<div dir="auto"><div style="font-family:sans-serif;font-size:12.8px" dir="auto">Hi Jordi,<br><br></div><div style="font-family:sans-serif;font-size:12.8px" dir="auto">Thank you for your inputs and observations with this proposal. </div><div style="font-family:sans-serif;font-size:12.8px" dir="auto"><br></div><div style="font-family:sans-serif;font-size:12.8px" dir="auto">I also agree with the editorial clarifications that you have suggested, because the policy needs to be simple enough that it is not tautological, but clear enough as to not have interpreting issues. </div><div style="font-family:sans-serif;font-size:12.8px" dir="auto">For 5.7.3.1, I also think this should be changed to "relevant policies" or some other derivative of that clause because the point you made that there might be some contradictory complications coming from the receiving end of another RIR would be eliminated with the qualifier "relevant" policies. The spirit of the provision remains the same, and yet it is important to be clear with the words about what should go down.<br></div><div style="font-family:sans-serif;font-size:12.8px" dir="auto"><br></div><div style="font-family:sans-serif;font-size:12.8px" dir="auto">Also, for the "for 12 months period" or "for a 12 months period" thing, may I suggest <b>"for a period of twelve (12) months" </b>in order to be grammatically correct. </div><div style="font-family:sans-serif;font-size:12.8px" dir="auto"><br></div><div style="font-family:sans-serif;font-size:12.8px" dir="auto">Lastly, I hope the authors would take this editorial changes into consideration in order to make their policy stronger and less prone to problems.</div><div style="font-family:sans-serif;font-size:12.8px" dir="auto"><br clear="all"><div><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr">Thanks, Gaby</div></div></div></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 5:02 AM Murungi Daniel, <<a href="mailto:dmurungi@wia.co.tz">dmurungi@wia.co.tz</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word;line-break:after-white-space"><div><font size="2">Hello,</font></div><div><font size="2"><br></font></div><div><font size="2">Can the authors of the resource transfer policy in the last call explain, which problem is being addressed?<br><br>The problem statement is awkward to say the least. The issue with the problem statement was raised in Luanda and during the virtual AIS. How can we can adopt a proposal when the problem statement is out of scope of the PDP?<br><br>——-<br>1. Summary of the problem being addressed by this proposal<br>The current policy fails to support a two-way Inter-RIR policy, thereby hindering smooth business operation, development, and growth in the region. This proposal aims to establish an efficient and business-friendly mechanism to allow a number of resources to be transferred from/to other regions. This proposal outlines a model in which AFRINIC can freely transfer number resources to/from other regions, i.e. RIPE NCC, APNIC, ARIN and LACNIC. This includes both IPv4 addresses and AS numbers.<br>——-<br><br><br></font></div><div><font size="2">Regards,</font></div><div><font size="2"><br>Murungi Daniel</font></div><div><br></div><br><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div>On Sep 23, 2020, at 10:39 PM, Fernando Frediani <<a href="mailto:fhfrediani@gmail.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">fhfrediani@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br><div>
<div><p>Hello</p><p>There is no much I can do other than state my <b>opposition to
this proposal</b> to advance and reach any consensus mainly
because 5.7.4.3 has been inverted from what was originally in the
proposal and only changed at last minute due to some comments in
the PPM going straight to last call which didn't give opportunity
to the community re-evaluate this major change and if it's
suitable to the region or not.</p><p>Co-Chairs cannot advance this proposal to rough consensus the way
it is and I urge and ask them again to bring it back to discussion
to find out a resolution to these opened issues. Multiple people
raised substantial concerns about it already. There is no way it
can be considered 'rough consensus'.</p><p>I also understand there may be a hurry to get a Inter-RIR
transfer policy as soon as possible, but we must care about what
is most important than that which is get policies to reflect what
is really good for the region and not just to a few actors, even
if it takes a bit longer. I support Jordi's suggestion to have
another PPM in a few months so perhaps this proposal can advance
from that point in time. LACNIC remained about 2 years without a
Inter-RIR transfer policy after it run out of addresses for new
organizations and survived. AfriNic will survive if it has to wait
a few more months in order to get things really right.</p><p>Now going to the merit of the proposal specially the main point I
oppose (5.7.4.3):<br>
There is no sense at all to keep considering transferred legacy
resources as legacy. This doesn't work that way and has a proper
reason to be like that which is fix a historical internet problem
and reduce legacy resources with time as they get transferred to
'normal' organizations who purchased them in the market for
example.<br>
In this way organizations receiving these resources are bind to
the same rules everybody else making it much fair to everybody and
making no distinction between members.<br>
Allowing resources to remain considered legacy only contributed to
abuses and unfairness allowing those who can pay more do whatever
they like which is bad for the rest of the Internet community
which are subject to the same rules that apply equally to them.<br>
If transferred legacy resources are not considered legacy anymore
more and more they will apply equally for everybody as they become
as a normal resource within any RIR. There has been a strong
reason for this be like that until now and to continue like that.<br>
</p><p>Regards<br>
Fernando<br>
</p>
<div>On 23/09/2020 09:49, JORDI PALET
MARTINEZ via RPD wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre>Hi Taiwo, all,
I've looked into the doc.
