of the ISPs, Consent of those running internet Exchanges, Consent of the end users (to some extent), etc.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>The power of the RIRs is limited to the consent of the RIR participants. If the RIRs create a strong enough reason not to consent, they can be bypassed.</div><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" class="">
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:DD502D22-273A-4795-AF47-2176519D6E83@delong.com" class="">
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">Transfers occurring “under the table” are not really under
the table. They are better explained as “transfers occurring
outside the purview of those cooperating with the RIR system”.</div>
</blockquote>
And that violates the rules agreed by those who form the RIR and
support its existence. Either we have rules and policies that
everybody agrees to follow to be respected or we don't need any RIR
systems.<br class=""></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div>But the transfers may or may not involve anyone who “form the RIR and support its existence”.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>You are ignoring the fact that not everyone on the internet has signed an RSA with an RIR. In fact, the vast majority of internet users have not.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>Everyone who chooses to participate in the RIR system agrees to and follows the rules to some extent. Once the RIR system no longer meets their needs, there is increasing incentive to bypass that process.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>On a small scale, this likely hampers those choosing to bypass the process. However, when the process becomes sufficiently onerous that bypass begins to occur on large scale, then it is the RIR system which suffers more.</div><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" class="">
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:DD502D22-273A-4795-AF47-2176519D6E83@delong.com" class="">
<div class="">There’s no law that requires anyone to cooperate with the RIR
system. It’s merely convenient and useful for ensuring
uniqueness.</div>
</blockquote>
There are laws that gives full support to contracts signed by
between organizations and guidelines that must be followed. We are
not talking about something specific or theoretic, but rather
something recognized and followed internationally. I don't think any
judge would give reason to an organization willing to act
unilaterally in this scenario we are discussing.<br class=""></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div>Let’s hypothesize…</div><div><br class=""></div><div>An organization was issued block A.0.0.0/8 by the IANA before RIRs existed and without any written contract.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>Said organization chooses to sell off 256 separate /16s to 256 separate organizations without making any effort to record that sale in any RIR.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>Because they can show a legitimate history to the acquisition of the blocks even though it is outside the RIR system, lots of ISPs accept their announcements and they are generally working.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>Under what legal framework or theory are you going to sanction this process? How are you going to effectively go after any or all of those 257 organizations that never signed a contract with an RIR?</div><div><br class=""></div><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" class="">
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:DD502D22-273A-4795-AF47-2176519D6E83@delong.com" class="">
<div class="">The only power the RIRs have is the number of ISPs who choose
to cooperate with the RIR system. This creates an important
balancing act. If the RIRs act in a manner that is too harmful
to the ability of ISPs (and other address users) to achieve
their goals, then the RIR system will be replaced with something
else, or worse, the internet number management will be come
fragmented amongst competing registry systems and uniqueness
will become difficult (at best) to maintain. OTOH, if the IP
using community does not cooperate in creating useful policies
by which the RIR system operates and then following those
policies, it creates a similar set of problems, on the opposite
side of the equation.</div>
</blockquote>
Useful policies to who ? To just a few cases, to private for-profit
companies willing to take profit of these few cases or to majority
of the members ?<br class="">
There have been different views in this discussion, while some
believe it is good for the region which is fine, other see there are
risks and possible harm to the resources destined to the region and
to majority of organizations. Therefore it doesn't seem to be a
consensus at the moment and this is not something good at the
current system.<br class=""></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div>I would imagine useful to the once subscribing to the RIR and utilizing address space.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>I never said I thought there was consensus around this policy at this time. I said I believed it was for the good of the region as a whole and that the risks faced by not implementing it or something similar are greater than the risks of implementing it.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>You continue to repeat and point to the (theoretical) risks posed by implementing the proposed policy.</div><div>I continue to point out the very real risks that occur if the policy is not implemented. You try to convince me that there is some force available to prevent those risks. I point out that the force you point to is largely unable to address the risks as they exist. This is the nature of the deliberative process by which consensus is built or fails to be built.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>In the end neither of us knows which way this debate will go. In the meantime, both of our arguments are valid and should be considered by the community. Eventually, the more convincing set of arguments will carry the day.</div><div><br class=""></div><div><br class=""></div><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" class="">
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:DD502D22-273A-4795-AF47-2176519D6E83@delong.com" class="">
<div class=""><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: Calibri,
sans-serif;" class=""> </span><clip></div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:DD502D22-273A-4795-AF47-2176519D6E83@delong.com" class="">
<div class="">The question isn’t whether the region will stop growing or
not… It will not. The question is whether or not the addresses
being used in the region will continue to be accurately managed
by the local regional registry or whether that registry will
become irrelevant and be bypassed in order to facilitate that
process.</div>
</blockquote>
Do we have in the history any case a scenario like this was raised ?
Even with real examples of other RIRs that didn't have a Inter-RIR
transfer policy ready when they went to Phase 2 like ? I don't think
so. Everything went on and they got a transfer policy at the correct
time for their reality. It just doesn't seem the correct time for
Africa really. The scenario of chaos if such policy doesn't reach
consensus is nonexistent.<br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:DD502D22-273A-4795-AF47-2176519D6E83@delong.com" class="">
<div class=""><clip>
<blockquote type="cite" class=""><p style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica;
font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps:
normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal;
text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none;
white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;
-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255,
255, 255); text-decoration: none;" class="">Therefore I
propose you abandon this proposal for now and re-present it
in the future when the scenario changes and a policy like
this is really needed and will bring benefits to the region.</p>
</blockquote>
Multiple people have already stated that this policy is already
needed. Despite your continued assertions to the contrary,
doesn’t change the facts on the ground. At this point, I think
this policy is overdue.</div>
</blockquote><p class="">The same way multiple people stated opposition to this policy for
same and different reasons I raised. Before commenting on this
thread I have read every single message discussed previously and
they are there for who wishes to take their own conclusions.</p><p class="">Again I am not against having a Inter-RIR transfer policy at some
point in the near future, but at the present in brings more harm
than benefits to Africa.<br class=""></p></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div></div>Any discussion we are having here now is at least six months from becoming an implemented policy, so instead of arguing about whether it is harmful now, let’s talk about the near future… What is your definition of near future? To me, it’s less than 12 months, so if we want to have such a policy within 12 months, then the time to fine tune it and come to consensus on it is now. If you are looking more long-term, then that’s a different story.<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">RIR policies are slow-moving. If you wait until the policy is needed, you will spend a lot of time with needs being met outside of policy before the policy finally gets implemented.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Maybe you think that’s OK. That’s a perfectly valid perspective, but if that’s what you’re saying, then admit it and recognize the reality.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Otherwise, please consider that “unmet needs” aren’t going to be tolerated for very long and businesses will find ways to meet them. Preferably within the RIR system through policy changes such as an Inter-RIR transfer policy, but otherwise outside of the system.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Owen</div><div class=""><br class=""></div></body></html>