Let me say something before going into a more detailed analysis: I *fully support* this proposal, and I will be happy to withdraw it once:
1) The staff confirms that all the points on the staff analysis have been cleared and thus, the policy could be implemented and will be functional in the intended purpose.
2) The board ratifies the policy (which means also it passes the last call).
Why? If anything in the process fails, I still believe my proposal is clearer and never mind is my proposal or this one I'm happy to work with the authors to make sure to resolve the issues that may happen as indicated in 1 and 2 above (hopefully there are no issues).
I've now a more detailed analysis, please really, needs to be taken seriously with the staff or we may ruin the policy and not allow to be functional.
There is something which doesn't make sense: The text in point 5.7. The CPM should be read always as "actual" so "soon will exhaust ..." is not logic, neither needed for the purpose of this policy. In addition, there are typos there ...
This is an editorial change that according to the PDP should be possible as part of the last call. I will suggest to keep it simple:
5.7 IPv4 Resources transfer
This policy applies to an organization with a justified need for IPv4 resources (recipients) and organizations with IPv4 resources which no longer need (sources).
I see that the "disputes" issue has been resolved! Tks! Anyway, I think there is another editorial problem there.
Actual text:
5.7.3.1 The source must be the current rightful holder of the IPv4 address resources registered with any RIR, and shall be in compliance with the policies of the receiving RIR, and shall not be involved in any dispute as to the status of those resources.
I suggest:
5.7.3.1 The source must be the current rightful holder of the IPv4 address resources registered with any RIR, in compliance with the relevant policies, and shall not be involved in any dispute as to the status of those resources.
Keeping the "policies of the receiving RIR" is contradictory ... changing it with "relevant policies" allows both RIRs to ensure that everything is correct.
Grammar maybe, I'm not English native speaker:
"for 12 months period" or "for a 12 months period"
I think 5.7.3.3. doesn't add any value, it could be removed and doesn't change anything: if there is no limite, no need to mention it. If there is not agreement, clearly the transfer will not happen because the parties don't authorize it, and then the RIR(s) don't authorize it!
Similarly 5.7.4.2. could be removed as well. We already said that the recipient should comply with policies (5.7.3.1), so what is this adding? Just superfluous text.
Note also my imputs in the previous email, regarding the hold period and the legacy status. I think 5.7.4.3, should be "IPv4 legacy resources "Transferred incoming or within AFRINIC IPv4 legacy resources will no longer be regarded as legacy resources".
5.7.5.1 is already indicated by the staff as something problematic with the actual wording. The transferring party (the source) may not have any relation (not a member) with the receiving RIR. With this text we are enforcing *all the RIRs* to offer a standard template and process on our mandate. WE CAN'T DO THAT. Our policies only have a mandate in AFRINIC, not in the other RIRs.
If we just remove section 5.7.5, and leave it to the staff as part of the operational procedure, the the problem is resolved because the existing process among the all other 4 RIRs for transfers will be "joined" by AFRINIC. It is just a matter of interconection among systems and processes!
I think all this should be carefully studied among the authors and the staff and the chairs should make sure that the verstion coming to last call has corrected all those issues.
I hope all this is useful.
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 23/9/20 9:38, "Taiwo Oyewande" <a href="mailto:taiwo.oyewande88@gmail.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer"><taiwo.oyewande88@gmail.com></a> escribió:
Hello PDWG,
Attached is the updated version of the Resource Transfer Policy proposal. As recommended, changes have been effected on sub-section 5.7.3.2, and 5.7.4.3 according to the co-chair summary.
_______________________________________________
RPD mailing list
<a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">RPD@afrinic.net</a>
<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a>
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
<a href="http://www.theipv6company.com/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">http://www.theipv6company.com</a>
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
<a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">RPD@afrinic.net</a>
<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>RPD mailing list<br><a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">RPD@afrinic.net</a><br><a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><br></div></blockquote></div><br></div>_______________________________________________<br>
RPD mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">RPD@afrinic.net</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><br>
</blockquote></div>